Sitting of 4 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Manpower Economy Committee (Industrial Members)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will consider adding to the Manpower Economy Committee one or more individuals who have first-hand experience in industry of personnel organisation and control, and if he will publish the names of the two civilians of standing in the industrial world, together with their qualifications, the intended appointment of whom has recently been announced.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): As I explained in the Debate on the Air Estimates on 17th March, and again in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) on 24th April, there are two members of the Manpower Economy Committee who have first-hand experience in industry of personnel organisation and control—Mr. A. A. M. Durrant, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the London Passenger Transport Board, and Mr. E. W. Bussey, who represents the Trades Union Congress. The Committee was set up at the beginning of
    166
    this year, and has made gotd progress in its work.

    Occupied House, St. Marylebone
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Air for what purpose the house at 16, Mansfield Street, in the borough of St. Marylebone, remains in the occupation of the R.A.F; and how long this occupation is to continue.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The house occupied by the R.A.F. was No. 15, Mansfield Street, not No. 16, as the hon. Member suggests. It has now been decided that it is unsuitable for our purposes; if, therefore, it is not required by other Government Departments, it will, in accordance with the usual practice, be released.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Prestwick Airport (Landings)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware that a Scottish Airlines Dakota aircraft, carrying 11 passengers, circled Prestwick airport 16 times before landing on Wednesday, 14th May, and that this was primarily due to the development of an oil-leak in the hydraulic pipeline system; if he has made an inquiry into the matter; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Yes, Sir. This incident was the result of a mechanical defect, which unfortunately occurred despite the rigid inspections and safety rules to which aircraft are subjected. The circuits of the airfield were necessary, in order that a visual check could be made from the ground to ensure that the undercarriage was safely down before the aircraft landed. I am satisfied that everything possible was done to safeguard both passengers and aircraft; and that all the necessary action was carried out in an exemplary fashion, with the result that the aircraft made a successful landing.
    Mr. Rankin: While I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask if he is fully aware that this danger always exists; and could he say what crash survivability there is in the air frame of the machine to prevent disaster in the event of forced landing in cases like this?
    Mr. Lindgien: So far as the last part of the question, is concerned, I doubt whether there is any question of crash survivability in the frame of an aircraft. What can be done is to reduce the possibility of accident as far as is possible. In so far as the actual incident is concerned, in this case it was a leak in the hydraulic system and it is one which is likely to occur, but which inspection generally shows up.
    Mr. William Shepherd: Is the Parliamentary Secretary quite satisfied that there was anything wrong with this aircraft; and might it not have been that the pilot, under the influence of certain Scottish Members, circled round 16 times to show the passengers what a wonderful airport Prestwick is?
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before an aeroplane can fly, the engineer has to sign it out as being airworthy, and surely it is a reflection on the engineer that a Question like this should be asked?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, and this aircraft, of course, had its certificate before it flew. It was a leakage which occurred between the union and the pipe.

    Accident Reports
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he has analysed the first six accident reports issued since arrangements were made to make the reports available quickly to the public and listed as B.E.A.C., near Oslo, 7th August, 1946; Scottish Airways, at Northolt, 19th December, 1946; B.S.A.A., at Bathurst, 7th September, 1946; A.A. J.C., at Speke, 16th August, 1946; Scottish Airways, near Renfrew, 27th September, 1946; B.O.A.C., near Stowting, 11th January, 1947; and what action has been taken by his Department or the corporations concerned to eliminate the causes leading to these accidents, as these inquiries have established that in each case the airline organisations themselves were fundamentally responsible for the errors and omissions established in these reports.
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. Reports on accidents naturally receive full and careful consideration as soon as they are received. As regards the second part of the Question, I must not be taken as
    168
    accepting the implication in the last sentence. In most accidents there are a great many contributory factors, and it is not possible within the limits of a Parliamentary reply to analyse the causes in these six cases or to give details of the action taken by the corporations and Ministry. It is, of course, the regular custom of the corporations and this Ministry immediately after the occurrence of any accident, or, I may add, any incident which might have been dangerous, to make a preliminary inquiry at once and any action which appears necessary to prevent a recurrence is taken without delay. Further action is, of course, taken as may be necessary as soon as the cause is determined.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend realise that in these accidents 43 people were killed, apart from those who were injured, and in one case, that of B.S.A.A. at Bathurst, the pilot was found to be inexperienced in the type of aircraft he was flying, having had only 3 hours, 52 minutes in command by day and r hour, 3 minutes by night, and had never done a full load take off in similar conditions? In another case, B.O.A.C. were blamed for bad crewing—
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be reading out a great deal.
    Mr. Cooper: May I ask if any action is intended in view of this very serious state of affairs?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. My noble Friend took steps soon after he took office to have accident inquiries in public, and to have the reports published. I think it is appreciated in every sphere of the industry that that action enables all concerned—corporations, pilots and everyone—to take notice of the primary and root causes of accident and to take such action as is possible.
    Mr. Cooper: But what is being done to increase the efficiency of the—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cook.

    Dundee-Perth
    Mr. Cookasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the reasons for the delay in bringing into

    169
    use the Dundee-Perth Aerodrome to meet the need for air transport in that area; and when he hopes to commence a service from and to the area.
    Mr. Lindgren: I regret that until completion of the review referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) on 7th May last, I cannot make a statement about any particular service.
    Mr. Cook: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is far from satisfactory, because there is a large population in that area, and a most inadequate train service?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, Scotland is important, and my noble Friend gives very considerable attention to it, but there are other parts of the United Kingdom which equally deserve attention, particularly in relation to the difficulties of the transport system.
    Sir William Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish transport system is not developed anything like as much as the English system, and that so far from not requiring great attention, it requires a great deal more attention?
    Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend has given me, as an Englishman, the task of helping out Scotland.

    Circuit Discipline (B.E.A.C. Pilots)
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, whether he is aware of the slackness of the aerodrome circuit discipline among pilots of B.E.A.C.; and what steps he is taking to have this discipline improved.
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. Neither the corporations, nor the Ministry, are aware of any such case, and in the absence of details I must repudiate any suggestion that there is slackness in the aerodrome circuit discipline of any of the British European Airways Corporation's pilots. If, however, the hon. Member has any particular instance in mind, perhaps he will give me the details, and I will gladly take the matter up with the corporation.
    Mr. Renton: Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that there is a regular circuit prescribed in accordance with Royal Air Force practice in these matters, and that such circuits are brought to the notice of all air pilots?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, and there is a very strict measure of traffic control.

  GERMANY

    Civil Claims
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the constitution, procedure and personnel of the panel which is to consider, civil claims against the British authorities in the British zone of Germany.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): As the answer is long, I will with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what is evidently a satisfactory and decisive answer, may I ask if it indicates that this procedure will come into force pretty soon, because there are a number of cases pending?
    Mr. Bevin: I think I must wait for the hon. Member to read the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The panel will consist of representatives of the Control Commission and of the British Army of the Rhine, with a German lawyer to advise on the German legal principles involved. It will be empowered to deal with claims for personal and material damage caused by watercraft, vehicles and aircraft of the occupying authorities, for injury to life, body or health through negligence, maltreatment or force, for violation of unrequisitioned property and for irregular demands for goods or services. Claims must be lodged with the burgomaster of the community where the alleged irregular action occurred within three months of the incident, or before 1st October, 1947, whichever is the later. Except for certain minor cases which will be sent direct to the appropriate German authorities, all admissible claims will be forwarded by the burgomaster to the claims panel for determination of all questions of responsibility in accordance with German law. Where it is found that responsibility attaches to a member or employee of the occupying authorities, the case will be transmitted to the appropriate German authority for

    171
    the assessment of compensation and payment from German funds. The decision reached will in all cases be notified to the burgomaster from whom the claim was received.

    British Property (Claims)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when British subjects, whose property in enemy countries was lost by enemy action, may expect to receive a report as the result of inquiries made by the property control section of the Allied Control Commission; whether the matter of proving their claims is receiving attention; and when they are likely to receive compensation in respect to claims which have been proved and admitted.
    Mr. Bevin: The Property Control Branch of the Allied Control Commission in Germany furnish to British subjects reports on their property in that country in cases where its location, identity and ownership have been brought to notice and are not in doubt or dispute. It is not able at present to undertake to report on property lost or destroyed by enemy action unless identifiable remnants exist or persons responsible for the property are known, nor is it at present able to trace property removed from its original location. With regard to the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) on 29th April last.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say when those people who have their claims identified on identifiable property may hope to receive a settlement?
    Mr. Bevin: I would like to have notice of that question, and I will look into it.

    Food Collection (Farm Deliveries)
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider a food policy, as practised in the Soviet zone, of limiting the requisitions from farms and peasant holdings to a percentage of the average production over a term of years and permitting the balance to be sold at free prices on the open market.
    Mr. Bevin: The question of farm collection and deliveries is under consideration
    172
    at present. The German Executive Committee for Food and Agriculture have proposed a scheme of delivery quotas with premiums for good performance and penalties for insufficient deliveries. This scheme is now being examined by the Anglo-American bipartite authorities in the light of experience gained from different farm collection systems, including that in force in the Soviet zone of Germany.

    Herring
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what immediate steps he is taking to utilise the herring glut for the relief of starvation in Germany; and whether the maximum use of the fishing fleet is being made for this purpose.
    Mr. Bevin: The British and American authorities in Germany, who are jointly responsible in this matter, have authorised the placing of orders for 25,000 tons of pickled herring and 20,000 tons of fresh herring. These were the maximum quantities which the United Kingdom herring industry estimated it could make available. There is now a possibility that these quantities can be increased and the matter is again under consideration in Germany.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend mean that the shoals of herring at present off the East Coast are being caught for this purpose, or is it to be considered after the shoals have gone away?
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, I am not responsible for the catching of the herring. I am only responsible for their disposal after they are caught, and no one knows better than my hon. Friend that the last question put to me should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    War Criminals (Executions)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Germans were hanged or shot in the British zone of Germany by the Control Commission during the year ended 31st December, 1946; and how many have been hanged or shot during the first four months of this year.
    Mr. Bevin: Sixty-eight Germans were hanged in 1946 under arrangements made by the Control Commission, and twenty-seven between 1st January and 29th May

    173
    of this year. Executions by shooting are carried out by the military authorities.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is going to be any limit to the disgraceful scenes which were recently witnessed, when about 60 people were hanged after being kept in prison for more than a year after sentence?
    Mr. Bevin: I think it is time things were brought to a head.

    Free Germans (Repatriation)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, when he reached agreement with the Soviet Government that the repatriation of all German prisoners of war would be completed by the end of 1948, he was given an assurance that the Free Germans under the command of General Paulus would be repatriated by this same date;
    (2) whether, when he promised the Soviet Government that the Dienstgruppen in the British zone of Germany, of which the Soviet Government had complained would be disbanded at the end of the year, he received assurances that the Soviet Government has not been keeping, and will not keep, any of her ex-enemies under arms or give such people military training of any kind.
    Mr. Bevin: When the Allied Control Council in Berlin were preparing their report for the Council of Foreign Ministers, Marshal Sokolovsky stated that there were no Germans serving in the Soviet Armed Forces either in the Soviet zone of Germany or in the Soviet Union. This statement was repeated by Monsieur Molotov in the Council of Foreign Ministers in Moscow.
    Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with this assurance? Can he confirm whether the Free Germany Committee, which was said to have been disbanded in August, 1945, has in fact, been replaced by the Military Committee for the Renovation of Geramny? Will he say whether the maintenance of German armed forces in the U.S.S.R. would be wholly contrary to the Yalta and other agreements
    Mr. Bevin: If it was happening it would be, but I must take the word of other Foreign Ministers, as I expect them to take mine.

