Lords Sitting of 28 July 1931

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (ROTHESAY WATER) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GRAND UNION CANAL (LEICESTER CANALS PURCHASE, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

DUDLEY, BRIERLEY HILL AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1931. ABERGAVENNY GAS ORDER, 1931. WOMBWELL GAS ORDER, 1931. CHELTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1931.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name in reference to four Gas Orders.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.— (Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT MARLOW WATER) BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (YEADON WATER) BILL.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in reference to three Bills that stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 23rd of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (CHEPPING WYCOMBE CORPORATION) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (ROTHERHAM CORPORATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS AND AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons be now considered.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. (57).]
Clause 8, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (1).
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the subsection which the Amendment proposes to leave out is required

1233
in order to afford to landholders that security of tenure which it is the object of the Small Landholders Acts to confer on them.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I will follow the example set by the noble Earl in the brevity of his observations. I have given my view on this Amendment on the earlier stages. I think it should be insisted upon by your Lordships, and I will merely ask your Lordships to divide upon it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to say that I am not in agreement with my noble friend Lord Novar in this matter. We have considered this Amendment from every point of view, and we put it forward believing it was a proper solution of the subject. If the Amendment is not passed it means really
Resolved in the affirmative: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 6, leave out Clause 14.
Page 7, line 22, at end insert the following new clause:
that there is a taint of confiscation left in the Bill. Small holdings will no longer belong to their owners, and it will be impossible for a proprietor to sell a holding, probably, because of this so-called security of tenure by the small holder. I should like to have seen, if possible, a compromise under which at least the small holdings which have been sold under the present conditions should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, but I have consulted with my Scottish colleagues in this matter and—I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, does not agree with this—most of those to whom I have talked consider that it is not a point which we should press. Therefore I do not propose, although entirely disagreeing with the Government's attitude, to press the Amendment, and I would not support my noble friend if he went to a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Not although he is right?
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 9.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Munster, E.

Clwyd, L.

Plymouth, E.

Danesfort, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Darling, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Desborough, L.

Bedford, D.

Gainford, L.

Wellington, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

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

Bridgeman, V.

Linlithgow, M.

Goschen, V.

Hayter, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hailsliam, V.

Heneage, L.

Mersey, V.

Marks, L.

De La Warr, E.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Olivier, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Lucan, E.

Truro, L. Bp.

Snell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wavertree, L.

Midleton, E.

Arnold, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Airlie, E.

Novar, V. [Teller.]

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Bresidalbane and Holland, E.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clinton, L.

Amendment of s. 32 (11) of Act of 1911.
(". Section thirty-two of the Act of 1911 shall be amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (11):—
'(12) It shall be competent to the tenant not later than two months prior to the expiry of the period of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act or of any subsequent period of tenancy

1235
and after given written notice to the landlord to apply to the Land Court to be declared a landholder, and the Land Court shall so find and declare, unless the landlord shall lodge with the Land Court a written application to have it declared that the tenant and his statutory successors in the holding shall have the same rights in all respects to compensation for permanent improvements on renouncing the tenancy or being removed from the holding as if the tenant had been a landholder, and on such application by the landlord the Land Court shall find and declare accordingly.'")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because it is desirable that the statutory small tenants should have an option to become landholders without the, necessity of application to the Land Court, and the new clause proposed in lieu of Clause 14 does not secure this and would unnecessarily create a third hind of tenure under the Small Landholders Acts.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the Amendment to leave out Clause 14.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW had given Notice to move that the House should not insist on the Amendment, but should amend the clause restored to the Bill by the Commons by inserting at the end:
"Provided further that if within one month after the service on a landlord of such a notice as aforesaid the landlord lodges with the Land Court an undertaking in writing that the tenant shall have the same rights to compensation for permanent improvements as if he were a landholder, the Land Court shall, after intimation to the tenant, direct such undertaking to be recorded in the Landholders Holdings Book, and the undertaking shall be recorded accordingly, and thereupon the tenant shall be deemed as regards the rights aforesaid but in no other respect to be a landholder."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I am well aware that I am the only member of your Lordships' House who does not perfectly understand the procedure on these occasions, but, doing the best that I can, I understand it will be appropriate if I move now the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name. The effect of this Amendment is to do that which was achieved by the Amendment on page 7, line 22, of the Bill as it came up from the other
1236
House originally, which Amendment is printed on the Paper. I have reason to suppose that the method embodied in this Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name to-day is less distasteful to His Majesty's Government than that which at present stands in the Bill. The effect of this Amendment if embodied in the Bill would not, I think, be precisely parallel to the effect of the words standing in the Bill already, and for these reasons: whereas under the Bill as amended in this House on Report it would fall to the tenant to move in order to obtain his compensation, under the Amendment which stands in my name it will fall to the landlord to move; and whereas under the Bill as amended on Report there would in effect be no change whatever in the status of the statutory small tenant, under the Amendment which I am moving the statutory small holder does become a landholder in respect of the rights in question but in no other respect. To that extent, of course, there is a substantial difference between the effect of the clause of the Bill as it left this House and the Bill as it would stand if this Amendment is accepted by His Majesty's Government and your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
At the end of the Motion insert ("but that the clause restored to the Bill by the Commons be amended by adding the said proviso ").—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, the words which are now inserted in the Bill by another place do not, I understand, make any substantial difference to the clause which your Lordships inserted on Report. Clause 14 remains as before, but the proviso makes a very important alteration. Your Lordships will no doubt recollect that under the Small Landholders Bill, 1911, there were very substantial differences between the statutory small tenant and the landholder, the main difference being that the landholder had put up more than half his buildings, while the statutory small tenant had not done so. He may have done nothing at all, or may have put up quite a small amount of building. But the statutory small tenant had the very substantial privilege that he could get his lease renewed. He could apply to the Land Court for a fair rent, and—what is important in

1237
the present discussion—if the landowner did not put up sufficient buildings for him, he could apply to the Land Court.
In this proposed proviso we are still admitting the possibility of the statutory small tenant becoming a landholder, and we are in effect making a very considerable alteration of the land tenure in Scot-land. I admit that this clause will not apply in very many eases; that is to say. I understand that the statutory small tenants are a dwindling body, and now consist only of those who are the lineal successors, the heirs at law, of those who were statutory small tenants in 1911; yet the principle does remain the same. But the general effect seems to me that by this clause and this proviso you are making a very great alteration in the Agricultural Holdings Act. Under Part I of the First Schedule of that Act a tenant who puts up buildings can only get compensation for them at the end of the lease if he has put them up with the consent of the landholder, on the general ground—I have no doubt perfectly correct-ground—that no one could be allowed to spend another man's capital without his consent. Now you are definitely allowing that man, although he has not received consent to put up his buildings, to obtain compensation from the landowner. The only justification that I can put forward for accepting this proviso is that the body of men affected is so very small and is gradually diminishing that it will not be worth while for your Lordships to insist on any alteration in the clause; for that reason I shall not oppose my noble friend's Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARE: My Lords, it is perfectly true, as has been very clearly put before your Lordships, that this proposal of the noble Marquess is a very big advance in the direction in which the Government wish to go, but, as he has also told your Lordships, it does not go as far as we wish, the difference being that, whereas this clause does bestow the rights of the smallholder on the tenant, as regards compensation for permanent improvements, it does not do so as regards other matters, such as rights of bequest, while the security of tenure is dependent on different provisions, and it is also necessary for him to go to a Land Court before he can take advantage of the clause. An additional disadvantage is that it incidentally creates a third type
1238
of holding. But, as the noble Marquess's proposal is a very big advance in our direction, whilst not actually committing the Government to its full acceptance at the moment, I do not propose, if the noble Marquess presses it, to ask your Lordships to divide.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: the said Amendments not insisted upon and a proviso added to the restored Clause 14 accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 11 line 3, at end insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 16 of principal Act.
(". Section sixteen of the principal Act, which deals with the procedure in arbitrations, shall be amended by the omission of the words 'sheep stocks' in subsection (5) and by the addition of the following subsection:—
'(6) After the passing of this Act all valuations of sheep stocks tied to the ground and bound under a lease to be taken over from the outgoing tenant at the termination of a tenancy by the landlord or incoming tenant shall, unless the outgoing tenant and the landlord or incoming tenant otherwise agree, be made by an arbiter selected by the Department out of a panel of arbiters appointed specially for that purpose by the Lord President of the Court of Session after consultation with the Department.'")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the proposed new clause involves the altering of existing contracts by substituting a different method of valuation from that agreed on by both parties to such contracts.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE: My Lords, since this question of sheep stock valuation was first raised in your Lordships' House I see that this Amendment has been represented as an attempt to break a contract by altering leases. I feel sure that I should not have been asked to move the Amendment which stood in my name, but for the words of which I am not personally responsible, if this were so. But if, by any possibility, your Lordships are of the opinion that this really is the case I should like to say at once—and I hope this will be reported

