Lords Sitting of 23 April 1931

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LOWER AVON NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Lower Avon Navigation Bill [H.L.]: Read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
TAMWORTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (EAST ELLOE JOINT WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (INVERNESS HARBOUR) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISA TION) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order): Lord STANMORE in the Chair.
Clause 6:
Power of Minister to provide small holdings with financial assistance for unemployed persons.
6.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied that any person—
756

(a) is an unemployed person, that is to say a person who is unemployed and unable to obtain suitable employment;

(b) desires to lease a small holding and will himself cultivate the holding; and

(c) is able to cultivate the holding properly; and

(d) is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to obtain such a holding from the county council,

the Minister shall have power to provide a small holding, other than a cottage holding, for that person and lease it to him:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under Section forty-three of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or under the provisions of this Act relating to compensation for loss of employment, to any person for whom a small holding is provided under this section.
(2) Where under the powers conferred by this section the Minister provides a small holding for any unemployed person, the Minister may, in accordance with regulations made by him with the approval of the Treasury—

(a) grant to that person an allowance of such amount and for such period, not exceeding one year from the date on which he enters into possession of the small holding, as may be prescribed by the regulations;

(b) make or guarantee, or undertake to make or guarantee, grants by way of a loan to that person of such sums as the Minister considers necessary for enabling him to undertake the business of a small holder, including sums for the payment of any tenant right valuation or for the purchase of stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers or implements required for the purpose of the holding:

Provided that the Minister may, in accordance with such regulations as aforesaid, in lieu of making a loan to any person under paragraph (b) of this subsection supply to that person any such stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers or implements as aforesaid, and in that case the purchase price thereof shall be deemed to be a loan to him made under the said paragraph, and in the event of any difficulty in obtaining any stock required for the purpose aforesaid the Minister may arrange for the production thereof by any local authority, society, or person, and for the provision of the equipment necessary for that purpose upon such terms as may be agreed between him and the local authority, society, or person.
(3) The regulations made for the purpose of this section shall prescribe—

(a) such scale of allowances as will secure that the sums payable to any person shall not exceed fifty pounds in the aggregate and shall not exceed thirty shillings in any week, and that the amount of the allowance is proportionally reduced during the period in which the

757
allowance is payable having regard to the value of the benefit which he may reasonably be expected to derive from the small holding; and

(b) the rate of interest payable on any loans made or guaranteed, or undertaken to be made or guaranteed, under this section, and for such loans being free of interest during such period as may be prescribed.

(4) If it appears to the Minister that there are persons desirous of obtaining small holdings under this section who are otherwise suitable as tenants of such holdings but require for themselves or for their dependants training to enable them to cultivate such holdings properly, the Minister of Labour may, after consultation with him, make such arrangements by the establishment of training centres and otherwise as are necessary for securing that the required training is made available—

(a) for any person desirous of obtaining a small holding under this section who is, in the opinion of the Minister, likely to become suitable as a tenant of such a holding; and

(b) for not more than one dependant of any such person or of any person for whom a small holding has been provided under this section.

In this section the expression "dependant" means, in relation to any person, the husband, wife, son, or daughter (including a step-son or step-daughter and an adopted son or daughter) of that person.
LORD TREOWEN LORD TREOWEN had given Notice to move in subsection (1), 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: I understand from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that he would like to consider this Amendment and therefore I shall not move it at this stage. I reserve my right, however, to move it on Report.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after "satisfied," to insert "after agreement with the council of the county or county borough as the case may be in which the Minister proposes to exercise the powers of this subsection." The noble Lord said: It seems to me that it might be desirable if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would state some of the reasons why it is thought necessary to give the Minister the particular powers conferred by the clause. The clause gives power to the Minister to provide small holdings with financial assistance for unemployed persons. What are the powers? They are that the Minister shall provide small holdings with financial help if he is satisfied that the
758
persons comply with certain conditions. The conditions that he has to be satisfied about are four. The first is that the person is an unemployed person who is unable to obtain suitable employment. I suggest that in this and the other questions on which the Minister has to be satisfied he should have the advantage not only of consulting the county council but of being in agreement with that body. I should be very much surprised if an ordinary Minister would object to being able to consult an important body like the county council, which for years hag dealt with these great questions connected with small holdings and the putting of men on the land. One would have thought that the Minister would have been only too glad to have the assistance and to be in agreement with these public bodies.
Again, how is the Minister to find out when suitable employment can be found for these people in the particular area? He cannot do it himself; someone must do it for him. I saw last year that the number of officials had been increased by something like 9,000. If there is a wish further to increase the number of officials and to send them down to the districts to hold inquiries and find out whether men are able to get suitable employment or not and therefore ought to have small holdings, I can understand the clause being put into the Bill. But why go to the unnecessary expense of creating a large body of officials who must be highly paid, because they must be men who are capable of making independent inquiries, when you already have the county councils who would be able to satisfy themselves who were fit and proper persons to take up small holdings?
As to whether the person in question desires to lease a small holding and so on and is able to cultivate the holding properly, the county council would be able to say whether it was likely in the conditions existing in the district that the small holding would be successful. Those of your Lordships who have been members of county councils for many years will know very well that under the Small Holdings Act there are men in different areas who apply for small holdings, that the applications are most carefully gone into, and that the county councils are generally able to say from

759
personal knowledge or general experience whether the applications should be granted or not.
Under the Bill there is to be no local knowledge in this matter. All that is to take place is that the Minister himself is to be satisfied. I suppose he will send down officials to enquire. Why is it necessary to do that, when the county councils will, with great success, be able to enquire as to whether the men are qualified to have small holdings? The county councils have shown how well they can do this from the fact that, taking the country as a whole, there has been no loss upon their small holdings. Again, the Minister has to satisfy himself that the man has not sufficient means to get a small holding from the county council. There again it might be very likely that the man would go to the Minister or to some official and say: "I have no means, and I cannot go to the county council; they would not have me." I should not be surprised that he would do that, and that it would be more favourable for a man to go to the Minister or the officials under this provision when he was unemployed than to go to the county council, because under the Small Holdings Act, with the passing of which I had something to do in another place, we laid it down that there should be no such thing as charity rents and that a man must go on the holding and be self-supporting. He must have money and experience.
In this case there is to be nothing of that kind. A man may know nothing about farming, he may have no experience, he may not be a man of very good character, but he will go in and be allowed to have for one year 30 s. a week subsistence allowance, and receive other payments. There will be another great advantage which he cannot get under the county council. He will have the advantage that the Minister is to make him a loan—it may be quite a large sum—for equipping the holding with stock, buying implements and things of that kind, and also paying the tenant right valuation. He is to get all that from the Minister. I expect it will be a very bad bargain for the State. In a very large number of cases, unless there is proper inquiry beforehand, the loan will not be repaid, and at the end of the year, when the man finds he is no longer to
760
get the 30 s. a week, he will be tired of the small holding, and will think it would be better for him to go on the "dole" or upon out-relief, which is now given so liberally in these cases. If the taxpayer is to be protected, it seems to me that it must be done by having a local body like the county council, who are qualified to sift out all these men and decide which of them will make good or bad small holders.
I am told that there is another Amendment on the Paper, which some noble Lords prefer to mine. I refer to that in the name of my noble friend Lord Cranworth. With all respect to him, I say it is a milk-and-water Amendment. All it does is to say that the Minister has to get the opinion of the county council. Do you think it is likely the Labour Government will take the opinion of a county council in this matter? They will do nothing of the kind. They will say that their own opinion or that of their officials is very much better. They want to put these men on the land, and they will not consider whether they will make a success of it or not. In the same way, they want to have the experiment of large-scale farming, which your Lordships refused to accept. I say again that they would proceed without paying any regard to the kind of individual who is to go on the land and as to whether he would make a success of it. They will put upon the land men whom county councils, with their local knowledge, would reject, and the result will be that eventually these men will be a heavy charge upon the taxpayer.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 32, after ("satisfied") insert ("after agreement with the council of the county or county borough as the case may be in which the Minister proposes to exercise the powers of this subsection").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): Before I say anything on this Amendment, I am sure there was a misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, who withdrew his Amendment in order to have it considered before Report. I rather believe that the particular Amendment that we asked him to withdraw in order to discuss this comes later.
LORD TREOWEN: I apologise for coming in hurriedly. I thought your Lordships had got to the second Amendment in my name. My first Amendment was withdrawn, but the other one I wish to move.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thought I would clear up that. The purpose of this Amendment, as the noble Lord has said, is to provide that the Minister shall act with regard to Clause 6 only in agreement with the county council or the council of a county borough. The noble Lord spoke as though the clause was drafted so that the Minister was not even in a position to consult with the county councils. He said, "Surely the Minister would like to have the right to go down to a local area and take the advice of those on the spot." Of course in a large number of instances it will be desirable and useful for the Minister to go down and discuss matters with the county council. We have actually gone further in this Bill by taking power, in Clause 12, to come to an arrangement with county councils to act as agents for the management of small holdings estates.
We have quite a different question here. The point of the Amendment, if it is carried, is that the Minister will not be able to take action on a matter of national policy without the consent of the county councils. That is a very different proposition from consultation on matters of planning out details of policy. Obviously on the carrying out of a general national unemployment policy for which the Minister is accepting full financial responsibility, and for which he is accepting full responsibility as regards policy, it is out of the question that he should allow the county council, which is not concerned in the matter at all, to overcome his desire to settle unemployed people in certain districts. Moreover, I said the comity councils have no concern in this matter. It is a matter purely of national unemployment policy. The noble Lord said: "But you want the experience of county councils in telling you whether local candidates are suitable or not." It is most unlikely that the unemployed are living in the area of the county council, and the county councils will not be in a position to give us any local knowledge about them. The noble Lord also said that no doubt the
762
unemployed would be able to hoodwink the Minister as to their inability to obtain county council small holdings. These unemployed are not applicants for a county council small holding. That question does not come into it at all.
Finally, the noble Lord speaks as though it were only the Department that ever employs officials. How on earth does he imagine that the county councils work? We had a case the other day, to which I think a noble Lord referred yesterday, concerning livestock improvement. The noble Lord declaimed against the appointment of officials by the Ministry and the extravagant working of the scheme. When we examined the facts we found that, whereas the Ministry was going to carry out the work with between twenty-live and thirty officials, the county councils would use sixty-one for that particular job. I suggest that these considerations are totally irrelevant to the point that we are considering at this moment. This is a matter of a national policy to be decided by a Minister responsible to Parliament. I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD BAYFORD: I should like to say a word on this Amendment from the point of view of a member of a county council who has consulted the members, not only of one council, but of the neighbouring councils as well. I find that the general feeling is that this Amendment seeks to throw upon the county councils a share of a responsibility which they do not want to undertake. I do not think you would find, if you consulted the members of any county council who had any experience in this matter of small holdings, that they are anxious to have, not only the responsibility for their own small holders, but also to have thrust upon them responsibility for what I can only describe as foreign small holders. The noble Earl opposite drew attention to the question of what county councils you are going to consult. It is quite possible that there might be three counties involved in the same matter. There may be miners out of employment in Glamorgan, they may be sent to be trained in Gloucestershire and then an endeavour may be made to settle them on small holdings in Devonshire. Which county council is going to be consulted

763
on the matter? It seems to me that the Amendment is unworkable; and, even if it were workable, it would be undesirable.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It may be unworkable and no doubt it is much to be regretted, but is not the Bill as it stands in a rather regrettable form? What is it that is going to be done? That is what I hoped the noble Earl would tell us, but I have not heard a word. Are you going to hold independent inquiries throughout the length and breadth of the country, wherever there is unemployment—and that is practically universal—in order to ascertain: (1) whether any of the unemployed desire small holdings; (2) if there is any place where the small holdings can be provided; and (3) whether the person who desires a small holding is able to cultivate it when it is provided? From the first I have been aghast at what may happen under this clause. Your Lordships realise that the only person to be satisfied is the Minister. Nobody suggests for a moment that he is going to wander through the country and enquire. He must have a very large number of officials to do it for him, and they must be set up all over the country. Although the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Strachie may throw some extra work upon the county councils, surely to some extent it does put this matter under some form of local control, and that seems to me to be much better than to leave it in the vague and unsatisfactory condition in which it stands as the Bill is now drawn.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: Before we go further I should like to ask the noble
Earl to make one point clear with regard to this Amendment. I understand that, quite apart from the merits of the question as to whether we should have the agreement of the county council, even if it is approved it will not apply to Scotland. I gather from Clause 25 that references to county councils, so far as Scotland is concerned, shall not apply. I am not quite sure what is the meaning of the words "shall not apply." Is it that in Scotland we have to rest content with the opinion of the Department of Agriculture, not even a Secretary of State? If this Amendment is approved by this Committee, and if the agreement with the county councils is to be desired, I must say that, so far as Scottish members are concerned, I do not think they can be satisfied with a position less than is provided for England. We ought to have the same approval, if it is given in England.
EARL DE LA WARR: If this Amendment is carried, it is, of course, for those who are interested in applying it to Scotland to draft an Amendment that will do so, but as the Amendment stands the noble Duke is perfectly right in his interpretation. I noticed, however, that he remarked that it was only the Department of Agriculture, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland, that would control these matters. Of course the Secretary of State for Scotland assumes full Ministerial responsibility for his Department.
On Question, Whether the said new words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Churchill, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Exeter, M.

Esher, V.

Dorchester, L.

Hereford, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Airlie, E.

Mersey, V.

Forester, L.

Cawdor, E.

Novar, V.

Gainford, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Hastings, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Annaly, L.

Lamington, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Middleton, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Lindsay, E.

Berwick, L.

Phillimore, L.

Liverpool, E.

Biddulph, L.

Redesdale, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Sandhurst, L.

Midleton, E.

Sinclair, L.

Morton, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Poulett, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Radnor, E.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Ypres, E.

Clinton, L.

Treowen, L.

Conyers, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Astor, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Elibank, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Hailsham, V.

Kirkley, L.

Marlborough, D.

Hood, V.

Lawrence, L.

Wellington, D.

Sidmouth, V.

Leigh, L.

Sumner, V.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Camden, M.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Abinger, L.

Olivier, L.

Ancaster, E.

Aldenham, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Bradford, E.

Bayford, L.

Passfield, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Belper, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

De La Warr, E.

Chesham, L.

Queenborough, L.

Fortescue, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Cushendun, L.

Remnant, L.

Grey, E.

Danesfort, L.

Rochester, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart..)

Saltoun, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Desborough, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Dickinson, L.

Sandys, L.

Lindsey, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Snell, L.

Lucan, E.

Ernle, L.

Stanmore, L.

Peel, E.

Erskine, L.

Sudeley, L.

Selborne, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Templemore, L.

Spencer, E.

FitzWalter, L.

Trenchard, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wargrave, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Wavertree, L.

Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection. (1) (c), after "able," to insert "and has the necessary practical experience to enable him." The noble Earl said: With the insertion of this Amendment, the paragraph would read as follows:
"(c) is able and has the necessary practical experience to enable him to cultivate the holding properly;. …"
It would be perfectly fatal if men of ignorance were put on the land in this way. With your Lordships' permission I will read an extract of a case which occurred in the Dornoch Sheriff Court last week. It is a case in which a small holder was charged with cruelty to a heifer—with causing unnecessary suffering to a heifer belonging to him between February 2 and March 16 last. It was stated by the prosecution that a heifer broke its foreleg below the knee. Accused bandaged it up with the hope, apparently, of its healing. Mortification set in, and on the accused observing this he took a saw and cut the affected limb off, with the idea still of the remaining part of the limb healing up. He was going to attach a stump to it. It was at this point that he was stopped. It only shows that men of inexperience, knowing nothing about farming, cannot be of any use on these holdings. I do not see anywhere in the Bill what process the
766
Minister is going to employ in transferring men from one county to another. Surely there should be some sort of certificate as to the qualifications of these men. My Amendment would add to the qualifications which these men must have, and the local authorities, who would have to deal with these cases, would no doubt benefit by knowing that they were getting men of some experience.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, after ("able") insert ("and has the necessary practical experience to enable him").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think there is really any great objection to those words, but I should like, if I may, to consider the Amendment before Report.
LORD BUCKMASTER: While the noble Earl is considering suggestions will he also consider what I pointed out on the Second Reading—namely, that there are two totally distinct qualifications, one for unemployed persons applying for holdings, and another, in Clause 12, for ordinary persons applying for holdings who are not unemployed persons? I suggested that they should be made the same, and I fully expected to be told that it was a drafting matter and the qualifications were going to be made the

767
same. I suggest to the noble Earl that he should take steps to see that the qualification is the same in each case.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the usual way of getting consideration for a matter with which you are not satisfied on Second Reading is to put down an Amendment. Had that been done I should, of course, have dealt with the matter, but, as it has not been done, and the noble and learned Lord asks me to deal with it, I will certainly look into the matter, and try to find some suitable occasion for bringing it up on Report. With regard to the Amendment now before the Committee, I accept it, pending consideration.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, after paragraph (d) of subsection (1), to insert:
"and
(e) in the opinion of the council of the county concerned, expressed in a report made to the Minister as respects each case, may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on the holding proposed."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, in my opinion, is one of some importance. I bring it forward with one object only, and that is to improve this clause and to enable it to be satisfactorily worked. I assume I shall be right in thinking that what noble Lords opposite wish is to further the success of this clause; because there are some people who anticipate that many new small holders will first of all use up their allowance, then will eat their pigs and chickens, and finally will sell their implements and go back on the "dole." I am quite certain that that is not the intention of the Bill, but I would like to have a categorical acknowledgement from the noble Earl that my view is right.
Now, if it is the wish of the noble Earl that this Bill should be a success, surely one thing is necessary—namely, that these men who are going to be put on small holdings will, in fact, be able, with reasonable work, to gain a reasonable livelihood. Among other factors to that end are three. You must get the right men. The men must have determination and industry. Under present farming conditions I think there is no room for forty-hours-a-week men on this work. At the present time such small holders
768
as are making good are working on an average at least sixty hours a week. These new small holders must also have acquired knowledge for the job in hand. In the second place, you want the right land to put these men on. In my small experience the men who are doing best are usually those who are working in groups together on the best land, where they can usually assist one another. Thirdly, I suggest that they should be in the right locality. The best small holders, in my opinion, are those who are grouped together where they can pool their transport and take their produce to market under reasonable conditions. I think it is rare for an isolated small holding to be a success.
If your Lordships are agreed with me in that, where are the Government going to get their advice to obtain that result? I cannot but think that they must go to the county councils of the districts concerned. After all, the county councils have been working small holdings for a considerable number of years. I know there are certain people who say that they ought to have done more. But the reason why they have not done more is that they have found it difficult to get the right men who would be able to make a reasonable livelihood, and to get the right men who would make good with sufficient capital. Now, you are going to find the capital. You will produce a vast quantity of suitable candidates for this job. The county councils will then be in a position to put the men on the spots suitable for them.
I admit that there are two objections to my proposal. It will cause a considerable amount of trouble, and it will involve a certain amount of expense to the county councils. But, with regard to trouble, this Bill is causing a lot of trouble, and any of your Lordships who was giving or lending a man a thousand pounds to put into a business or a small holding would take infinite trouble to see that that man was put into such a position that he should, in fact, earn a living. And, if we do that with regard to our own personal money, we should be not less careful in doing it when we are helping that man out of the public purse. With regard to financial trouble for the county council, I can only presume that, as this is a national object, the county council will be helped, if this

769
Amendment is passed, out of the national purse. I think that is a presumption which I am entitled to make.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Cranworth.)
LORD HASTINGS: In addition to the advantages which my noble friend mentioned and recommended to your Lord-ships for his proposed Amendment, there is another that occurs to my mind—namely, that, unless this Amendment is inserted, it will be admitted that the whole of the administration of this vastly important clause will be entirely divorced from the county councils of the country. Even though it may be right to give to the Minister certain over-riding powers in what is admittedly a national scheme, it seems to be both improper and undesirable that the governing bodies of the various parts of England should have nothing whatever to do with the scheme, and should, in fact, be debarred from taking any interest in it. With very great respect to my noble friend Lord Bayford, it surely cannot be the wish of county councils generally to be completely divorced from this matter. It may be that they do not want to be overburdened with the administrative details which it may create, but that is quite a different matter from preventing them from interesting themselves in it at all.
After long experience, the county councils know exactly what are and what are not the proper areas to put small holders upon. They know exactly now where a small holder may be expected to succeed, and where he is absolutely certain to fail. The Minister does not know that; the Minister's officials do not know that—the existing officials do not know it, and the new officials clearly cannot. The county councils do know it. In the interests of the small holders themselves, I maintain that it would be extremely wise to permit the county councils to give to the Minister the benefit of the knowledge which they have and to enable him to take advantage of it, which he can do by my noble friend's Amendment, and which he could not do unless some such Amendment were inserted. I agree that the words "as respects each case" may create difficulties, but, as I am reminded, the probability is that a form will be introduced which will get over that difficulty. The
770
real point of interest is that the county councils should not be divorced from this scheme because it is a national scheme, but should be allowed to take part in it and make it a better scheme than it would be if left solely to the Minister.
LORD STRACHIE: As I understand, this Amendment would throw very heavy work on county councils without any real right of interference. It contemplates a report being made by the county council to the Minister in regard to each case, and therefore you would be throwing a great deal of work upon the county councils and at the same time they would have no power to say that a particular man is unsuitable. They merely have to express a pious opinion to the Minister, who can reject that opinion. Indeed, the opinion of the county council may not have any effect on the Minister.
EARL STANHOPE: The Amendment goes much further than my noble friend Lord Strachie appears to realise. The Minister has to be satisfied on the opinion of the county council, or, in other words, he has to accept the opinion of the county council. The reason why so many of us support this Amendment but were compelled to vote against Lord Strachie's Amendment is this. We do not wish to put on the county council the responsibility of selecting the individuals. We do not feel that the County Council of Hampshire should have to send all the way to Pembrokeshire and to judge whether individual miners are suitable. On the other hand, this is not a question of the individual but of the area. The area in our opinion is fundamental. If you put a small holder on to bad land, success would be impossible, but you may put him on thoroughly good land and success would be impossible. The reason is that the small holder has to find a market for what he grows.
If you put him near London, which is one of the worst markets for a small holder, because he has to meet competition from every foreign country, he is unlikely to get a price which will pay. On the other hand, there are in many parts of the country large towns with a good demand for poultry and other produce and there the small holder can make a success if he is properly trained. Who knows better than the county council where those places are? They have