    Letter Censorship
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the British censorship in Germany is opening letters addressed by Germans to Members of Parliament at the House of Commons; and whether this policy has his approval.
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply made on 24th April by my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. SkeffingtonLodge). At present I have nothing to add to that reply.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend think it necessary to have these letters censored which at the present time involves an inordinate waste of time? Surely, as there is no security involved, it is really preposterous that the letters of Members of Parliament should be opened?
    Mr. Bevin: I was only recently made responsible for this administration, but I am looking into all these matters.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend at least ensure that no further excision of letters takes place, as has been going on for some considerable time?
    Mr. Bevin: I will look into that matter.
    Mr. Edelman: Is not the Foreign Secretary satisfied that Members of Parliament can cope with their own post without the interference of the censors? Is he aware that I recently had a letter censored from Germany, which was merely thanking me for a book which a German civilian had received?

  FOREIGN SERVICE (NEW ENTRANTS)
  Mr. John E. Haireasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of new entrants into the Foreign Service singe the end of the war, classified in suitable age, education and service groups; and, similarly, the number of candidates rejected.
  Mr. Bevin: Since the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the conditions of entry to

  175
  the Foreign Service which he is gradually introducing are removing those social and educational barriers which have hitherto existed.
  Mr. Bevin: I do not admit that at all. I think that in conformity with the development of the educational system in the country, which now spreads to all people, steps have then been taken to develop Foreign Office services accordingly.
  Following is the answer:

  A.—SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES.
  1. The following are particulars of the candidates successful up to the end of May, 1947, in the Reconstruction Competitions, divided into age and Service groups. Section 1 comprises candidates who had not attained the age of 25 on 2nd August, 1945; Section 2 consists of candidates whose age on that date was 25 or over, the maximum age limit being 30 on 2nd August, 1945.

  Section I.—Service

  …

  39

  non-Service

  …

  6

  Section II.—Service

  …

  70

  non-Service

  …

  4

  Total

  …

  119

  2. The successful candidates have been drawn from the following 63 schools:

  Abbott's Holme School

  1

  Ampleforth College

  2

  Blundells School

  1

  Bootham School (York)

  1

  Briston Grammar School

  1

  Builth Wells County School

  1

  Charterhouse School

  2

  Cheltenham (Girls) College

  1

  Christ's Hospital (Horsham)

  2

  Clacton County High School

  1

  Colfe's Grammar School (Lewisham)

  1

  Cranbrooke School

  1

  Downside School

  1

  Edinburgh Academy

  1

  Emmanuel School (Wandsworth)

  2

  Eton College

  9

  Fettes College, Edinburgh

  1

  Frances Holland (Girls) School

  1

  Geelong Grammar School (Australia)

  1

  Haileybury College

  1

  Herbert Struut School, Belper

  1

  Hereford Cathedral School

  1

  High School, Dannevirke (New Zealand)

  1

  High School, Newcastle-under-Lyme

  1

  Holloway School

  1

  Latymer Upper School

  1

  Leighton Park School, Reading

  1

  Malvern College

  1

  Marlborough College

  3

  Manchester Grammar School

  3

  Merchant Taylors School

  1

  Mill Hill School

  2

  Modern School (Private) Kelsey Rd.

  1

  Montrose Academy

  1

  Oundle School

  4

  Penistone Grammar School

  1

  Perse School (Cambridge)

  2

  Polytechnic, Secondary School

  1

  Queen Elizabeth's School, Barnet

  1

  Royal Naval College (Dartmouth)

  2

  Rugby School

  6

  Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe

  1

  St. John's School, Leatherhead

  1

  St. Joseph's College

  1

  St. Paul's School

  2

  St. Paul's (Girls) School

  1

  St. Peter's School, Radley

  1

  Sedbergh School

  1

  Sherborne School

  3

  Shrewsbury School

  4

  Stowe School

  5

  Solihull School

  3

  Stationer's Company School

  1

  Tonbridge School

  1

  Trinity County School

  1

  Sutton County School

  1

  Wakefield Grammar School

  1

  Wanstead County School

  1

  Wellington College

  3

  Westminster School

  3

  Whitgift Middle School (Croydon)

  1

  Winchester College

  14

  Privately

  1

  Total

  119

  3. The following table shows the Universities attended by successful candidates:

  University.

  Numbers.

  Oxford

  …

  …

  55

  Cambridge

  …

  …

  47

  London

  …

  …

  7

  Provincial

  …

  …

  2

  Scottish

  …

  …

  1

  Dominion

  …

  …

  1

  None

  …

  …

  6

  Total

  …

  …

  119

  B.—UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES.
  1. The following are the particulars of the unsuccessful candidates covering the same period and arranged in the same categories as the successful candidates above.

  Section I.—Service

  …

  …

  532

  non-Service

  …

  …

  147

  Section II.—Service

  …

  …

  698

  non-Service

  …

  …

  119

  Total

  …

  …

  1,496

  2. A complete analysis according to education of unsuccessful candidates is not available.
  C.—A further 35 candidates who were over the age limit for the Reconstruction Competitions were admitted to the Foreign Service as direct entrants under the scheme outlined in the White Paper on Recruitment to the Civil Service (Command 6567 of November, 1944). Of these candidates 18 (7 Service and 11 non-Service) were between the ages of 30 and 35 on 2nd August, 1945, and 17 (1 Service and 16 non-Service) were over 35 on the same date.

  ITALIAN LINER "REX"
  Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs where, and -in whose hands, the Italian liner "Rex" is now held.
  Mr. Bevin: The "Rex" lies half submerged off the West coast of Istria in waters at present within the jurisdiction of the Yugoslav occupation authorities.

  AUSTRIA (SEIZURE OF HUNGARIAN SHIPS)
  Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to his inquiries regarding the seizure of 11 Hungarian ships at Vienna by the Austrian authorities in pursuance of a decree of the Austrian courts in favour of British creditors and of the subsequent release of these ships by the Soviet military authorities.
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. I have now received a report from the British Political Representative in Vienna which shows clearly that the escape of these ships was organised by the crew of a Hungarian tug and aided by the negligence of the Austrian authorities. Appropriate representations are being made to the Austrian and Hungarian Governments.
  Mr. Reid: Is it not a fact that the Soviet authorities interfered, and, if so, by what legal form or right did they interfere with the jurisdiction of the Vienna Courts?
  Mr. Bevin: I have heard charges of that kind made, and I am investigating them.

  FISHING AREA, SOUTHERN IRELAND (SPANISH VESSELS)
  Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Spanish Government refused to accept an international limitation of fishing in the area of Southern Ireland; that at the moment a large fleet is denuding these grounds of fish; and if he will take immediate action to reopen negotiations with Spain and lessen the threat to both Cornwall and West of England fishermen.
  Mr. Bevin: There is no international agreement for the limitation of fishing in
  178
  the area off Southern Ireland. A convention was signed in 1946, which was applicable to these waters, and which prescribed certain mesh and size limit regulations, mainly for the protection of immature fish, but the convention has still to be ratified by eight of the signatory Governments and it is not yet in force. The Spanish Government was one of the signatories which have not yet ratified. The matter is receiving further consideration.
  Captain John Crowder: Would it not be much easier for the Foreign Secretary to carry on negotiations with the Spanish Government if the British Government had an Ambassador in Madrid?
  Mr. Bevin: The question is what we should do with the fish.
  Mr. Marshall: Will the Foreign Secretary take steps to approach the Spanish Government on the matter of this Armada and to ask them to reconsider their policy, which is completely denuding these fishing grounds?
  Mr. Bevin: I am not quite certain whether it is denuding, or Whether this Convention deals with the denuding of fishing grounds. Perhaps the hon. Member could help me in regard to that. This Convention deals entirely with the matters to which I have called attention.
  Mr. Marshall: I will forward the Foreign Secretary the relevant details so that he may give further consideration to this matter.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that Spanish vessels are not fishing within the three-mile limit of the British coasts?
  Mr. Bevin: I should be glad to have information. I have not been to Ireland for a long time.

  POLAND (WESTERN FRONTIER)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the contents of the letter written by Sir Alexander Cadogan to the Foreign Minister of the former Polish Government regarding the western frontier of Poland; and if he will publish the text of the letter in HANSARD.
  Mr. Bevin: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a letter from Sir Alexander Cadogan, as Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, to Monsieur Romer, Foreign Minister in the Polish Government in London, dated 2nd November, 1944. This letter stated as regards Poland's western frontier that His Majesty's Government considered that Poland should have the right to extend her territory up to the line of the Oder, to include the port of Stettin. This letter, which was confidential, formed part of lengthy diplomatic discussions with the Soviet, Polish and United States Governments subsequently continued at the Crimea Conference and concluded in the Potsdam Agreement, by which the Polish Government undertook, pending the final delimitation of Poland's western frontier, the administration of territory beyond the Oder as far as the Western Neisse. The House is fully aware of the Potsdam Agreement, and I see no advantage in singling out this letter for special publication.
  Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say whether this letter assured the Poles that we would support their frontier claims, whatever the Americans or other people might say?
  Mr. Bevin: My view is that the whole correspondence was superseded by the Potsdam Agreement, which decided this thing, or at least laid down how this territory was to be administered pending the official peace settlement. I am sorry that I cannot carry continuity too far.

  INDO-CHINA (FOREIGN LEGION)
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that prisoners of war originally held by the U.S.A. have, instead of being repatriated, been pressed into a foreign legion and forced to take part in hostilities in Indo-China and have in consequence suffered casualties at Nocay and elsewhere; and if he will make representations to the Allied Governments concerned with the object of stopping such breaches of the Geneva Convention.
  Mr. Sevin: No, Sir. According to my information, the French Foreign Legion comprises no German prisoners of war
  180
  captured by the United States forces, and recruitment has been on an entirely voluntary basis.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Would my right hon. Friend urge on the French Government the desirability of acquainting the relatives of any German prisoners who may have been enrolled in the Foreign Legion of their whereabouts, because at the present time when they first hear of them they are nearly always casualties?
  Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will give me something on which to base such a representation, I shall be glad to consider it.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that I have received several letters from relatives of Germans who have been fighting for France in Indo-China, and that the only communication that they have received is one from the French Government to say that the man has been killed fighting for France? Surely, that was never intended?

  EUROPE (BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY)
  Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the damage done to British prestige in Europe and especially in Eastern Europe during the past 18 months by the activities of British subjects who travel abroad at the expense of extreme left wing organisations and parties with the object of denigrating British foreign policy as carried out by himself; and what steps he is taking to counteract the effects of this propaganda.
  Mr. Bevin: I am aware that many people of more than one party go abroad and speak on matters of foreign policy, but from my conversations with the Ministers of the countries visited, they are fully, alive to the value that should be placed upon their utterances. The regrettable part is that, while the Ministers can assess the importance of the speeches, they are sometimes exploited to the disadvantage of this country.
  Mr. Cocks: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many wealthy people go abroad and say that Britain is being destroyed by the efforts of himself and his colleagues?
  Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will look at my answer in HANSARD tomorrow he will see that I do not confine it to one class or one party going abroad. It does, in fact, apply to more than one party, and I must confess that sometimes speeches which are made are a little embarrassing.

  ETHIOPIA (BRITISH ADVISERS)
  Colonel Wheatleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the position is in Abyssinia with regard to British advisers dealing with police, customs and other departments.
  Mr. Bevin: The Commissioner of Police in Ethiopia and the Adviser on Customs to the Ethiopian Ministry of Finance are British subjects. British subjects are also employed by the Ethiopian Government as Judges in the High Court of Ethiopia, in the Ministry of Education as teachers and in other capacities, and in the Addis Ababa municipality.
  Colonel Wheatley: Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that the conditions of service of these officials are sufficiently satisfactory?
  Mr. Bevin: As far as I know. I have not heard anything to the contrary.

  GREECE (BRITISH TROOPS)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of troops of all services located in Greece at the latest available date.
  Mr. Bevin: There are somewhat more than 5,000 British troops at present in Greece exclusive of the members of the British Service Missions
  Mr. Piratin: Can the Foreign Secretary say when it is expected that these troops will be withdrawn and brought back?
  Mr. Bevin: That is not in the Question.