1239
as publicly as possible—that I would be the first to crave the permission of your Lordships' House immediately to withdraw it. I would like to dissociate myself as completely as possible from any such suggestion. Of course there can be no question of breaking a contract which has been legitimately and honourably entered into, and I submit very strongly that that view is a travesty of the true facts. I have followed as carefully as I could every argument put forward on both sides of the case and I suggest that it is the present custom which is completely and seriously departing from the spirit in which those leases or contracts were made.
The original bargain, as I understand it, was that the landlord should take over the sheep stocks at the valuation of two arbiters and an "oversman," on the assumption that the price they fixed for the landlord to pay would be the true value of the sheep on the ground. The arrangement was made in days when roads were bad and transport facilities very poor. An outgoing farmer was thereby saved the risk and loss of moving his sheep to market. But it was never intended as a means of securing to the fanner an unearned profit or of mulcting the landlord of large sums for no possible or logical reason. Valuations under the original leases were to be made by neutral men; not by farmers who were themselves personally interested in maintaining a high nominal price for sheep. That is the gravamen of the injustice. I submit that the panel of arbitrators, whether three or one or thirty, should be impartial. They should give the figures on which they work and the price they fix should bear a very close relation to the real value of the sheep.
I quoted a large number of instances in your Lordships' House to show that this is frequently not the case. I have not seen a single concrete argument produced by those opposing the Amendment to dispute the veracity of the facts I gave; merely a general plea to leave things as they are. We are told that the Farmers' Union are opposed to any change. Of course they are. But let us suppose that the current practice were to appoint a landlord as "oversman" and suppose that he habitually fixed a price much below that obtainable in the market.
1240
This might perfectly well be done without departing one iota from the exact terms of the present leases. Would farmers think that logical or fair? Would they then wish to leave the question un-investigated? Of course they would not. Nor would it be reasonable that they should. Yet it is exactly analogous to the present procedure. If a farmer's valuation is to be accepted, why not take the highest price offered by an incoming tenant? Let the outgoing farmer be paid the full value that the incoming tenant, himself a farmer, is willing to give. The present valuations are unreal. If a man has a hunter worth £300 and if, when he goes to sell it not at a forced sale but after proper advertisement, he can only get £100 for it, then the value of that horse is £100 and not a penny more. I submit that it is a flagrant injustice that a landlord should be compelled by a panel of farmers to pay 100 shillings for a lamb and ewe when a farmer will only give sixty shillings for them.
There is another aspect of this matter, which I venture to remind your Lordships is a serious question in Scotland. The Amendment came up for discussion in another place at four in the morning. Personally, I have always understood that to think about sheep at that time was a first-class way of inducing slumber, and I would associate myself with the protests that were raised at this important Scottish question being relegated to the small hours of the morning. There is a genuine and honest criticism of the present valuations that are being made, and I submit that if the demand for an impartial investigation for which I pleaded is turned down by the Government it will have further and more serious repercussions than at first sight appear. As your Lordships are well aware there is a considerable body of opinion which has grown up since the War, which has lost faith in Parliamentary procedure and which believes that the Parliamentary machine is too overloaded adequately to deal with all the difficulties and complexities of modern life. I submit that if this question is brought before your Lordships' House and then, when your Lordships' House has seen fit to approve of the Amendment without a Division, it is

1241
cursorily dismissed in another place at four o'clock in the morning it is, to say the least of it, a most regrettable result.
I pleaded originally for an impartial panel and a fair valuation just to landlord and tenant alike. If the present system gives this result why should the Government appear anxious to avoid a thorough investigation? If there is nothing to conceal I should have thought they would welcome it. It would be a most helpful solution of a difficult matter if they would undertake to appoint a committee or conference at which all parties interested could be represented. It would be of assistance to Hear the views of the Forestry Commission and of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. I would ask why they are so silent seeing that they, too, are largely affected. It is not by any means only he private landlord who is being unfairly hit. The long-suffering taxpayer is also penalised; perhaps he is regarded as being inured or, one might say, acclimatised to this process. I would once more ask the Government to appoint a committee to go into the whole matter.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this matter was vary thoroughly discussed before and I think it would be very difficult for me to re-argue the case without repetition. All I can say is that the Government have considered this matter very thoroughly. that they retain their original opinion that it would be impossible to introduce legislation in this or in any other Bill affecting existing contracts without legislating for the breach of contract, and that there is nothing in the existing law to prevent new contracts being drawn up on a different basis. On the point as to whether or no there should be an inquiry, I am afraid I cannot say anything except that the matter has been gone into thoroughly and I really cannot see at the moment that there would be any case for recommending my right hon. Friend to have an inquiry. Most certainly if the noble Earl or any other noble Lord or anybody else makes a recommendation for an inquiry and can support the case by giving examples demonstrating the need for such inquiry, I can give him the assurance that my right hon. friend will consider the matter. I am afraid—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Earl say in what way the matter has been enquired into up to the present? The noble Earl said it had been enquired into.
EARL DE LA WARR: The matter has been before His Majesty's Minister and the Minister's advisers, and the matter has had considerable discussion as the result of that consideration.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation to interfere in a matter of Scottish law of which I confess that I am profoundly ignorant, but I have listened with considerable attention to the speech of my noble friend this afternoon and I also remember the discussion which took place in your Lordships' House when the Amendment was originally introduced. I do not think—the noble Earl will forgive my saying so—it is quite fair to say no case has been made for an inquiry. My noble friend did on the last occasion, and again to-day, on this point out in what ways he suggested that the law was working unfairly—that an injustice was being done; that a sum was being extracted from the landlord in many cases and from other persons who had to pay by reason of the fact that the tribunal was, as I understood him, not satisfactory in its composition and biased in its nature, and that a wrong basis of valuation was often adopted. Those are rather serious complaints. He gave actual instances of the way in which it worked. While I am not in the least suggesting that we should differ from the Motion which has been proposed by the noble Earl who speaks for the Government with regard to this Amendment, I would ask him to persuade his right hon. friend the Secretary of State to be a little more sympathetic to the request for an inquiry which, after all, can hurt no one, and, even if it shows there is not a grievance, will do a great deal of good by relieving a sense of grievance which certainly exists at present. I hope, therefore, he may see his way to be a little more sympathetic in the way in which he represents the matter to his right hon. friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
First Schedule, page 14, line 30, at end insert:
("(18) The eradication of bracken, whins or gorse growing on a holding at the commencement of a tenancy")
Page 15, line 11, leave out from the beginning to ("in") in line 12.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because it is desirable that the improvement specified in the proposed new paragraph should be one which the tenant is entitled to make without being required to give prior notice to the landlord.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments not insisted upon accordingly.
Bill returned to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Submission and approval of schemes]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the Amendments down in my name to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("thereof") to ("may") in line 10.
Page 3, lines 9 and 10, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the last foregoing subsection")
Page 3, line 25, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to the provisions of this Act)")—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3:
Poll an question whether scheme to remain in force.
3.—(1) Every scheme except a substitutional scheme shall require a poll of the registered producers to be taken, within such time as may be specified in the scheme, on the question whether the scheme shall remain in force.
(2) If the poll aforesaid shows that there have voted in favour of the scheme remaining in force—