771
placed a large number of small holders on the land in their areas, they know how far they are making a success, and how far, by placing further small holders, they may flood the market and ruin those there already and those brought in. Therefore, we should give to the Minister an opinion whether an average man, placed in a certain part of the country and given an average chance, is likely to make a success or not. No one wishes to take men out of the queues of unemployed, spend money in training them, place them on a farm at great cost to the State, and then realise only too late that the man never had a chance of making a success of his small holding. That is what the Amendment seeks to avoid. It will not succeed in making a success in every case, but it ensures that the Minister will have the best advice available as to whether those small holdings are likely to be a success.
There is a further reason why you should bring the county councils into this question. At the end of the maintenance granted by the Government, which extends to only £50 for a period of one year, that man has to make good and earn his own living on his holding. Supposing he fails, what happens to him then? He ceased to draw the "dole" from the moment he commenced on his small holding and so he becomes a charge on the county rate. You may have the Minister of Agriculture bringing people from another part of the country and dumping them down in Hampshire and Sussex, and at the end of twelve months the county council, who have had no say in the matter, find this large number of new inhabitants have become a charge on their county rate. The least you can do is to give the county council a chance of saying: "We believe this will be a success and agree to it," or "We see no chance whatever of these men making a success on these particular areas; we disapprove of their being brought in as small holders and have so informed the Minister," who will be unable to act. This is a very important Amendment which those of us, who believe in county councils being supported and who believe in supporting the local authority, which derives its authority from the local residents by democratic election, consider should be carried.
EARL DE LA WARR: With many of the remarks that have fallen from the noble
772
Lords opposite it is impossible to disagree, but, when one examines the wording of the Amendment and considers how it will work, your Lordships will see that it will really make the administrative machinery quite unworkable. If it is inserted, it will mean that the Minister will have to consult the county council with regard to every individual unemployed person who has to be settled on the land, and that he will have to receive a report from the county council on the subject of that application. It would go further than that because the county council would also have to consider in the report whether the man is likely to make a livelihood out of the particular holding on which he is to be settled. That obviously will impose a most cumbrous machinery on the administration of this scheme. Not only will the applicant have to be originally selected in his area, interviewed and approved by a local committee, finally approved by an official of the Ministry who is finally responsible to the Minister, who himself is finally responsible to Parliament, but, having gone through that, the applicant will have to travel up to the county council in whose area he is to be settled, in order once again to be interviewed as to his suitability.
The county councils have not asked for this power to be granted to them and we have no evidence whatever that they desire it. The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, who frequently speaks for the county councils, has by no means given the Amendment a welcome. I have here a report of the Committee of the County Councils' Association which considered this Bill, and I find not a single word in their resolutions on the Bill referring to this general power being given to county councils. This Amendment can do nothing but make for divided control and divided responsibility. The scheme has to be the Minister's, the decision as to finance has to be the Minister's, the decision as to policy has to be the Minister's, and now we are dragging in this divided responsibility, which will make the county council, which hitherto has been in no way responsible for the scheme, partly responsible for the selection of the applicant. I hope your Lordships will not insist on inserting this Amendment, which can only lead to difficulty in operating the Bill, which is most undesirable.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: The noble Earl greatly overrates what the county councils are expected to do in this case. The words of the Amendment are quite clear on the point and the opinion they have to express is that the man may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on the holding proposed. The proposed holding is to be one in their own district and, as they are the council of the county concerned, they are called upon to say whether or not any man could get a living on that holding, about which they probably know more than the Minister himself. But they are not called Upon to express their opinion on the laborious and controversial questions whether the man in question is unemployed, whether he desires to lease a small holding, whether he will, himself, cultivate the holding, whether he is able to cultivate the holding properly, except in so far as it is that particular holding with which they are acquainted. Nor need they enquire into his means. I should have thought there was nothing very unreasonable in saying that the Minister might well be fortified in this inquiry by getting, and having to get, the opinion of the council of the county as to whether on the holding which is proposed for the man any good is to be done by planting him upon it.
EARL DE LA WARR: If your Lordships will allow me to intervene again I really think this Amendment is moved under a misconception. Let me remind your Lordships of the words used by Lord Hastings and which I took down. He asked why should the county council be debarred from expressing their opinion upon the question of small holdings? Why should they be prevented really from having anything to do with this matter?
LORD HASTINGS: Quite.
EARL DE LA WARR: That is not at all the case. I have already said, and it must be apparent to the minds of all your Lordships, that it is perfectly obvious that any Minister who wants to make a workable scheme must avail himself of all the local knowledge he can get. This is not a question of whether or not he shall consult and avail himself of local knowledge; it is a question of responsibility and of who is to be responsible. I have already reminded
774
your Lordships that you have only to turn to Clause 12 to see what is the intention of the Minister in practice. He actually takes powers where a county council is willing without in any way imposing an obligation upon them. I notice in their resolution they particularly say that the county council should be under no obligation to act as agent for the Ministry. That refers to a slightly different matter, to demonstration holdings, but it is the same in principle. By negotiation between the Minister and themselves they can be brought voluntarily into this matter. They are in no way debarred at present and it is, of course, the intention of the Minister to utilise them in every way.
In fact I can tell your Lordships that even at the moment, of course quite unofficially because the Bill has not yet passed, and we have had expressions of friendliness from certain county councils with whom we have been able to work in the closest association. I can give your Lordships that definite and concrete assurance now that it is our policy wherever we can to avail ourselves of all the local knowledge and experience of the county councils. But that is a different matter altogether from the division of responsibility. The responsibility should be that of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament and should not he divided with any other body.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether I might make a suggestion at this point. My noble and learned friend Lord Summer has pointed out that the noble Earl seemed to be under a misapprehension as to what this Amendment purported to do. The noble Earl suggested that every applicant for a small holding, after having been passed by the Minister, would have to submit himself to the county council, and he pointed out that this would mean divided control and was a very onerous burden to place on the council. I agree with him, and I think it would be undesirable. But the answer, and as I believe the conclusive answer, which was given by my noble and learned friend, was that that is not the meaning or effect of the Amendment, and that when the Amendment says that the county council has to express as respects each case an opinion that the man concerned "may reasonably be expected to earn his livelihood on the holding proposed", it is

775
only intended to assert the right of the county council to report that the particular holding was not one on which a person who satisfies the conditions in (a), (b) and (c) could reasonably be expected to make a livelihood.
I am sure that nobody on either side of the House desires that people shall be taken from the ranks of the unemployed where they are drawing unemployment relief, shall be trained, if necessary, shall be put to the very arduous work which is involved in maintaining a small holding, when at the end of it there is no chance that the small holding can be a success. That cannot be the intention of the Government and I am sure it would not be the intention of any member of your Lordships' House. The suggestion which, as I understand it, my noble friend Lord Cranworth puts forward, is that when the Minister has satisfied himself that a particular person complies with conditions (a), (b) and (c), then, before he is established on a particular holding, the Minister shall have a report from the county council concerned that the particular holding is one upon which a person who satisfies those conditions can reasonably be expected to make a livelihood. If that be the intention, as I understand it, and I believe it is the effect of the Amendment, would it not make it clear beyond any possible doubt if instead of the words "as respects each case" my noble friend were to substitute the words "as respects each holding"? Then there could be no doubt as to what was intended.
I do not think it makes any difference in the meaning and it certainly does not, as I understand my noble friend, make any difference in what he intends to do. If that alteration be made surely the objection which the noble Earl has taken largely falls to the ground, and without that protection we are in the position that the Minister could place people on the land where they were bound to fail and where they could only ultimately become a charge on the county council which would have had no voice in their selection. I suggest, therefore, that the alteration of one word might meet the difficulty.
LORD CRANWORTH: I need hardly say that I would accede to that suggestion if the noble Earl would accept it. The noble and learned Viscount has put
776
much more clearly than I could the exact intention I had in regard to this Amendment. I thought it was fairly clear before but he has made it absolutely clear now. I think the alteration will make it even clearer to everyone.
EARL DE LA WARR: The change in wording makes a considerable difference, I am advised, in the meaning of the Amendment. Therefore, for the moment I suggest that it may go in, though I am in no wise committing the Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Hear, hear.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will consider the matter between now and Report stage.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will put it in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, at end insert:
("and
(e) in the opinion of the council of the county concerned, expressed in a report made to the Minister as respects each holding, may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on the holding proposed").—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved to insert immediately before the proviso in subsection (1):
"and provided that the number of persons for whom the Minister may provide holdings shall not exceed ten thousand, until such time as experience of these holdings has proved by their capacity for production and subject to the amount of capital sunk are an economic proposition."
The noble Earl said: So many speeches have been made from this side of your Lordships' House dealing with the curtailment of expenditure and pointing out the colossal expenditure involved by this Bill that I feel that 10,000 holdings is not too small a limit. Without further comment I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: On this point I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. At a later stage the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has an Amendment which provides another means of limiting the number of holdings. I put it to your

777
Lordships whether it would be convenient that we should have a general discussion on the question of limitation now. I take it that is your Lordships' desire.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Very good.
EARL DE LA WARR: Would the noble Lord move—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Earl will appreciate that we cannot have a second Motion made while there is one already before the Committee. But if it be for the convenience of the Committee, there is no difficulty in discussing generally the question of limitation, including that in my noble friend Lord Bayford's Amendment and other limitations which are put forward.
EARL DE LA WARR: I withdrew in order that your Lordships might have a discussion upon this.
LORD BAYFORD: I have been very anxious to get some assurance from the Government which I believe will carry out what is the general wish of the House; that is, that on this subject the Government should not have a blank cheque. We want some limit put on the amount of money that may be spent on small holdings under this Bill. There are various ways of doing it. There is this Amendment, which limits the number of tenants. There is the Amendment which I have down to Clause 11, which limits the acreage to 50,000 acres a year. There are two other Amendments, one of which I have down with another noble Lord to Clause 19, which limits the period during which the Act is to remain in force. Then there is the fourth alternative, and it is the one which I personally prefer—that is to Clause 22 which limits the amount of money which may be spent to £10,000,000. If we could get an assurance from the Government on any of these various forms of limitation, I believe it would materially aid the passage of the Bill.
I am only asking the Government to do what they have declared is their intention. There was a speech made on February 27, by the Minister of Agriculture. I have a report of it which is taken from the Daily Herald so perhaps its accuracy will not be denied on the other side of the House. It states that speaking of model farms Dr. Addison declared that these small model farms
778
would form vitality centres for the new small holdings, of which about 10,000 will be established during the next few years. That, I presume only applies to England, because Dr. Addison's jurisdiction does not extend to Scotland. We had a similar declaration by Mr. Adamson in the House of Commons on February 10, in which he said that if continued for a decade the number of small holders would come to 7,000. That would be 700 a year. I believe experience shows that the number of small holders put upon the land at various times under the operation of the present Act amounts to about 2,000 a year. My own impression is that the difficulties of settling a very large number are so great that they would by themselves form a limit without statutory force. But we do want to get some limit that is recognised by the Government. I have tried to show the various ways in which the Government could make a gesture towards meeting us. I have stated that I would prefer the limitation of expense, but if there is some other form in which the Government would be prepared to impose their limit, then I am sure the Committee would give it every possible consideration. But we all realise that this is where the question of Privilege comes in. If the Government will make us an offer on this question I hope it, will be a firm offer, and that it will be an offer which we can agree to here, and which they will be prepared to stand by in another place.
EARL STANHOPE: I venture to think that we shall be assisting the Minister by putting some safeguards into this Bill. He himself asked for it when he was in another place in Committee. My noble friend appears to be a little sceptical so I had better read him the quotation. It did not occur on this clause, I admit. It occurred on Clause 7. Clause 7 is the clause which allows agricultural workers to get small holdings on exactly the same conditions as Clause 6, and anything that we put into Clause 6 therefore affects Clause 7. Many of your Lordships feel that the temptation to "have a go," as it is put, at small holdings is going to be very considerable indeed in certain areas, and particularly in Eastern England, where farming conditions are at present deplorable, and where there is a very large amount of unemployment.

779
Nobody in this House is proposing to impose further restrictions on agricultural labourers who are not employed or upon unemployed workers who are in the least likely to make a success of small holdings.
In Committee in another place the Minister said:—
"By putting the matter in that unrestrained form you might practically denude some farms of the ordinary agricultural workers."
He went on:—
"It was not in the mind of the Government that we should facilitate that undue dislocation of country life. … You might easily have 200,000 applications from agricultural workers. They would be the best applicants, without a doubt,…and the most likely to succeed. … You might, therefore, have an immense multitude of applicants, and if you could meet them, you would certainly dislocate the whole economy of the countryside … Apart entirely from the prodigious financial commitment which this clause opens out, it would he physically impossible within a considerable term of years, if the applications were of that magnitude, to provide anything like the holdings which would be applied for."
The Minister added:—
"I cannot do more at this stage than point out to those of the Committee who propose to support it, the full and immense implications of this new clause, and reserve to myself the completest possible freedom to introduce safeguards into it."
He repeated that at a later stage, when he said:—
"It will be on the explicit and definite understanding that I am completely free to put in whatever safeguards I can, with the consent of my colleagues, and I will discuss those safeguards with those who are responsible for the clause."
The Bill has appeared before us, and not a single safeguard has been put in by the Minister, for the obvious reason that it is impossible to do so. You cannot put into Clause 7 any figures which at any rate in another place they would be prepared to support. Therefore the only way is to put in a safeguard for small holdings in general, both for Clause 6 and Clause 7. I am certain that the Minister, although he might not do so now, will in the end thank this House for putting in safeguards to enable him to say: "I cannot go at more than a certain speed. I cannot do more than a certain amount." If he has not got safeguards of that kind, agricultural
780
workers all over the country will be expecting to get small holdings this year or next year, and when they do not get them the feeling will run very high, and it will go against the Government and against the Minister.
Everybody realises that it is quite impossible, in the financial situation of the country at this moment, to spend something like £1,000 per holding, and to do that on a gigantic scale. Therefore I submit that, whichever one of these safeguards we take, and perhaps we may have to take more than one, we shall be doing something to assist the Minister, and to assist the Government, by stating quite clearly on the face of the Bill that we have to have a, limitation of some kind, either by the number of persons, by the acreage, or perhaps, best of all, by the amount of money that can be expended. I do not want to go into this question at length, because there are many of your Lordships more qualified to deal with it than I am. I merely want to put forward clearly that, even in the words of the Minister himself, there is a very obvious reason for safeguards being introduced into this Bill. I hope your Lordships will insist that they should be put there.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like to make a few remarks on this question of limitation. It seems to me that the only real limitation on this matter is your capacity to supply the need. After all, the agricultural population of this country to-day is being denuded, I under stand, at the rate of 10,000 per annum. We have had evidence during this debate of the conditions in all parts of the country and the fact that people are being forced off the land to-day in very large numbers. There is no dispute as to the circumstances in the towns, nor is there any dispute, I believe, that there are large numbers of people in the towns of this country, and still more in the mines, who have had agricultural experience in their youth and who are anxious and able to go back to the land. Are your Lordships going to agree to a form of limitation which says that, even if it is possible to provide for their needs, you are going to prevent them from getting their opportunity of deriving a livelihood of their own from the land£ I think it is a very serious and formidable thing to put a limitation of that kind in this Bill.

781
I have been impressed during the discussion in Committee by the fact that the aspect of this problem which interests me most—its effect, on agriculture and its human side—has not been very strongly brought forward. Since this Bill was introduced I have travelled about and visited a considerable number of small holding schemes, and I confess that I am surprised and impressed by their success. There are failures, of course, and there are places where men have been badly selected, but the number of successful cases is very large indeed, and the number of instances I can give you of individuals who, in a very short space of time, have been able to make not only a living but a good competence, is very large indeed. In the Report of the Ministry on the work of the Land Division for the year 1926 some very striking figures were given as to the national effect of the small holding policy. In that Report evidence is given on two points: as to the additional population on the land which followed the creation of small holdings, and as to the additional production from that land. I think your Lordships will agree with me that both these things are extremely desirable at present. The more people you can get on to the land when you are facing a depopulation of considerable areas of arable land, the better from the national point of view. It means putting people into self-supporting positions, instead of leaving them on the "dole."
These are the figures as to the proportion of people per holding taken from page 57 of the Report. In holdings of from 1 to 5 acres, 357; 5 to 20 acres, 120; 20 to 50 acres, 60; 50 to 100 acres, 44; and when you get to holdings of 300 to 500 acres, the number of persons is only 30. The first figure is not really relevant, because it refers to people with other occupations but, if you look at the other figures, you will find that on the average the smaller the holding the more people are supported on the land. If you look at the following page of the Report, you will find that before the acquisition for small holdings the number of residents on the thirty-five schemes was 1,048, whereas after acquisition for small holdings the number of residents on these thirty-five schemes was 2,298, or more than double. If yon look at the Nairn Report on the experience of Scotland, you will find that the proportion is almost
782
the same—namely, 361 before acquisition and 567 afterwards. I was recently at the Sutton Bridge Settlement, which is perhaps a model settlement for the whole country and one which I believe has been created under the most favourable conditions. Here there are 180 small holders who have equipped holdings, and about 200 who work on the holdings and make a living. To-day they are employing more labour than was employed by the farmers of the larger farms before the 550 acres was converted into a small holding settlement. In addition to the 180 equipped smell holdings, more labour is being permanently employed on the land than before.
If we are going to do anything of this kind to help the agricultural situation in this country, surely we are not going to have a limitation which says we are not going to do as much as we can. I agree that the last thing we want to do is to waste public money, but if you can make provision—and I believe there is very considerable evidence that we can—for the people of this country on the land, if you can double the population per acre and largely increase production—I have a statement with which I will not trouble you showing that on the average production also increases—it would be a very shortsighted policy if your Lordships were to create a limitation of that kind and insert it in this Bill. It seems to me that, when you are faced with a situation in which your very system of agriculture is in danger and large numbers of people are being forced off the land whatever you do, and if it is true to say that you can provide opportunities by which these people can individually make a living, bring increased population on the land, increase production, and at the same time reduce "doles," it seems to me that this policy is a national economy and not a policy of waste. I would therefore urge your Lordships in the strongest way to put on no limitation which will restrict the effective operation of this scheme to the very maximum of its practical possibilities.
EARL DE LA WARR: I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who has pleaded that we should not place a limit on these small holdings schemes. Two forms of limit have been proposed here, and per-

783
haps, before dealing with the general subject, we might just examine them. The first proposal is that the new small holders should not exceed 10,000—"until such time as experience of these holdings has proved by their capacity" that they "are an economic proposition." Really that Amendment implies that small holdings in this country are an entirely new idea and that it is necessary to try them out before we attempt any serious development. Having listened to the speech of the noble Marquess who has just sat down, and who has dealt very thoroughly with that point, I do not think there is very much for me to add, except to say that the figures of failures in regard to small holding settlements were before the War about 5 per cent., and after the War, under the State post War scheme with its very grave disadvantages which I will not enumerate now, about 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent. But even if the failures amount to from 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent., that means that in the most unfavourable circumstances the successes are over 85 per cent.
I put it to your Lordships: Why should you limit what has turned out to be a successful development? At the present moment we have men out of work who are being maintained at the Government expense, it is desirable to increase our production of food as much as we can, and we know that we have a great deal of land in this country rapidly going out of cultivation. Surely it is desirable, as far as possible, that the one limit placed on this scheme to bring the three great national demands together is one which can satisfy them all. The view of the Government is that there should only be one limit imposed upon development under this Bill, and that should be the need and the practicability.
Your Lordships only have to think for a moment to realise that practicability is in itself a very considerable limitation. That brings me to a portion of Lord Bayford's Amendment—I think it is after Clause 19—providing for a time-limit of three years. If your Lordships allow your minds to rest for a moment on these problems you will see how utterly hopeless it is to think of any limitation of a number of years such as three years. It is going to take some time to find the land and to acquire the land. Then it
784
will probably be necessary to give a year's notice to quit to the tenants. Then it will take some time to equip the holdings and get the men settled. The scheme will barely be started to any degree in three years' time, and therefore I suggest to your Lordships that such a limitation as that would be quite impossible.
To take it, however, on very much more general grounds, we take up the line that we cannot accept any limitation which will compel us to leave a suitable man standing at the street corners in the town, idle and living on the unemployment insurance benefit, when but for the limitations imposed in this Bill he might be settled on the land, producing wealth for the country and for himself and Ms family, and generally living as a self-respecting and self-supporting and prosperous member of the community. I suggest that any limitations that your Lordships impose on this Bill will be in the direction of making it impossible for the Government really to develop this Bill to its fullest extent, and it is to the fullest extent, limited only by need and practicability, that we intend to work the provisions of this Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The speech which has just been delivered by the noble Earl, I think, places a good many of us on this side in considerable difficulty. The clause is one which we were anxious to give the Government an opportunity of developing and of trying whether or not it would be a success. Of course your Lordships realise that whatever system of small holdings has existed in the past, and whatever powers the county councils have of settling people on small holdings when it is reasonably possible to do it, are unaffected by the existence of this Bill. This Bill does not touch any existing powers or take them away in any respect, and therefore all that the noble Earl said about our interfering with a policy which has proved successful seems to me to be somewhat beside the mark.
The object of this Bill is to create a new and different power of developing small holdings from anything which at present exists. It is avowedly an attempt to deal with the unemployment problem. I am sure that every member of this House is anxious, if he properly and conscientiously can do it, to give an