  CHINA (RELIEF SHIP. BOMBING)
  Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made representations and demanded compensation from the Chinese Government in connection with the bombing of the relief
  182
  ship 1.s.t. "Wanshen" at a port in Shantung on 1st April 1947, in which Captain William Lee of Devonport, and two other members of the crew were injured.
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. Representations were made to the Chinese Government on 8th April. The Chinese Government have replied expressing their profound regret. Disciplinary action has been taken against the pilots responsible, and order= have been issued for the question of compensation to be discussed with U.N.R.R A.

  BRITISH HONDURAS

    New Bridge (Construction)
    Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied with the progress of the work on the new haulover bridge in British Honduras and the expenditure on this work to date.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Yes, Sir. The Governor has recently inspected the bridge and reports that progress upon it is satisfactory. It is expected that the bridge will be completed by the end of September, 1947. Expenditure upon this work to date amounts to £35,000.
    Mr. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity of looking at the wages paid to the special labourers and the common labourers on this job, and is he satisfied with the rate of remuneration?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have not had my attention drawn to that.

    Trust Fund
    Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the expenditure of the trust fund, established under the will of the late Baron Henry Bliss in British Honduras, is in accordance with the terms of the will.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.

    CYPRUS (CHURCH LAWS)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what conditions were agreed upon in October, 1946, when the anti-ecclesiastical

    183
    laws in Cyprus were abrogated; and, in particular, whether there is any agreement preventing any of the acting bishops in Cyprus from becoming archbishop;
    (2) what changes are contemplated in the status of the Church of Cyprus.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The repeal in 1946 of the Cyprus Church Laws of 1937 was without conditions, and the Greek Orthodox community in Cyprus is entirely free to elect its Archbishop in accordance with its own usages. There is no agreement to which the Government is a party concerning the candidature of any individual. No action is contemplated on the part of the Government affecting the status of the Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus
    Mr. Bramall: Could my right hon. Friend state whether that answer definitely means that the British Government will raise no objection to the election of any of the local candidates to this seat?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly.

  FIJI

    Self-Government
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered representations from the European Electors' Association of Fiji requesting a greater measure of self-government for the Colony; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has had time to consider the letter which has been sent to him from the President of the European Electors' Association of Fiji; and if he will make a statement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government as to future political developments in Fiji.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why, in 1937, the constitution of the Legislative Council of the Colony of Fiji was altered so as to increase the number of official members and reduce the number of elected members; if he is aware that this change is contrary to the wish of the majority of the people of that Colony; if he will arrange for a plebiscite to ascertain the opinion of all the people, European, Fijian and Indian, on this subject and take such other steps as are
    184
    practicable to increase democratic rule in that Colony;
    (2) if he is aware that in 1945 a memorial was presented by the European Electors' Association of the Colony of Fiji to his Department, through Sir Cosmo Parkinson, advocating an alteration in the letters patent to provide for greater political control of their domestic affairs by the people of that Colony and to implement the long-avowed aim of British-colonial policy to advance the Colonies towards self-government; that in 1946 a further memorial to the same effect was presented to his Department; why neither of these memorials has been acceded to; and what is being done to implement the aim they sought.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The constitution of Fiji was amended in 1937 so as to increase Fijian and Indian representation and to give equal representation to the three communities while retaining an official majority of one. The overriding consideration must remain the obligation of His Majesty's Government to the Fijians. I cannot accept the suggestion that this change was or is contrary to the wishes of the majority of the people, particularly when much responsible European opinion and Fijian opinion is opposed now to any change in the constitution. I am aware that representations were made by the European Electors' Association in 1945 and again last year advocating measures for constitutional reform, including the creation of an unofficial majority in the Legislative Council, and the introduction of universal adult suffrage on a common roll, but these and other proposals were not accepted because neither my predecessor nor I considered that such changes would at present be of advantage to the community at large or would receive the general support of the Fijians. I have received a letter from the President of the Association reiterating their proposals and pressing for a plebiscite. I have invited the Acting Governor's comments on the letter. But in any case I must have regard to the special nature of Fijian society and the importance of securing political co-operation between the respective communities in Fiji. Local government changes are under consideration and the basis of qualification for representation in the respective communities will in due course receive attention. I am naturally anxious to promote the development of

    185
    democratic institutions in Fiji and only recently made a number of changes which I announced to the House on 2nd April, but in existing conditions I do not think that a plebiscite would provide a satisfactory method of ascertaining popular opinion on constitutional changes.
    Mr. Bramall: Would my right hon. Friend care to give a brief outline of the special features of Fijian society?
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that European residents in Fiji are deeply concerned about the future of that country, may we have an assurance that their representations, which the right hon. Gentleman said he had received, are receiving the really serious consideration of himself and Sir Cosmo Parkinson?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Most certainly. I have asked the Acting Governor for his views on the letter I have received. I would point out that the Association is not wholly representative of European opinion and that there is a considerable section of European opinion which is opposed to any constitutional change at present.

    Parliamentary Delegation
    Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider arranging for a parliamentary delegation to visit Fiji in the near future, in order to meet members of the legislative council and discuss the postwar situation in the island.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. I am anxious to encourage facilities for Members of Parliament to visit British Colonies and will keep the suggestion in mind.

  MALAYA (CIVIL SERVANTS' BACK PAY)
  Mr. Ralph Morleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the Memorandum from the Singapore Government Servants Back-Pay Council and the Government Junior Civil Services Association, Malayan Union, contending that the back-pay terms and conditions contained in circulars C.S.O. Nos. 24 and 25 are unfair and unjust; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  Mr. Creech Jones: It has not been possible to identify the particular Memoran-
  186
  dum my hon. Friend has in mind; but I can assure him that I gave the most careful consideration to all aspects of this difficult matter before I agreed that the proposals in question should be taken as the final decision of the Malayan Governments. I see no reason to take any further action in the matter.
  Mr. Morley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the back-pay award there was considerable discrimination between the European servants and the native servants; that the native servants called the award "the black pay award"; that there is great discontent in the Malayan Union; and will he look further into the matter?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I have gone to a great deal of trouble in this matter, which is very complicated indeed. There has been a good deal of misrepresentation in regard to the award but, on the whole, I think it is a generous settlement.

  MAURITIUS (LABOUR ADVISER)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what changes in the Labour Department in Mauritius are contemplated; whether the present trade union adviser is being withdrawn; and whether it is proposed to send to Mauritius another officer of equal experience and as acceptable to the people of the Colony.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The post of trade union adviser was a temporary appointment, and the officer who has held it has been appointed to a permanent post in Hong Kong, where his experience will be most valuable. A new post of assistant labour commissioner is being provided in Mauritius, and it is hoped to secure for this post a person with wide experience of trade union practice and procedure.
  Mr. Skinnard: Can it be made clear to the people of Mauritius that the transfer to Hong Kong of the officer in question is in effect a promotion?
  Mr. Creech Jones: It is a promotion, but, in any case, the appointment in Mauritius was only of a temporary character.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Demobilisation Centre, Plymouth
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will consider re-establishing at Plymouth the centre for the demobilisation of Naval personnel, in view of the fact that under the present arrangements Plymouth men must travel from Plymouth to Portsmouth in order to obtain their demobilisation suits.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The Navy, like the other services, has now only one civilian clothing centre, that at Portsmouth. Although I realise that this may mean a journey for men demobilised elsewhere, I regret that in present circumstances it would not be economical to set up other civilian clothing centres to meet such cases. Men demobilised from the Navy may, however, use the Army civilian clothing centre at York, or the Royal Air Force centre at Kirkham if these are more convenient.

    Surplus Landing Craft (Houseboats)
    Sir P. Macdonaldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that large numbers of landing craft are being disposed of by his Department to firms intending to convert them to houseboats; that these craft were sold with the understanding that the necessary materials would be made available for their conversion, but that applications to his Department for permits for timber and other materials have been rejected; and if he will make a statement.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): Yes, Sir. Sales of surplus Government small craft by the Admiralty were begun shortly after the war ended, and the conversion to houseboats was one of the uses suggested for minor landing craft. No direct undertaking was given that materials for conversion would be made available, but, until the beginning of this year, the Admiralty authorised the issue of timber for this purpose from the quantities allocated for merchant shipbuilding and ship repair. I regret, however, that recent reductions in the amount of timber available for shipbuilding and ship repair has since compelled the Admiralty to withhold
    188
    further issues for houseboats. Minor landing craft are still sold to individual applicants, but although no restriction is placed by the Admiralty on the use to which they are put, it is made clear to such purchasers that no supplies of timber or other materials for conversion can be made by the Admiralty.
    Sir P. Macdonald: In view of the fact that a great many people, including a number of ex-Servicemen who have invested their gratutities in these undertakings, were given to understand that timber would be made available, and were also given designs from the disposal board at the Admiralty for the conversion of these craft, are not the Admiralty under an obligation to provide the timber, and, if not, to compensate the people concerned? If a private firm—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question is becoming a speech.
    Sir P. Macdonald: If a private firm carried out such a transaction, it would be looked upon as fraudulent. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to do anything about it?
    Mr. Edwards: I am afraid I cannot remember all that was said, but I can say that no definite undertaking was given to anybody at all with regard to the supply of timber for the conversion of these landing craft to houseboats. I should be glad to receive from the hon. Gentleman the number of ex-Servicemen who are losing their gratuities as the result of investing their money in this way.

    Devonport Dockyard (Electricity Undertaking)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give particulars of the electricity undertaking in His Majesty's dockyard at Devonport, including details of the generating equipment and of the maximum production by each generating unit.
    Mr. W. Edwards: As the answer to this Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Details of the generating equipment, excluding the maximum production in kilowatts of each generating unit installed at

    189
    the Generating Station at Devonport Dockyard, are:
    Boilers.

    4–25,000 lbs. of steam per hour Yarrow boilers new in 1928.

    1–25,000 lbs. of steam per hour Yarrow boiler new in 1930.

    1–25,000 lbs. of steam per hour Yarrow boiler new in 1932.

    2–25,000 lbs. of steam per hour Yarrow boilers new in 1936.

    Generating sets.

    1–600 Kilowatt Belliss&Morcom steam reciprocating set new in 1907.

    2–1,200 Kilowatt Willans-Robinson steam reciprocating sets new in 1911.

    1–1,650 Kilowatt Brush-Longstrom turbo alternator new in 1919.

    —1–1,650 Kilowatt Brush-Longstrom turbo alternator new in 1920.

    2–3,750 Kilowatt Parsons turbo alternators new in 1928.

    1–3,750 Kilowatt Parsons turbo alternator new in 1937.

    The three steam reciprocating sets are uneconomical in steam consumption, and, in view of this, combined with their considerable age, they are retained only as a standby plant for use in an emergency when the turbo alternators are out of action. The boiler capacity does not permit of their concurrent use. In these circumstances, the total nominal output of the generating sets is restricted to the output available from the turbo alternators. The nominal maximum output for the station as a whole is, therefore, 14,550 kilowatts. The maximum effective output at the present time is less than this on account of the age of most of the plant and the lower grades of coal which have to be used. Allowance must also be made for plant undergoing repairs or overhaul. In addition to the above, there are two connections, one of 10,000 K.V.A. and the other of 5,000 K.V.A. between the electricity supply systems of the Plymouth Corporation and the Dockyard.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (NEW CHAIRMAN)
  Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to announce the appointment of a chairman of the B.B.C.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of Lord Simon of Wythenshawe as Chairman and Governor of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  ARMED FORCES

    Colour Bar
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Defence what progress has now been made in the negotiations for the abolition of the colour bar in the Army and Royal Navy; in what respects the circumstances in these two services vary so greatly from those of the R.A.F. that the long delay in assimilating their practice to that of the R.A.F. has been necessary; and on what definition of the term "pure European descent" this discrimination is based.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Coloured candidates will in future be able to join the Royal Navy and the Army on the same conditions as the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Driberg: I am very much obliged.