(a) not less than two-thirds of the total number of registered producers voting on the poll; and

(b) registered producers who are capable of producing not less than two-thirds of the quantity of the regulated product which all the registered producers voting on the poll are capable of producing;

the provisions of the scheme, the operation of which is suspended (under the provisions hereafter contained in this Act) until the expiration of the suspensory period, shall come into force at the expiration of that period, but in any other case the scheme shall cease to have effect at the expiration of that period and the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8 of Part II of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply as if the scheme had been revoked.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "expiration of that period" and to insert "date on which the result of the poll is declared." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is that where the poll goes against the scheme, the scheme will cease to have effect at once, without waiting till the end of the suspensory period. This Amendment really restores a proviso that was originally in the Bill when it was introduced into your Lordships' House. The words in question were altered by an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, because it appeared to be consequential on one of his Amendments to provide a suspensory period during which the Minister might revoke a scheme. On reconsideration, however, it appears to be clear that in a case where a poll goes against a scheme there is no reason to keep the scheme in force any longer.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("expiration of that period") and insert ("date on which the result of the poll is declared ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("found") and insert "proved").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Information to be furnished for purposes of register.
(2) The Minister, as soon as practicable after any scheme approved by him (other than a substitutional scheme) comes into force—
(b) if he has not sufficient information at his disposal to enable such a list as aforesaid to be compiled, shall inform the board accordingly.
EARL DE LA WARE EARL DE LA WARE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
"(b) if it appears to him that he has so little information at his disposal that the list aforesaid would serve no useful purpose, shall inform the board accordingly."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this really is a drafting Amendment. It is a direction that is employed in the Bill, and it is clerical. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Regulation of marketing and encouragement of co-operation, education and research.
5. Subject to the approval of the Minister, a scheme may provide for all or any of the matters set out in one or more of the following paragraphs, that is to say:—
(f) for regulating the manner in which the regulated product is to be graded, marked, packed, stored, adapted for sale, insured, advertised or transported by or on behalf of registered producers;
EARL DE LA WARE EARL DE LA WARE moved, in paragraph (f), after "product," to insert "or any kind, variety or quantity thereof." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the following Amendment are partly consequential upon the first Amendment to Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after ("product") insert ("or any kind, variety or quantity thereof").—(Earl De La Warr.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why he leaves out these Amendments throughout the Bill? It seems to me, reading the Amendments this morning, that they seem to be rather contradictory to the Amendments made in Clause 1. I do not quite understand why the noble Earl leaves them out throughout the rest of the Bill, and then alters Clause 1 the other way.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this particular Amendment and the next one really are to make it clear that paragraph (f) of Clause 5 applies not only to the regulated product, but also to any kind, variety, grade or quantity thereof. I think it is necessary to have these Amendments to make that point clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after ("graded") insert ("by or on behalf of registered producers, or the manner in which the regulated product or any kind, variety, grade or quantity thereof is to be").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Miscellaneous provisions of schemes]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 6, leave out the third ("the") and insert ("a").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWINFEN LORD SWINFEN moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"Provided that no provision of a scheme made in pursuance of this subsection shall be deemed to empower the board to establish any market or slaughter-house unless that provision in terms confers on the board a specific power to establish markets or slaughter-houses, as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Swinfen.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Financial powers and duties of boards.
(2) Any scheme may empower the board—
(a) to lend to any registered producer sums not exceeding the amount which the board estimate that he will receive from the sale of any quantity of the regulated product produced or in course of production by him;
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out

1247
"sums not exceeding" and insert "a portion of". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("sums not exceeding") and insert ("a portion of").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
EARL DE LA WARE: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Consumers' committees and committee of investigation.
(5) If a committee of investigation reports to the Minister that any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme is contrary to the interest of consumers of the regulated product, or is contrary to the interest of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, the Minister, if he thinks fit so to do after considering the report and consulting the Board of Trade—

(a) may by order make such amendments in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;

(b) may by order revoke the scheme;

(c) in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the Board administering the scheme to rectify, may by order direct the board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order, and thereupon it shall be the duty of the board forthwith to comply with the order:

Provided that—
(i) every order under paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of this subsection shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it, resolves that the order shall be annulled, the order shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order; and
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in paragraph (i) of subsection (5), after "subsection," to insert "made with the consent of the board administering the scheme." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has taken the place of an Amendment I had on the Paper in Committee stage which it was felt went too far. This is really a very important matter, and one that requires a good deal of consideration as to what ought to be done. Your Lordships will
1248
see, if you look on page 15 of the Bill as amended in Committee, that under subsections (a) and (c) the Minister, as the Bill is drafted, reserved to himself the right to give such effective instructions to the board as he thinks proper and that an affirmative decision of Parliament is not required. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in Committee stage, represented that it was necessary that the Minister should have such powers in order to give his protection to any individual trader who might be in the process of suffering in the course of his business by some action of the board.
Personally, I retain the opinion that it is certainly desirable that these powers should be accorded to the Minister in cases where he and the board are in agreement that improper or undue hardship is being inflicted, and where it is desirable that some speedy method should be at the disposal of the Minister and the board for redressing any such grievance. I am entirely in agreement with that. But where the Minister and the board are at variance the Bill proposes that the Minister should have an overriding power. Now it is not to be forgotten that these boards are constituted in part on the nomination of the Minister himself. Two nominees of the Minister will sit on every board. Moreover, it is a certain fact that no board will be able to function unless it has among its membership in all probability a banker, a member of the banking firm which is financing the operations of the board. This is not going to be a board merely composed of farmers who might—not at all probably, but I will grant not impossibly—be actuated by motives not of the broadest kind. It is going to be a business board composed as I have already described. Is it right that the Minister should have these over-riding powers, moved—as we made clear at the Committee stage—to exercise those powers by in all probability a consumers' committee, which has in turned moved the committee of investigation, which in turn moves the Minister?
I ventured to submit at the Committee stage that it was really almost exposing the Minister to a kind of pressure of which it would be to a kindness to relieve him. It would be better that the Minister should be able to say "I cannot exercise these over-riding powers" rather

1249
than "I will not exercise these overriding powers." My Amendment stands on the Paper and unless much stronger arguments are brought to bear against it than have hitherto been expressed I propose to adhere to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, after ("subsection") insert ("made with the consent of the board administering the scheme").—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this point, you will remember, was discussed at fairly considerable length on the last stage of the Bill. I think there is one point on which the noble Lord is misinformed. He asked your Lordships to remember that the Minister was to have two of his own representatives on the board. The Minister only has power to have two representatives on the board during the initial year, the first year, and that, as was explained, was because really until the poll is taken—and the poll is going to take a considerable time—the Exchequer is responsible for any expenditure. On the general point I really think it is very difficult to add anything to what was said before. We feel that the powers which are given under this Bill to a board—rightly given, we think—are very drastic powers. For instance, if you look at Clause; 5 (e) (ii) you will see that the board is given power to determine to whom to sell. This is an essential power, because if the board have to go to an association of traders to fulfil certain regular contracts it is essential that they should be in a position to direct the produce to the right quarter. But at the same time it might mean that a board did unjustifiably keep off supplies. That is a case that would have to be enquired into by a committee of investigation. The Committee would have to report to the Minister and the Minister would then have to act.
The noble Lord said he wants to free the Minister from the necessity of saying "I will not." I venture to suggest that a Minister who cannot say "I will not" on certain occasions should not be a Minister, and there is no reason for not giving him the necessary power to protect the public. Your Lordships will remember the example I gave was of a board coming to a decision at the end of July and then, because the Minister
1250
was not able to take any action until October or November when the House was sitting, nothing could be done. During that three, four or five months period the traders or the minority interests or whatever interest was aggrieved would have no opportunity of doing anything. I really see no other way round the difficulty than to give the Minister on these occasions power to say "I will" or "I will not." If he has either made a mistake, or if—as the noble Lord suggested he might have done—he had succumbed to undue political pressure, then he would have to lay his action as soon as possible before Parliament, and I venture to suggest that he would very soon get rapped over the knuckles by Parliament if he had acted unwisely or unjudicially. For these reasons I am afraid we really cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, it is quite clear that there are two points of view in this matter, and I myself prefer the view advanced by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, for reasons which I will give. I will take a concrete case which I think is perfectly possible. A board is doing something which is going seriously to prejudice the interests of a group, let us say, of middlemen. That is quite conceivable. As I understand it, the middlemen, the distributors, will not be able to seek protection from the' Courts by asking for an injunction to restrain the board, provided the board was acting within the four corners of the Statute. The damage that was being done to the distributors might be considerable. Week by week their monetary interests or their good will might be seriously affected and prejudiced. Is it really reasonable to suggest that in those circumstances the Minister ought to be compelled to stand idly by until Parliament could step in and prevent the middlemen suffering further damage? That sort of case seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable possibility. I am pretty certain that in experience something of the kind in connection with this scheme or that will arise. For that reason, if the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall support the noble Earl opposite.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, we have heard the case of the middleman