785
opportunity to the Government of developing any policy which they may think is calculated to alleviate that problem. Certainly their efforts so far have not been sufficiently successful to make us too sanguine of the future, but we are most anxious that anything which the Government think can help to meet the unemployment difficulty should be given the fullest opportunity of trial. With that object in view I at any rate, and I think a good many who think with me, were prepared—not without considerable misgivings but still prepared, since the Government desired it—to let them try this way of dealing with the problem, not because we were convinced that they would make a success of it, but because we were anxious that anything which they felt they could make successful, and to which the House of Commons had given consent, should be given a fair trial.
If, however, a trial is to be made of a scheme which necessarily involves a certain expenditure, at a time when our national finances are in so grave a position that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself warns us, reforms however desirable must be postponed if the present standard of living of our people is not to be permanently lowered—when we are in that position we have no right to allow unlimited experiments, without any sort of check upon the extravagance of a Ministry or of a particular Minister. I for one do not see how it is possible, consistently with the present financial position of the country as it is disclosed by His Majesty's Government themselves in recent speeches, to say to the Minister: "We will give you a blank cheque; you may spend as many millions as you like and go on as fast and as wildly as you please, with no limitations of time or of acreage or anything else; you may spend hundreds of millions," because, forsooth, the noble Earl can make an eloquent platform speech about taking people off the "dole" and settling them on the land, and turning them into prosperous citizens.
The question is whether we are satisfied that this scheme will do that. I doubt very much whether we should be willing to allow it to be done to an unlimited extent and without any check upon the amount of expenditure or the amount of loss to be incurred. The object, as I understood it, of the general discussion
786
suggested by the noble Earl was to ascertain which form of limitation the Government would prefer to accept, because I am quite sure we desire that in trying this experiment the form should be that which the Government thought was most useful and least irksome, and least likely to interfere with the success of the experiment. When, however, the Government state that they will accept no limitations at all, then it becomes a very grave question whether they should get any clause at all. I do not want at this stage, when we have not heard the last word from the Government, to pronounce any final view for myself, and still less for the Party for which, to some extent, I can speak, but I ask the noble Earl to reconsider very carefully the statement which he has made in the light of this possibility, that the alternative may not be between having an unlimited clause and a clause with limitations, but between having a clause with some limitation and getting no clause at all.
I do hope that the noble Earl will at any rate consider which of these alternatives he would prefer, and if he will consider the possibility I have mentioned he would help us, because we really want to be helped, by telling us what form of limitation the Government think would be most practical and most useful. I am not asking the noble Earl to say that he likes any limitation. I quite understand that he would like a blank cheque, but I cannot forget that the very Minister who is at present to be entrusted with these duties is the Minister whose extravagance when in charge of housing has saddled the country with a burden which it will have to bear for generations to come. To ask us, with that record behind him, to say to him: "You may spend what you like without any sort of check, and buy up as many hundreds of thousands of acres as you please, and people the country with inspectors looking for small holdings, and you may do it at any cost which to you seems adequate in the hope that some of them may make good"—that seems to me to be a request which is somewhat too audacious to be readily accepted at the hands of your Lordships' House.
I am very anxious—I do hope the Government will believe this—to give them a fair chance to try this experiment which

787
they believe they can make something of. But I do not believe I could bring myself or those who vote with me to agree to the unlimited power which the noble Earl says the Government would like, and I would really ask him very seriously to think over the question of what form of limitation he thinks would be the least irk-some to him, and the least likely to interfere with any plans which the Government may have. I do not ask him at this moment to be too definite. There are some other limitations which come a good deal further on in our proceedings. But I do ask him not to take up the attitude that no limitation will be accepted, lest he drive us into the position of saying that there is only one alternative in that event, and that is to say that there will be no Bill at all.
EARL DE LA WARR: Of course, if the noble and learned Viscount takes the responsibility of recommending that there should be no Bill at all, then that is an end of the whole matter. But I really think he rather misunderstood me in what I was saying, and I think he very much under-rated the amount of limitation that is imposed upon us by the words "need" and "practicability." I cannot myself see what more limitation is needed. I dispute entirely the view that the setting up of small holdings is an experiment. It has been done for the last twenty years now, and all Governments, belonging to all Parties, have made themselves responsible for this development, and, for the life of me I cannot see why we should go on assuming that this is what he calls an experiment.
Further, if it is desirable—and in the word "desirable" I presume we include the meaning "economic"—to allow the national public money to be spent on setting up a thousand or ten thousand small holdings, or the special number of holdings to fill up the 50,000 acres a year that Lord Bayford has proposed, then I submit that, if your Lordships are prepared to do that, it must be that you consider small holdings are an economic proposition and an economic investment, and that it is desirable to settle at least 10,000 men or 15,000 or 20,000 men—whatever number is understood in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford. And if it is desirable to settle 10,000 or 20,000 men, and if it is economic, why, then, is it uneconomic to allow the Government to settle as many unemployed
788
men as they can on the land, subject to the conditions about which you satisfy yourselves in this Bill?
It is for that reason that I ask your Lordships to realise that the limitations under which we do propose to work—the limitation of having to select only suitable men, the limitation of having to make a success of the scheme, the limitation which is imposed upon us by having to acquire the land and actually carry out the work of settlement itself—are very considerable, and they are the only limitations that you want. Because, if it is desirable to settle 1,000 or 10,000 men on the land, I cannot see why it is undesirable or uneconomic to settle a much larger number if it is possible so to do.
On the question of indicating what form of limitation the Government would accept, I think your Lordships will realise by what I have said that the noble and learned Viscount has placed me in a very difficult position. One thing I can say, that no Amendment that has been put on the Paper at the moment suggests any possible form of limitation. I have heard it suggested from other parts of the House that a limitation purely of time—the fifteen years programme—might be inserted in the Bill. That is a limitation which would need consideration, but for the moment I am afraid I cannot give the noble and learned Viscount any indication on that matter. Certainly a limitation such as that, which would enable the scheme to be given a full and fair trial for a period of years, until it could be got to work and be allowed to develop, might possibly prove a workable proposition. But I must say that no limitation that has hitherto been proposed would be in any way considered by His Majesty's Government.
LORD DANESFORT: The argument of the noble Earl appears to me to be a very remarkable one. This is admittedly an experiment, and it may be worth while to spend a certain amount of money upon it. The noble Earl said that because it may be worth while spending £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, therefore it is worth while giving this Government the power to spend £100,000,000 or £200,000,000. I doubt if in any circumstances, or with any Government in power, it would be desirable to give such an unlimited power of expenditure as that. But with a

789
Government such as we have in power to-day, notoriously extravagant and reckless in the expenditure of public money, and at a moment such as the present, when, by the admission of their own chief officers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, the country has not got the money to indulge in that experiment, I think it would be perfectly mad for any Parliament to give the Government any such unlimited power of expenditure as they ask for.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), immediately before the proviso, to insert:
"Provided that in no case shall such loan exceed seventy-five per cent. of the cost of such tenant right stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers or implements required for the purpose of such holding."
The noble Lord said: I appear to have put down an Amendment which is open to various obvious objections. The first objection is that it is totally devoid of sentiment. That, I realise, is a very serious objection indeed. When I think of the occupant of that street corner to which the noble Earl referred, the occupant who has been there off and on for the last forty years to my certain knowledge, and I reflect that this gentleman is going, with the connivance of the noble Earl, to be placed on the land as a small holder, without his or anybody else having put up a penny as a stake with which that man should play, I feel that the question of sentiment will probably be the ruin of my Amendment. The second objection is this, that my Amendment obviously raises the question of Privilege. The third objection is that my Amendment raises the question of economy, which seems a hopeless task in a House, which last night was quite cheerful in providing the Minister with £5,000,000 to reclaim land which it did not pay to farm.
For all that I think there are some more recondite merits in this Amendment; I think so the more after having heard the speeches of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and of my noble friend Lord Lothian, with whom I find myself in great sympathy on the question of limitation. The two noble Lords passed many enconiums on the success
790
of the small holders under previous Acts. I myself am of opinion that there is room for many more small holders in this country and we on this side of the House would welcome as many small holders as it was possible to put on the land provided they could make a success of their small holdings. What distinguishes the previous Acts from this Bill? It is that the men were carefully passed and to a certain extent—except in the case possibly of the 1919 Act, which was less of a success—they put up some stake for themselves. If you turn to the 1926 Act, you will find there are powers there to advance money for the equipment of small holdings in the shape of buildings up to 90 per cent. of the value secured by mortgage.
I believe that Act has been a great success, that the small holders under that Act has done exceedingly well on the whole, and that that Act could continue to be used where suitable. The great difference, however, between that Act and these proposals is to be found in the picking of the men and in the fact that the men themselves risked something before they undertook the small holdings, whereas here you are contemplating taking an indefinite number of unemployed men and agricultural labourers, subject to the qualifications of which we have heard, but subject to no qualification as to their loss if they fail or do not even try to succeed. Amongst so many there are bound to be a few black sheep. Nothing is easier than for them to get on a farm, however small, and rob it. Nothing is easier than for a man, who is provided free of all cost to himself with the whole of his equipment and of his farm, to take from that farm, during his first year of tenancy, more than he has any right to take. He may do it through inadvertence, through not knowing how much stock he ought to leave on the land, but he might also do it through dishonesty. That man suffers no penalties under this Bill. I do not suggest there will be many people who will meanly take advantage of this extremely generous offer. There will be a considerable number who will do this inadvertently.
The first recommendation of my Amendment is that it will act as a sieve for the limitation that we want amongst the candidates for small holdings. I have made

791
one mistake and put the percentage too high. I attach no importance to that percentage, nor in pounds, shillings and pence to the amount, but I suggest to your Lordships, who are really familiar with country life, with the agricultural labourer and with the unemployed in the town, that there are very few men, if they are what their friends call "good sorts," reliable men, whose friends, if they are suitable for this job, will not put up, say, £10. Supposing the man has not a penny, then there is a very British and very pleasant custom known as having a "whip round," which I know from personal experience usually takes place in a public-house but is none the less effective. No labourer I have ever known could fail to get £10 by a "whip round" in a public-house for a chance like this, provided his friends thought he was the right sort and would make a job of it. I therefore suggest that, although I may have put the percentage too high, the principle is valuable.
It does not follow that, because a man is unemployed, he is destitute. That is on a par with saying that, because he insured himself against unemployment, he is in the same position as a person who comes on the poor rates. Insurance is, in the first place, taken up by a man who is in work and it is supposed to supply him, when he is out of work, with the essentials of life. There is, therefore, on the face of it, no reason why he should have completely denuded himself of all capital because he is unemployed. As I understand that my noble friend Lord Banbury wishes to move the omission of the clause, I shall not detain the Committee any longer but will move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, at end insert:
("Provided that in no case shall such loan exceed seventy-five per cent. of the cost of such tenant right stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers or implements required for the purpose of such holding").—(Lord Phillimore.)
EARL STANHOPE: I am very glad my noble friend has moved this Amendment because it raises a big question. Apart from the maintenance allowance of £50, it is proposed to advance working capital, which is a very large sum. In the Bill, as introduced in another place, it was put down as an average of £275 per
792
holder. What is to happen if that sum is advanced to a man who, instead of expending it on tools, seeds, and implements, expends it on amusements or in some other way? The noble Earl sees that point because his next Amendment provides that everything given to the man shall be registered, which will make it more difficult for him to dispose of it. In cases where it is given to him in cash—and under the Bill that can be done—there is a real danger the man may make away with £275. In some cases he may not do it deliberately, but, finding that the £1 a week is not enough to maintain his family and stock, he will have to draw on his working capital to an undue and illegitimate extent. It is a very real danger against which I suggest the Minister ought to guard. Although I do not go quite so far as my noble friend in thinking that this is, perhaps, the best way or even a possible way of dealing with it, I think that the Minister should say something to your Lordships as to how he proposes to protect this public money which is going to be issued on a very large scale to all these small holders.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord has certainly raised a very important point and one that I think we ought to discuss. He has expressed a number of opinions it is very difficult to disagree with. The fact that he has expressed his readiness to alter the percentage, because he is merely discussing the principle, shows, I think, that the Amendment has been put down very reasonably. At the same time, we are faced with the difficulty that the scheme in this Bill, so far as the scheme is worked out in Clause 6, is designed to deal with the settlement of the unemployed. We all know perfectly well that there are districts in this country that have been derelict for years, and men in those districts who have been out of work for years who, therefore, literally have nothing. Therefore it is necessary for the Minister to take this power. It is not compulsory that he should supply all the capital; he is at perfect liberty to supply a percentage; but it is necessary in the extreme case of a man who is right down and who, perhaps, has not sufficient public-house acquaintances to avail himself of the new form of Government

793
credit suggested by the noble Lord, for the Minister to have power to advance the full sum.
The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has drawn my attention to another difficulty in the clause; that is as to the protection of the Minister in respect to the money which has been lent. It was partly because we visualised that difficulty, though it was for other reasons also, that the proviso in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) was inserted under which the Minister is given power to supply the actual stock. That was only one reason. The other was that it is most important to ensure that the small holder should start off with the best stock. At the same time, that is a very considerable point, and I think I can assure your Lordships that it will be the intention of the Minister, save in exceptional cases where he has some very good reason to believe that it is desirable and safe to advance the money in cash, that on the whole it is likely that we shall work and it is desirable that we should work under this proviso. Although there is certainly something in the principle of what the noble Lord put forward, I hope your Lordships will realise that this scheme is to deal with an emergency situation and must therefore make provision for cases of the most extreme poverty. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will permit the Bill to remain as it is and rest assured that it will be administered to the best advantage of the Exchequer.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but the noble Earl has put into my mind an idea which, perhaps, he would follow up. He has told us that in the great majority of cases there will be no necessity to advance the whole sum and that this is not the intention. In the case of the absolutely destitute man I take it the Poor Law authority would be aware of the position. Could not some reference, in the case of the man to whom the noble Earl wishes to make the full advance, be made to the Poor Law authority by way of investigation as some sort of protection against the State being imposed upon? I will leave that thought with the noble Earl and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think I can assure the noble Lord that every case
794
will be investigated and, naturally, the Poor Law authority, the labour exchange, and the various resources at our command will be consulted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) Upon making or guaranteeing or undertaking to make or guarantee under the powers conferred by this section a grant by way of a loan to any person, or upon supplying to any person any stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers, or implements whereof the purchase price is deemed under this section to be a loan so made to him, the Minister shall notify to the Land Registrar particulars showing the name and address of that person and the fact that he is indebted to the Minister in respect of such a loan, and the Land Registrar shall cause a copy of the said particulars to be entered on the register of agricultural charges kept under Section nine of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, and to remain so entered until he receives from the Minister notice that the loan has been repaid, and any charge on any of the farming stock or other agricultural assets belonging to that person created (whether under that Act or otherwise) while such particulars as aforesaid remain entered in the said register shall be void unless created with the written consent of the Minister.
For the purposes of this section, 'farming stock' and 'other agricultural assets' have the same meaning as in the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, and the provisions of Section ten of that Act shall apply with respect to entries made under this subsection as they apply to entries relating to agricultural land charges."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment has been put down not quite with the object mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, but to prevent the credit which has been advanced to a tenant being pledged under the Agricultural Credits Act. The Amendment really explains itself, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I accept the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Treowen. I think they are all consequential.
LORD TREOWEN: Yes. They are purely drafting.
EARL DE LA WARR: We accept them all.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out from ("who") to ("require") in line 24.
Page 12, line 26, after ("properly") insert ("but otherwise possess the qualifications required by subsection (1) of this section")
Page 12, line 31, after ("any") insert ("such")
Page 12, line 31, leave out from ("person") to ("and") in line 34, and insert ("as aforesaid").—(Lord Treowen.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 6. The noble Lord said: I move to leave out this clause for these reasons. First of all, the clause is going to cost an enormous amount of money. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham said just now, however good a cause may be we are not at present in a sufficiently sound financial position to spend large sums of money on it. During the debate on the Second Reading it was stated by my noble friend Lord Dynevor that in order to put 100,000 unemployed into small holdings it would cost at least £100,000,000. There are at the present moment in round figures 2,600,000 unemployed. Therefore, to reduce it by 100,000 at a cost of £100,000,000 is evidently not a sound financial proposition.
There is also the question as to whether small holdings would pay, and I turn to the speech of my noble friend Lord Stanhope on the Second Reading of this Bill in which he stated that in England and Wales in 1909 there were 197,606 small holdings of from five to fifty acres. In 1919 that number had dropped to 191,375 and in 1929 the number had dropped to 184,145—a still greater reduction. That was a reduction in twenty years of 13,000 odd. And he said later in his speech that in twenty years there had been a reduction of 40,000 holdings, and that for every three holdings set up by local authorities four small holders had gone out of the business. Therefore, it does not look, whatever may be the case in Scotland, as if in England and Wales there was any very great opportunity for small holdings to be a success. My own idea was that it was not prudent to embark upon a large financial expenditure of this sort at this moment. That idea has been strengthened by the fact that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a few moments ago, as your Lord-
796
ships know, refused to agree to any limitation of any kind being put upon the expenditure on this scheme.
As my noble friend Lord Hailsham has said, this leaves us face to face with a Minister whose sole recognition as to merits is that he was the most extravagant Minister in an extravagant Ministry after the War, and spent so much money, with so little result, on building houses that your Lordships had to throw out his Bill, and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, had to get rid of him out of the Government. That is the man whom we are going to trust with a blank cheque. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time on a matter which is so clear and so evident to anyone who has looked into it. I do not think it is necessary to say more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL FORTESCUE: I have listened to the debate on this clause, and, if I may say so without disrespect, I think there has been a certain amount of unreality about it. We have heard a great deal of the success of small holdings up to date, and it is taken for granted that therefore they are bound always to succeed. I believe in small holdings myself. I have had a certain amount to do with small holdings in my own county and with a good many on my own estate, but people in quoting the success of the movement up to date have ignored the fact that those who required training who went into small holdings were a comparatively small number, whereas under the scheme outlined in Clause 6 a very large number will require training, facilities for which are given under the Bill. Another matter about which I think there is some unreality is the discussion as to the amount of money that is to be spent. It will take at least twelve months after this Bill is passed, if it is passed, to put it into working order. There must be a General Election within not much more than twelve months at any rate, and if, as we all hope, a Unionist majority is returned, they will be able to put any limitation they think right on the proceedings under this Bill; whereas if, unfortunately, another Socialist Ministry comes in they will be in a position to ignore any limitations that may be put

797
in now, and to write themselves a blank cheque as often as they like. Believing, however, as I do, that small holdings are a good thing, I shall vote for the clause, although I do think it is a case in which any Government, whoever they may be, would make a great mistake if they tried to go too far and too fast.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: The discussion upon this clause has led to no real change in the character of the clause. I can conceive of nothing more reckless than to entrust a Minister who has already shown a capacity for spending money, to which my noble friend has referred, with a blank cheque to deal with this question. Therefore I support my noble friend beside me in his Motion for the rejection of the clause.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not wish to speak at any length, but I must say, for myself, I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Fortescue in thinking it would be a mistake to throw out this clause, at any rate at this stage of the Bill. The noble Earl has said that if we pass the clause at all it must be because we think it economic and desirable. Let me assure him at once, although I am voting in favour of the clause, it is not because I am satisfied it is either economic or desirable. The reason I am voting for the clause is that the Government, with the assent of

CONTENTS.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Morton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Bedford, D.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wellington, D.

Peel, E.

Conyers, L.

Poulett, E.

Cranworth, L.

Camden, M.

Sandwich, E.

Cushendun, L.

Exeter, M.

Selborne, E.

Danesfort, L.

Spencer, E.

Daryngton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Ancaster, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dickinson, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Digby, L.

Bradford, E.

Astor, V.

Dynevor, L.

Cawdor, E.

Churchill, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Elibank, V.

Ellenborough, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hailsham, V.

Ernle, L.

Denbigh, E.

Hood, V.

Erskine, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Mersey, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Fairhaven, L.

Fortescue, E.

FitzWalter, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Addington, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Grey, E.

Aldenham, L.

Gainford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Amulree, L.

Hastings, L.

Ilchester, E.

Annaly, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoll.) [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Bayford,

Lindsay, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Heneage, L.

Lucan, E.

Belper, L.

Howyard of Glossop, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Biddulph, L.

Illingworth, L.

Midleton, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

another place, say that by this means they can mitigate unemployment, and I am willing to give them the chance to try. Whether or not I should give them the chance to try on an unlimited scale is quite a different question, and, since the noble Earl was unable to give us any satisfactory assurance, I propose to ask those who agree with me to insert limitations both of time and of amount at this stage, and then the noble Earl will have an opportunity no doubt of considering and of letting us know on Report stage which of those he prefers, or if he prefers neither, and would rather have, as may happen, no clause at all.
This is a matter which he will consider, but, for the moment, it seems to me that here there is art effort to deal with the unemployment problems by putting people on to the land, an object which we all would like to see achieved, if it can be done successfully. Therefore, speaking for myself, I shall vote in favour of the clause with the Amendments which have been accepted, and which I think do improve its merits, and I hope very much that the majority of the Committee will take that view at this stage.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 111; Non-contents, 14.

Kinnaird, L.

Queenborough, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Kirkley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lamington, L.

Remnant, L.

Strachie, L.

Leigh, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Strathcona and Mount Roval, L.

Middleton, L.

Rochester, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Roundway, L.

Swaythling, L.

Newton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Templemore, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Sanderson, L.

Trenchard, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Sandhurst, L.

Treowen, L.

Passfield, L.

Sandys, L.

Wargrave, L.

Polwarth, L.

Sinclair, L.

Wavertree, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Snell, L.