    Sentenced Personnel (Civil Prisons)
    Mrs. Braddockasked the-Minister of Defence how many British service personnel are imprisoned in civilian prisons in this country and abroad, and what arrangements there are for supervision of conditions in those prisons abroad
    Mr. Alexander: I will, with permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that some of the information required is not immediately available, but I am obtaining it and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is received.
    Mr. George Wallace: As the men are imprisoned for offences against the military cede, would it not be better to keep them in military establishments?
    Mr. Alexander: It must not be assumed that they are all men convicted for offences against the military code.
    Following is the reply:

    SERVICE PERSONNEL SERVING SENTENCES IN CIVILIAN PRISONS

    Figures at latest available date.

    —

    Royal Army.

    Air Force.

    Royal Air force.

    (a)Home

    193*

    1,085

    149

    (b)Abroad

    69

    †

    1

    *This figure excludes those sentenced by civil courts, the number of whom is not available.

    † This information is being obtained.

    In Colonial territories United Kingdom Service personnel confined in civil prisons are, generally speaking, subject to the normal prison regulations which provide for periodical visits of inspection by the civil authorities. In India, the only Servicemen in civil prisons are those sentenced for certain major crimes; the conditions in these prisons are regularly inspected by the civil authorities and, from time to time, Servicemen serving sentences are recommended for transfer to this country to complete their sentences and are so transferred. I have no information at present on arrangements for inspecting prisons in other overseas countries, but I am informed that it is unlikely that any British Servicemen are in prison there.

    Medical Examination and Documentation
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to bring the medical examination and documentation of all ranks of the British Forces, especially in regard to pulmonary and dental X-ray, into line with modern practice in the United States and late German Armed Forces.
    Mr. Alexander: I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that up-to-date methods are already used in all three Services.
    Following are the details:
    Medical examinations in the Naval Forces include miniature radiography of the chest when a person is entered, or as soon as practicable afterwards, and thenceforth periodically so far as staff and equipment allow. A "follow-up" system includes full-scale films and special observation treatment in hospital of cases of doubt; all drafting of persons concerned is stopped for such period. The number of dental X-ray machines has recently been considerably increased so that all essential X-ray examinations can now be carried out.
    Over 90 per cent. of Army recruits are examined by mass radiography to detect primarily the presence of pulmonary tuberculosis. As soon as enough staff and equipment are available all recruits will be so examined. Facilities are available for dental X-ray for purposes of diagnosis and treatment. In the Royal Air Force all recruits have a chest X-ray as a matter
    192
    of routine. Further chest X-rays, also dental X-rays, are arranged as required. The facilities will be developed further as and when skilled personnel become available.
    In general, routine dental X-ray examination and documentation of all personnel is not regarded as justifiable, having regard to the present resources of the country. An inter-Service Committee on medical documentation has recently been appointed to consider the possibility of introducing a common system for the three Services, on the most up-to-date lines, bearing in mind war experience not only in this country, but also in Germany and the United States.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Carrots and Celery
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food if he has considered the details which have been sent him about the price of carrots and Californian celery and the difficulties experienced by English growers in obtaining an economic price; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I have read the correspondence which the hon. Member was good enough to send me. Fixed growers' prices are prescribed for maincrop carrots, and growers are assured a market far all standard grade carrots they produce. These prices are regarded by growers in general as providing a reasonable return on the crop. New carrots are at present free of price control. Prices for celery, whether it is grown here or imported, are not controlled. Imports of this vegetable are not shown separately in the Trade and Navigation Accounts, but I learn that celery has come from the United States only in the last two months when home supplies were exhausted and that even so, the quantity was less than 15 tons. I cannot see, therefore, how this import can have affected the home grower.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister realise that because he has purchased these two commodities abroad—and I take it he will not tell us at what cost to the taxpayer—he is putting the home growers out of business?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I have not purchased either commodity abroad. They have been purchased by private enterprise.
    Mr. Walkden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a tendency tot certain people to sky-rocket prices of uncontrolled commodities of this kind; is he not aware that in the last four years celery has been sold at a price more than 120 per cent. higher than before the war, and that carrots have rendered a reasonable return to everybody in the trade and that they are satisfied?

    Fish Friers, Doncaster (Fats)
    Mr. Walkdenasked the Minister of Food why he has refused to include the borough of Doncaster in the scheme to allow extra cooking fats to fish friers; whether he is aware that the actual mining population in the borough of Doncaster is greater than most of the nearby mining villages where he has already conceded the promised increases; and if he will again review the evidence and concede to the fish friers of Doncaster a similar measure of improvement in supplies as other areas.
    Mr. Strachey: As a result of the review to which I referred in answer to my hon. Friend on 28th April, Doncaster has been included in this scheme.

    Grain Trade Agreement
    Mr. John Patonasked the Minister of Food what were the total payments made in 1946 to former importers of grain into Great Britain whose operations were ended by the institution of bulk purchase of grain; what was the number of such payments; and what was the average amount paid.
    Mr. Strachey: My Ministry makes use, as agents, of former importers of grain in connection with its bulk purchases and, under the grain trade agreement which has been in operation throughout the war, pays to a central body the sum of £500,000 per annum, plus the expenses of the firms who are party to the agreement. Detailed figures are not available for 1946.
    Mr. Paton: Does that reply mean that the importers who now receive payments receive them for current activities and that the payments are not made simply because they were put out of business by the Government's bulk purchasing policy?
    Mr. Strachey: The expenses incurred which I mentioned refer to firms who are
    194
    active as agents of the Ministry within the bulk purchase scheme. They act as agents of the Minister.

    Price Changes (Information)
    Mr. Jenningsasked the Minister of Food why statements of food price alterations cannot be issued to the Sheffield Grocers and Provision Dealers Association similar to other trade associations.
    Mr. Strachey: We cannot do this for local trade associations, because there are so many of them. The national grocery and provision trades organisations, however, are told of food price changes so that they may in turn relay the information to their local constituent members.
    Mr. Jennings: Is the Minister aware that that is very unsatisfactory? Is he not aware that he is not placed at the head of a secret service department, but is running a Government Department? Why cannot the Secretary of the Sheffield Grocers Association be given this information, when the association is in far closer touch with local traders than the Department itself?
    Mr. Strachey: If we are referring to price changes, it is very important that this information of impending price changes is not issued in advance, because very great unfairness as between traders would be caused if some of them knew and others did not.
    Mr. Jennings: Since this information is issued by the Minister's own Department, why cannot it be issued through the organised associations?
    Mr. Strachey: It is done—through the national associations.

    Conditions of Sale
    Mr. Berwickasked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to enforce the provisions of the Food (Conditions of Sale) Order, which makes it illegal to impose conditions on the sale of foodstuffs.
    Mr. Strachey: We are much handicapped in enforcing this Order by people's reluctance to give evidence that conditions of sale have been imposed on them. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of specific cases, I shall be glad to have full inquiries made.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend watch particularly the activities of members of the Housewives' League, who are seeking to influence shopkeepers to impose conditions of sale in respect of the signature of a petition for the removal of the Minister from office?
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Apart entirely from that laudable object, is the Minister aware that, when instances of these alleged proceedings are sent to his Department, it is not very sympathetic towards them, and that the Department does not seem very receptive?
    Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member will send me the correspondence, I would very much like to have a look at it.

    Sugar Ration
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Minister of Food, if, in view of present facts and future prospects in respect to sugar supplies, he will increase the sugar ration.
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot speculate about future ration changes.

    Meat Manufacturers' Permits
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food if he will dissect the aggregate sterling value of butchers' and/ or meat manufacturers' permits under the following headings; Groups I, II, III, IV and general butchers, and show these for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, under the classification of multiple traders, private traders and co-operatives.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that the information which the hon. Member seeks is not immediately accessible. To extract it would involve research into the individual permits of some 45,000 retail butchers—who are the Group II mentioned—and 800 Group I manufacturers, 18,000 Group III manufacturers and 3,000 Group IV manufacturers. None of these groups of manufacturers has been classified according to the three economic types referred to.

    Statistics
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food (1) if he will give the average daily supplies per capita of the following foodstuffs during the 12 months to June, 1947; tomatoes and fruits of all sorts, poultry, game and rabbits, leafy, green, yellow and other vegetables;
    196
    (2) if he will give figures, based on retail weight, showing the total value of supplies per capita per annum of fats, including butter, in terms of fat content for the years 1934–38, 1945, 1946 and June, 1946 to June, 1947, showing the value in equivalent fat content for the same years of the following four food-groups: butter, margarine, lard and compound lard, other edible oils and fats.
    Mr. Strachey: As I told the hon. Member on 14th May, we shall shortly be publishing figures of the consumption of various foodstuffs in the United Kingdom in some detail. These will give him the information he requires, and I should be grateful if he would wait for their publication, as piecemeal reproduction of the rather extensive statistical tables would lay a considerable strain on the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Spence: Can the Minister tell us the date when this information will be available, and, further, in answer to Question No. 59, can he say whether the actual loss is equivalent in value at the present time, as compared with prewar, to over 25 per cent.?
    Mr. Strachey: As to the first part of the question, the figures are ready now, and it is a question how long the Stationery Office will take to deal with them, and that may not be quite as short a time as we would wish, as there is some congestion; but we shall do our very best to get them as soon as possible. I do not think that I had better attempt to answer from memory the second part of, the question.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend certain that it is advisable, or that any useful purpose is served, by publishing such figures? Is he not aware that the figures in his Dundee speech, in which he gave the amount of fats and butter as being only half that of prewar have been misrepresented by hon. Members opposite, by the Press and by the Housewives' League?
    Mr. Strachey: I am well aware that, as the hon. Lady says, any figures may be distorted, and some have been distorted, but I think our function, as a Government Department, is to give the fullest and most exact figures we can.
    Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware that these Questions were put down with the

    197
    idea of getting at the facts, and that there is nothing underlying them other than that?

    Camembert Cheese
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, on Saturday, 3rd May, 1947, Camembert cheese was not available to old-established cheesemongers in the central area of London but was fully available at the general stores of Marks and Spencer, Limited, Oxford Street; and if it is the policy of his Department to ignore the wel-recognised channels of distribution for foodstuffs generally and give preference to new entrants.
    Mr. Strachey: Camembert cheese is distributed under the points scheme, so the Ministry does not regulate distribution as between individual traders beyond the first-hand stage. First-hand distributors are instructed by my Department to offer supplies as fairly as possible to those who bought French cheese from them before the war. It is still our policy to use the normal channels of distribution so long as the interests of consumers are not prejudiced.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the Minister of opinion that a chain store of the character of Messrs. Marks and Spencer, Limited, is a well-recognised channel for the distribution of French cheese?
    Mr. Strachey: I will not express an opinion on that, but if we were to determine the channels through which all points goods, after first-hand, are to go, it would involve an enormous increase in those controls which the hon. Member does not favour.
    Mr. McKinley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department is still giving instructions to local food control committees to extend the activities of Messrs. Marks and Spencer and the like in selling points goods which they never sold before the war?
    Mr. Strachey: Perhaps my hon. Friend would give me an example.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that the cost of distribution through chain stores like Messrs. Marks and Spencer is infinitely smaller than through the more old-fashioned channels of distribution?

    Sweets (Profit Margin)
    Mr. Haireasked the Minister of Food on what grounds the profit margin on retailed sweets has recently been cut; and whether he is aware that for many small confectioners this reduction, taken in conjunction with reduced tobacco sales, may mean going out of business.
    Mr. Strachey: The percentage margin on sweets has been reduced because prices have gone up and the ration has been increased. The retailers' total cash profits will still be higher than they were a year ago.
    Mr. J. H. Hare: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a vast number of small shopkeepers in this country have to face considerable rises in their own costs, such as rates and other general costs, and that this arbitrary cut in their profits, from which there is no appeal, is very unfair?
    Mr. Strachey: The new margin will allow distributors a gross cash profit of £24 million, which is some £5 million higher than a year ago. I cannot feel that they will be driven out of business by this change.