1251
put forward, but if your Lordships look at the Bill you will see that as it is drawn at present the Minister may by order make such amendment in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient. There is the other side of the question—the point of view of the board. Arguments which apply to the middlemen apply with just as much force to the board. The Minister under acute political pressure might be persuaded to make such amendments in the scheme by order at the end of July as he thought fit, and in the next two or three months the board itself might be broken financially. The argument tells both ways. I think It really resolves itself into this—that we are rather inclined to assume that either the board or the Minister is going to behave like a fool. I do not think your Lordships' House is entitled to assume this in either case.
It therefore comes down in my mind to a question of principle, as to whether these boards are to have the overriding powers of the Minister hanging over their heads or not. I think your Lordships should assume that both the Minister and the boards are going to behave as reasonable human beings and in the best interests of the organisations which they represent. It comes down to the question whether the board should have the Minister over their heads and in the position to break them financially or whether the board should be in the impossible position of being in conflict with the distributors. I personally favour Lord Hastings' Amendments very strongly indeed, because in my experience the distributors are well able to look after themselves, and I am quite convinced that these boards, in their own interests, will find it very undesirable to come into conflict with any distributor to whom they hope to sell their produce.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, forty years experience of either House of Parliament compels me to disagree with the noble Earl who has just sat down in his assumption that either the Minister or the board would be reasonable. My experience is that they are certainly not reasonable.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 13 [Short-term loans]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, my next Amendment is really consequential
1252
upon the introduction of the suspensory period.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("as the result of the initial poll") and insert ("at or before the expiration of the suspensory period").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15:
Constitution and functions of Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commissions.
(5) If any such Commission reports to the Minister—

(a) that it is necessary for the discharge of its functions under this section that it should inquire into a definite matter specified in the report, and

(b) that it has reason to believe that information with respect to that matter relating to the volume, quantity, destination or channels of distribution of a product, is being, or is likely to be, with held,

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), after "report," to insert "being a matter relating to the place of origin, use, channels of distribution or destination of any agricultural product or of any commodity produced from such a product, or to the quantity of any such product or commodity which is being or has been produced, sold or otherwise dealt with." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the words as printed are a substitute for the words which I persuaded your Lordships to insert in the Bill. Again I have reason to suppose that these words, and the Amendment that follows, may be accepted by His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, after ("report") insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 10, leave out from ("matter") to the first ("is") in line 12.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 30, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Expenses of commissions and committees]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 33, leave out ("every") and insert ("any").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Interpretation.
18.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned, to them:—
"Minister" means—

(a) in relation to a scheme applicable both in England and in Scotland, or in relation to the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee, consumers' committee or committee of investigation for Great Britain, or in relation to the Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission for Great Britain, both the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting in conjunction;

EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved in paragraph (a) in the definition of "Minister," in the reference "the Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission," to substitute "an" for "the." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are intended to correct a mistake that was made on the Committee stage. Lord Cranworth moved Amendments altering "an" to "the" as being consequential on another Amendment that had been made in the Bill. As a matter of fact, they were consequential on an Amendment which had been withdrawn. The noble Lord will forgive my saying that the Government did mention this at the time, but they were corrected.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 3, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 13, leave out ("the") and insert ("an")
Page 24,line 21, leave out ("the") and insert ("an")
Page 24, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("or any kind or variety of any product")
Page 24, line 33, leave out ("kind or variety")
Page 25, line 8, leave out ("comes into force") and insert ("is approved").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, my Amendments to this Schedule are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 30, line 8, leave out ("or of any kind or variety of such a product ")
Page 30, line 11, leave out ("kind or variety")
Page 30, line 14, leave out ("kind or variety")
Page 32, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("expiration of the suspensory period") and insert ("date of the declaration of the result of the initial poll").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, my Amendments are consequential on a point with which we have already dealt.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 35, leave out ("other")
Page 34, line 3, at end insert ("by reason only of his being of having been a registered producer or a member of the board").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.— (Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, perhaps it would not be inconvenient, if the noble Earl does not dissent, if I say a few words on the general position that we are taking up in respect to this Bill. This will save time later on, when we come to the discussion of Amendments in detail. I am the more inclined to suggest this course because some of your Lordships may have seen in the Press statements as to the conversations which

1255
are alleged to have taken place between the Minister and myself as to the conclusions which it was alleged had been reached. I should like to tell your Lordships that it is quite accurate to say that I have had some conversation with the Minister of Agriculture. Some time ago he communicated with me in order to let me know something as to some of the matters to which the Government attach importance in this Bill and to see to what extent there was a real difference of opinion between the Party to which I belong and the Government. But I was very careful to explain to the Minister that in seeing him I was doing so merely because I was responsible in this House to the Conservative Party for some of the Amendments that had been moved; that I did not purport in any way to represent your Lordships' House and could not of course in any way bind your Lordships' House; and that your Lordships must take your own decision as to any matters that were brought up here from the Commons. I think it is important that I should state this, because an impression might otherwise have been raised that I was arrogating to myself an authority which I certainly do not possess.
As a result of the discussion which the Minister had with myself, certain rather substantial concessions have been made which have been embodied in the decisions of the other House last Friday. In the second Clause—I am dealing with them as they came from the Commons—a clause which dealt with the demonstration farm, the Minister has inserted Amendments which very much limit the size of these farms and make it quite clear that he cannot, under colour of acting under Clause 2, do any of the things which he was proposing to do under Clause 1. In Clause 3, which deals with the reclamation of land by agreement and with the compulsory acquisition of land where it has been seriously neglected, the Minister has inserted in another place provisions as to the work being economical, to which your Lordships attached considerable importance when the matter was discussed, and the Amendment was inserted, in Committee. In addition to that, though not in the form which we originally proposed, the Minister has inserted among the matters which the arbitrators can take into
1256
account and which can be raised as an objection before the arbitrators by any landowner on whom notice is served, the fact that the work required to be done involves an unreasonable expense. I think those are all matters to which this House attaches considerable importance, and in regard to which our point of view has been accepted.
In Part II of the Bill your Lordships will remember that exception was taken, especially, I think, by my noble friend Lord Dynevor, to the provisions which in effect made the Minister judge in his own case when he had made an order for the taking of land. You will remember that a proviso was inserted with regard both to small holdings and to allotments, and the Minister accepted both those proposals of my noble friend. In addition to that we pressed for a limitation of the time during which the Act was to remain in operation, and the Minister has met us to the extent of accepting the time limit, though he has asked for ten years and we originally suggested four. I think that the concessions which have been made are important, and that it is right I should say so at the earliest opportunity, but at the same time I am sorry to have to say that I do not think the Minister has gone quite far enough in another place in meeting the points of view expressed here. It is for that reason that I have ventured to put down four matters on which I am going to ask your Lordships to insist upon further steps being taken in the direction in which this House urged the Ministry when the Bill was first before us.
The first and most important is the deletion of Clause 1. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 1 is a clause which deals with the experimental large-scale farms. I am not at this stage—obviously it would be inconvenient and out of order—going to develop the merits of the case, but this clause is one to which we attach great importance and to which we have great objection, and I am proposing to ask your Lordships to insist upon this clause being deleted. Then there are three other matters. In Clause 6, which deals with the acquisition of small holdings, this House had inserted a provision which gave county councils a veto on the Minister exercising powers in any particular