Wraxall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Airlie, E.

Berwick, L.

Phillimore, L.

Radnor, E.

Chesham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Novar, V. [Teller.]

Forester, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Wharton, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 6, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 7:
Power of Minister to provide small holdings with financial assistance for agricultural workers.
7. The Minister shall have power to provide a small holding for an applicant who is an agricultural worker on the same conditions as are set out in Section six of this Act and to extend to such applicant the same facilities as are authorised by that section:
Provided that the condition set out in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section shall not apply in respect of such applicant.
EARL FOBTESCUE: Before my noble friend Viscount Astor moves his Amendment, may I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a question? Have the Government formed any opinion as to the number of possible applicants they may get for small holdings under this clause? Does the phrase "agricultural worker" include a farmer's son? I think that, if it does, the Bill is likely to be exceedingly popular in the West of England, where it is very common for a farm to be worked by a family. The eldest son is apt to succeed his father in the farm in course of time, and the farmer has to save money to set his second son up. It may result, from this Bill that the second son will be able to apply to the Government to be equipped with capital and stock so as to carry on a small holding for himself.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not know if I am at all in order in answering these two questions. The first was whether
800
we have formed any estimate of the number of applicants. I think your Lordships will realise that it is quite impossible to know how many people are going to apply. The second question was whether a farmer's son ranks as a farm worker. I think the answer to that is that it depends whether the farmer's son is working on the farm or not.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after "worker," to insert "or who is a member or ex-member of His Majesty's Forces, who has had a suitable course of training for agriculture." The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships know, by Clause 6 small holdings are made available for unemployed. The Bill was altered while going through the House of Commons and Clause 7 was added whereby small holdings were to be made available for agricultural labourers. I think that the object of my Amendment must have been forgotten when the Bill was being discussed in the House of Commons, because it seems to me so obvious that members of His Majesty's Forces should be treated at least as well as unemployed men or agricultural labourers in obtaining small holdings. Everybody knows that ex-Service men have always received special and favourable consideration. The Act of 1919 was passed in order to make small holdings available for the members of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, after they left His Majesty's Service, so that the precedents are all on my side.
At the present moment members of the Forces get vocational training at Chisledon and a certain number receive training for going upon the land. In the

801
past it has been training for going overseas to Canada, and those who have gone overseas to Canada have, on the whole, been extraordinarily successful as settlers. Now, unfortunately, Canada is unable to take them, and so these men have either to give up being trained or after being trained have to become unemployed, or else agricultural labourers, before they can acquire a small holding on the terms which I think should be available for them. These men are far better trained than the people whom it is contemplated by this Bill to place on the land. Not only the men but their wives also get training. It was my privilege to spend a day at Chisledon a short time ago and I found there special accommodation for the wives and proper care for the children. It is not contemplated that facilities equal to these provided under Clause 6 should be afforded to these men and their wives who are specially qualified to be small holders. It does seem a farce that men should go through such training and not know whether at the end they will get a small holding—in fact will know that their best, chance is to go on the "dole" or to take a job as an agricultural labourer.
It seems to me that it would be farcical not to give these men equal facilities. To do so will not be to overload the number of applicants. Only about 100 or 150 are being trained now. Obviously many who leave the Army do not want to go on small holdings, and the number who annually go through to the training centre at Chisledon is only something like 100 to 150. It will be far less risky to put on the land men who with their wives have been through this course of training than it would be to settle the unemployed, and the psychological effect upon these ex-Service men of knowing that when they leave the Army they can go upon the land and make a home for themselves and their families must be very great.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, at the beginning insert ("or who is a member or ex-member of His Majesty's Forces, who has had a suitable course of training for agriculture").— (Viscount Astor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would like to support the Amendment. I remember that when I was at the War Office I had a certain amount to do with this question
802
of vocational training, and the number of men who passed through every year is really a very small one. The cost of vocational training falls upon the State and it is very desirable that it should not be money wasted. In view of the very limited financial effect it would have, and in view of the fact that the noble Earl has stated that limitations to him are anathema, I venture to think that this very small addition might be made to the Bill. I do not think it would affect the ex-Service men who belong to the British Legion and so forth, but it would apply to those who are leaving the Army now and passing through vocational training. It would afford an opportunity to these men which otherwise they will lack, and otherwise the money spent upon them would be lost.
LORD TRENCHARD: May I add my voice in support of this Amendment? There are very few men who can be trained in agriculture in the Services, but the training given is really far ahead of what it was ten years ago. It is most excellent training, and it seems very rough, with this system of education for making men who join the Service into very useful citizens afterwards, and when they are really trying to become successful in citizen life, that they should be told that they cannot be given small holdings until they have either tried some other profession and failed, or gone on the "dole." I ask the Government to give favourable consideration to the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I feel a certain diffidence in opposing this Amendment because I am not sure that it was not a small indiscretion of my own which started the whole thing. I think, however, when you consider the matter you will realise that Clause 6 is really quite inapplicable to the ordinary ex-Service man trained at Chisledon. Clause 6 is for unemployed men—for destitute men.
LORD HASTINGS: That is not so. The unemployed are not destitute men.
EARL DE LA WARR: I said for both. A great many are destitute, and as regards this Bill we are taking capital for equipment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Earl assured me only about ten minutes ago

803
that only a small number were destitute and would require full advances for equipment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we are getting down rather to hypothetical questions. Let us get to a point where we can all agree. The terms comprised in Clauses 6 and 7 are very exceptional terms, and certainly there would be no good reason for applying them to members of His Majesty's Forces unless there was an absolute case of need. Now I do not think anybody would suggest that the men who are coming out of the Army are in a state where it is necessary to provide them with all capital, all equipment and facilities for living for at least one year to the extent of £50. Indeed, the case of Lord Astor really specifically denies that, because he tells us that these men up to a very short time ago have been going out to Canada after their period of training. On what terms did they go out to Canada? They went and settled in Canada, not on the terms of Clause 6, but far more on the terms under which they could get holdings from county councils or holdings provided by the Minister under Clause 10. It gives quite a wrong impression to suggest that these men with this admittedly first-class training—it would be the greatest national loss if it were not utilised—are without any facilities for obtaining small holdings. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
Clause 7, which was inserted in this Bill by general agreement in another place, has already imposed very considerable responsibilities on the Exchequer—responsibilities which the Government fully accepted. Nevertheless, I think it would be the greatest mistake to add to them without any good reason. I submit to your Lordships that the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Onslow, have really made no case whatsoever for this special treatment for the ex-Service men.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope my noble friend will insist on this Amendment. After all, you have put in agricultural labourers. Does the noble Earl opposite say that agricultural labourers who apply for small holdings must necessarily be destitute? I see no reason why a privilege should be given because you are destitute. It is impossible to suggest
804
that a man who comes out of the ranks has been able to save so much money on the pay which the State gives him during his service that he is likely to be able to start a small holding by putting up the necessary capital for himself. The real truth of the matter is that the Labour Government object very strongly to any man in the Services having any privilege whatever. I hope your Lordships will insist on their having this privilege.
EARL DE LA WARR: Although your Lordships are usually such champions of economy, it is obvious that you are determined to put in this Amendment and as it is equally obvious that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is anxious to make political capital out of the matter if we do not, I will not accept the Amendment in the name of the Government, but if the Committee desires that it should be inserted I will not ask for a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 7. The noble Lord said: The history of this clause is somewhat peculiar. I am sorry the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has gone out, but I would point out that his argument about unemployment does not hold good with this clause because this clause does not put unemployed people on the land. It puts on the land people who are at present employed. If this clause is left out, there is nothing whatever to prevent an agricultural labourer who is unemployed being put on the land under Clause 6. But if it is left in, not only will employed people be put upon the land, but the result naturally must be to make it more difficult for the unemployed people to be put on the land. It raises a further point. At present there is a considerable number of small holdings. These people have been put on the land and given these small holdings without any consideration in the form of money, such as will be given to the small holders under this clause, and now you are going to put on the land people who are not unemployed, and give them all sorts advantages which were denied to the small holders already on the land, and thus enable these people, with Government money, to compete with small holders who, out of their own resources, have taken up land.
The only reason I heard from our Front Bench against the omission of Clause 6 was that that dealt with unemployment, and His Majesty's Opposition do not wish to do anything which would hamper people in obtaining employment. Your Lordships should reject this clause because it does not deal with unemployment. As we go on, we keep putting in different people. First of all, in another place, this clause was put in—it was not in the original Bill. Now we are putting in ex-Service men. I do not know whom else we shall put in shortly, but it seems to me that the only people who will be ineligible for small holdings will be your Lordships. They evidently will not be put in by the present Government. I should like to know what my noble friend Lord Hailsham is going to do, because it is evident that it is no use my dividing the House if my noble and learned friend is going to vote against me. I am sorry that the Front Bench is denuded of his presence, but I suppose there is somebody there who can say what the Front Bench is going to do.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL STANHOPE: I can tell my noble friend quite briefly what we propose to do. We propose to vote for this clause. I have already said something about what was said by the Minister in another place when it was first introduced. I think all of us realise that this Bill may encourage men to expect far more small holdings than the most energetic Minister can provide. The noble Earl said that small holdings were no longer an experiment. That is true. We have had small holdings debates over a long period of years. I think it was twenty years ago, when we were discussing this subject, that every kind of reason was advanced why agricultural labourers should be entitled to receive small holdings. The late Lord Wemyss, I think it was, who then produced a Bill which showed the absurdity of that argument by applying the same principle to another trade, and providing small shops for shop assistants. I commend that to the noble Marquess on the Liberal Benches, because every argument for giving a man a small holding at the public expense applies equally to giving a small shop to raise the shop assistant into the position of a shopkeeper.
LORD STRACHIE: I should like to ask what is the history of this clause, because when the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons the clause was not in. This Bill is simply a Bill to relieve unemployment; we are constantly told by Ministers that it will be of great service in preventing unemployment. But Clause 7 deals with people who are in employment, and who will have the right to say: "We do not like our present employment, we should like a small holding instead." I have looked up the debate in the Standing Committee and there is not a single word about Clause 7. I asked about this and was informed that very often the Reports of the Standing Committees of the House of Commons are not full or very detailed. Perhaps this clause slipped in without any particular notice being taken of it. In this clause, men in full employment are to be treated as unemployed, which means the State will give them 30 s. a week or not more than £50 and also land and a grant of a large sum of money. We ought to have some explanation why the Government suddenly made this change.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We have passed one clause dealing with the unemployed and are now considering a clause dealing with agricultural labourers, but at no part of the Bill has it been explained to us how it is proposed to make these small holdings pay. The State is to spend some £1,200 per holding, which will mean from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 for 10,000 holdings; yet we have not been told by the noble Earl that he is going to agree to any limitation of those holdings. We know that during the past year many small holders have been absolutely ruined. Small holders in the Midlands growing fruit and small holders growing oats, potatoes and other crops have not been able to make those crops pay. Yet we are asked to agree to a Bill which will expend large sums on creating more small holdings, although we have not heard a word as to how they are going to pay. Not long ago the noble Lord spent a day describing the Agricultural Marketing Bill, but he will not suggest that that Bill is going to make small holdings pay. There was nothing in its provisions to alleviate the conditions of existing small holders and still less those of small holders to be put

807
on the land in the future. I hope the noble Earl will give us some indication how the Government are going to meet that aspect of the question, which is more important than any issue we have yet discussed.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hasten to reassure the Committee that I do not intend either to describe our Marketing Bill or to give the Committee a cross between a Second Reading speech and an agricultural lecture on "How to make small holdings pay." I have been asked about the history of this clause. It is quite simple and I have a copy here of the eleventh day's proceedings of Standing Committee B, in which the proceedings are reported. There were two Amendments placed on the Paper, one standing in the name of Miss Lloyd George, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Gray and others, and the second standing in the name of Viscount Wolmer, Sir Joseph Lamb and Sir Ernest Shepperson. They were exactly the same in their general effect, but, for pure reasons of drafting, the Minister decided to accept the Amendment put down in the name of the Liberal Party and Miss Lloyd George. I am sure that name will carry with it the loyal and enthusiastic support of the noble Lord. On the general merits of the clause, I do not think your Lordships would wish to be detained, as Lord Stanhope has dealt with them. It was inserted in another place with the agreement of all Parties. The Minister at the time warned the Committee that it would increase the financial burden of the Bill, but it was agreed by all Parties that it should be inserted. I hope your Lordships will leave it in the Bill in the form in which it now stands.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understand from the noble Earl that the reason why this clause was put into the Bill was that it was moved by Conservative members and by two so-called Liberal members, who really are identified with the Socialist Party. If the noble Earl thought he would gain anything by pointing out to me that the Amendment was put down by Conservative members, he is mistaken, because I have often found the Conservative Party to be mistaken, and I should not waive my own opinions merely because a Conservative member had thought
808
otherwise. I understand, however, that my noble friend Lord Hailsham is going to vote for the clause. I do not always agree with him and I think he very often makes mistakes, but I shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division inasmuch as there are a certain number of noble Lords who consider it their duty to go into the Lobby with him, no matter what the question at issue may be.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that this was one of the few cases where a Conservative was right.
Clause 8:
Power of Minister to provide demonstration holdings.
8.—(1) In any district in which small holdings are provided under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, the Minister shall have power to provide, equip, and manage, demonstration holdings, that is to say, small holdings to be used for the purpose of affording instructional demonstration to the persons for whom the small holdings have been provided as to the cultivation thereof.
(2) Any land acquired by the Minister for the purpose of demonstration holdings shall be held by the Minister on behalf of His Majesty and may be occupied and managed by such local authorities, societies or persons as the Minister may appoint as his agents for that purpose in accordance with such directions as may be given by him.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I beg to move, in sub-section (1), after "cultivation," to insert "and management."
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, after ("cultivation") insert ("and management").—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I accept the Amendment.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Power of Minister to dispose of or utilise land not required for unemployed persons or demonstration holdings.
9. If in the opinion of the Minister any land which he has acquired for the purposes of any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act is not needed for those purposes but is needed for the purposes of small holdings, he shall offer the land to the council of the county for the provision

809
of small holdings by the council, and, if that council do not acquire the land, he may himself provide small holdings thereon for any persons who desire to buy or lease them and satisfy him that they will themselves cultivate the holdings and are able to cultivate them properly.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to leave out "but is needed for the purposes of small holdings." The noble Lord said: The Amendment standing in my name is a fairly commonsense one. It has, however, surprised me to find that this Bill, not content with the small holdings already suggested, proposes a new class of small holdings here. One would have thought that the noble Earl would have been content. He has over 2,000,000 unemployed to choose from; he has 800,000 agricultural labourers to choose from; I do not know how many ex-Service men to choose from, and I think he has farmers' sons to choose from. Is not that enough? Why should he want to have a new class of small holders as well? I think we are going to have small holdings enough without the new class. If the Minister is going to get more land than will supply this vast number of applicants and he cannot fill the applications from the 3,000,000 men he has available, surely the best thing he can do is to sell the land and to get on with the work under the other clauses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 26, leave out from ("purposes") to ("he") in line 27.—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Lord is moving his Amendment under a slight misapprehension. This is purely a machinery clause to enable the Minister to make the best use possible of the land which may be in his possession after forming a settlement for unemployed small holders, but is land which is not actually suitable for that form of small holding. I think the noble Lord knows perfectly well that it is necessary very often to buy a whole estate; indeed, it is the only fair thing to the landowner very often. Probably the vast majority of the land on the estate is suitable for five-acre small holdings for the unemployed. But, there may well be fifty or a hundred acres left over at the end which are more suitable for a larger type of holding than that mentioned in Clause 6. I think it is only reasonable that the
810
Minister should be given power to make the best possible use of that land. It may well be that it is in a district where the Minister is going to provide small holdings for agricultural workers which will probably be of a larger type than those for the unemployed or than the small holdings under Clause 10.
It is obviously better business that he should use the fifty or hundred acres that are left over for that type of small holding rather than that he should be forced to sell it for possibly, at the moment, a not very favourable price and then have to buy other land which may for all we know be left over. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no deep-seated scheme or plot here to establish a new class of small holdings. It is purely a question of efficient administration. It is very much the question that we settled on Clause 3 when your Lordships decided not to omit the power to the Minister to let land in his possession as well as to sell it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: May I suggest for the sake of accuracy that the noble Earl is surely wrong in saying that this is not an independent class of small holding. It is definitely a new kind of small holding. Under this Bill he is going to provide a certain kind of small holding for the variegated collection referred to by my noble friend. Under previous Acts county councils have to provide, and are now providing, another kind of small holding. Here is an entirely new class of small holding to be provided by the Minister and not a gratuitous small holding as provided under Clause 6 of the Bill, nor is it a small holding taken up out of a man's resources as are those provided by the county council. It is a small holding provided by the Minister to the same type of man as takes up the small holding provided by the county council, yet without the advantage given under Clause 6, and yet he would be paying his rent to the Minister. For the sake of accuracy I say that that is what we are doing by this clause.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Lord is quite right. Whereas I said it could be a small holding for unemployed agricultural labourers or provided in default of the county council, it is perfectly true to say also that it can be a

811
small holding provided not in default of the county council. It is probably a very small matter and purely one of administration. It would be very unfortunate in many cases to compel the Minister to sell a small parcel of land possibly in the middle of a settlement because he could not make the best use of it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I call the attention of the noble Earl and my noble friend to the marginal note of Clause 9:
"Power of Minister to dispose of or utilise land not required for unemployed persons or demonstration holdings."
We have left out the clause dealing with demonstration holdings. Therefore, there must be some alteration of this clause to make it correspond with the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I rather agree with the noble Earl that it is administration, but I am a little puzzled in spite of his explanation. There is power under Clauses 6 and 7 to acquire land and create small holdings. There is existing, as my noble friend Lord Cranworth has pointed out, power to the county councils to create small holdings. Under Clause 10 there is power for the Minister under this Part of this Act to create small holdings where the county council does not do it. Now you have to deal with some land which the Minister has acquired for the purposes of this Bill—that is to say, either for Clauses 6, 7, 8 or 10, or whatever else it is—which is not needed for those purposes, and therefore is not needed for Clauses 6, 7, 8 or 10 and yet is needed for small holdings. What is that class of small holdings which is not small holdings provided in default of the county council, which is not provided by the county council itself or under Clause 6 for the unemployed, or for agricultural workers or ex-Service men under Clause 7? I do not quite understand why there should be the need for another class of small holdings.
If it is wanted for small holdings at all it seems to me that it must be wanted for one of those particular classes. If it is not wanted for small holdings at all what is the need for the clause? Is it not the right thing for the Minister to sell the land which is not wanted for
812
small holdings? As my noble friend Lord Banbury points out the marginal note says that the clause provides power for the Minister to dispose of or utilise that land. When we look to the operative part of the clause it does not give him any power to dispose of land except to the county council and only allows him to use it apparently for the purpose of settling some other class of small holders upon it. I should like to ask the noble Earl to look into the drafting and to see that he has power to sell the land to the county council—
EARL DE LA WARR: The power to sell land is in Clause 11.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know why that is not enough.
LORD CRANWORTH: I do not quite follow whether the noble Earl is going to accept or to look into the Amendment. I thought his explanation was not so very good.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think can accept it. The real point is that there are one or two small holdings which could be created by this method. The purpose of the clause is not to give the Minister power to create another kind of small holding, but simply to use up a small piece of land which has been left over from the creation of a group settlement and to use it in the most efficient way. An estate has been used for the purpose of five-acre holdings, but certain portions of it are not suitable for such holdings and it is, therefore, desirable that the Minister should have power to make the best economic use of that land.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps the noble Earl will look into it between now and the Report stage?
EARL DE LA WARR: I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power of Minister to act in default of county councils who have not provided sufficient small holdings.
10.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, if the Minister is satisfied that the council of any county have not provided sufficient small holdings to satisfy the demand of persons who desire to buy or lease and will themselves cultivate the holdings and are

813
able to cultivate them properly, the Minister shall have power, without prejudice to the powers and duties of the county council, to provide small holdings for such persons:
Provided that, before exercising his-powers under this section, the Minister shall give to the county council notice of his intention to do so and, if within such period as may be specified in the notice the council represent to him that in their opinion sufficient small holdings have been provided to satisfy the demand aforesaid, shall hold a local inquiry and the county council and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry thinks fit to allow shall be entitled to appear and be heard at the inquiry.
(2) The person appointed to hold a local inquiry for the purpose of this section shall ho a person to be agreed upon between the Minister and the county council or, in default of such agreement, a barrister of not less than ten years' standing to be nominated by the President of the Law Society, and, in relation to the inquiry, the person so appointed shall be deemed for the purposes of Section fifty-seven of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, to be an officer of the Ministry.
(3) Every county council shall furnish to the Minister such information as he may require for the purposes of this section.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out Clause 10. The noble Lord said: We have now reached the Amendment to leave out Clause 10. I suggest to your Lordships that to insert this clause is merely to overload the Bill. It has really nothing whatever to do with any other part of the measure. It can he left in or taken out without reference to any other part of the Bill. That is one of the reasons why I suggest it is overloading an already extremely heavy Bill. It is doing a great deal more than that. It is really gratuitously antagonising the county councils of this country. The county councils of this country, taking them on the whole, have most loyally endeavoured to meet the requirements of sundry Acts of Parliament in the matter of providing a sufficiency of small holdings. Some of these counties, such as the one in which I live, are suffering now severely from their complacence in this matter. Although it was never expected that small holders as a body would find themselves so grievously reduced in circumstances as they are now, yet that fact has occurred, and the fact of its occurrence is going to entail a very heavy loss upon the ratepayers, and the county councils of this kingdom are bound to regard the interests of their ratepayers as paramount.
It occurs to me as being grossly improper that at the present time county councillors should be subjected to additional pressure by the Government, to do what in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred they have already done in full and ample measure. It is only necessary for noble Lords to look on the Order Paper to see the names of noble Lords by whom the rejection of this clause is suggested, to realise at once that the County Councils' Association of the kingdom is unanimously against the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. I have said it is gratuitously antagonising the county councils of the country. Imagine the feelings of county councils, whether they have done their very best or only part of their best in establishing small holdings, having the minatory finger held up at them, and this clause put into an already overloaded Bill compelling the provision of small holdings when they, in their much greater wisdom, have been unable to extend those small holdings for reasons which are invariably sufficient. We shall be told by the Minister—we are always told by the Ministry of Agriculture, especially when it is occupied by members of Parties to which we do not belong—that there is in every county a long waiting list of small holders. That is perfectly true. There always is a long waiting list of would-be small holders. They are people who have not long since become small holders for the simple and sufficient reason that, when they came up against the competent committees who select the small holders, they have been rejected because they have not been thought likely to make a success of small holdings. If they had been put on the land, it would have been as disastrous to themselves as to the land and to the ratepayers who would have to support them. That is the sole reason why there are these long waiting lists.
It will be of no avail for the noble Earl to get up and tell me that there are long lists of small holders waiting to be served, and that we ought to serve them. I deliberately say, to use a vulgarism, that that cuts no ice, and it is of no use the noble Earl making that statement. I do not propose to delay the Committee any longer except to say that if this clause is added to the Bill every county council of the kingdom will be up against the Minister, and if it is