    Pigeon Food
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Minister of Food if he will consider granting permits for feedingstuff to those pigeon fanciers who were registered members of the National Homing Union prior to being called up, and had to sell their birds, and who now wish to restart their flocks.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that the shortage of ingredients for pigeon food makes this impossible at present.
    Colonel Wheatley: Will the Minister reconsider this matter in view of the very small quantity of feedingstuffs required, and in view of the fine work done by these carrier pigeons supplied by private persons during the war?
    Mr. Strachey: The members of the National Pigeon Service organisation are supplied with rations, but we will certainly reconsider the matter when more plentiful supplies are available.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the Minister say whether the activities of these pigeons will come under the review of the national Press?

    Home-grown Fruit
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Minister of Food (1) whether in making direct purchases of fruit from overseas or in allocating licences for private purchases, he will take into consideration the likelihood of a heavy crop of homegrown fruits; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the market does not become glutted to the detriment of the home producer;
    (2) whether in view of the likelihood of a heavy crop of both soft and hard homegrown fruit, he will make available vacant meat cold-storage space for the temporary storage of fruits, thus making possible an even spreadover of the crop with benefit both to the public and the grower.
    Mr. Strachey: I have received reports that this year's crop of fruit may be above the average, and am considering whether additional temporary storage space is necessary. I am also watching the import position.
    Mr. White: Is the Minister aware that there is already a danger that imported fresh strawberries are going to overlap the British crop to the detriment of the British grower, and that the same thing may happen in connection wiht other fruits?
    Mr. Strachey: We will watch that position carefully.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that housewives, after having had a glut of fruit, have not seen any home grown fruit for years, and that if he will encourage the import of all soft fruits and increase the sugar ration, they will call down blessings upon his head?

  WHISKY (EXPORTS TO U.S.A.)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Food what extra amount of whisky it is calculated will be exported to the U.S.A. as the result of the increased allocation of 50,000 tons of barley to the distilling industry.
  Mr. Strachey: It is expected that the increase in whisky exports to hard currency countries in the next 12 months as compared with 1946 will be 2,400,000 proof gallons. Much of this, but not all,
  200
  will go to the U.S.A. The recent allocation of 50,000 tons of barley to the distillers will help to replenish the stocks of whisky from which both exports and home supplies are drawn.
  Major Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we are charging the Americans a sufficiently high price for whisky?
  Mr. Strachey: I consulted the Whisky Association on that very point when we came to discuss the new arrangements. They assured me they did not desire an increase, and I found myself in the strange position of urging capitalist employers to raise their prices. They firmly believe that their Own interests and the national interest would be best served by the present prices. Although it seems at first sight that there is a case for a higher price, I think it would be unwise not to take some account of their very expert position.
  Mr. Boothby: Can the Minister tell us what amount of dollar exchange per annum this will bring us?
  Mr. Strachey: This increase?—2,400,000 proof gallons—a little more than £5 million worth.
  Mr. Molson: Is not this increased allocation still insufficient to enable the industry to work at full production, in view of the very great consumption of stocks which has taken place in the last 10 years?
  Mr. Strachey: It is for the present period. We hope to make another allocation.
  Sir P. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that this whisky, which is sold for 5s. a bottle to the trade in America, is fetching £5 in the black market in the United States? Why is so much whisky being sold to soft currency countries, like Egypt, which charge £1 a bottle duty, and why should it not be possible to get whisky in this country?

  POST OFFICE

    Service Personnel, Singapore (Postage Rates)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Postmaster-General why members of His Majesty's Forces serving in Singapore now

    201
    have to pay full postage rates on all letters sent home; and if he will make a statement.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): The postage rates on letters from the Forces in Singapore are fixed by the local administration which is now responsible for the postal service from the Forces in its territory. I understand that letters from the Forces in Singapore not exceeding one ounce in weight are despatched to the United Kingdom by air for 1½d. This is the air postage rate for letters of this weight from the Forces now in force in most areas overseas, and is much cheaper that the rates charged on similar letters from civilians. The Singapore administration requires payment at the ordinary postage rates on all letters dispatched by surface means.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: In. view of the fact that we are making about £36 million a year out of the Post Office, can the Minister say when we are going to recapture the old maxim of production for use and not for profit?

    Australian Gift Parcels
    Brigadier Petoasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the sending of food parcels to individuals from Australia is being discouraged by the high postage charges which often exceed the value of the contents, and by the delay in their distribution after arrival; and if he will consider taking steps to remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am aware that the justification for the present postage rates on gift food parcels sent from Australia to this country has been questioned in Australia. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that that portion of the postage paid in Australia which, by agreement between the two administrations, is credited to the United Kingdom for conveyance, handling and delivery in this country, does not fully cover the costs incurred by the British Post Office. The possibility of making a concession by the British Post Office foregoing some part of its share of the postage has recently been reviewed, and I am satisfied that I should not be justified in making any concession for this section of the traffic. I am not aware that any undue delay in delivery occurs after receipt in the United Kingdom, but it is inevitable that some
    202
    few days must be occupied in passing this very heavy volume of traffic, which arrives at irregular intervals, through the Postal Customs depots. I should be happy to investigate any specific case of delay if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have full particulars.
    Brigadier Peto: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling in Australia that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to discourage the sending of gifts to individuals in this country?
    Mr. Paling: I do not think that is so. As I have said, we have gone fully into this matter, but we feel that we cannot do more than we are doing at the moment.

    NEW ZEALAND (ASSISTED IMMIGRATION SCHEME)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether a statement can now be made as to assisted migration to new Zealand.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Bottomley): At the request of the New Zealand Government, negotiations have recently taken place on this subject. The original basis of the negotiations was the conclusion of agreements similar to those made with Australia whereby the United Kingdom Government would provide free passages for former members of the United Kingdom Forces and would share with the Dominion Government the cost of passages for other categories of migrants, less a proportion to be borne by the migrants themselves. In the course of the discussions, however, the New Zealand Government intimated that, in present conditions, they were willing to find all governmental contributions in respect of passages for both categories. They accordingly offered to meet the full cost of passages in the case of ex-Service migrants and the full cost less £10 to be paid by the migrants themselves in other cases. The United Kingdom Government gratefully accepted this generous offer.
    The New Zealand Government have now announced their intention of opening schemes on the above basis. For the time

    203
    being, the schemes will generally be limited to men and women between the ages of 20 and 35 who are either single or widowed and without dependent children and are willing to engage for a period of two years in certain selected occupations. Full particulars as to the schemes, including the date of their opening and the types of migrants desired, will be announced in due course by the New Zealand authorities. The House will, I am sure, be glad to know that these arrangements have been made, and will welcome the very liberal attitude
    204
    which the New Zealand Government have adopted.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the burden of this scheme seems to fall exclusively on the New Zealand Government, and are not His Majesty's Government going to make a substantial contribution in order that migration can be further advanced?
    Mr. Bottomley: The New Zealand Government quite voluntarily made this proposal, and, as I said in my original statement, this generous offer was accepted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 94.

Division No. 230.]

AYES.

[3.33 p.m.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Gilzean, A.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Alpass, J. H.

Gooch, E. G

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Oldfield, W. H.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Attewell, H. C.

Grenfell, D. R.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Ayles, W. H.

Grey, C. F.

Parkin, B. T

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Grierson, E.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Bacon, Miss A.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Pearson, A.

Balfour, A.

Gunter, R. J.

Peart, Capt T F.

Barstow, P. G.

Guy, W. H.

Piratin, P.

Barton, C.

Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Battley, J. R

Hall, W. G.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Bechervaise, A. E

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Price, M. Philips

Benson, G.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Pryde, D. J.

Berry, H.

Harrison, J.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Beswick, F.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Randall, H. E.

Bing, G. H C.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Ranger, J.

Blackburn, A. R.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Rankin, J.

Blyton, W. R.

Herbison, Miss M.

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Boardman, H.

Hobson, C R.

Reeves, J.

Bottomley, A. G.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

House, G.

Rhodes, H.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Hoy, J

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Bramall, E. A.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Jay, D. P. T.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Brown, George (Belper)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Royle, C.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Sargood, R.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Scott-Elliot W.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Segal, Dr. S.

Burden, T. W.

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Shackleton, E. A. A

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Kenyon, C.

Sharp, Granville

Byers, Frank

King, E. M

Shurmer, P.

Carmichael, James

Kinley, J.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Castle, Mrs. B. A

Kirby, B. V.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Champion, A. J

Kirkwood, D.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Chater, D.

Lang, G.

Skinnard, F. W.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Smith, C (Colchester)

Cluse, W. S.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Cocks, F. S.

Levy, B. W.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

Collindridge, F

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Snow, Capt J. W.

Collins, V. J.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Sorensen, R. W.

Colman, Miss G. M

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Lyne, A. W.

Sparks, J. A.

Cook, T. F.

McAdam, W.

Stamford, W.

Corlett, Dr. J

McGhee, H. G.

Stephen, C.

Cove, W. G.

Mack, J. D.

Stokes, R. R.

Daggar, G.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Stress, Dr. B.

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

McKinlay, A. S.

Stubbs, A. E.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Swingler, S.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Sylvester, G. O.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Symonds, A. L.

Dear, G.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Delargy, H. J

Manning) Mrs. L. (Epping)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Diamond, J.

Marquand, H. A.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Dobbie, W.

Mathers, G.

Thomas, D. E. (Abardare)

Dodds, N. N.

Mayhew, C. P.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Medland, H. M.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Mellish, R. J.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Dye, S.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Edelman, M.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

Thurtle, Ernest

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Mitchison, G. R.

Timmons, J.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Monslow, W

Titterington, M. F

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Moody, A. S.

Tolley, L.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Usborne, Henry

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Morley, R.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Viant, S. P.

Farthing, W. J,

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Wadsworth, G.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Walkden, E.

Foot, M. M.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Gallacher, W.

Mort, D. L.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Ganley, Mrs C. S.

Murray, J. D.

Warbey, W. N.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Nally, W.

Watkins, T. E.

Gibbins, J.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Watson, W. M.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. (Don Valley)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Willis, E.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Wills, Mrs. E. A

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Wise, Major F. J.

Mr. Michael Stewart and

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Wyatt, W.

Mr. Simmons.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Yates, V F

NOES

Aitken, Hon. Max

Grant, Lady

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Birch, Nigel

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Prescott, Stanley

Boles, Lt.-Col D C (Wells)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Bower, N.

Henderson, John (Catheart)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J G.

Hollis, M. C.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.

Jennings, R.

Ropner, Col L.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Sanderson, Sir F.

Butcher, H. W.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Carson, E.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Channon, H

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Smithers, Sir W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Spence, H. R.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Cole, T L.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H F C

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Crowder, Capt. John E

Maitland, Comdr. J W

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

Cuthbert, W. N.

Marples, A. E

Touche, G. C.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Marsden, Capt. A

Vane, W. M. F

Digby, S. W.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Walker-Smith, D.

Dodds-Parker, A. G

Molson, A. H. E.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Drewe, C.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Fraser, H C. P. (Stone)

Nicholson, G

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

Osborne, C.