1257
locality. The Minister has thought that that unduly hampered him in his actions. At the same time I have felt that it would be all to the good if at any rate the county councils were associated in a consultative capacity, and therefore I have put down a proviso making it necessary for the Minister to consult the county council, although that does not go quite so far as we originally proposed.
Then, with regard to the duration of the Act, we had originally inserted a time-limit of four years. The Minister has put in ten years. Quite frankly, I think that perhaps four years is a little short. Obviously it will take a very considerable time before these small holdings are put into operation, and one wants to give a reasonable opportunity to see how they work, but I do not think that we want to give more than what is a reasonable opportunity before the matter is reviewed by Parliament. I shall, therefore, ask your Lordships to say that seven years is quite long enough.
The last is a matter which particularly affects Scotland. I hope I am not stating the matter improperly, because I know that we have amongst your Lordships a number of noble Lords who are experts in this matter, but as I understand the difficulty the Bill proposes that the Ministry should have power compulsorily to use for smallholding purposes lands which do not belong to them, but which they merely take on lease. It was said that that was a very unreasonable provision, because it enabled the Ministry to take land on lease, erect buildings on it, and perhaps destroy its value for purposes for which it was originally intended and then hand it back to the landowner, with no compensation. The answer was that that was the existing law, but I doubt if that is a sufficient answer, and I am proposing as an Amendment that the Ministry shall only use land which does not belong to them with the consent of the real owner. I think that that meets the point which my friends from Scotland made. I thank your Lordships for the indulgence you have given me, in allowing me to make my statement at this stage, but I thought it would shorten matters when we come to consider the Amendments in detail.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. (43).]
Page 1, leave out Clause 1.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they consider it desirable that an Agricultural Land Corporation should be constituted for the purpose of promoting agricultural development and of conducting large scale farming operations.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM,VISCOUNT HAILSHAM, who had given Notice that he would move that the House doth insist said: My Lords, this is the matter to which I have just referred, and I do not propose to make a very long speech about it. I have very carefully read and re-read the discussions which took place in Committee in this House, and the careful argument of the Minister in another place. Quite frankly, the arguments adduced in another place do not seem to me to meet the objections which your Lordships took to Clause 1. The clause seems to me to be unjustifiably extravagant, in making experiments which we think are very unlikely to succeed, which even if they do succeed would not prove very much, because the conditions of climate and so on infinitely vary, and which, if they do succeed in proving anything, would not be of assistance to the farmers who are not in a position to carry on large-scale farms, and which would not assist employment, because they are more likely to put people off the land than on the land. In my view, the suggestion that we should set up a Corporation to carry on large-scale experimental farms is not justified, and so far as this clause is concerned we do not see our way to agree to the proposals of the Government. We must therefore insist, if this Bill is to pass into law with the assent of both Houses, that Clause 1 shall disappear from it.
EARL DE LA WARE: I am very sorry the, noble and learned Lord should still feel irreconcilable to this clause, to which the Government attach so much importance. We did feel, in putting this clause into the Bill, and we still feel,

1259
that this clause does really offer in the future one way out for certain areas or districts in this country. It is perfectly true to say that it does not make an immediate contribution to the immediate agricultural problem. Experiments of this character must of necessity be conducted on a long-term basis, but at the same time, when we realise that we are told again and again that there are certain areas in this country which cannot continue in farming without a very large subsidy, either at the expense of the taxpayer or the consumer, and then in the same breath are told that it is gross extravagance to experiment and attempt to evolve methods of farming which may make it unnecessary in future years to have these subsidies, then I cannot help feeling that there is very considerable contradiction here.
We propose—I say this because of the charges of extravagance—to spend one million pounds of capital in an effort to bring by experiment the methods of farming in these districts, where we are told that farmers must stick to arable cultivation, into a state to compete with those with whom at the present moment they are unable to compete. That is proposed to be done by placing, as I have said, a million pounds of capital at the disposal of the Corporation, which, whilst fully controlled, so far as it is necessary from the point of view of safeguarding the public interest, should be allowed to run their experiments completely divorced from all political influences. That suggestion requires a million pounds. If any of your Lordships think that you are going to get out of assisting these arable areas to persist in their present efforts for a million pounds, or even a million pounds a year, then I am afraid that some of you are living in a fool's paradise. It is for that reason that I do rather quarrel with the noble and learned Viscount for getting on the high horse of public economy and asking your Lordships to turn down this clause.
We do feel that there are very large possibilities in an experiment conducted in a businesslike manner on these lines, not only in regard to cereal cultivation—and, after all, we cannot disregard that. It is very important. It is essential to certain areas. And how we are ever going to compete again in cereal cultivation I really do not know, unless
1260
we are prepared to adopt some new method. It may well be that we can never compete. Very well, if we cannot compete let us accept that fact. Let the taxpayers, if at the behest of noble Lords opposite they like to at a later stage, say that they will support these growers at the public expense. But I think we can be pretty sure that, if the taxpayers do say that, if they are to be asked to support these growers at the public expense, the very least condition they will make is that at any rate they must be satisfied that those growers are cultivating in the most economical way possible.
I think we all agree really that the present method of corn growing as pursued in this country is not the most economical. And I think that has been admitted on the Conservative side when it was said that if this experiment were a success it might result in fewer men being employed on the land. It is perfectly true that, as regards corn growing, that may be so, but I remember on Second Reading I ventured to put this point to your Lordships: are we therefore, in order to keep men employed in cereal growing, to subsidise farmers to enable them to continue employing more men than are really needed for the growing of corn? We all of us know there has been a controversy in the last year or two in the cotton industry as to the number of looms that one man could work. Would it not be just as logical to say that the State should subsidise the cotton industry in order that it may go on employing more men than are really needed for the control of their looms?
But there are other sides of the agricultural industry which require investigation and advance. It has seemed to me sometimes that perhaps too much emphasis has been put on the cereal side of the problem in relation to this clause. There is an immense work to be done, for instance, in experimenting—and it has been started already on a small scale—with some of the Welsh hill grazings. Then, there is the growing of fruit run in conjunction with a canning factory—I think rather on the lines suggested in a letter to The Times by the noble Lord, Lord Ernie. Surely, it might be a very profitable and useful experiment for this Corporation to be allowed to set up a large demonstration fruit farm in one of the depressed areas,