815
added he will get no help from the county councils. In that event he will get no support from them for any part of the Bill, nor will he deserve it. I beg to move that this clause be not passed.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 10.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD STRACHIE: As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said, the county councils are strongly opposed to this clause. It is true that my noble friend Lord Malmesbury and myself have, on behalf of the County Councils' Association, put down an Amendment for the rejection of this clause in the same way as Lord Hastings has done. It may interest the House to know the grounds upon which the County Councils' Association asks us to move in the matter of the rejection of this clause. The Agricultural Committee of the County Councils' Association passed a resolution, and the Executive Council of the Association agreed to it. This is the resolution:—
"That there is no justification for the proposal (see Clauses 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill) to empower the Minister to act in default of the county councils with regard to the provision of small holdings. The county authorities are not incapable of providing and managing holdings at least as economically and efficiently as can any Government Department, and it is reasonable to assume that more use would have been made of the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, had the county councils been able to provide holdings there under upon the same financial basis (i.e. at the sole cost of the Exchequer) as is now proposed in respect of such operations as the Minister may undertake in this connection. It is accordingly the considered view of the Council that the clauses in question should be deleted from the Bill and replaced by a clause to substitute 100 per cent. for 75 percent. in Section 2 (2) of the 1926 Act."
I think that shows what the opinion of the organised representative body of the County Councils' Association in England is. They entirely object to this clause. It is very unreasonable to declare that county councils would be in default in this matter. I think the Government cannot be aware of the way in which the county councils have met this very question of providing small holdings up to the time of the War, and even after the War. They have provided a certain number since the end of the War, although great difficulties have confronted them. The land has increased in value, the cost of equipment has doubled, and building is much more
816
expensive. In fact, the cost of everything provided by the county councils has doubled or trebled. There is no doubt that when things are better the county councils will provide more small holdings, or, if the Government will undertake any losses incurred in the provision of small holdings, then the county councils will, as they have done in the past, find a great number.
At the present moment the county councils have 26,733 small holders in the country, and an acreage of 431,961 acres. It cannot be said, therefore, that the county councils in the past have been in default in this matter. On the contrary, they have used every effort to provide these small holdings. The county councils are to be congratulated on what they have done, and a very great deal more would have been done if it had not meant that the county councils would have had to incur very considerable losses in putting men upon small holdings. But the Government could easily remedy that. They could easily induce the county councils to be more energetic in providing small holdings, if they would give the county councils an assurance that any loss upon their schemes will be made good. I can say on behalf of the County Councils' Association that if the Government will do that the county councils will increase the number of small holdings to the greatest possible extent.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: May I also on behalf of the County Councils' Association say a few words in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, with whom Lord Strachie and myself are associated in putting down an Amendment to reject this clause? I sincerely hope that your Lordships will be good enough to give your very serious consideration to the reasons which weigh with us in moving the rejection of Clause 10. As my noble friend Lord Strachie has said, the County Councils' Association have passed a resolution that there was no justification for the proposals contained in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 of this Bill to empower the Minister to act, in default of county councils, with regard to the provision of small holdings. The insertion of a clause of this sort implies that the county councils have not done their duty, and I must, on behalf of the county councils, solemnly protest against such an accusation.

817
In reply to a question that was asked in the House of Commons as recently as February, the Minister stated—and I think his reply was based on the latest return in his possession—that the county councils in England and Wales have purchased nearly 400,000 acres, and hired 72,000 acres and, as Lord Strachie has said, have over 26,000 holdings already established. I venture to think that this is a very good record for the counties. Only to-day I received a report, which I will not trouble your Lordships by quoting, from the land department of my own county council. I hardly dared to look at that report, because it gave a résumé of the different activities of that department, and it looked very much as if they were going to make an application for a larger staff. It all adds to the burden of the county. It is a curious thing that the report should have arrived at that moment, advocating further provision for small holdings. I have never heard of any case in my county or anywhere else where those who wanted holdings and allotments have not been provided with them.
It might be very easy to get up a case against the county councils because some shepherd of Dartmoor is alleged to be in need of an agricultural holding or is found to be unsuitable. This Bill disregards the county councils, which know the locality very much better than any Minister can know it. They are no longer to be the ultimate judge in this sort of case. In my own county we are a long way from a mining district, and yet there are a large number of unemployed miners in the area. Surely, if you are going to put these men on the land, you are not going to benefit the people for whom the county council is in the first place responsible. Since 1926, the county councils have had a very short time to prove how they have dealt with this question. Is it not a very retrograde step on the part of His Majesty's present Government to go behind the Act of 1926 before it has had a real opportunity of proving how it is being administered? In 1926 the county councils became the authority for providing small holdings; and this is only 1931. I do not think, considering the shortness of the time and the difficulties with which the county councils have been met, that anyone can accuse them of not fulfilling their duty to their utmost.
818
It must always be remembered—and I am sure this is a great inducement to county councils not to undertake this heavy financial responsibility—that they cannot receive more than 75 per cent. of the cost. If this clause is not struck out, there will be two kinds of tenant in the counties, and the county tenant will be under less favourable conditions than those holding direct from the Minister. We know that the great difficulty is the cost of equipment, though land has fallen in value. Surely the local authorities are the best judges of the price of land and equipment—better than the Minister, who is not on the spot. In my own county, we have established a farm school. Only the other day, the question was raised whether this school should be continued. When this came before the county council, they decided on its retention. For all these reasons I beg to support the proposal of my noble friend Lord Hastings to reject this clause.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think we had better face this matter quite frankly. It is quite true that there are many county councils doing their work admirably. No one with any experience of them can doubt it. But I think it is also true to say that there are others which are doing little or nothing. There are 52 counties in England and Wales, and it is not in human nature that they should all be the same. You have only to look at the actual record of figures in the report of the Land Department to form some estimate—I admit it requires considerable study—as to those which are acting and those which are not. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with the figures, but there are some county councils which are doing very active work while others are doing very little. You may ask for a particular instance. One was given by the Minister in the Committee stage in another place. He said that the Holland division of Lincolnshire had 449 approved applicants on its list who were passed as suitable for small holdings. The settlements they made in the year 1927 were nil; in the year 1923, nil; in the year 1929, one; and in the year 1930, nil. I do not think that anybody can say that that is a record which suggests that there is no need to give effect to this clause.

819
Cases do arise in which it is desirable, seeing that you want to make provision for small holdings, that those capable of using them should be specially assisted to obtain them. I believe there is unfortunately more evidence on this point than has yet been produced in this House, and that the case for endowing the Minister with these powers is very strong. The powers are limited in the proviso of the clause, which says:
"Provided that, before exercising his powers under this section, the Minister shall give fro the county council notice of his intention to do so and, if within such period as may be specified in the notice the council represent to him that in their opinion sufficient small holdings have been provided to satisfy the demand aforesaid, shall hold a local inquiry and the county council and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry thinks fit to allow shall be entitled to appear and be heard at the inquiry."
The Minister is therefore given the power of acting on his own initiative only where there is clear evidence of inability to act. I think the facts that I have mentioned show that there is a strong case for this clause.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope that my noble friends will press their Amendment, but I can only describe Lord Lothian's speech as being an example of the mistrust which the Liberal Party always has for a popularly elected body. What is proposed under this clause? It is proposed that the county council should be summoned before an inspector and put in the pillory. Is that a proper way to support local government and to show that we trust the electors? It is saying that the elector who has elected his county councillor is not sufficiently intelligent to be trusted to choose somebody to represent his opinion, but you must send down an inspector from London to see that the county council, which he has himself elected, should be forced to do something that he does not require. The noble Marquess quoted cases from Lincolnshire. I am not an inhabitant of Lincolnshire, but I do know a little about it, though not very much, and my impression is that, if he goes further into the matter, he will find that there are very many small holders in Lincolnshire who are at the present moment in the gravest-financial difficulties. The outstanding amount of rent unpaid to the county council at this moment is, I believe,
820
enormous. The county council wonders what to do about it. They do not like to take action against these men. Is it surprising that they should refuse to place any more small holders in that area?
After all, perhaps the noble Marquess and I have two different objects. I want small holdings established where they will succeed. The noble Marquess wants them established anywhere, whether they will succeed or not. That is perhaps where we differ. My view is that having properly elected local bodies in the country we should trust them. The local authorities know more about the matter and know the people, and to hold them up to public inquiry such as is proposed in the Bill, and to enable the Minister to override them because they do not do something which he thinks they should do, is entirely opposed to the principle of democratic government.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can never understand why individuals who belong to bodies that are fulfilling their duties, such as the county council to which Lord Hastings belongs, and the county council to which Lord Strachie belongs, should yet defend those county councils which have not fulfilled their duties. Lord Lothian has put it perfectly clearly to your Lordships. We all of us know, and it is no good denying the fact, and if your Lordships do not know it you may read it in the figures issued by the Ministry of Agriculture.
EARL STANHOPE: Will the noble Earl define what he means by not doing their duty?
EARL DE LA WARR: I have here figures of ten county councils who have provided no small holdings, of eleven with under a hundred—I am talking about acreage and not numbers—and of six county councils that have purchased over a thousand acres.
EARL STANHOPE: Does he imply that county councils are not fulfilling their duty if they refuse to make small holdings where they know they will not succeed?
EARL DE LA WARR: I consider that if there is a large number of applicants and those applicants have actually been approved and the county council is making no provision for them, there is a very proper case for an inquiry.
EARL STANHOPE: That is quite a different thing. The noble Earl accused the county councils of not doing their duty.
EARL DE LA WARR: I should say that there is a very strong case for an inquiry, and we should then ascertain which county is and which county is not doing its duty. It is quite impossible, speaking from this Bench, before an inquiry, to say which counties are and which counties are not doing their duty, but it is evident that there are a large number of counties in which there are a large number of approved but unsatisfied applicants. Your Lordships may say, to use the expression of the noble Lord opposite, that it does not cut much ice to quote figures, but the figures are there, and it is quite definite that there are counties in which a large number of approved applicants are still unable to get small holdings; in their districts.
LORD HASTINGS: They might congratulate themselves.
EARL DE LA WARR: The figures of the small holdings do not justify that remark, and I do not see why the noble Lord should have anything to do with this part of the Bill if those are his feelings—if he is opposed to small holdings in his own county. I do not think he is.
LORD HASTINGS: I object strongly to pressure being put upon county councils at the present time to extend their commitments for small holdings, when already the small holdings which exist are there at great risk to the ratepayers.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not understand the meaning of that intervention, because Clause 10 does not give the Minister power to go into a county and provide holdings at the county's expense. Clause 10 most carefully recognises the fact that in many cases the reason why the county councils have not provided small holdings is not deliberate neglect, but financial. For that reason we have not exercised the powers of default which are in the Small Holdings Act 'and in the Housing Act brought in by the late Government. This Bill does not give us power to go as far as those powers for which the Government of the noble Lord
822
opposite was responsible in the Housing Act. It recognises that it may perfectly well not be the fault of the county council. We are not concerned with the question of fault or blame, but with the fact that there is a certain need which requires to be satisfied, and we have endeavoured to take powers to act in a manner as little embarrassing to the county councils as possible. It is for that reason that we take power, if we deal with small holdings by default, to pay for them ourselves.
It has been suggested that if this clause is passed the county councils will be put against the Minister, and that presumably the supply of small holdings by county councils will be held up in the future. That is not the indication which existing figures show at all. Since this Bill was introduced, and since it has been evident that we were taking concurrent powers with the county council for the provision of small holding, schemes promulgated by county councils have very nearly doubled. That does not look as if the county councils were so embittered about the Bill that they were not going to do anything more in the provision of small holdings. I may say that the Government place very considerable importance upon this clause. We consider it vital that this very large number of unsatisfied applicants, many of whom have been approved as suitable—over two thousand have been approved—should be given a chance of obtaining holdings, which at the present moment their county councils are not prepared to grant. For this reason we hope your Lordships will decide to leave the clause in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord has not answered the question put to him by noble Lords on this side. He seems to imply that what he calls "approved" applicants must be satisfied, whether these will be economic holdings or not. We have asked him whether that is what he means—that if a long list of candidates are approved the county council is wanting in its duty if it does not accede to the demand.
EARL DE LA WARR: I answered the noble Marquess's question during my speech. I said if there was a very long list of approved applicants in a county, and that county was not making provision for any small holdings, I thought there would be a very strong case for saying

823
that that county was not carrying out its duties, and if there was any demand at all for an inquiry that inquiry should be granted in order to see whether it is really impossible—as the noble Marquess implied—to find any land whatsoever in the whole of that county suitable for small holdings.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not know what grounds the noble Earl has for making these suggestions against county councils. The clause to which my noble friends have taken objection is for the purpose of applying "ginger" to county councils. I am inclined to think that the county councils do their duty, and, if they are wanting in what the noble Lord desires, it is because they have realised that the holdings are holdings which cannot be carried on economically.
EARL DE LA WARR: The county council will have full opportunity of making its case before a public local inquiry.
LORD HASTINGS: But surely, is not that a grave indignity in itself?
LORD GAINFORD: I have been a member of the County Councils' Association in past years, and I have served for fifteen years on a county council, though I am not now a member; and as a Minister I have had some experience of county government and I have realised that the administrations of counties vary and are not the same. The county councils, through their Association, are a little too touchy about their powers being interfered with by the Government. It is necessary to have a general system of administration in connection with small holdings, so that the individuals in one county who desire to secure small holdings, and can be placed upon them, shall be treated in exactly the same way as the applicants in another county. There are cases where one county is defective in one direction or another. I do not say that they are not doing their duty, according to their lights, but their lights are perhaps not the best lights.
When I was President of the Board of Education there were counties which did not have a sufficient number of certificated teachers. They thought they had, but really they had not, and their education was quite inefficient, as compared with the education in an adjacent county. Again, one county would have enormously large classes, and another classes of quite
824
a reasonable size. It is necessary sometimes for a Government Department to draw the attention of the county authorities to these points in which they do not quite reach the proper standard. In connection with small holdings, it is necessary for a Government Department to be able to make representations to the county. The proposals in this clause are that these representations would be made to the county in the first instance, and, in the event of their not being attended to in a reasonable way, an inquiry would take place. It is not an unreasonable proposal, and therefore, although I have supported my noble friends on many of their previous Amendments, I feel justified in supporting the clause in this case.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I should like to say a word, in support of the clause, and I should like to do so as one who believes in our system of local government, but who, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, has had to do with administration from the centre in Whitehall. I agree with him entirely that, whereas most of the elected authorities are very efficient, one cannot say that they all have the same standard of efficiency, or the same progressive outlook. I have in my hand a list showing the area of land hired and the total area of land owned by each county for the purpose of small holdings, and the number of small holders in each county. I think it is quite obvious that the standard of some counties is below the standard of the best. If that is the case, the question is whether anything should be done to provide the people who want small holdings in the areas which are not up to standard. We all know perfectly well, however much we may believe in elected authorities, that the electors sometimes make mistakes in the people whom they put into power. The result of that may be that during a period of years you may have in power people who are definitely opposed to small holdings, or who do not want to carry them out efficiently. And I think that in those cases—a limited number of cases only, I hope—there should be a power in some other authority to step in and provide the small holdings which may be required.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 60.
Resolved in the negative and Clause 10 disagreed to accordingly.
[The sitting was suspended at five minutes past eight o'clock and resumed at half past nine o'clock.]
Clause 11:
Application of Small Holdings and Allotments Acts to powers of Minister.
11. For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred on him by the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, the Minister shall have the like powers as may be exercised by a county council with respect to small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, and the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by a county council and to small holdings provided by a county council shall apply with the necessary adaptations to the acquisition, use and disposal of land by the Minister and to small holdings provided by him under this Part of this Act, but subject to the modifications that the Minister may sell, or let for other purposes any land acquired by him for small holdings which is in his opinion not needed for the purposes of small holdings, or exchange any such land for land more suitable for small holdings, and may pay or receive money for equality of exchange, and paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of Section twelve of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, shall not apply with respect to any such land.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD had given Notice to move, after "the Minister shall," to in-
826
sert "subject as in this section provided." The noble Lord said: As I explained before I shall move on the time and on the money, but not on the amount of land. Therefore I am not moving this Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out "may sell or let for other purposes" and insert "shall offer." The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Clinton, who is unavoidably absent, has asked me to request your Lordships to permit me to move the Amendment that stands in his name. It will be obvious, I think, that it is almost impossible to address your Lordships on the subject of this Amendment without making reference to the Amendment to line 37 on page 14, as the two hold together. It might be convenient if I read to your Lordships how the clause will stand if these Amendments are accepted. It will run in this way:—
".…the Minister shall offer any land acquired by him for small holdings which is in his opinion not needed for the purpose of small holdings to the council of the county for the provision of small holdings and if that council do not acquire the land, sell the said land for purposes prescribed by regulations under this Part of the Act.…"
The purpose of the Amendment is one to which the noble Earl objected earlier

827
in the debate; that is of inducing the Minister not to hold but to part with any land which he has acquired for the purposes specified in the Bill and which he finds surplus to his requirements. Lord Clinton's object was to provide statutory inducements to the Minister to part with that land rather than to hold it or to dispose of it in the way prescribed by the Bill. I think there is nothing I can add to what I have said already except to emphasise the fact that this is a matter of principle, and that those of your Lordships who object to the Minister holding land which is surplus to the immediate requirements of the Act of Parliament concerned will, of course, support the Amendment, and those who think there is no objection to his holding such land will not support it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 35, leave out ("may sell or let for other purposes") and insert ("shall offer").—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Lord is quite right in saying that this is a matter of principle.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes.
EARL DE LA WARR: From one point of view. If we look at it from that point of view, we have to realise that the principle has already been discussed by your Lordships on Clause 3 with regard to letting and on Clause 9 just before the adjournment for dinner. That principle is whether you shall allow-any prejudices which you may possess against the Minister holding property to persuade you to insert an Amendment which shall make it obligatory on the Minister to sell property, it may be at a loss, when it is possible that he might be able to let it on a good lease. The point is, as I said on Clause 9, that it is really almost obligatory on a Minister when he is buying a large amount of property for the purpose of a small holdings settlement to buy an estate. I think we are all agreed that the large small holding is probably on the whole a better system of settlement than a lot of separate units. It is always obligatory on him to buy an estate and frequently there are other parcels of land—that we discussed on Clause 9—or possibly licensed premises, a mansion house, or perhaps an
828
area of woodland, which he has had to take over, which really is not essential to the scheme. The question is whether we shall compel him by Statute to dispose of those properties.
From one point of view I agree with the noble Lord that it is a matter of principle, but from another point of view I suggest we should not treat it as a matter of principle. It is really a matter of expediency. The question is whether the Exchequer will most benefit from the Minister selling that property or from his letting it, and it will be the duty of the Minister obviously to make the best bargain he can. If he is offered a good sale and there is nobody prepared to give him a good rent, then obviously it is his duty to sell. If on the other hand—I think the noble Lord will agree here—he is offered a good rent, his duty towards the Exchequer obviously is to accept that good rent rather than risk possibly a bad sale, and very often a forced sale does mean a bad price for property. I hope purely on grounds of expediency, and not on the ground of principle, the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl has answered that part of the Amendment which sought to debar the Minister from letting, which is a point already dealt with in debate, and I did not press it when I moved the Amendment. But he has not answered that part which sought to cut out the words "for other purposes." If I have not made myself clear, I should like to do so. Under the wording of this clause it would be possible for the Minister to dispose of that land in a fashion which would undoubtedly destroy the amenity of the remainder of the estate, part of which he had bought. There is nothing in this clause to prevent the Minister from selling the land which is surplus to his own requirements to a factory, which would destroy the amenity of the whole of the surrounding property. It is conceivable that the Minister, without any kind of restriction whatever, would feel himself almost obliged, under an obligation to the Treasury, to dispose of the land to the best advantage, and whereas he bought the land for one specific purpose, he is under no restriction as to how he shall sell it. It might react with great unfairness to the owners of neighbouring