George, Maj Rt Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Glyn, Sir R

Pickthorn, K

Mr. Studholme and

Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AGRICULTURE BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to Move,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 15, page 12, line 44; Clause 30, page 31, line 30 Clause 45, page 42, line 11; Clause 59, page 51, lines 11 and 21; and the new Clauses (Power of tenant or landlord to apply for dispossession of owner or occupier under supervision) and (Application of Part IV of Act to councils of county boroughs) standing on the Notice Paper in my name."
  Captain Crookshank: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, are you going to call my Amendment to the recommittal Motion—in line 7, at end, to add:
  "and in respect of the Amendments in Clause I, page 1, line 7; Clause page 1, line 10; Clause 12, page 9, line 37; Clause 15, page 12, line 39; Clause 23, page 24, line 3; Clause 81, page 65, line 29; Clause 100, page 81, line 13."
  Mr. Speaker: I gave the Amendment great consideration, but I am afraid I do not propose to select it.
  Captain Crookshank: I am rather surprised at that, if I may respectfully say so, Mr. Speaker, because I thought it was the normal course, when one is advised, as we were, that an Amendment put down on Report stage would require a recommittal if it was to be discussed. For that reason we had to put down this Amendment last night, for which I apologise to the House. It was purely technical advice which we received only at the last moment. Now I understand you do not propose to call the Amendment at all. I suppose it would not be proper for me to ask if there is any reason for that?
  Mr. Speaker: I have told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have given the matter considerable thought. The plain fact of the matter is, if I selected this Amendment to the recommittal Motion it would be, to some extent, giving the Amendments there referred to, my approval, and it would be very harsh to

  209
  the Chairman of Ways and Means, because it would mean I had already said to the House: "These are Amendments which can be selected." I did not think that would be fair on him. I tell the House quite frankly, had they been normal Amendments on Report I should not have selected them in any case. The Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, line 7, would not have been taken anyhow; the Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, had a whole day in Committee; the Amendment in Clause 12, page 9, line 37, is exactly the same, and was disposed of in Committee after some debate; the Amendment in Clause 15, page 12, line 39, is partly met by a Government Amendment; the Amendment in Clause 23, page 24, line 3, is exactly the same as an Amendment put down and disposed of in Committee; the Amendment in Clause 81, page 65, line 29, was also dealt with in Committee; the last Amendment, in Clause 100, page 81, line 13, is, I am sorry to say, out of Order on Report of the Committee in any case, because it deals with matters outside the Money Resolution. As I say, I gave the matter a lot of thought, and came to the conclusion that I had better not select the Amendment about which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me.
  3.45 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in giving us these reasons. I appreciate the point you make, that if the House accepted this Amendment to the recommittal Motion, then in your view the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee would be more or less morally bound to select the Amendments to which you have referred. Of course, that is not a matter upon which I can make any comment because obviously I do not know what would be in the mind of the Chairman, or whether he would or would not take that view. I do, however, appreciate the point. On the other hand, when you kindly pointed out that you would not yourself have selected any of these Amendments—had they been in Order on Report, without a recommittal Motion—largely, unless I misheard you, on the ground that they had been discussed considerably in Standing Committee, then I respectfully put to you that the whole object of the Report stage, surely, is that major points of importance, even if they
  210
  had been discussed in Standing. Committee for three or four days, should have the opportunity of coming before the whole House, whereby 640 Members will have a chance of expressing their views as opposed to such of the 50 Members as are able to attend the Standing Committee from time to time.
  I do not know whether we are to deduce from that, that if any matter is discussed at any length in Standing Committee—however important the matter may be—it will not be rediscussed in the House on reconsideration. If that line is to be taken in future, it seems to me that we must consider whether we ought ever to put down any important Amendment in Standing Committee at all, but should not rather reserve our attack on the Government on major issues until the Report stage, when we can at least appeal to the larger body of Members. I put it to you, Sir, as the defender of the privileges of the minority, it would be a very difficult Ruling for us to accept for all time, that because matters have been discussed at length in Standing Committee—even if they are important, and even if, as in the case of one of these Amendments, they come before the House at this stage, as the Minister knows, with the full support of two, if not three, partners in the industry—they are not to be discussed at this stage. We are very disappointed.
  Mr. Speaker: It does not necessarily follow, because an Amendment has been debated at length in Standing Committee, that I will or will not select it. I have to consider the relative importance of the Amendments as a whole; I select them bearing in mind their relative importance, and the relative periods of time that they have been discussed.
  Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: The Amendment in Clause 1, page r, line 7—at the beginning to insert:
  "It is hereby recognised and declared that a healthy and efficient agriculture, providing, by good estate management and good husbandry, the most favourable conditions for the carrying on and development of all classes of agricultural production is an essential national need, and in conformity with this declaration."
  —is worded differently from the Amendment which was discussed in Committee. It is true it covers to some extent, but not entirely, the same ground, and—
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think we ought to discuss the Amendment now. After all,

  211
  there is on Report a very similar Amendment in the name of the hon. Member. He must wait and see whether or not I select it.
  Captain Crookshank: We were advised that it could not be taken on Report stage. It is, in fact, exactly the same Amendment and it is a matter which a large number of agriculturists in this country' consider very important. The Liberal Party put down the Amendment in one place in the Bill; we put it down in another. Apparently neither of us has been lucky enough to have the matter discussed.
  Mr. Speaker: This Amendment did not require recommittal at all.
  Captain Crookshank: We were told so by the Clerks.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  AGRICULTURE BILL

    CLAUSE 15.—(Supplementary provisions as to directions.)
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, in page 12, line 44, at the end, to insert:
    "The references in this and the next following Subsection to the provision of fixed equipment include references to any improvement of fixed equipment by the enlargement of buildings."
    This Amendment is one of very many, indicating that we were not only willing to listen, but, when we found that an improvement could be made, were ready and willing to make that improvement. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the class of cases in which landowners may appeal to the land tribunal against a direction under Subsection (2). At present the owner is given a right of appeal in cases of directions to provide fixed equipment. Hon. Members will recall that a good deal of discussion took place in Committee on the question of improvements to fixed equipment. It was argued lengthily, and sometimes learnedly, that it was difficult to decide between the provision of new equipment and the improvement of existing equipment. The effect of this Amendment is to confer the right of appeal on an owner against a direction requiring the improvement of fixed equipment which involves the enlargement of
    212
    buildings. I think that this Amendment covers one of the more important Amendments which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was unable to move, and I hope that it will satisfy his needs. A good deal of discussion took place in Committee on an Amendment to provide an appeal in all cases of directions in respect of improvements to fixed equipment. The Amendment was lost on a Division because it obviously went too far. Hon. Members will appreciate that many improvements are a very minor matter, and that a good number of improvements consist of modernising existing fixed equipment, which should clearly be financed by landowners in the same way as maintenance and repair. In the light of the arguments advanced in Committee, I feel that the enlargement of buildings is equivalent to the provision of fixed equipment, and it would be reasonable to allow an owner a right of appeal in such cases.
    Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: This Amendment is certainly an advance on what we had in Committee, and my hon. Friends are grateful to the Minister for it. It does not go the whole way as far as we are concerned, because it leaves out two very important points. Money spent on improvements of any sort is capital as distinct from revenue expenditure. This money has often to be borrowed, and it may entail a mortgage on the property. The Minister will appreciate that in that case it is capital expenditure. In the case of maintenance an owner assumes a certain responsibility towards the tenant, but he rarely assumes or is expected to assume any contractual responsibility to finance capital expenditure on improvements. In our view, all forms of capital expenditure should be subject to special treatment. The Amendment should go further than dealing merely with the enlargement of buildings. The most common form of improvement consists, not in enlargement, but in conversion. For instance, it may be the conversion of coverage for feeding cattle to the use of milk production. In other words, it is a question of a change of use in respect of farm buildings already in existence.
    As I understand it, this class of improvement is excluded from the provisions

    213
    of this Clause. These improvements involve a very large cost to the owner anxious to improve his buildings, but in some cases he may be unable to do it, owing to the financial position. It is in these cases that we feel there should be an appeal to the tribunal. We cannot expect the Government to go the whole way in this matter, and we are grateful to the Minister for what he has seen fit to do. We hope that, before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, he will consider the points I have made in regard to major improvements to buildings, and will not restrict the Clause to the buildings themselves.
    Mr. Vane: As the mover of the Amendment in Committee, I add my word of thanks to the Minister for having gone so far towards meeting us in this matter. Having said so much, may I add that I do not think he has gone quite as far as he seems to indicate by his hope that all large works are included in the words "enlargement of buildings." If a farmer is expected to add a small dairy to an existing set of buildings, then that will come within the scope of the Amendment. On the other hand, if it is a question of rebuilding or reconstructing a range of existing cowsheds, which may cost infinitely more, that will not come within the purview of this Amendment. Since the Minister has said that large works shall be included and trivial works shall be excluded, I should like to say that I am disappointed that he did not find a better form of worth for what I deem to be his intentions.
    Captain Crookshank: I appreciate the purpose of this Amendment, but perhaps the Solicitor-General can say something in regard to the wording. It seems to me that under this wording an improvement cannot be considered an improvement unless it means an enlargement. In other words, something must be made bigger, before it can be considered as an improvement. It often happens that improvements in the accepted sense, can be achieved by making something smaller, or by using a building for two or three purposes where formerly it was used only for one. Am I to understand that whatever is done will not be an improvement unless, simultaneously, there is enlargement? If that is what is meant, although we are glad to see the Minister moving in the direction we urged during Committee, this does not
    214
    seem a very happy solution to the problem.
    Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) is missing the point. A direction is given by a county executive committee for the provision of new fixed equipment, or for the improvement of existing fixed equipment. I cannot conceive a county executive committee giving a direction to a landowner to reduce a building—that is almost incredible. So long as we cover enlargement of buildings with the provision of new equipment, hon. Members are bound to agree that we shall cover most cases of heavy expenditure. It is simply a question of whether or not an owner who has been given a direction by a county executive committee shall be allowed an appeal to the tribunal. I think, therefore, that I have gone reasonably well along the way to meet as much as hon. Members opposite expected. I hope they will accept the Amendment.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: Am I right in understanding that buildings, in this sense, include farmhouses as well as agricultural buildings? It is not clear whether fixed equipment means a dwelling house as well as a farm building, and it is important that we should know whether that is so, because in many cases it is desirable that farmhouses should be included.
    Mr. Williams: I understand, at the moment, that as this is not a Housing Bill farmhouses will not come within the meaning of new fixed equipment or enlargements of existing fixed equipment.
    Mr. Roberts: The definition of "fixed equipment" includes any building or structure affixed on the land. I should have thought that a farmhouse was a building or structure affixed on the land. The Clause defines an agricultural unit as a unit together with any dwelling house. A farmhouse is part of the agricultural unit, but is not fixed equipment although it is a building.
    Mr. Williams: From later information I have just had, I now understand that a farmhouse comes within this definition.
    Mr. Roberts: Then the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborougb (Captain Crookshank), about improvements being