1261
with a canning factory in the middle of it, and on the outskirts a number of the small holdings which are intended to be set up under Clause 2. I should have thought there were immense possibilities of development for a scheme of that kind, in an attempt to get certain areas of this country, which at the present moment are attempting to grow crops which it does not pay them to grow, to turn over to different methods and the production of different commodities.
For these among other reasons I would suggest to your Lordships that the step that you are asked to take this afternoon, once more to eliminate Clause 1 from this Bill, is a retrograde step, and a step that years hence we shall look back upon with regret, because years hence we shall still need to make this experiment. But then you will have to start right from the beginning, having lost all the years that will have intervened. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will not agreed to the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Earl has advanced to the House many reasons why his scheme for the setting up of this Corporation, with its large-scale farming, should be permitted to pass into law. He has avoided with the greatest care touching upon the human aspect of the case, and it was one which made a tremendous appeal to those who live in the country and have a regard for the interests of those who are already established on the land. On the Second Reading, now so long ago, I ventured to say that there could be only one consequence of the success of the scheme of large-scale farming, and that consequence would be that it should be followed up; and, if it were to be followed up, it would mean the displacement of hundreds, nay even thousands, of small farmers and labourers who are already established upon the land. No noble Lord could conscientiously vote for the insertion in the Bill of a clause which was going to have that effect. No matter how sound the business reasons that might be advanced for it, yet those business reasons must stand down in favour of the human aspect of the case. I cannot believe it possible that any noble Lord could bring
1262
himself to vote for the inclusion of such a clause when the risks are so great, if that clause, when carried into operation, were as successful as the noble Earl expects and hopes it will be. How on earth a clause of this kind ever emanated from a Labour Government, I am totally unable to understand.
When we were children a certain king was held up to us in execration for enclosing a large area of England that he might be able to hunt the deer therein. Surely, the Labour Government does not propose to devastate large areas of England of their existing population, not that deer may live there, but in order that tractors may hold sway? It is an impossible proposition; and, if there were no other argument but the one which I have referred to, I personally, and I believe every other noble Lord in this House, would vote against this clause; and I trust greatly that the House will follow the advice of the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has advanced very strong reasons from the human point of view for disagreeing with the proposal of the noble Earl opposite. May I advance some reasons from the business point of view? We all know that a Government after the War started farming in different parts of the country. They lost large sums of money on every farm, and the result was that they were obliged to give up the scheme, cease farming, and let private individuals continue the operation of farming. With that experience behind us, what likelihood is there of the present Government doing any better than the last Government which undertook farming operations? The noble Earl asks us, at a moment when the financial position of the country is about as serious as it possibly can be, to venture a million of money in starting this Corporation, to be followed by the expenditure of another five millions for the purchase of land. I cannot conceive anything more futile than for a Government to attempt to start farming operations under the idea that they are going to be successful where private individuals have failed. The arguments of the noble Lord who has just sat down are to my mind absolutely conclusive even supposing that I thought the Government were going to make a success of it. As

1263
I am quite certain they will only lose money and as I do not want to hand over any more money to the tax collector than I have to hand over at present—which, in my opinion, is a great deal too much—I shall certainly support my noble friend below me. I am glad that he has taken this line and I hope he will take a similar line on other occasions.
May I remind the noble and learned Lord who leads the House that last May when he wished to alter the date of the Third Reading of this Bill from June 9
Resolved in the negative: the said Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Leave out Clause 2.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment, but have amended the words so restored to the Bill as follows:—
Page 4, line 16, at end, insert "land or to take land on lease by agreement and to"
Page 4, line 18, after "farms," insert "conducted on an economic basis"
Page 4, line 23, at end, insert—
Provided that no farm conducted under the powers conferred by this section shall exceed two hundred and fifty acres in extent unless the annual value thereof was at the date of the acquisition of the land by the Minister assessed for the purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, at an amount which did not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds.
and to ante-date it, one of his reasons was that it was Wanted in another place? This is July 28 and nearly two months have elapsed since that date. Therefore, if he had yielded to my request and had taken the Third Reading on the day on which it was put down nobody would have been hurt and members who wished to speak would have ben able to speak.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Arnold, L.

Olivier, L.

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

Passfield, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Marks, L.

Snell, L.

De La Warr, E.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dynevor, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Faringdon, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Forester, L.

Elibank, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Airlie, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Greenway, L.

Harrowby, E.

Goschen, V.

Hastings, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Hailsham, V.

Hayter, L.

Liverpool, E.

Novar, V.

Heneage, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Aberdare, L.

Lamington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Merthyr, L.

Midleton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Minister, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Redesdale, L.

Peel, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Remnant, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cranworth, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Poulett, E.

Danesfort, L.

Swinfen, L.

Radnor, E.

Darling, L.

Trenchard, L.

Wavertree, L.

EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on its Amendment and doth agree to the Commons Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, and doth agree to the Commons Amendments.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, with reference to this clause, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, explained in his preliminary remarks the effect of the additional words that the Government propose to put in. I admit that they make a very great difference. Perhaps, in passing, I may be allowed to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount upon his successful diplomacy in being able to persuade the right hon. gentleman (the Minister of Agriculture)

1265
to accept matters which he would not accept across the floor of the House. Perhaps I might also be allowed to say a word in favour of the right hon. gentleman who has been prepared to meet the noble and learned Viscount in several respects with regard to this particular clause. The noble and learned Viscount explained that the Government are now prepared to reduce these demonstration farms to farms not exceeding 250 acres in extent, and, in so far as there is the possibility of this clause being utilised for large-scale farming, I think I would not expect any more than perhaps an indication that these farms shall not be used for large-scale farming. But you can duplicate and triplicate 250 acre farms till you get a farm upon a large scale.
In speaking of this clause, I do not think it was the desire of your Lordships, in the earlier stages, to show any objection to a demonstration farm as such. We recognise the enormous advance that there has been in agricultural research during recent years, and that demonstration is a necessary complement of research. Research has shown us how to work land scientifically, and it has been upon demonstration farms that practical application has been made of scientific knowledge. In this clause the Government puts some reliance upon these farms being conducted on an economic basis. I do not understand how far that will take us. It seems; to be the intention to work the farms economically, but in the event of their not being economic I am not certain what will happen. It is more than probable, I think, that farms worked by Universities and big bodies will be unlikely to show a profit. In every case, demonstration charges are too high. It is the object of these farms to show the farmers how their land can be worked profitably, and, even in the unlikely event of these farms being profitable, I am afraid the experiment will not be very convincing to the ordinary practical farmer.
A farmer has a suspicion—a perfectly natural one I think—that farms conducted at University research stations and by other bodies with large command of capital, and with any amount of advice, scientific, economic, practical and agricultural, are enabled to be worked under conditions which are not analogous in
1266
any way to those which are found on the ordinary farm worked by a practical farmer. I am quite certain that the best method in which the demonstration can be effective in inducing improved agriculture is by some method of carrying out the results of scientific research upon an ordinary farmer's farm. It is done to quite a considerable extent under county councils and it is also done under many other bodies. The Rothamsted experimental station has a very large number of farmers who every year are carrying on experiments for it on the lines of results which have been proved as far as they can be proved at the station itself. We have found farmers very willing to do this. It does not require a very great deal of money, and it will not require much addition to the ordinary work of the stations. I am not quite certain, but I believe under this new clause it will be possible for the Government to work their demonstration farms in that way. I shall be glad to have some assurance upon that. If we can have some assurance of that kind I can very willingly support the clause as amended.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord, subject to certain qualifications, does now feel that this clause might be acceptable at any rate to him. Very considerable changes, as he has already told your Lordships and indeed as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, told your Lordships, have been made. Perhaps I might deal first with the noble Lord's last point. He has asked whether provision has been made for work to be carried out on farmers' land. What we have done is to insert an Amendment to enable us to take land on lease without purchase, but on the question of carrying out experiments on farmers' own lands I do not think there would be any necessity for inserting that in a Bill. With regard to the words "conducted on an economic basis," of which the noble Lord asks for some explanation, I do not think they mean neceesarily that if a demonstration farm were to lose money for one year it would have at once to be closed down. What they mean is that it is definitely laid down that the Ministry of Agriculture is not to be allowed to run experimental farms except under a general instruction that the farms should