829
properties. The words "other purposes" have not been replied to by the noble Earl.
EARL STANHOPE: I think there is something in what my noble friend says, but, after all, the Minister might sell for any purposes. He might sell it for a factory just as well as let it for a factory. I think there is a good deal in what the noble Earl opposite said. In cases where the Minister buys a whole property it would be a fairly large estate, and there would be woodlands and various things of that kind, which certainly could not be used for small holdings, and would, therefore, have to be used for other purposes. In the case of sale, if it was known by Act of Parliament the Minister was compelled to sell, in effect that becomes a forced sale and therefore the Minister—in effect the public—would not get the price that might have been got if it was known the Minister could use it for other purposes—letting it and so on. I think we on this side of the House feel very strongly about the Minister getting property in his own possession and using it for his own purpose. We agree with the Government that it may be right in some cases that the Minister should have the right to let, but it is really already provided in the Bill that he should have to let or dispose of property in this way. I venture to hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think the point is one that is worth troubling your Lordships to go to a Division on, and, with your Lordships' leave, I would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move to leave out "other purposes' and to insert "purposes proscribed in regulations under this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: My Amendment has been more than covered by that which we have just been discussing.
LORD HASTINGS: The next Amendment that stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, to insert certain new-words has already been covered by a previous Amendment, and therefore I shall not move it on his behalf. This will not debar me from moving the next Amendment that stands in his name.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that in all cases in which the Minister proposes to acquire under this section lands an order for the acquisition of which by a county council would under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts require to be confirmed or made by the Minister and in which any objection made to the order for the compulsory acquisition of the land has not been withdrawn, the Minister shall not acquire the land compulsorily unless authorised to do so by means of a Provisional Order made by him and confirmed by Parliament, and for that purpose the Minister may submit a Bill to Parliament for the confirmation of any such Provisional Order. If while any such Bill is pending in either House of Parliament a Petition, is presented against the Provisional Order the Bill so far as it relates to the Provisional Order may be referred to a Select Committee and a Petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of a Bill for a Special Act."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton and, if you will allow me, I wish to move it in his name. This was a matter that was debated in another place, and I understood that the Minister of Agriculture then recognised the difficulties which the clause presented and rather gave an undertaking that he would propose words to meet them. We have not received any Amendment, but my noble friend Lord Clinton has put this down. The facts are that the object of the proviso is to give the landowner a right of appeal against the decision of the Minister to purchase land otherwise than by agreement. Under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 and 1926, an order by the county council for this purpose is of no effect unless confirmed by the Minister after public inquiry. Under Clause 11 of the present Bill, the Minister is given the same powers as are exercised by the county councils, and consequently there is no appeal except from the Minister to the Minister.
Some form of appeal is required, and it is proposed that, on objection made, the compulsory power shall not be exercised save by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament. That does not seem unreasonable. It asks that the Minister should not appeal from himself to himself, which does not provide very much protection to the subject. This proviso would give the subject some form of appeal from the Minister to some other

831
person. This is really a very important matter. It does not affect the operation of the Bill in any way, but it may easily affect the rights of the subject, and legislation ought to provide protection by way of appeal. This seems to provide it in a reasonable way, and I very much hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 42, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord has stated the case very clearly. The position is that, under the existing Small Holding and Allotment Acts, it is the Minister who approves the county council's act. Under this clause the Minister will have the powers of the county council, and he will have to approve of his own act. But I do not think the matter really ends there. The trouble is that, if you provide the type of machinery suggested in this Amendment—namely, a Provisional Order—it will mean a very long, tedious and expensive procedure, as your Lordships know.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, it is.
EARL DE LA WARR: And it has very many objections, but I will be frank with your Lordships. Recognising the position, we have tried to think of some alternative method and have been quite unable to do so. The question is whether we should be satisfied with the machinery that is in the existing Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, which provides for a public local inquiry before which the Minister by his representative will have to appear and justify himself, or whether in the interest of what I might call rather abstract and technical justice we should provide for the more cumbersome machinery which is in this Amendment. I suggest really that this power, as between the county council and the Minister, has been in operation for a great many years—something like twenty-two years—and there has never been any complaint about the powers as exercised by the Minister on an appeal against the county council.
LORD HASTINGS: Quite.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is true that that is not a complete parallel, but from the year 1922 we have a complete parallel, because at that time the
832
Minister had the same powers virtually as are propounded in this Bill, and during those years although there was considerable activity there was no complaint whatever. In fact I can go further and say that the powers actually never had to be operated. You may say that that is an example which is not of very much value, but I for one think it shows what lies behind these compulsory powers, and that the very fact of their existing in a readily usable form, shows that they are not likely to be used. Those who have studied the history of this matter recognise that the majority of these matters in dispute are not matters of willingness or of neglect to take action, but are really questions of price, and questions of disagreement on price are not questions justifying the machinery of a Provisional Order. I submit that the machinery of arbitration and public local inquiry is in these circumstances in fact quite sufficient, and for that reason I would ask your Lordships seriously to consider not pressing this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: On the question of price, in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act I think there is an appeal either to the police court or to the county court.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the appeal is to the official arbitrator.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Having that example surely we might follow it in this case and not make an aggrieved party appeal from the Minister to the Minister.
EARL DE LA WARR: If on a question of that kind we could find a method to which we could all agree I should be perfectly willing to discuss it on Report. What I am not willing to do is to insert this cumbersome machinery when we are mainly dealing with questions of price. I am quite prepared to give an assurance to the noble Lord, particularly on this question of price, that if he feels there is another method of dealing with the matter we will discuss it on Report.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would suggest that the noble Earl should go a little further. As I understand, Lord Hastings puts forward the case that here is a power given to the Minister, without any appeal except to the Minister himself, which, of course, is no appeal at

833
all. He is, therefore, in a sense, the judge in his own cause. The noble Earl says, "That is quite true, and we recognise that that is an inconvenient case, and may be productive of hardship." "But," he says, "although we have done our best, we cannot think of a satisfactory method, and this one is a clumsy one." I am not sure that Lord Hastings would differ from the view that this is rather a clumsy method, but he has not been able to think of a better one. The difference between the two sides, therefore, is that, both being agreed that there is an inconvenience and a possible hardship, one thinks it better to have a clumsy method than none at all, and the other thinks it better to face the inconvenience, and hope it will not happen, because the method is clumsy.
Perhaps it is a legal instinct, but I very much dislike the feeling that we may be inflicting a hardship, or indeed an injustice, on an individual subject, and that we will not, take any steps to remedy it because the steps would be inconvenient. It seems to me that we ought not to allow the matter to rest where it is without some provision for an appeal. If the noble Earl and those advising him are stimulated by the consciousness that there must be some form of appeal, and that, if no better form can be devised, then we shall have to fall back upon this, they should then, between now and Report, be able to find some suggestion, and possibly my noble friend might see fit to withdraw his Amendment for the lime being, on the distinct intimation that, unless some alternative plan is brought forward by the Government, he would be compelled to move it again on Report.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will certainly say that we will give the most earnest consideration to this problem. Perhaps I did not stress sufficiently the importance we attach to the public local inquiry. The noble and learned Viscount said there was no appeal at all, but I think your Lordships will realise that a public local inquiry in opposition to the view of the Minister is a very severe demand. I would ask your Lordships to remember the difficulty the Minister would be in if he went against a local inquiry unless he were able to make out his case.
LORD BAYFORD: I should like to have this made clear: if there is a difference of opinion, there is a public local inquiry, and also an arbitrator to fix the price—is not that so?
EARL DE LA WARR: That is the position.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl will have realised from my first remark that it is not felt that there is likely to be a stream of grievances against the decision of the Minister. If there were only one a year or one a decade it would still be a sufficient reason for inserting into a Statute protection for the subject. It cannot be right that there should be no appeal from the Minister except to the Minister, and, cumbersome as this machinery is, it is preferable to no procedure for appeal at all. I am perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment, subject not only to the noble Earl's consideration, but to his production of some alternative agreeable to the House. It is a matter of principle. Something has to be inserted in the Bill, and, if we cannot find anything better than what is now suggested, it will have to be the proposal on the Amendment Paper.
EARL LA WARR: The noble Lord is free to take what action he likes on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 11. The noble Earl said: When I put this Amendment down many of my friends and myself were under the impression that it applied to the powers of a Minister which he would require under Clause 10. Clause 10 has now gone and I understand that the powers, which the Minister is seeking under Clause 11, apply to his activities in other parts of the Bill and that, if this clause were deleted, he would have no power to carry out his duties. I therefore do not move my Amendment.
Clause 11 agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE had given Notice to move to insert the following new clause after Clause 11:
". Empower the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, to accept land under paragraph 56, Part III, Finance Act (1909–

835
1910), in satisfaction of Estate Duty, Settlement Estate Duty, or Succession Duty."
The noble Duke said: In rising to move this clause, I would draw attention to a misprint in the first line. It should read "empower the Minister" and not "empower the directors" because, of course, there are no directors. The connection of this clause with the Bill may not be very obvious, but I shall endeavour to show that it has a very close connection. Earl De La Warr said this afternoon that he anticipated that the Government would take some time to find and to acquire their land. If my new clause is accepted, he will not have to wait very long before he gets all the land he wants.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps I can be of assistance to the noble Duke by telling him that it is perfectly possible for this to be done under the existing law and that this clause is not necessary.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: If it can be done already without an Amendment, I am quite ready not to move.
Clause 12:
Power to arrange for management by local authorities of small holdings and allotments provided by Minister or for the transfer thereof to such authorities.
12.—(1) Any small holdings or allotments provided by the Minister and any land acquired by him for the purposes of small holdings or allotments in exercise of the powers conferred on him by this Part of this Act may, by arrangement between him and the local authority, be either—

(a) controlled and managed by the authority as agents for the Minister; or

(b) transferred to the authority on such terms as may be agreed between the Minister and the authority and approved by the Treasury.

(2) Any small holdings, allotments, or land transferred to a local authority under this section shall be deemed to have been acquired by the authority under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts.
(3) In this section the expression "local authority" means, in relation to a small holding or to land acquired for a small holding, the council of the county, and, in relation to any allotment or to land acquired for allotments, the council of the borough, urban district, or parish or any county council acting in default of such a council as aforesaid.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "this Part of this Act" to insert "(a)." The noble Lord said: I have several Amendments which
836
deal in principle with the same subject. The Amendment to insert "(a)" hangs together with the Amendments at the bottom of the same page and belongs to what I may call the weaker dose, whereas the Amendment to leave out "may" and insert "shall" belongs to the stronger dose of the same physic. I hope that the noble Earl will this time swallow this physic gracefully and not dispose of it again when he comes to answer the question on the next clause. There is nothing the Government seem so shy of as the popularly elected assembly, in particular the county council. Both these Amendments suggest that the county councils are the best bodies to work these small holdings when they are created. There is nothing in either Amendment antagonistic to the principle of small holdings being created. These Amendments merely deal with the working of those small holdings after they have been created.
In my view the only logical thing to do is to have one small holdings body working the small holdings in each county. Small holdings, let us say, for the people engaged in dairying in the county of X do not differ greatly in character one from the other. X is a dairying county, and the small holdings are of that nature. The same organiser, the same instructor and so on, with the same staff can more adequately deal with all the small holdings in the county than two experts possibly preaching different methods of rationing cattle for milk. Not only is it better probably for the small holders that they should have one set of officials, but it puts at their disposal the whole organisation of the county council agricultural committee. It also prevents the creation of a number of new officials who emanate from Whitehall but erupt in the counties. Why special officials should be created when there is already the cadre and the whole staff established in the county passes my comprehension.
One word as to another difficulty which I might have because the dose to leave out "may" and insert "shall" tells the county council to take over the working of small holdings. It may be said by my noble friend Lord Bayford that he objects to the county councils being forced to do the dirty work of the Ministry. With great respect, I think that would not be the correct attitude

837
for the county councils to adopt. It has already been pointed out in these debates that the county councils have never refused, or shown any signs of refusing to carry out what has been laid down as a national policy. If it is made clear to them when the Bill is passed that the national policy is to extend small holdings on these lines I am perfectly certain that they will all co-operate. If they do not co-operate I think they will be at fault. To say, "We do not like the principle of the Bill as a county council and, therefore, we will not play" is, to my mind, a little infra dig., and a little below the level which county councils have always attained. I sincerely hope I shall not be attacked from any quarter on those lines. After again pointing out that to leave out "may" and insert "shall" is the most logical way of treating the principle at stake, I should like to elicit from the noble Earl whether he is prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 1, after ("Act") insert ("a").—(Lord Phillimore.)
EARL DE LA WARR: As the noble Lord has said, the effect of his Amendments is to convert Clause 12 from a voluntary agreement between the Minister and the county into a compulsory provision. The first thing that strikes me, and I say this in spite of the fact that the noble Lord most sincerely hoped that it would not be said, is his total disregard for the wishes of the county council. As far as we have had any discussion with the county councils or their representatives, we have certainly gathered that they have not the slightest desire to be made in any way responsible for the policy of the "unemployed" small holdings. I think a great number of them will be prepared to assist us by their advice, and possibly even by assistance in local administration. But they certainly show not the slightest desire to have any responsibility for the policy of setting them up, or for the finance. It is all very well the noble Lord saying that if they do not want to co-operate they are at fault, but we are dealing with human institutions, with human desires, and if the county councils are not very anxious to carry on these works I think it very much better to leave things as they are.
838
The main form of compulsion here is on the Minister. The Minister is to be compelled. No matter what he thinks about it, although he is responsible for the whole policy of finance, although it is his policy that has set them up, he has, if the county council so desire, to hand over the holdings to them. Let us consider this position. Let us suppose the Minister sets up two settlements in a county, and it becomes obvious from near the beginning that in one case the settlement is going to be successful, and in the other it is going to be less successful. Under this clause it would be possible for the county council to say: "We are going to take over the settlement, but we are only going to act as agents for you. We will assume responsibility for the one that is doing well, but we are going to assume no responsibility for the other." That is ridiculous. If this is the policy of the Minister, and if it is the national policy, surely it is for the Minister to have the responsibility. If, as a result of discussions with county councils and local authorities, it is found to be easier for the actual administration to be carried out locally, then let them come to a purely voluntary arrangement.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Is the noble Earl sure he is correct on that point—that it leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the county council to decide which leg they will stand on? The clause tells us that it will be by arrangement between him, the Minister, and the local authority, so the Minister also is a party to any arrangement.
EARL DE LA WARR: I certainly understood that the word "shall" was displacing the word "may," and that the intention therefore of the Amendment was to make it compulsory on the Minister rather than voluntary. That is my interpretation of those words, and it is the interpretation of my legal advisers.
LORD PHILLIMORE: But he can come to an arrangement on one of those two legs.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am suggesting we might have the position reduced to the absurd by the county council deciding to stand on two legs, accept full responsibility for a settlement that is going to be prosperous, but only accept

839
the responsibility of agency in another case. I think your Lordships will agree that is absurd.
LORD BAYFORD: To the mover of the Amendment, I can only say exactly what the noble Lord said I should say, and that is I think the county councils would resent it if the Ministry pounced on a county council that was trying to get all the land that it possibly could for small holdings in its own county. The settling of "foreigners" from another county will be resented, but it will be adding insult to injury if, after doing that, the Ministry says that the county council must take over these small holdings, with the immigrants from other counties, and must be responsible for their management. That would be very much resented by the county councils. Simply as a matter of drafting and legal interpretation, I do not see how you can say that the Minister "shall" do a thing by arrangement between him and the local authority. Suppose the local authority objects, how are you going to enforce it? There is no arrangement possible.
EARL STANHOPE: I only rise to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Bayford. I admit frankly that I look forward to the day when the county council will be managing and responsible for these small holdings, but I think that day will arrive all the quicker if we do not force matters. As I have indicated earlier, I am one of those who believe in trusting local authorities rather than ordering them about, and I rejoice to see that the noble Earl opposite has at last come round to my opinion. I hope he will continue in that state of mind for the rest of the debate.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am sorry to say that I could not hear what the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said, but I would point out that under this Amendment the county council is not forced to come in. It acts only if it wishes. That meets the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, and also disposes of the argument borrowed from me by the noble Earl opposite—the only argument brought forward against my Amendment. I should like, therefore, to move the first of my two Amendments to line 1, those that follow in my name being consequential Amendments, of which the principal
840
is to add the words: "on request by the authority made in accordance with regulations … shall be."
EARL DE LA WARR: I must confess to feeling very confused by all this, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that, if he wants a voluntary arrangement, that is what we have drafted in the clause as it stands. It would be very much better to leave it as it is instead of trying to redraft it on our feet.
LORD PHILLIMORE: It has not that effect. The effect of my Amendment is that, if the council wish it, they act for the Minister. If they do not wish to do so, they do not, whereas the Bill as it stands does not leave it in the hands of the council—a very distinct difference.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (1), after "may," to insert "be controlled and managed by a Land Settlement Board of independent persons possessed of agricultural, business and scientific experience appointed by him, or." The noble Marquess said: This is to make it possible for the Minister to depute the management of a developed or developing small holdings estate to an independent body. It does not restrict in any way the power to negotiate arangements with the county council. In my view, if this programme succeeds and if any large development takes place, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Minister are not the desirable parties to administer it. I do not think that the handling of a very large administrative function of this kind by the Minister is desirable, nor is a Ministerial bureaucratic body the ideal one for the purpose. In the second place, I think that the existence of a large number of holdings of this kind, nationally managed, does open the way to a very great deal of undesirable pressure, and I think both in the interest of the Minister, who does not want to be subjected to this pressure, and in the interests of the administration of the scheme, it is far better to make it possible to entrust it to a body of men independent, experienced and not subject to that kind of pressure.
In the third place I think that if you are going to make a success of a large small holdings scheme of this kind you are far more likely to do so by entrust-

841
ing it to well-selected men, who will stand or fall by the success that they achieve. The case of the Forestry Commissioners may appeal to some of your Lordships and the precedent of the London traffic is another, and therefore I hope that this Amendment will receive support from both sides. It is solely designed to make it permissive for the Minister to entrust the management of the scheme to an outside body, free from political influence, which will stand or fall by its success in working the scheme. I hope the Government will feel their way to give it a favourable answer.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 1, after ("may") insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
EARL STANHOPE: I had hoped that the noble Marquess was going to explain to the Committee whether the body in question would consist of paid or unpaid members, because after all that is a matter which I think requires some explanation. Their duties would undoubtedly be whole-time duties, and it appears to me you would have to have a considerable number of them to effect their purpose. Personally, I, and I think many of those who sit on this side, are opposed to this Amendment, and I will tell your Lordships why. In the first place we have already the county councils responsible for small holdings, and a certain number of small holdings will inevitably come under the Minister. It is now proposed to set up a third body, with a third set of officials. Surely we have enough officials already in this country, and we have quite sufficient to pay for them, without having yet a third body with all the scales of salaries running through a completely independent body.
Further, I think many of us have this feeling, that although we frankly admit that the management of this large number of small holdings is going to be a heavy burden upon the Minister, we rather rejoice at that, because it will encourage him to hand over the management to the proper body, the local authority, in the shape of the county council. I think most of us feel that there are quite enough bodies of this kind already in the country. We may have been justified in the past in setting up some of these independent bodies, like the Port
842
of London Authority or the Electricity Commissioners. They were there for a special purpose—either to run a particular business, in a particular and comparatively small area, or to co-ordinate such things as electric current throughout the country. Here is an entirely different question. We all agree that small holdings will differ in size, type, and character, and therefore to have one central body to run them is, if anything, likely rather to crystallize them into one particular kind instead of giving them a real chance of success by adapting them to local conditions. For all these reasons we hope that nothing will be put in the way of seeing that small holdings are eventually handed over by the Minister to the county councils.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am glad the noble Earl rose to speak before I did, because one cannot help feeling that, before it is possible to set up a Commission of this type, it really is necessary to have a pretty well unanimous opinion among the Parties in favour of it. Indeed, I think that is the purpose of handing over a matter of this kind to a Commission—that you should divorce the management from the sphere of Party control. As the noble Earl has spoken for his Party, it certainly looks as if it would be difficult to arrange this. At the same time, I cannot help feeling friendly towards this Amendment, because it does provide for an independent control of a very complicated administrative machinery, and it does also provide machinery for giving a permanent basis to small holding developments in this country. On the other hand, there is no doubt that this Amendment as it stands certainly could not be accepted, and I do not think the matter has really been sufficiently thought out. If, between now and Report, or a later stage of the Bill, it were possible to have any discussion on this matter among the various Parties, certainly from this side of the House we should be prepared to discuss the matter in a very friendly way. But it would require a certain amount of agreement among all Parties before we could agree to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had an Amendment on the Paper, to insert the following new clause after Clause 12:

843
"Subsection (2) of Section two of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, shall have effect as if the words 'one hundred per cent.' were therein substituted for the words 'seventy-five per cent.' and the said subsection shall be read and construed accordingly."
The noble Earl said: When this clause was put on the Paper it was for the protection of the county councils, who, at an annual meeting the other day, unanimously passed a resolution resisting the placing of further burdens on them by Parliament. I do not, however, intend to move the Amendment.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Power of Minister to provide allotments not exceeding one acre fur unemployed persons.
14.—(1) The Minister shall have power, without prejudice to the powers and duties of the council of any borough, urban district, or parish, or of any county council acting in default of such a council as aforesaid, to provide allotments not exceeding one acre in extent for unemployed persons, and for that purpose the Minister shall have the like powers as may be exercised by any such council with respect to allotments under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, and the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by any such council and to allotments provided by any such council (except subsections (1) and (2) of Section sixteen of the Allotments Act, 1922, and Section four of the Allotments Act, 1925), shall apply with the necessary adaptations to the acquisition, use and disposal of land by the Minister and to allotments provided by him under this section, but subject to the modifications that the Minister may sell or let for other purposes any land acquired by him for allotments which is in his opinion not needed for the purposes of allotments, or exchange any such land for land more suitable for allotments, and may pay or receive money for equality of exchange, and Section thirty-two of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and Section eight of the Allotments Act, 1925, shall not apply with respect to any such land.
(2) The powers conferred on the Minister by the last foregoing subsection shall include power to provide allotment gardens for persons who are not in full time employment as well as for those who are wholly unemployed.
(5) Any of the powers and duties conferred on the Minister by this section, except the power of acquiring land or of disposing of it otherwise than for use as allotments, may, by arrangement between him and the council of any county, or of any borough, urban district or parish, or with any society having as its object or one of its objects the provision or the profitable working of allotments, he exercised and per-
844
formed by the council or society as agents for the Minister.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "allotments not exceeding one acre in extent" and insert "allotment gardens." The noble Lord said: The purpose of putting down this Amendment is two-fold and both reasons are of real importance both to allotment holders and to the Committee. The first reason is that a curious confusion appears to have existed in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture as to what will happen to the individual who takes an allotment not exceeding one acre in extent. The Minister appears to have imagined in the early stages that he was dealing with allotment gardens and not with allotments not exceeding one acre, although there is a great difference between them. On Thursday, December 4, explaining the constitution of the Central Allotments Committee, he said:
"The Committee has been set up for the following purposes:—(1) to promote generally the cultivation of allotment gardens by unemployed persons or persons not in full time employment."
At a much later date he was asked a very pertinent question in the House of Commons on March 23, which was as follows:
"Mr. Thomas Lewis asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will circularise all county councils to make it clear that no men who cultivate allotments under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill will be deprived of their unemployment insurance benefit?
"The Minister of Agriculture (Dr. Addison): Circulars have already been issued to the allotment authorities by the Central Allotments Committee, calling attention to the point to which my hon. friend refers. I am sending him a copy of the most recent circular from which he will see that special prominence is given to the fact that unemployment benefit will not be affected by the cultivation of an allotment garden. I hope that my hon. friend's question and my answer will receive the greatest publicity."
Here is the circular, which says:
"If you are unemployed, or working part time, why not cultivate an allotment garden? You can grow fresh vegetables for your family and have an interesting and healthy occupation. Your unemployment benefit will not be affected provided you remain ready to accept any offer of suitable employment"
That might be regarded as correct if the words of the Bill had confined them-

845
selves to the expression "allotment gardens," but the phrase in the Bill is "allotments not exceeding one acre in extent." When an individual takes an allotment not exceeding one acre in extent he enters in any case on whole-time employment for himself, and it would be for the properly constituted authorities to say whether or not he is still entitled to benefit. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he would be declared ineligible for benefit. He would no longer be employed on a part-time job growing vegetables for himself and his family; he would be to all intents and purposes on whole time work. So far as those well qualified to judge can do so, an allotment holder who takes up an allotment of not more than an acre would not be entitled to any unemployment benefit.
EARL DE LA WARR: By whom was the circular issued? By the Department?
LORD HASTINGS: By the Central Allotments Committee, Princes House, Kingsway, W.C.2. The noble Earl is welcome to look at it. While he is seeking advice outside I shall proceed to develop the second part of the case. The noble Lord will realise that I am as keenly anxious as he is for the establishment of allotment gardens on a large scale. He will realise that when an individual takes up an allotment as large as one acre he obviously ceases merely to provide for himself and his family. Under the Allotments Act, 1922, the definition of allotment garden is made perfectly clear. It says in Section 22 (no doubt the noble Earl is just as familiar with it as I am)—
"The expression 'allotment garden' means an allotment not exceeding forty poles in extent which is wholly or mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable or fruit crops for consumption by himself or his family."
For a number of years that has been understood to be the definition of "allotment garden." It has never been altered by any other Act of Parliament and is a perfectly reasonable definition.
When a man starts to cultivate with his own hands or with the aid of his children an allotment of the size of an acre, it ceases merely to fulfil the function of being an allotment for the production of foodstuffs for his family
846
and himself. He becomes a market gardener. Directly he becomes a market gardener he clearly comes into competition with market gardeners who are already in situ and who are working for their living. They acquired their market gardens by the sweat of their brows and the savings they have been able to put into their own trouser pockets. By their own hard work they have done what they have done and nobody else has helped them. When you establish allotment holders of an acre with the aid of State subsidies, is it right to put them into direct competition with market gardeners who have acquired their position by their own hard work?
This is felt somewhat strongly by associations of allotment holders up and down England. They feel that if the whole clause touching allotments had been confined to allotment gardens as defined in the Act of 1922 they would have had no grievance at all. If allotments are to be spread in the area of the market gardens (which is what an allotment of one acre is) they have a very definite grievance because the market gardeners are asked to compete with State-aided market gardeners and that, surely, must be an improper position to place them in. There is only a limited number of areas in England where the cultivation of market gardens and allotments of one acre can be made to pay. You must put these people into that area. You can choose the whole length and breadth of England if you put down allotments of only 40 poles. If you create market gardens you must put them in that part of the country where it will pay and to do that you have to bring them into competition with those already existing. I think that is a strong point. I know it is held extremely strongly by the representatives of the market gardeners in various parts of the country which I need not specify because it would be invidious. The noble Earl is familiar with them.
I put to the noble Earl these two points. The first, to which I hope he will give careful attention, is as to why it is said that the allotment garden holder will not lose his unemployment benefit when it is known that there was a definition in the Bill which enables him to become a market gardener and that ho will lose his unemployment benefit. The other point is whether the noble Earl

847
thinks it would not be in the interests of the Bill to reduce the allotment garden to 40 poles. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 6, leave out ("allotments not exceeding one acre in extent") and insert ("allotment gardens").—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am sorry that at first I did not appear to understand what the noble Lord wanted. I think I see now. His first point was the distinction between the allotment garden and the allotment not exceeding one acre in extent. I thought at first he was worrying about the question of unemployment insurance.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, there is that point.
EARL DE LA WARR: With regard to the allotment gardener, it is clear from the beginning that there is no question of risk of losing his unemployment insurance benefit. With an allotment there may be a possible risk. The question of whether the cultivation of such an area of land would disqualify the holder would be a matter for decision as a question of fact by the Umpire. Therefore there would be some risk which the man who chooses to take that area would have to meet.
The noble Lord suggests that for this reason and for the reason of possible competition with other market gardeners we should omit from this Bill that particular sized area of land—that is the one acre allotment. I do not know why, if they were prepared to provide an allotment garden and if, on the other hand—to go to the other extreme—we are prepared to provide a five-acre small holding which may be devoted to market gardening, we should have this gap between the allotment garden and the market garden small holding. Our view is that this one-acre allotment may very well prove to be a most important training ground for the small holders and also a most important testing ground for the small holders. I think therefore it would be a pity to omit that area from the Bill and it would also be illogical to do so as long as we leave in the Bill the five-acre market garden holding. I hope therefore the noble Lord will not ask us to take out those words which will leave a gap in the Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: May I remind the noble Earl that there is nothing to pre-
848
vent him describing a one-acre holding as a small holding. If he feels it to be necessary to be able to provide holdings of one acre he can do so under the small holdings clause of the Bill. There is nothing limiting the size of his small holding to five acres. But it has been represented very strongly in the country that it is desirable to give access to the land to these persons who through no fault of their own have become unemployed, particularly in the mining areas, in order that they may be able to keep themselves physically fit and partly to enable them to eke out a livelihood by growing certain foodstuffs. This allotment not exceeding an acre does not come into that category at all. All you do is to put it into competition with existing market gardeners a large number of people who had much better be confined to the allotment gardens as defined in the Act of 1922.
I think the noble Earl will recognise that this matter of insurance benefit is rather more important than he seemed to think. It is quite true the owner of an allotment garden is, in the terms of the circular, obviously not debarred from enjoying his insurance benefit. It is equally true, if he takes a larger area he will be, we will not say at the mercy of the Umpire, but subject to the decision of the Umpire, as to whether or not he has to draw his insurance benefit. The circular of the Central Allotment Committee would lead him to suppose that any man who takes up an allotment, whether described as a garden or in some other way, is to be entitled to draw his insurance benefit. He will run grave risks of being deprived of it. It does not seem fair. I suggest it would be better if the noble Earl would agree to my Amendment. He will lose nothing, because he can still give small holdings of one acre, and he will gain clarity of expression.
EARL DE LA WARR: It comes down to a question of definition—whether we call one acre an allotment or a small holding. If the noble Lord will forgive me, on that point of the use of words I prefer to discuss the matter with my legal advisers and deal with it on Report. The alteration might have more significance that I can see at the moment. Would that satisfy the noble Lord?
LORD HASTINGS: Subject to my right to bring it up on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Are the noble Lord's other Amendments in this place consequential?
LORD HASTINGS: No, I wish they were. The first two are.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "subsections (1) and (2) of Section sixteen of the allotments Act, 1922, and." The noble Lord said: The relevant words will then read:
"the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by any such council and to allotments provided by any such council (except Section four of the Allotments Act, 1925)."
The subsections to which reference is deleted read:
"(1) A council hall not take any proceedings under the provisions of the Allotments Acts relating to allotments, unless in the opinion of the council the expenses of the council incurred under those provisions (other than such expenses as are hereinafter specified) may reasonably be expected, after the proceedings are taken, to be defrayed out of the receipts of the council under those provisions.
(2) For the purposes of this section, expenses and receipts shall be calculated in such manner as the Minister of Health may direct, and shall include expenses and receipts in respect of land acquired whether before or after the passing of this Act."
Under the 1922 Act heavy expenses involved in establishing allotments are fully provided for as capital expenditure. They do not fall on the administrative expenses of the scheme. The Minister here seeks to get away from this reasonable restriction. I and those who think with me think there can be no valid reason for maintaining an allotment scheme which is not self-supporting. This is not a question of grouped allotments which may fail owing to weather or circumstances over which they have no control. A garden scheme does not fail far such reasons as that and there is no reason why it should not be self-supporting. I am not proposing to forbid the Minister to claim the provision of the other section mentioned—power to charge a penny rate. But why should he "get away with" any charge he cares to make? If these two subsections are included in the reference there is nothing to prevent him if he likes—I do not suppose he would—letting
850
these allotments at one-quarter or less of the rental value of the land. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that. That cannot be right. There is nothing to prevent him from excusing any man from the payment of rent. Under existing schemes if one man defaults the scheme as a whole has to bear the loss; but under this scheme all those deterrents will be removed. The Minister is not restricted in any way and whereas these subsections look perfectly harmless they are really the only dangerous part of the clause and ought in my judgment to be excised.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 13, leave out from ("except") to ("section") in line 14.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: On the question of rent I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that the Act provides that the full fair rent shall be paid.
LORD HASTINGS: The Act of 1922 does.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, and nothing in this Bill repeals that; but we have been advised that one of the obstacles to the provision of allotments and allotment gardens for the unemployed has been the restrictions imposed quite rightly for the provision of normal allotments under the Acts of 1922 and 1925, when the limit was raised from 1d. to 1¼d. The present Bill proposes to remove those restrictions from local authorities in Clause 15, and in Clause 14 power is given to the Minister to act concurrently and also to have these restrictions removed. It has been found that it is necessary for the purpose of running this admittedly emergency scheme—a scheme on which in the opinion of the Government it is worth while possibly to lose a certain sum of money—at once to remove these restrictions, and for that reason I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment because undoubtedly it must have the effect of very much hampering the development of the scheme.
LORD HASTINGS: I cannot say I like withdrawing this Amendment because it seems to me to encourage the Minister to spend money when he ought not to spend it. Is that all the noble Earl can say in justification for the clause? Why should not the Minister be as capable

851
as anybody else of running a self-contained and self-supporting scheme?
EARL STANHOPE: I should be prepared to support the Amendment if it imposed a restriction upon the Minister in the acquisition of land. I have heard of a case where the Minister himself thinks of taking for allotments building land of high value. That is not the purpose of the Amendment which only seeks to restrict the Minister in losing money on the running of allotments. I fully sympathise with my noble friend in wishing to make the Minister run these things economically and on sound business lines, but we have to realise that he is going to deal with men who have been out of employment for a very long period—for instance in the mining areas—and I should be sorry to do anything in the way of restricting allotments for that type of men and giving them some chance of work which at present they are unable to find.
LORD HASTINGS: I am very much disinclined to withdraw. I think I will stick to my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HASTINGS: Lord Clinton's Amendment to insert a proviso at the end of subsection (1) deals with exactly the same point as the previous Amendment of the same character, and therefore will not be moved. As to my Amendment to leave out subsection (2), I feel that, it must be of some importance as it stands in my name, though it does not seem to fit in with any of my views, and I do not intend to move it. I feel that somebody put it there who knows more about it than I do. Perhaps I may be allowed to move it on Report, if necessary.
THE EARL OF LINDSAY THE EARL OF LINDSAY moved, in subsection (5) after "its" ["one of its objects"] to insert "main." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is of a certain amount of importance. In Clause 14 the Minister has power to acquire land for allotment purposes not exceeding an acre. He cannot delegate those powers to any society or any local authority, but—and this is the point—he can delegate his powers for equipping them and providing them with fertilisers and so on. The Minister, I contend, should only be entitled to delegate those powers to
852
societies which exist for furthering profitable promotion of allotments and garden allotments. The Amendment is all the more necessary when you come to Clause 17, where the Minister is empowered to make grants for assisting the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment. If grants of public money are to be made to these so-called societies it should be most carefully ascertained that they are confined to bona fide allotment societies formed for the sole purpose of providing allotments. In Clause 20 your Lordships will find that societies include "any body of persons whether incorporated or unincorporated." I maintain that the definition is all too lax, and that something of the kind I suggest should be inserted to ensure that these people who have the handling of public funds are proper persons to whom to delegate these powers.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, after ("its") insert ("main").—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I really do not think any advantage would be gained by inserting this word. The effect would be to knock out, for instance, the Society of Friends, who are really responsible for having started this work. They started the work and then received assistance from the Mansion House Fund, and as a result of seeing what they did the Minister decided to take up this work. But if we were to insert this word no one could pretend that the main work of the Society of Friends is the provision of allotments. It would be to knock out the most important body at present responsible.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: Is there any other society that deals with allotments like the Society of Friends? Is it not the most important?
EARL DE LA WARR: Speaking off-hand, I think it is the main one. It is the most important voluntary body.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My noble friend's idea is that any society might ask the Government for a grant. A society as a rule has articles of association and, if one of those articles stated that the provision of allotments was one of its main objects, then it could get grants, but not any society that asked.
EARL DE LA WARR: Any body can ask for it, but that does not say they will get it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Power of Minister to defray losses incurred by local authorities in providing allotment gardens for unemployed persons.
(2) If the Minister approves the proposals and estimates of the council, either without modifications or with such modifications as he may require, the Minister may, subject to such conditions as to records, certificates, audit or otherwise, as with the approval of the Treasury he may determine, undertake to defray in any year the loss shown in the approved estimates as likely to be incurred in that year by the council in providing allotment gardens for such persons as aforesaid in accordance with the proposals.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (2), before "loss," to insert "whole or such part as he thinks fit of the." The noble Lord said: I think my Amendment will commend itself to the noble Earl. It only intensifies the power given to the Minister to defray the possible loss, and it would be an inducement to the local authorities to frame good proposals and to frame them more precisely, while it would also be an inducement to the Minister because he need not pay the whole of the loss but only part of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 23, after the first ("the") insert ("whole or such part as he thinks fit of the").—(Lord Lamington.)
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Lord will look at subsection (2) on page 17, lines 18 and 19, he will sec that the Minister has Already power to approve estimates without modifications, or with such modifications as he may require. That covers in different words the point he raises.
LORD LAMINGTON: Then, if my proposal is superfluous, I shall withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Power of Minister to make grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment for unemployed persons.
(2) The Minister may constitute a committee for the purpose of advising him as to the exercise and performance of his powers and duties under this section and for the purpose of performing such other functions in connection with those powers and duties as he may direct, and the expenses of the committee (including the remuneration of any officers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries appointed to assist the committee) shall, up to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury, be defrayed as part of the expenses of the Minister under this Act.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (2), after "committee," to insert "of whose members at least one shall be a woman." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 40, after ("committee") insert ("of whose members at least one shall be a woman").—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I will accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERNIE OF THAME: I object on the ground that it is not compulsory to have any man at all. If Lord Astor were Minister of Agriculture he might appoint all women and have no men at all.
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Lord likes to put down an Amendment I will consider it favourably.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to insert after Clause 17:
". Before proceeding with the erection of any dwelling-houses or buildings under this Act or approving the erection of any such dwelling-houses or buildings, the Minister or appropriate local authority shall be satisfied that the design of the proposed buildings and the materials to be used for their construction are such as will be appropriate for the site and harmonious with the surroundings. For this purpose the Minister or appropriate local authority shall consult a properly qualified architect or panel of architects approved for the purpose by the President for the time being of the Royal Institute of British Architects."
The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will be aware that if and when

855
this Bill passes there will be a great development of small holdings up and down the country. Individual small holdings may be created or estates taken and developed for that purpose. I think it is most important that we should take every step we can to see that when these estates are developed and the houses and buildings are erected in the different parts of the country, the amenities of the countryside are considered. It is possible that buildings which would be most suitable in Surrey would spoil the landscape and appearance of the countryside if put up in Worcestershire or Gloucestershire. I think it is desirable that we should keep the local characteristics of the houses. We ought also to avoid any stereotyped form of buildings being put up all over the country.
There are three precedents for this Amendment. The first is contained in a circular issued by the Minister of Health in 1928. In that circular the Minister calls the attention of local authorities to the fact that panels of architects have been set up by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England in connection with the Royal Institute of British Architects and urges all local authorities to consult those panels. In a Private Act, the Malvern Hills Act, 1930, there is a section making it necessary for persons erecting stalls to work in consultation with an advisory panel set up by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England in connection with the Royal Institute of British Architects. Lastly, Section 60 of the Housing Act, 1925, provides that in order to secure that the houses proposed to be built shall be of suitable architecture and the natural amenities of the locality shall not be unnecessarily injured, the Minister may
"in any case where it appears to him that the character of the locality renders such a course expedient, require as a condition of his approval the employment by the local authority of an architect to be selected from a panel of architects nominated for the purpose by the Royal Institute of British Architects."
I claim there are ample precedents for drafting a clause on the lines of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: On the general merits of what lies behind this Amendment I do not think any member of the House could possibly disagree with it. The only question is how to deal with this matter. I submit that by putting such an Amendment into the land settlement portion of the Bill we deal with a very small part of the problem in a very piecemeal way. It is a national question and it must be dealt with on national lines. If legislation is necessary on the matter, I suggest that the noble Viscount should turn his attention to the Town Planning Bill where the Amendment would be much more appropriate. Moreover, with regard to our own building operations all our plans at the Ministry are done by qualified architects, who are members of the Institute. It is unnecessary to single out the Minister of Agriculture for this special treatment. I admit, of course, that there is a general national question that has to he settled at some time. I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think there is a good deal in what the noble Earl has said. A noble Lord referred to a circular. I do not think a circular would be of any use. Many things spoil the countryside and no one has done anything like the amount of harm caused by the by-laws of the local authorities with the houses they have built and by the Electricity Commissioners with the erections that they have put up. Therefore, when the noble Earl opposite says we are to have complete confidence in his Department I hope he is correct, but I am afraid I have no confidence in any Government Department.
LORD POLWARTH: I hope the noble Earl opposite will not discourage the suggestion altogether. An important point was made by the noble Viscount of the danger of having a uniform type of house for this vast number of small holdings which are to be established all over the country. I should ask that some application suitable to Scotland should be made. Further, in regard to house building by different local authorities, they at least have their discretion, but at present throughout Scotland we are suffering from a particularly hideous type of small holding erected by the Department of Agriculture, not in one county, but in many counties in Scot-