    215
    enlargements definitely arises. One of the problems in my part of the country is that farmhouses are too big, and should be made smaller by being divided.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: Does the Minister not think that this Amendment will get us into some trouble? I can visualise a case in which a direction is given for the building of 30 new cow-stalls. Ten may be built from completely new material; 10 may be added as an extension to the existing cowhouses, but the other 10 may be made out of improvements to the old cowhouses. Those to be built separately, and those made by the extension, will be included, but those coming from the improvements to the old cowhouses will not be included. It would be better if the Minister included all expenditure which is not allowed under the ordinary maintenance claim.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings.)
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 31, line 30, at the end, to insert:
    "(e) for excluding the application of Subsection (1) of this Section in relation to sub-tenancies in such cases as may be prescribed, and for making such provision as appears to the Minister expedient for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of sub-tenants, including provision enabling the Minister or the Agricultural Land Tribunal, where the interest of a tenant is terminated by notice to quit, to secure that a sub-tenant will hold from the landlord on the like terms as he held from the tenant."
    This Clause provides that notices to quit, given in respect of agricultural holdings, shall not have effect, except in certain cases, where they are disputed by the tenant. As the Clause is at present drafted, it does not contain very adequate provision as to what is to happen to the sub-tenant. The Clause deals with the position where the freeholder gives notice to his tenant, and the tenant disputes it. In the event of a dispute the Minister, or the tribunal, will have to decide between them. That is in the case of all notices to quit, except in the exempted cases referred to in Subsection (2). On further examination of the Clause, it has become apparent that there may be curious
    216
    anomalies arising out of the position of sub-tenants.
    I will give the Committee some examples. Supposing the landlord, the freeholder, gives a notice to a tenant having himself obtained planning permission to use the holding for non-agricultural work, with the result that his notice to quit would be excluded from the operation of the Clause by virtue of Subsection (2, c). The notice, in those circumstances, would be effective against the tenant. But supposing the tenant had let to a sub-tenant who was in occupation of the holding, the question would arise whether the subtenant could be given notice, and compelled to leave the holding. As the Clause is at present drafted, this situation might well arise. The tenant, having been given notice by the landlord, when he in turn came to give notice to his sub-tenant, the sub-tenant would be entitled to dispute the notice under the terms of Clause 30, and the tenant could not possibly get the sub-tenant out, because the tenant could not say that he himself came within the provisions of Subsection (2, c). He would not be able to show that he wanted to use the agricultural holding for the non-agricultural purposes for which planning permission had been granted. The position would result that notice against the tenant would be effective, but notice against the subtenant would be ineffective.
    A similar situation might arise in a hardship case. The freeholder with a strong hardship case might give notice to the tenant. The tenant might dispute it, but not have hardship grounds himself to dispute it successfully. But when that tenant, having let to a sub-tenant, came to give notice to the sub-tenant in order to get him out, he would not be able to do so because the sub-tenant might be able to say, against the tenant, that it would involve greater hardship to him if he were evicted, than it would to the tenant. There, again, you would have a case where the notice would be good against the tenant, but not against the sub-tenant.
    In order to protect the interest of the sub-tenant this situation should be considered. The landlord, the freeholder, gives notice to the tenant. The tenant disputes the notice. Justice would seem to require that inasmuch as the notice might result in the sub-tenant having to

    217
    go, the sub-tenant should be given a voice on whether the freeholders' notice to the tenant was good or bad. There is another case which requires some provision and that is where a freeholder gives notice to the tenant, but the tenant is not interested, is not concerned to dispute that notice, and does not take any of the necessary steps. It might well be that the subtenant would be very anxious indeed to dispute that notice. In those circumstances, it would be unfair to compel the tenant to dispute it, because the tenant might be content to leave the holding. Justice seems to require, in that case, that the sub-tenant should be entitled to say to the Minister or the tribunal, "Put me in the shoes of the tenant, and let me dispute.the notice which has been served on the tenant."
    Those are several alternative sets of circumstances which I give as examples to satisfy the Committee that some sort of further provision is necessary for, the purpose of protecting, in one case, the landlord and, in another case, the tenant. I hope that from what I have said it will be apparent that the circumstances which may arise would be of extreme complication. The way in which we have sought to deal with this is to ask for powers to make regulations. We could, of course, have sought to introduce into the Bill a Clause which would have been extraordinarily long and elaborate. I would add in support of that assertion that the question of deliberate evasion also arises. To frame a Clause which would not only deal with the circumstances which I have adumbrated, but also be effective against any possible attempt at evasion would result in one of those extremely long Clauses which one sometimes sees in the Income Tax Acts, running into several pages. I hope that the Committee will think that we have taken the proper course in asking for powers to make regulations to deal with these circumstances. I would remind the Committee that the regulation-making power is limited to the case of sub-tenants, and as time goes on, if we do not want the regulations which we first thought would be required, we shall be able to modify, abandon or cancel them. In order to meet the needs which I have described, we are asking for powers to make the regulations with the object set out in the Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will think that is the proper course.
    Mr. York: I did not fully comprehend how far this Amendment takes us. I should like to be assured by the learned Solicitor-General that the making of regulations will not include the regularisation of irregular sub-tenants. As the Minister is aware, a large number of tenancy agreements contain clauses prohibiting sub-tenants without the approval of the landlord, and it may be that regulations made under this Amendment would have the effect of regularising any subtenancy.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford): While I think we agree that on the whole, this proposal improves the Clause, I do not think the statement of the learned Solicitor-General should be allowed to pass unchallenged, that a Clause to deal on this matter effectively would have been of inordinate length. This Clause, as it stands covers two and a half pages of the Bill. I think that it is hardly open to question that when we are legislating, as we are here, for a considerable period of time, the length of the Clause scarcely matters at all, provided the object is achieved. The Government when they first drafted the Bill should have drawn the Clause, whatever its length, so as to meet the purposes they had in mind. This is my main point. They failed to do that, because the burden on Parliamentary draftsmen at this time has become quite intolerable, and the surfeit of legislation, which we in this House find hard enough, bears even more hardly on those servants of the State whose task it is to draft these Parliamentary Bills. Had they a lesser burden, they would have done their job properly, and the excuse of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not have been necessary. I think that I express the view of all on these benches in saying that this Amendment is a slight improvement, and that we are prepared to accept it for what it is worth.
    Mr. York: May I have an answer to my question? If not, I am prepared to elaborate it. I think that my contention is one that should be met.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. McKie: The learned Solicitor-General has explained the complicated nature of this Amendment. We all desire to see the position of subtenants and tenants and the position of landlords amply safeguarded, but I think

    219
    that the question which the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) has put, regarding the possible regularisation of the irregular sub-tenant by the insertion of these words, deserves an answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think that there are many cases—I speak with knowledge of Scottish agriculture only—in which sub-tenants are very much in vogue, but no doubt the hon. Member for Ripon, who represents an important agricultural area in Yorkshire has some special cases in mind. Speaking for Scotland may I say there are cases where arrangements of an irregular character have been entered into in the past between Owners and tenants-in-chief regarding leases or tenancies, and there have as a result been serious disputes, often involving litigation. I am speaking only of leases between landlords and what I describe for want of a better definition as tenants-in-chief. How much more desirable it would be that there should be no element of doubt whatever as between tenants and sub-tenants whom have—
    The Chairman: This Bill does not apply generally to Scotland.
    Mr. McKie: It is clearly laid down that the part of the Bill under consideration shall apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland, otherwise I should not have intervened. I want to impress on the Solicitor-General that he should try to give a fairly detailed answer to the question which has been put. I am against sub-tenants in agriculture, as I am against sub-tenants of most kinds, but we all know that sometimes there is inserted a clause in an original lease which says that the landlord's assent should not be unreasonably withheld, and the question of the acceptance of sub-tenants may arise. I think that the learned Solicitor-General should be in a position to make it clear that there will be no question whatsoever under this proposed Amendment of regularising agreements entered into between the original tenant and sub-tenant which will make permanent an arrangement entered into which might give rise to all sorts of inconveniences to the parties concerned.
    The Solicitor-General: This does nothing to regularise irregular sub-tenancies.
    Mr. York: I asked for an assurance that the regulations that are made under this Amendment will not include provisions the effect of which would be to regularise irregular tenancies.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 45.—(Duty of county and county borough councils to provide smallholdings.)
    Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 42, line II, to leave out "and of every county borough council."
    Hon. Members will recall that in Committee upstairs there was a good deal of discussion on the wisdom of allowing every county borough council to become a smallholding authority. This Amendment simply leads up to a new Clause which is on the Order Paper. I do not think I need dwell upon this point at the moment, since perhaps I can give a more prolonged explanation when we come to the new Clause itself.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 59.—(Constitution and functions of smallholdings committees.)
    Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 51, line 11, to leave out "or county borough."
    This is a similar Amendment, leading up to the new Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 51, line 21, leave out Subsection (4).—[Mr. T. Williams.]

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of tenant or landlord to apply for dispossession of owner or occupier under supervision.)
    (1) On any review under Subsection (2) of Section twelve of this Act of the management of land or farming of an agricultural unit of which the owner is not also the occupier,—

    (a) if the review is of management, the representations under paragraph (b) of that Subsection of the occupier may include a request that the Minister shall exercise his powers under Subsection (1) of Section sixteen of this Act in relation to the land;

    (b) if the review is of farming, the representations under the said paragraph (b) of any owner of land comprised in the agricultural unit may include a request that the

    221
    Minister shall exercise his powers under Subsection (1) of Section seventeen of this Act in relation to the said land.

    (2) Where such a request is made the Minister shall not comply therewith unless he is satisfied that the management or farming, as the case may be, has not shown satisfactory improvement while the supervision order has been in force, but save as aforesaid may, subject to the provisions of this Section, either comply with or refuse the request.
    (3) If the Minister proposes to refuse such a request he shall give notice in writing of his proposal to the owner and to the occupier.
    (4) If before the expiration of the prescribed period from the making of such a request no notice has been given either under the last foregoing Subsection of a proposal to refuse the request or under Section sixteen or seventeen of this Act of a proposal complying with the request, the Minister shall be deemed to have given notice of his proposal to refuse the request.
    (5) Where notice of a proposal to refuse such a request is given or deemed to have been given the person by whom the request is made may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal constituted under Part V of this Act, and the provisions in that behalf of the said Part V shall apply accordingly.
    (6) Where in consequence of a reference to the Agricultural Land Tribunal under the last foregoing Subsection the Minister complies with such a request as aforesaid, the provisions of Subsections (4) and (5) of Section sixteen of this Act or Subsections (2) and (3) of Section seventeen thereof, as the case may be, shall not apply to any action of the Minister necessary to comply with the request.—[Mr. Marquand.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Yesterday, on the Industrial Organisation Bill, I did what I believe the baseball players call a piece of "pinch hitting" for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was regrettably absent through indisposition. I should like to say how much I regret that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is also unable to be here this afternoon owing to a serious illness, and, if I may be allowed to continue my metaphor for a moment without any disrespect for the Committee, I hope that in this game my amateur status may give me a little indulgence.
    The purpose of this new Clause is to deal with a point arising out of the discussion in Committee on the certificate of bad husbandry
    222
    procedure contained in the Fifth Schedule. The Schedule provides that where a tenant farmer has been placed under supervision, the landlord should not be able to apply for a certificate of bad husbandry. The reason for this is, of course, that if an application for a certificate of bad husbandry were to be allowed in respect of a tenant under supervision, it would automatically have to be granted, as a farmer can be placed under supervision only if he is not farming in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. It would however be a mistake to grant a certificate of bad husbandry while a farmer was under supervision; the purpose of supervision, after all, is to give a man a helping hand so as to enable him to improve his standard of farming. However, while a tenant is still under supervision, it is perfectly open to the landlord to go to the committee and make representations to them to the effect that the tenant has not shown satisfactory improvement in his standard of farming, and therefore ought to be dispossessed. If the committee agree with that view and dispossess the tenant, he will quit the holding without compensation for disturbance in exactly the same way as he would have done if a certificate of bad husbandry had been applied for and granted. Moreover, the time will be the same in each case, since the notice to quit with a certificate of bad husbandry must run for at least 12 months, while a supervision order must equally run for a period of 12 months before a tenant can be dispossessed.
    As the Bill is drafted however there is one material difference between the two procedures. Under the certificate of bad husbandry procedure, if a landlord's application for a certificate is refused he can appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. Under the supervision procedure, if the landlord's request that his tenant should be dispossessed is refused, he has no right of appeal to the tribunal. The purpose of this Clause, therefore, is to eliminate this difference between the two procedures and provide that where a tenant is under supervision and the landlord makes a request that he should be dispossessed on the ground that he has not shown satisfactory improvement, and this request is not accepted by the committee, the landlord should have a right of appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. The question which the tribunal will have