1267
be run on an economic basis—that is for commercial demonstration. If they are a commercial success, no doubt that will be taken as proof that the system of farming which they are attempting to demonstrate is not a failure.
As to the other point, that again has already been mentioned. I am asked to give an assurance that Clause 2 shall not be used in a roundabout fashion for doing what we wanted to do under Clause 1. Of course, your Lordships know that we would not think of trying to do such a thing. At any rate, this Amendment shows your Lordships how sincere we are on that I think the noble Lord is a little unfair when he suggests we are going to add a lot of farms together. Apart from anything else, what we are after is a large unit and a large number of separate units would not meet the point. We have made very big concessions in regard to this clause. Therefore I hope your Lordships will agree with the Commons Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the Lords Amendment not insisted upon and Commons Amendments agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Leave out Clause 3.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment, but have amended the words so restored to the Bill as follows:
Page 4, line 34, after "satisfactorily," insert "and economically"
Page 5, line 1, after "satisfactorily," insert "and economically"
Page 5, line 18, leave out "relating to arbitration"
Page 5, line 25, after "notice," insert "(not being requirements determined by arbitration to be unreasonable)"
Page 6, line 43, leave out "are," and insert "would involve unreasonable expense or are otherwise"
Page 8, line 9, after "instrument," insert "but after giving reasonable notice in writing to the occupier"
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on the Amendment to leave out Clause 3 and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, and doth agree with the Commons Amendments.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; the said Amendment not insisted upon and the Commons Amendments agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 9, leave out Clause 4.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 10, leave out Clause 5.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 11, line 6, at end insert:
(" Provided that no holding shall be provided under this section unless the council of the county report to the Minister in writing in respect of each holding that a person possessing in the opinion of the Minister the qualifications mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on that holding.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would render the successful operation of the clause impracticable.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved that the House do not insist on their Amendment in page 11, line 6, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 11, line 6, at end insert:
Provided that, before acquiring land in any county for the purpose of providing small holdings thereon under the powers conferred by this section, the Minister shall consult the county council as to the localities in which land suitable for the purpose can be obtained."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have an addendum to move, and that is that on page 11, line 6, we insert at the end the words printed on the Paper. I really developed what I had to say a little earlier. The original proposal we made was to give county councils a veto. The Minister has refused to accept that. I think it is important that county councils should be taken into the Minister's confidence, that he should avail himself of their local knowledge, and that the Bill should expressly provide that the Minister should at least consult them beforehand as to the localities in which there is land suitable for the purpose. I do not think it would do, as I originally thought, to provide that the Minister should consult the county council about each particular plot of land before he buys it, because if the Minister tells too many people that he is going to buy a particular plot of land it is not always very economical for the taxpayer, but I think he should consult the county council as to where small holdings can best be situated in the county. Therefore, I propose that we should not insist on the veto originally inserted, but that we should insert this proviso. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, but proposes an Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
EARL DE LA WARE: My Lords, I agree to the noble and learned Viscount's proposal.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the original Amendment not insisted upon and the new Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 13, leave out Clause 10.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they consider that it is advisable to retain the powers conferred by the clause to meet cases which might arise.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 19, line 27, at end, insert the following new clause:
Procedure as to validity of orders.
(" . 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 ho 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 Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Season:
Because they consider it unnecessary in view of the Amendments made by the Lords in page 14, line 42, and page 16, line 26, to which the Commons have agreed.
EARL DE LA WARE.: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to explain my position with regard to this Amendment. The words on the Paper were my proposal during the Committee stage of the Bill. I asked your Lordships to take away those terrific powers that were given to the Minister under the Small Holdings Act of 1908. Your Lordships agreed with my suggestion, but when we came to the Report stage new provisos were put in the Bill insisting on the Minister working under Provisional Orders. You could not in a Bill of this kind have two alternative methods—the method of my Amendment and the method of the provisos put in on the Report stage. I only want to say that I stand by every word of my Amendment which was put in the Bill, but in the circumstances, owing to the new provisos put in, I do not feel that I can insist on my Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 19, line 36, at end insert the following new clause:
Duration of powers of Minister.
(". The provisions of Sections six, seven and eight of this Act, and, so far as they confer power upon the Minister to provide allotments or to acquire land therefor, of Section fourteen of this Act, shall have effect for the period of four years from the commencement of this Act, and no longer:
Provided that the expiry of the said provisions shall not—

(a) affect the previous operation there of 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 provisions aforesaid had not expired.")
The Commons agree to the above Amendment, with the following Amendment:
Paaage 19, line 5, leave out ("four") and insert ("ten").
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM had given Notice to move, That this House doth disagree with the Amendment proposed
1272
by the Commons to the Lords Amendment in page 19, line 36 (i.e., in line 5, leave out "four" and insert "ten") but proposes the following Amendment in lieu thereof: leave out "ten" and insert "seven". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this matter relates to the duration of the time limit, and with regard to this again I have said what I desire to say. This is a real concession on behalf of the Government, and I accept it as such. They have accepted a time limit. The time limit which this House inserted was four years. The time limit now suggested is ten years. I am suggesting to your Lordships that seven years would be the right period to insert, and I do it for this reason. Nobody suggests, of course, that at the end of seven years this Bill must necessarily come to an end. That is not the proposal. The suggestion is that at the end of seven years Parliament should review the position and either continue or not continue the provisions of the Act according to whether they have proved successful or unsuccessful. In order to do that there must be a long enough interval provided to give the experiment a fair chance. It will take same two or three years to get the thing going. In agricultural matters you cannot decide on one season. Obviously seasons vary very much, and it will take a little while for small holders themselves to get established and to get experience.
According to such advice as I have been able to obtain from some of your Lordships whom I have consulted, seven years is a sufficient time to enable Parliament to form a fair opinion about the success or non-success of the experiment. That was why I intended to suggest seven years instead of ten years. I hope I am not betraying a secret when I say that the noble Earl, whilst I have been speaking, has passed over a note in which he says, "We will settle at eight." As I am met in that spirit of reasonableness it is a little difficult to insist on seven when we are so close together. Therefore, with the permission of your Lordships and of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I would like to move my Motion in the form that we leave out "ten" and insert "eight."
Moved, That this House doth disagree to the Amendment proposed by the Commons to the Lords Amendment in page 19,

1273
line 36 (i.e., in line 5, leave out "four" and insert "ten") but proposes the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Leave out ("ten") and insert ("eight").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the Commons Amendment disagreed to and the substituted Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 20, page 21, line 18, after ("sums") insert ("not exceeding in the aggregate ten million pounds.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it imposes a limit on the sum which may be expended on holdings to be provided under the Bill, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Wan.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I think this was one of the most important Amendments that your Lordships put into the Bill. We put a limit on the expenditure of the Government on small holdings. When the Bill came to your Lordships there was no limitation at all to the capital expenditure which might be made on small holdings, although there was a limit to the capital expenditure under a good many other items. I understand that another place has said that they will not have this limitation of expenditure to £10,000,000, and the reason given is that it would limit the number of small holdings. Surely that is not the right way to look at the question. It is a question of how much we can afford to spend on small holdings.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that I used before, but I remember stating on the Second Reading that a very reasonable estimate of the expenditure of small holdings would be that it might amount to £200,000,000, and I see no reason for changing that figure. We have had a warning from Mr. Snowden on the financial position of the country, and he asked the whole country to come to his aid, to help him and to practise economy. We have tried our best in this House by putting a, limit of £10,000,000
1274
to this expenditure, and we have just now passed an Amendment saying that the Government shall have eight years in which to run this Bill. But how many million pounds will they spend on small holdings during eight years? It seems to me that the limit of eight years is going to encourage the Government to go in for an enormous number of small holdings at once and get them through before the eight years have passed. I shall be very sorry if we let the Commons objections stand in this House and allow an unlimited amount of expenditure under this Bill. I hope I shall get some backing, and I should like to hear what your Lordships have to say.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in his contention that we should not agree to the proposal of the Commons. The arguments used when we inserted the limitation of £10,000,000 have all the more force to-day, considering the lack of improvement, and in fact the deterioration, of the financial state of this country and of Europe as a whole. Your Lordships will remember that your principal reason for inserting the Amendment was that we did not wish to give any Minister a blank cheque for expenditure in this direction. After all, £10,000,000 is a biggish sum. It might, perhaps, be reasonable to consider some slight increase, in view of the number of years over which the Bill is to run, but surely, should small holdings be a financial or a social success, there is no doubt that, when the Bill comes to an end, there will be no difficulty in obtaining from Parliament the necessary additional moneys to spend on their extension; whereas if they are not a success, then under the proposal of the Commons, with the blank cheque that it is proposed to give to the Minister, there is no limit to the money that he might spend in the pursuance of a will-o'-the-wisp attempt to make them a success. I hope your Lordships will insist on your Amendment and will leave the limitation in the Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I earnestly desire to support the proposal of my noble friend, which was supported by the noble Earl who has just spoken. Let us consider for a moment the financial position of the country. The Budget did not balance; since the arrangement has been made with Germany