857
land. That is the danger which may arise if the Ministry of Agriculture consult their own architect and he adopts one type and plants it all over the country, from the South of England, possibly, to the extreme North of Scotland. That is a real danger which requires to be guarded against.
EARL DE LA WARR: On the point of uniformity I will give an undertaking that we will take into consideration the idiosyncracies of particular districts. In the matter of Scotland, your Lordships will realise that I am not personally responsible, but I will convey your Lordships' message to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am glad to hear that assurance from the noble Earl, but I remember that when housing was introduced a similar assurance was given on behalf of the Government of the day. I think it was a Coalition Government, but it does not matter; they are all the same. I know that in Scotland no houses were allowed to get the grant unless they were of the usual type which appealed to the architect who happened to be appointed by the Local Government Board of that time.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I hope the noble Earl will not reject this Amendment. It is quite true a similar Amendment might be moved in the Town Planning Bill, and when it comes here I dare say we shall do so, but if we do it then it will not prevent us from doing it in this Bill. If we do not put it on the Statute Book now it will be too late to do anything. I think it is desirable for the Town Planning Bill and also for this Bill. A similar Amendment is in the Housing Act of 1925. I hope therefore the Minister in this or some other form will be prepared to accept it.
LORD DANESFORT: I hope the noble Earl will consider this matter before Report stage. No doubt a great many hideous buildings of different sorts have been put up by local bodies or others in different parts of the country, and they have very greatly spoiled the beauties and amenities of places. The Ministry propose under this to put up an enormous number of buildings for the purpose of small holdings. The only object of this Amendment is the desirable
858
one of ensuring that the countryside shall not be defiled. The noble Earl says we have architects. But how are we too control those architects? If they put up horrible buildings you cannot turn the Ministry out, but, if there is a clause in the Bill that they must consult a responsible body of architects before they put up a building, then there is some assurance the countryside will not suffer.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I ask the noble Earl to try to find a form of words to meet the point? Nothing has done more against small holdings than the type of dwelling often provided. I would draw the noble Earl's attention to the admirable system adopted in the Minister's scheme at Sutton Bridge, where the lay out and the type of building are extremely good. It is important, if we are going to develop small holdings, to satisfy the public and the countryside on this point.
EARL DE LA WARR: I cannot but feel that this onslaught on the architecture of the Ministry of Agriculture is rather unfair. The noble Marquess mentioned Sutton Bridge. I have seen many settlements and buildings and most of our plans, and I think they reach an exceptionally high standard. But that is not the point. There are many things we should like to do. The question is, where is the most appropriate place? The question of rural amenities and planning does not come in here. It is inappropriate. I just mention the question of legislation affecting the Crown, which will have to come up when this provision can be appropriately made. I hope I shall not be asked to go any further except to assure your Lordships that we have this matter very closely in mind in regard both to small holdings and to allotments. We shall certainly safeguard the principle.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I do not intend to insult the Ministry's architecture. I am more afraid of that of the local authorities. It is very desirable that something should be clone to prevent them having a completely free hand. Perhaps I may see if I can provide some better wording on Report. I am, in any case, ready to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 18:
Procedure as to validity of orders.
19. Subsection (3) of Section thirty-nine of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 (which relates to the procedure for compulsory acquisition of land) is hereby repealed and the following provisions shall be substituted therefor:—
(3)—(a) An order under this section shall be of no force unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister, and the Minister may, subject to the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, confirm the order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit.
(b) So soon as may be after an order has effect the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected, a notice stating that the order has come into force, and naming a place where a copy thereof may be seen at all reasonable hours.
(c) If any person aggrieved by an order made by the Minister under this section, desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act or that any requirement of this Act has not been complied with, he may, within six weeks after the publication of the notice mentioned in paragraph (b) hereof, make an application for the purpose to the High Court, and if any such application is duly made, the Court, if satisfied that the order is not within the powers of this Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act not having been complied with, may quash the order either generally or in so far as it affects the applicant.
(d) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding paragraph an order shall not at any time be questioned by prohibition or certiorari or in any legal proceedings whatsoever.
(e) Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal in proceedings under this section.
The noble Lord said: This looks rather formidable, but I think I can explain it in a few sentences. The Amendment raises the whole question of the power of the Minister, which has often been discussed in this House, and the Lord Chief Justice has, I believe, written a book on it. I believe there is a Royal Commission enquiring into the matter. The subsection that I wish to repeal runs as follows. The sting is in the last part:
"An order under this section shall be of no force unless and until it is confirmed by the Board, and the Board may, subject to the provisions of the First Schedule to this
860
Act, confirm the order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit"—
here is the sting—
"and an order when so confirmed shall become final and have effect as if enacted in this Act; and the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act."
Your Lordships have on more than one occasion refused to give these powers to a Minister. No Minister should be above the law. This Act of 1908 hardly reads democratically. It seems much more like the power of a Tsar or a Lenin. I am suggesting words in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) which I can explain very briefly, and the reason why I have chosen those words is that they are the exact words taken out of the Land Drainage Act of 1930, put in, I believe, by tile present Government. Paragraph (b) provides that the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette as soon as may be after an order has effect a notice stating that the order has come into force and stating where a copy may be seen. Paragraph (c) shows a person aggrieved how to appeal. I hope I have made clear what my intentions are, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The object of this Amendment is to give an owner of land in respect of which an order for compulsory acquisition has been made for the purpose of small holdings or allotments, a right to apply to the High Court if he desires to question the validity of the order on the ground that it is not within the powers of the Acts or that any requirement of the Acts has not been complied with. It will be realised by your Lordships that a power by an owner to apply to the High Court as proposed will give unlimited opportunities for obstruction and delay in regard to the acquisition of land. For example, Section 41 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, provides that
"a council in making, and the Minister in confirming, an order for the compulsory acquisition of land, shall, so far as practicable, avoid taking an undue or inconvenient quantity of land from any one tenant, and shall have regard to the convenience of other property belonging to or occupied by the same owner or tenant."

861
These requirements would give any obstructive landowner opportunity for holding up an order by questioning its validity in the High Court on the ground that the requirements of the Act quoted above have not been complied with.
Apart from the merits of the case as argued by the noble Lord, let me remind your Lordships that these powers have been in existence and have worked quite satisfactorily for twenty-two years, and during that period amending legislation has been introduced by Governments representing all the different Parties in the State. On no occasion has any Minister of Agriculture or any Government of whatever complexion thought it necessary to alter these powers. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord moved this same Amendment to the Act of 1926 when the question of small holdings came up. I do not know why the Labour Government should be met with Amendments on small holdings, when a Government of another complexion is not. At any rate, for the last twenty-two years no Government has found any cause for saying that these powers are unsatisfactory in their operation. The noble Lord referred to the fact that these powers are mentioned in the book of the Lord Chief Justice. We are all perfectly aware that the principle which was raised in that book is at the present moment under investigation by a Committee presided over by Lord Donoughmore, and I cannot help feeling that it would be a mistake to anticipate the Report of that Committee by changing powers such as those that are being investigated. I suggest therefore that, as these powers have been

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Morton, E.

Bayford, L.

Wellington, D.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Onslow, E.

Berwick, L.

Exeter, M.

Peel, E.

Biddulph, L.

Poulett, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Airlie, E.

Radnor, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Albemarle, E.

Sandwich, E.

Bradford, E.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Cawdor, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Ellenborough, L.

Astor, V.

Erskine, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lauderdale, E.

Hailsham, V.

Hastings, L.

Lindsay, E.

Hereford, V.

Heneage, L.

Lindsey, E.

Hood, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Lamington, L.

Lucan, E.

Lawrence, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Addington, L.

Middleton, L.

in operation for a very long time without any criticism, and as also they are under general investigation, the right thing to do would be to leave this Bill as it is, and then, if later the whole general policy is to be altered as a result of the Report of this Committee, the matter will have to be dealt with on a general basis as affecting all legislation.
LORD DYNEVOR: The Government put this Amendment in because, if I remember rightly, there were some very objectionable words in their Land Drainage Bill. I put down an Amendment, and Lord Bayford also put down an Amendment, and then, to our great delight, we found that the Government were willing to go much further than we were, and put down this excellent Amendment to the Land Drainage Bill. The, noble Earl says it has stood the test of time. But surely the noble Earl is; not suggesting that the powers given in this Bill are not comparable to the powers given to the county councils in 1908. Surely under this Bill the Minister is going to be his own arbitrator, and there should be some appeal from the decision of the Minister.
EARL DE LA WARR: A comparison with the Land Drainage Act is not really applicable, because, in the only case where this alteration was inserted, it was a question of dealing with other owners. It is a very different situation here.
On Question, Whether the said new clause shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 10.

Oriel, L. (V.Massereene.)

Redesdale, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Polwarth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Wavertree, L.

Queenborough, L.

Wraxall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E.

Gainford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Rochester, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Sanderson, L.

Amulree, L.

Snell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 19 agreed to.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD had given Notice to move to insert a new clause after Clause 19. The noble Lord said: If I may be allowed to do so, I would like to move the Amendment in the form of Lord Clinton's Amendment. The only difference is that in line 3 the period is put down as four years instead of three. We have already had a discussion on the general subject, and all I need say is that those on this side of the House regard some such limitation as of primary importance. We feel that, if the Bill is to go through, it is necessary that some such clause should be inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19 insert the following new clause:
Duration of powers of Minister.
The powers conferred on the Minister by this Part of this Act may be exercised by him during the period of four years from the commencement of this Act and no longer:
Provided that the expiry of such powers shall not—

(a) affect the previous exercise thereof or of anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(b) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder; or

(c) affect any legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation in respect of such right, privilege, obligation or liability as aforesaid;

and any such legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation may be instituted, enforced or continued as if the powers aforesaid had not expired.—(Lord Bayford.)
EARL DE LA WARR: As we have already had a general debate on the subject, it is unnecessary for me to say more than that the Government do not accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Financial provisions.
22.—(1) The Treasury may, subject to such conditions as they may determine, issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof—
(a) such sums as may be required for the purpose of financing the operations of the Agricultural Land Corporation not exceeding in the aggregate one million pounds;
(d) such sums as may be required by the Minister for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of small holdings and for such other expenses in connection with the provision of small holdings as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Minister to be capital expenditure;
(e) such sums as may be required by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of holdings for unemployed persons and for such other expenses in connection with such provision as may be agreed by the Treasury and the said Department to be capital expenditure.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: This is merely consequential on what the House did yesterday. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: The next two Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("Sections two and") and insert ("Section")
line 11, leave out ("Sections two and") and insert ("Section").—Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1) (d), after "sums," to insert "not exceeding in the aggregate ten million

865
pounds." The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment to move at this late hour, but I will be brief. My proposal is to put some limit in the capital expenditure by the Minister for the provision of allotments and small holdings. It seems to me most desirable there should be some limit put into the Bill. There is no limit in the Bill of the amount of capital expenditure that the Minister can incur in the provision of small holdings and allotments. It may be said that my Amendment is a Privilege one, but I would point out that it is a limiting one—limiting the expenditure and taxation to be paid. The Financial Memorandum which accompanied this Bill says:
"It is impossible to foresee with any precision what expenditure will be necessary for the Minister to incur in the provision of small holdings and allotments."
Since I put the Amendment on the Paper the situation has changed a little, because your Lordships have taken out Clause 10, under which the Minister meant to make a very big capital expenditure in what we called coercing the county councils who it was thought were not providing enough small holdings. For the time being we have put an end to that, but that clause may come back again into the Bill, so I must argue as though it were still in it. It is quite clear that if the Minister attempts to create anything like 100,000 small holdings that would cost at the very least £100,000,000. When we remember that there are 2,500,000 unemployed, and 800,000 to 900,000 agricultural labourers, all of whom have a right to ask the Minister for small holdings, and your Lordships have added another category of applicants this afternoon in the ex-Service men, I do not think it is at all an exaggerated figure to state the Minister will try to provide 100,000 small holdings at a capital cost of at least £100,000,000. I am not certain that the right figure would not be nearer £200,000,000. For that reason I think we ought to limit the capital expenditure, and I suggest the figure of £10,000,000.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 18, after ("sums") insert ("not exceeding in the aggregate ten million pounds").—(Lord Dynevor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the position is the same here as with the noble Lord, Lord Bayford's Amendment. We
866
had the statement of the Government then. The Government do not accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection (1) (e), after "sums" to insert "not exceeding in the aggregate seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds." The noble Earl said: My Amendment is on all fours with that moved by my noble friend Lord Dynevor, except that it applies simply to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 25, after ("sums") insert ("not exceeding in the aggregate seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Amendment to omit this clause is consequential on the Land Corporation having been eliminated.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 23.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Clause 23 disagreed to.
Clause 24 [Treasury concurrence]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Amendment to this clause also is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("two").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25:
Application to Scotland.
25. In the application of this Act to Scotland the following provisions shall have effect:—
(a) Except for the purposes of Sections one, twenty-two and twenty-three a reference to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter in this section referred to as the Department) provided that any reference to the Minister in the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act regarding the making and submission to Parliament of Provisional Orders shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary of State; a reference to the council of a borough, urban district, or parish, shall be construed, as a reference to a town or a district council, and a reference to a borough, urban district, or parish, shall be construed accordingly; any reference in Part II of this Act to a county council shall not apply, and the expression "easement" means servitude.
(e) The powers conferred by Section three in regard to the acquisition of land shall, notwithstanding anything in the proviso to subsection (1) of that section, be without prejudice to the power of the Department under any Act for the time being in force to acquire land compulsorily for reclamation or drainage, and any land acquired under the last mentioned power shall be deemed to have been acquired under the said Section three, and in the application of the said section the expression "owner" in the case of land held under an entail means the institute or heir of entail in possession, in the case of land subject to a life rent, means the liferenter and in any other case means the person entitled to the fee; the expression "agricultural buildings" means buildings which are included in any agricultural land and heritages as defined in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928; the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution shall be substituted for the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, and any reference to consultation with the council of the county shall be omitted.
(h) Subsection (3) of Section sixteen of this Act shall apply with the substitution of a reference to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund for any reference to the Small Holdings Account.
(i) Section one of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, which relates to the compulsory acquisition of land for the purposes of the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918, shall have effect as if the limitation of the period, during which the powers thereby conferred may be exercised, were omitted, and any provision in any Act in force at the passing of this Act which limits the period for which that section is to remain in operation shall cease to have effect.
(k) Subsections (8) and (9) of Section three, and Sections eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and eighteen, and paragraph (c) of Part I of the First Schedule shall not apply.
LORD HASTINGS: My first two Amendments to this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 7, leave out ("Sections one") and insert ("Section")
line 8, leave out ("and twenty-three").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Amendment also is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, at end insert ("or to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 15, leave out paragraph (d).—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, after paragraph (d), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) There shall be added to the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section four the following words 'or which lies within a burgh or which forms part of a feuing estate, or which can be reasonably shown to have a prospective feuing values'"
The noble Earl said: By Clause 3 (2) the Minister—or, in Scotland, the Department of Agriculture—if it appears to him that any piece of land suitable for agricultural purposes cannot be satisfactorily so used by reason of its being in a seriously neglected condition caused by the failure of the owner to execute any works of maintenance, may after certain procedure require the execution of those works. If his requirements are not complied with, he may acquire the land compulsorily. The first point to be noted is that the decision whether a piece can be used for agricultural purposes by reason of its condition lies with the Minister. He may, it is true, obtain a report on the condition of the land, but the ultimate decision after receiving the report rests with him.
The next point to notice is that Clause 3 applies to "any piece of land suitable for agricultural purposes," and the only lands now excluded from the scope of the Bill are those mentioned in Clause 4 (1) (b)—namely, land which is the property of any local authority; land acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water or public undertaking; land which forms part of any common or town or village green; any land used as a public park, garden or pleasure ground; land used for public recreation; or land to which the National Trust Act, 1907, applies. There are many areas of land in private ownership in towns or adjacent to towns which could conceivably be used for agricultural purposes, but which for good reasons are not so used because they are in a transitional stage. The areas are so small that there is no hope of working them conveniently or even economically. Therefore it should be recognised that there are

869
many areas of land in this transitional period; they have reached a stage at which it is no longer expedient, convenient or economically profitable to work them for agricultural purposes.
But on the other hand such lands may not yet have reached the stage of being appropriated for building purposes. Manifestly it would be unfair if the owners of such lands were to be forced to surrender them on a compulsory basis for agricultural purposes and at an agricultural value. Unless the Bill is amended great injustice will undoubtedly result; and I submit that such owners are quite as much entitled to be protected as local authorities are by Clause 4 (1) (b). That can only be secured by an Amendment which places outside the scope of the Bill any piece of land "which lies within a burgh or which forms part of a feuing estate, or which can be reasonably shown to have a prospective feuing value." Your Lordships are aware that a familiar way of disposing of land in Scotland is by feuing. Instead of paying cash down the disponee acquires the dominium utile by paying a perpetual feu duty to his superior, and so long as he does not fail to implement the conditions under which the feu was granted he retains undisturbed possession.
Amendment moved:
Page 24, line 16, at end, insert the said new paragraph (e).—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The purpose of this Amendment appears to be to prevent the compulsory acquisition by the Department of Agriculture of any land which has or may eventually have special value as a building site. Although the Amendment applies only to Scotland, because of the fact that feuing is a tenure peculiar to Scotland, I think the principle should apply equally to any land taken in England; but in the view of the Department the Amendment as it stands would provide very great material for obstruction or contention, and in any case it does constitute quite an unnecessary limitation on land which might be taken. There are certain sites in Scotland to which are attached very considerable areas of rural land which might well without any justification be excepted by this Amendment, but the noble Earl must realise that naturally it would not
870
be the desire of anybody responsible for the expenditure of this money to be tied up by purchasing at an unnecessarily high value building sites which are quite unnecessary for the purpose of this Bill. I think the noble Earl can rest assured that whether the Amendment is carried or not the purpose which he has in mind will really be carried out under the Bill. On the other hand, there is no doubt that this Amendment would cause great and unnecessary obstruction.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: It appears to me that this is not so much a question of the acquisition of land as the compulsory acquisition of land which would be assessed at its agricultural and not at its building value.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Earl is under a misapprehension. There would have to be arbitration, and it would be assessed at its real value.
LORD POLWARTH: I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper, because the words "in a burgh" would certainly in many cases include purely agricultural land, which is evidently not the intention of the noble Earl. Some burghs in Scotland have taken in ordinary farm land for four or five miles round. Take the case of the City of Edinburgh, which comprises purely agricultural land which is not likely to become building land.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in paragraph (e), to leave out "the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution shall be substituted for the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution" and insert "for the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution there shall be substituted the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution in consultation with the President of the Scottish Estate Factors' Society" The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down because it is very doubtful if the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution is the person to select an arbitrator to deal with disputes arising under Clause 3 of the Bill. A person

871
to be appointed arbiter should have very extensive experience in the management of an agricultural estate. It is generally believed that a large portion of the Scottish Committee are surveyors practising in Glasgow, with an urban, rather than an agricultural experience. I believe there has only been one member of the Scottish Committee who has ever been President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution—namely, Sir James Inglis Davidson, who is a very outstanding person.
It is probably a debatable and delicate matter to suggest altering this Part of the Bill inasmuch as the Reference Committee, who appoint arbiters for the purpose of the acquisition of land under this Bill, consist of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, and the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution. This Amendment, however, does not seek to eliminate the Chairman of the Scottish Committee, but simply provides that he Shall consult with the President of the Scottish Estate Factors' Society, as it is the members of that society who are principally concerned with the management of agricultural estates. A further argument in support of this Amendment is that negotiations are now proceeding between the Factors' Society and the Surveyors' Institution to amalgamate. In the Factors' Magazine of last February there occurs a report of what took place in this respect at the meeting of the Factors' Society on December 2 last, and if the amalgamation of which I have spoken should take place the co-operation which is suggested by this Amendment would seem very appropriate. I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 36, leave out from ("1928") to ("and") in line 39 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am informed that the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution is the representative body in Scotland just as the Surveyors' Institution is in England of our surveying profession and that, therefore, the Chairman of that Committee is the appropriate person in Scotland for making this nomination. As regards the question of amalgamation, that is something for the future and we do not know
872
what form it would take. No doubt, if it does take place, it might be necessary to make some alteration in the Bill. As things are, I am informed very definitely that the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution is the official body and it would, therefore, be wise to let the Bill remain as it is.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I hope my noble friend will press this to a Division, as the noble Earl does not understand these Scottish matters. There are very few people on the Surveyors' Institution who know anything about agricultural land and, therefore, they are not the right people to select. The Bill says the President of the Surveyors' Institution, an Englishman living in London, and he cannot possibly know—
EARL DE LA WARR: The Bill definitely says the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: It does not alter my argument very much. He is not a person who has much to do with agricultural land.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 40, after ("county") insert ("or county borough").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in paragraph (f), to leave out "either." The noble Lord said: It is very desirable that, in accordance with the practice that has obtained in England,, the Minister should only create small holdings on land he has already acquired. That practice should he pursued in Scotland too. The system of small holdings is an experiment and it would be hard if landlords were to have their land taken for purposes not too good. The Land Committee reported about the establishment of these extensive small holdings in the Lowlands of Scotland, and distinctly said that the practice of small holdings on privately owned estates should be discontinued in the Lowlands and in other districts of Scotland where the conditions are akin to those in the Lowlands. That was a very authoritative Committee and that was their opinion. It is very

873
hard, indeed, that this system should be put into practice on land which has not been acquired by the State.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 3, leave out ("either").—(Lord Lamington.)
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I beg to support the Amendment. The provision of small holdings for the unemployed no doubt is experimental. Therefore, it is rather bad that an experiment should be tried on land in private ownership as against land held by the State.
EARL DE LA WARR: At present the Department have this power to form holdings of land purchased by them or on private holdings. They have had the power, I think, for 19 or 20 years.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Not for the unemployed.
EARL DE LA WARR: No; but they have had this power in regard to small holdings, and in this particular matter there is no vital difference in principle.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: But the class of person put on the land is so different. You are going to put a lot of tyros on the land who do not know anything about farming.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that is begging the question. To say the least of it, I think it is rather regrettable that these unemployed men, whom we hope to give another start in life, should be described as tyros. I see no difference at all in principle between having one class of small holder on the land or another. The question of principle is whether they should have small holdings on private land or not and that is the point of the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Why not in England?
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Duke will have an opportunity of speaking, so, perhaps, he will permit me to finish. As I have said, this power has been in existence, I gather, for between nineteen and twenty years. I really do not think that any noble Lord has given any sufficient reason for suddenly seeking to take this power away from the Department. They have given no particular reason for what is a very revolutionary change in policy. I hope therefore the Depart-
874
ment will be left in full possession of its existing powers for settling small holders on the land. After all, this primarily is a Bill for increasing the supply of small holdings in Great Britain and not to decrease them.
LORD LAMINGTON: I have had some experience on my own estate of land being taken for small holdings. A farm was taken, lines were cut through the farm buildings and two families are now living where one family and farm servants lived before. I do not know what benefit has accrued to anybody: I do not think any at all. If you extend that system to the unemployed who probably know nothing about the cultivation of land, I think it will he very disastrous and hard on any landowner who is subject to it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am very disappointed with the answer of the noble Earl. His argument is that because an injustice has been going on for nineteen or twenty years it ought to be continued for ever or be accentuated. No reason whatever has been given for doing this. I hope the experiment may be successful in England though many people doubt it. The whole of this land is going to be purchased by the Ministry in England and these people put on. In Scotland no land is to be purchased nor is the Department given power to take land. The unfortunate landowner will have to stand the racket of any failure. On some small holdings buildings are erected which as a rule are not very good. If by any means a holding becomes derelict and the small holder gives it up and no one will take it, after him, the landlord is responsible for the balance. The sinking fund is a very low one. All the expenditure will be put up against his wishes but without any approval of his and probably in an uneconomic way. I hope the Government will see we are not making an outrageous claim.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. I rather think the noble Lord has a majority and if so I will not ask your Lordships to divide while making it clear the Government do not accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton I beg to move the Amend-

875
ment standing in his name. It is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 24, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("seventeen").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 10, leave out ("twelve"
line 11, after ("eighteen") insert ("and Section twelve in so far as it
876
relates to small holdings").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past twelve o'clock, midnight.