1275
there is a further deficiency of £11,000,000; and further sums have been spent in addition. Therefore the next Budget must meet a deficiency of something like £20,000,000. In those circumstances we propose to give a Minister power to spend an unlimited sum of money. As my noble friend says, it might be £200,000,000. Even in the most prosperous times I have always contended that it was not business-like to give any Government unlimited power to spend. Parliament has always reserved to itself the right to sanction and limit expenditure. The Minister and the present Government—I am not at all sure that the Liberal Government was not somewhat of the same opinion—have held that the Government should have power to spend other people's money to as great an amount as they desire. In fact, as I once told a Liberal Financial Secretary, that power which Parliament refused to the Kings we would not give to a Radical Government. Nor would I agree to give power to spend unlimited money, either to the present Government or to my noble friends who sit below me, if they were sitting opposite. I should be just as insistent upon not giving them unlimited power to spend money.
This is really a very serious thing. Only two or three days ago I saw in the Press a notice from several eminent people—mainly, I think, Liberals; I should like to draw the attention of the Liberal Peers to this—pointing out the vital necessity for economy at the present moment, and saying that unless we were very careful we should go the way of Australia. Yet here, at the present moment, after your Lordships have put in a limit which, after all, is a very large sum of money—£10,000,000 is a very large sum—I understand that further powers of spending to an unlimited amount are to be given to the Government. I think the noble Earl who spoke last raised the possibility that in two or three years time, if the small holdings turn out to be a success and there is no financial loss, it would be perfectly easy for the Government to come down and ask for further sums; but at this moment to grant them unlimited power is, to my mind, disastrous, and if my noble friend goes to a Division (I do not care if there is nobody in the Lobby) I think this is such an important point that we ought
1276
to show that there are at any rate some of us who, understanding something of financial matters, view with dismay the position of the country at the present moment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Dynevor will not press his objection, for this reason. Your Lordships will remember that, when the Bill was discussed in Committee, Amendments were put down, first of all to limit the time during which the Bill should operate and in the second place to limit the amount of money that might be spent under it. When these Amendments were first brought before your Lordships' House I took it on myself to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he would give us a time limit or a money limit, because I thought one or the other was most important and we were anxious to meet him as to which it should be. At that time the noble Earl was not in a position to give us either. Since that time, I will not say wiser counsels but different counsels have prevailed, and he has at any rate met us to the extent which we have just seen.
The difficulty which I ventured then to point out to your Lordships was that any limitation, certainly of money and I think of time, was obviously a Privilege Amendment, and I called your Lordships' attention, I think in Committee, and afterwards on the Report stage, to the fact that that Amendment was clearly privileged. It was one of the difficulties which confronted us. We have now what is a substantial concession on the part of the Government in accepting the limitation of time, and I think it would be unfortunate if we then insisted upon a limitation of money. The objection taken by the House of Commons is constitutionally a good objection—namely, that as a Privilege matter, not under the Parliament Act but under a constitutional rule which has existed for a great many years, it stands outside the powers of this House. I think it would be very unfortunate to come into conflict with the other House on a matter in which clearly we should be claiming to infringe the Privileges of that House, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
EARL DE LA WARR: After what has been said by the noble Viscount, it is not

1277
necessary that I should add much. If the Amendment is pressed, in addition to the fact that it is really dealing with a matter of Privilege, purely on the question of merits the Government regard this matter as absolutely vital to the Bill, and it would virtually mean the loss of the Bill if an Amendment of this character were carried. We intend to push forward with this smallholdings policy, as far as circumstances permit, and by circumstances we mean choice of applicants, choice of land, and fully adequate arrangements being made for settlement and training. Those are to be our only limits apart from the matter of time, which has already been discussed and settled, and the Government could not accept this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SQUTHAM: With the leave of the House, may I say that, as my noble and learned friend has said, this is not a question of the Parliament Act. It is a question of a statement made some two hundred years
Resolved in the affirmative: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 20, page 21, line 25, after ("sums") insert ("not exceeding in the aggregate seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds")
ago by the House of Commons, that the power of imposing taxation was entirely in their hands. Your Lordships have never agreed to that, and there have been many occasions when it has suited the Government of the day to impose taxation in this House. But this is not imposing taxation. This is putting a limit to expenditure, which I venture to say is a different thing altogether. In either case there has been no Act of Parliament. There has been nothing but a Motion in another place many years ago, not agreed to in this House, and, therefore, I venture to say that we are perfectly within our rights in insisting upon this Amendment, which we put in when the Bill was before us a short time ago. If we were wrong to put it in then, we ought never to have put it in, but having done so we ought not to run away from it.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Dickinson, L.

Poulett, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Faringdon, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wellington, D.

Greenway, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hastings, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Bridgeman, V.

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

Linlithgow, M.

Elibank, V.

Reading, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Heneage, L.

Goschen, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hailsham, V.

Marks, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hood, V.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Mersey, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Passfield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Lucan, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sanderson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Snell, L.

Midleton, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Cranworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.

Wavertree, L.

Peel, E.

Darling, L.

NOT-CONTENT.

Airlie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lamington, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Merthyr, L.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Novar, V.

Forester, L.

The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it imposes a limit on the sums which may be expended on holdings to be provided under the Bill and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting the above Season may be deemed sufficient.
EARL DE LA WARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 20, line 38, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 17, page 21.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they consider it desirable that an Agricultural Land Corporation should be constituted for the purpose of promoting agricultural development and of conducting large scale farming operations.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved that this House doth insist on the said Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is really consequential on the leaving out of Clause 1, on which the Government were defeated. It ought not to read quite as I have it on the Paper, because the lines which we left out were lines relating to Clauses 1, 2 and 3. We have kept out Clause 1, and we have allowed Clauses 2 and 3 to go in a modified form. Therefore, I move that the House doth insist on its Amendment in page 20, line 38, so far as it leaves out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 22.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 22, leave out Clause 23.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they consider it desirable that an Agricultural Land Corporation should be constituted for the purpose of promoting agricultural development and of conducting large scale farming operations.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved that the House doth insist on the said Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount said: This again is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("two, three").
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 23, line 7, leave out ("sections one") and insert ("section")
Page 23, line 8, leave out ("and twenty-three").
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they consider it desirable that an Agricultural Land Corporation should be constituted for the purpose of pro moting agricultural development and of conducting large scale farming operations.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this again is consequential on leaving out Clause 1. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendments insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 23, line 11, leave out from ("Department") to the end of line 16.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clause 4, which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
Moved, That the House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 23, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clause 4, which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 24, line 15, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 25, page 25, line 2, leave out from ("1918") to ("on") in line 3.
Clause 25, page 25, line 4, leave out from ("department") to ("a") in line 5.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because it is desirable that the existing powers of the Department in relation to the creation of small holdings should be made available for the settlement of unemployed, persons, agricultural workers, and ex-members of His Majesty's Forces on the land.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved that this House doth not insist on its Amendments, but proposes the following Amendment in lieu thereof: Page 25, line 5, after "person" insert "with the consent of that person". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendment I have proposed will be found at the back of the page of Amendments standing in my name. The object, as I explained before, is to ensure that in Scotland, when the small holdings are
1282
set up on land which does not belong to the Department, it shall only be done with the consent of the owner. It meets, I think, the point to which my noble friends from Scotland attached importance.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments, but proposes an Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendments not insisted upon, but another Amendment made in lieu thereof.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 26, leave out line 9.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 26, line 11, leave out from ("eighteen") to ("shall") in line 12.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Season:
Because it is consequential on Clause 4, which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 26, line 14, leave out ("Part II of")
Page 26,line 17, leave out ("the said Part II") and insert ("this Act")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they are consequential on Part I which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendments not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 27, leave out the First Schedule.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clause 4, which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.
A Committee appointed to prepare a Reason for the Lords insisting on certain
1284
of their Amendments, the Committee to meet forthwith.
Report from the Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons read and agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons returning the Bill with the Amendments and a Reason.

ISLE OF MAN LOANS BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH SUGAR INDUSTRY (ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.