    223
    to consider will be whether, during the period of supervision, the tenant has not shown satisfactory improvement and whether, in all the circumstances of the case, he ought to be dispossessed.
    Clearly, the landlord cannot be allowed to ask for a tenant's dispossession except at periodical intervals, and the Clause, therefore, provides that the landlord may only make such a request on the occasion of each annual review of a supervision order. The result of this change in procedure will be that the landlord will have exactly the same right to get rid of a tenant under supervision without the payment of compensation for disturbance as he would,have had under the certificate of bad husbandry procedure in respect of a tenant not under supervision. The only difference will be a matter of the machinery which the landlord will use. Therefore, we feel that we have definitely met the criticism that the result of placing the tenant under supervision is to take the whole question of getting rid of him completely out of the landlord's hand. The landlord will have his remedy of requesting dispossession in exactly the same way as he would have had the remedy under the certificate of bad husbandry procedure if a tenant was not under supervision.
    If the landlord is given the right to ask for the dispossession of a tenant under supervision, it is clearly necessary, and only logical, that a tenant whose landlord is under supervision ought to have the same right. The Clause, therefore, provides that where an owner of land is under supervision his tenant has the right to request the committee to dispossess the owner on the ground that he has not shown satisfactory improvement in his management during the period of supervision. If the committee do not accept the request, the tenant is given a right of appeal to the agricultural land tribunal in the same way as the landlord has been given a right of appeal. I hope that with this brief explanation the Committee will feel that the point raised in the previous discussion has been adequately met, and will agree to insert this new Clause in the Bill.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: The hon. Gentleman having, with great accuracy, read his brief, I wonder if he would now b good enough to explain to
    224
    us the text of the new Clause in his own words?
    Captain Crookshank: I wanted to mention one point which I made on the Fifth Schedule, of which this new Clause has largely taken the place and which the Minister said he would look at again. The Minister does not seem to have done so. I am concerned about Subsections (3) and (4) of this new Clause. I feel it is a mistake to put into legislation this form of procedure. Subsection (3) says:
    "If the Minister proposes to refuse such a request he shall give notice in writing of his proposal to the owner and to the occupier."
    That is all right, but Subsection (4) says:
    "If … no notice has been given … of a proposal to refuse the request … the Minister shall be deemed to have given notice of his proposal to refuse the request."
    I do not see why he should be deemed to have done it. He should either do it or not do it, and we ought not to give this slipshod sort of power to the Minister, so that if the time expires and nothing has been done, he shall be deemed to have taken action which he could have taken and ought to have taken if he had acted up to the earlier part of the Clause. The Minister said he did not like that kind of thing and would look at it again, but he has not made the necessary correction.
    Mr. Marquand: I think that my right hon. Friend, in saying that he would look at this again, also said that he had every intention of doing what is suggested here, namely notifying the occupier in writing. He intends that his administrators who will be carrying out the provisions of this Bill for him shall do that, but at the same time lie has to safeguard himself against the possibility of some error.
    Captain Crookshank: Yes, but not by being deemed to have done something which he has not done. If he has to safeguard his position in respect of a mistake made by an official of his Department or by himself, there ought to be a regular procedure under the law as to what happens when people do not carry out their jobs. Certainly they should not be deemed to have carried them out if they have not done so.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: Under Subsection (2) of this new Clause:
    "Where such a request is made the Minister shall not comply therewith unless he is

    225
    satisfied that the management or farming, as the case may be, has not shown satisfactory improvement while the supervision order has been in force,"
    —so that a satisfactory improvement has to be made before the Minister entertains a request. It goes on:
    "but save as aforesaid may, subject to the provisions of this section, either comply with or refuse the request."
    If there has been improvement during the period, such a request cannot then be entertained by the Minister. There is the situation where a notice is in force and no improvement has taken place. In those circumstances it can be entertained by the Minister, and under the Subsection if the Minister proposes to refuse such a request it shall be done in writing. It is an odd position if where it is established that there is no improvement at all during the tenure of the notice it is still permissible for the Minister to refuse the notice. Where there is no improvement and there is negligence during the period, why not enforce the order at once?
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: I think the hon. and learned Member has got this all wrong. If a tenant farmer be under a supervision order and if he has made no progress or improvement, clearly the Minister would be justified in receiving representations from the landowner, but if the person under supervision is making some improvement and is responding to the advice, guidance and leadership, then clearly a certificate of bad husbandry ought not to be granted. It seems on the face of it that it is contradictory, but, in fact, it is not so.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I see one small difficulty at which I wish the Minister would look. Where there is a notice of a proposal to refuse such a request, it follows automatically that the proposal shall be referred to the agricultural land tribunal. Supposing there is no such proposal, what is to follow? Who is to know whether there is going to be a refusal or not and what is going to be the position of the agricultural tribunal?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Is not this new Clause, in fact, an intermediary stage between Clause 12, which is supervision, and Clauses 16 and 17 which deal with dispossession? In other words, is it not going half way towards an appeal to the agricultural land tribunal so much desired
    226
    by Members on this side of the Committee? The point I want to make is, if a man is put under supervision under Clause 12, then if either the landlord or the tenant feel that their opposite number is not making sufficient progress, he should be dispossessed. In other words, either can apply to the Minister, and if the Minister takes the same view and agrees, the landlord or the tenant can apply to the agricultural land tribunal to have the matter finally settled. That takes place before Clauses 16 and 17 operate.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am rather sorry for this confusion, because I thought my hon. Friend the Paymaster-General was clarity personified in his explanation, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). In Committee it was suggested by hon. Members opposite that a person under supervision has apparently not farmed up to a reasonable standard, otherwise he could not be under supervision. It was urged, therefore, that the landowner ought to be allowed to apply for a certificate of bad husbandry and get rid of his tenant without compensation. Our submission was, of course, that a person was under supervision because the county executive committee were trying to help him to improve his standard, and it would, therefore, be unreasonable to allow a certificate of bad husbandry to be granted at that time. However, as a result of consultations since the Committee stage, we have devised ways and means of doing what we regard as justice both to the landlord and the tenant. We have completely conceded the point made by hon. Members opposite who now seem to be engaged in the difficulty of explaining away the concession we have actually made.
    Major Mott-Radclyffe: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the implications of Subsection (4) of the new Clause? I understand Subsection (3) which lays down that if the Minister proposes to refuse a request a notice in writing will have to be given, but I am still not at all clear as to the object of this extraordinary phrase in Subsection (4) that in default of any decision either way:
    "the Minister shall be deemed to have given notice of his proposal to refuse the request."
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Before the Minister answers that point, might I take it a little-further and ask him

    227
    to include in his reply some reference to the first line of Subsection (4) of the proposed Clause, where it says:
    "If before the expiration of the prescribed period from the making of such a request …"
    I have not had the advantage of participating in these proceedings upstairs and I would be grateful if the Minister would say a word on the prescribed period as envisaged in this Subsection. The interpretation Clause refers to the prescribed period and says:
    "'Prescribed' has are meaning assigned to it by the last foregoing Sections."
    The last foregoing Section is Clause 106, and Subsection (2) says:
    "In this Act the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister."
    Might I ask the Minister about the regulations which are to be made in regard to the fixing of the prescribed period? Will the prescribed period be the standard prescribed period in all cases, or will it be a variable prescribed period? Further, if there is to be a prescribed period in this way, then surely it adds force to the contention already made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in regard to the unsatisfactory provision as to the notice being deemed to have been given. Surely the Minister will agree that if he is making the regulation to prescribe a period, the matter must be present within the minds of his Department, and it should not be necessary to incorporate this astonishing phraseology into an Act of Parliament to cover possible slips in a Government Department. I will put one further point, which is in regard to Sub section (3) of the new Clause as to the notice in writing of the Minister's proposal to refuse. Is that notice of refusal a formal thing, or will it be accompanied by a reasoned statement as to why he has come to this decision?
    Mr. T. Williams: The notice, I understand, will be merely a notice that the Minister has either refused the request or otherwise. I do not see why there should be any lengthy and detailed explanation as to why the Minister has reached that decision. With regard to the other point, about the expiration of the prescribed period, it seems to me quite dear that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-
    228
    Smith) destroyed his own case because if a period is prescribed under Clause 106—it may be a month or two months or a week or two weeks—it will be prescribed, but the time period will vary according to the circumstances in differing cases. If, therefore, a prescribed period is known and the Minister by that time has not given his assent, the last two lines of Subsection (4) indicate that he shall be deemed to have given notice of his proposal to refuse the request. At the end of the prescribed period—say a month—if the Minister has not accepted or has, in fact, done nothing, it is made clear that he has refused, and therefore there cannot be any doubt about the matter.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAusE.—(Application of Part IV of Act to councils of county boroughs.)
    (1) The Minister may, on the application of the council of a county borough, direct that the provisions of Part IV of this Act, other than this Section, shall apply in relation to the council as they apply in relation to the council of a county, being a smallholdings authority.
    (2) The Minister may, whether on the application of the council of the county borough concerned or otherwise, revoke any direction for the time being in force under this section.
    (3) Where no direction under this Section is in force in relation to the council of, any county borough, but land is held by the council for the purposes of smallholdings (whether in consequence of a previous direction under this Section or of the exercise of powers conferred by the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 2908 to 1930, then subject to the provisions of the next following Subsection the provisions Of Part IV of this Act, other than this Section, shall as respects that land apply in relation to the council as they apply in relation to the council of a county, being a smallholdings authority.
    (4) Where the said provisions of Part IV of this Act apply by virtue of the last foregoing Subsection, then—

    (a) so much of the said provisions as imposes a duty to provide smallholdings shall apply as if it conferred a power so to do;

    (b) the council shall not have power to acquire or appropriate land for the purposes of smallholdings, whether by virtue of the said provisions or otherwise:

    Provided that as respects land held by the council for smallholdings purposes by virtue of the grant of a tenancy or the compulsory hiring of the land, nothing in paragraph (b) of this Subsection shall prevent the extension or renewal of the tenancy or the compulsory purchase of the land.
    (5) Where by virtue of this Section the provisions of Section fifty-nine of this Act apply to the council of a county borough—

    (a) nothing in Subsection (3) of that Section shall prevent the council referring thereunder to the smallholdings committee any matters relating to the exercise of the council's functions in connection with allotments, so however that those matters shall not be referred to the smallholdings committee unless a sub-committee of the smallholdings committee is constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section fourteen of the Allotments Act, 5922, and the matters are referred by the smallholdings committee to that sub-committee;

    (b) reference of the said matters to the smallholdings committee under the said section fifty-nine shall be sufficient compliance with the requirements of the said Section fourteen as to reference to an allotments committee.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    In Committee there was a good deal of criticism of the inclusion of county boroughs as smallholding authorities under Clause 45. It was pointed out that many county boroughs, although primarily urban, had really no agricultural land within their boundaries, and following the discussion at that time I promised to look into the matter between then and the Report stage. The purpose of this new Clause is to deal with that point. Its effect will be that county boroughs will not automatically become smallholding authorities for the purposes of Part IV of this Bill. Any county borough will, however, be able to apply to the Minister to become a smallholding authority, and the Minister will have power on such application to direct that a county borough council shall become a smallholding authority for the purposes of Part IV. When such a direction is given, the county borough council will have exactly the same powers as any county council under the terms of the Bill. The Minister can also revoke such a direction, either on his own initiative or on that of the county borough council concerned.
    In view of this change it is clearly necessary to deal with the case of county borough councils which already hold land for smallholding purposes, or which be-tome smallholding authorities and acquire land, and subsequently, as the result of a revocation of a direction, cease to be a smallholding authority. Arrangements must be made to meet that situation. The
    230
    effect of Subsections (3) and (4) of the new Clause is that where a county borough council hold land for smallholding purposes they will continue to have all the necessary functions, powers and duties under Part IV of the Bill in relation to that particular land. They will not, however, have power to acquire additional land except after a direction made by the Minister. This new Clause, I repeat, is intended to meet the point raised by hon. Members in Committee. Also for their satisfaction I would say that it has been discussed and agreed by the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept it.
    Mr. York: I think the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the objections we raised from this side, but the point we made in Committee, and which should be made again here, is that the amount of land available in the whole country is limited, and that any allocation of smallholdings in county areas will cause a good deal of trouble. If the allocation is in any way overweighted by the demands of borough councils to whom the Minister gives permission, that will inevitably take away from the total area available in those parts of the country where agricultural workers are far more numerous. I want to enter that caveat because I feel that large-scale demands will upset the balance of the whole scheme, making land available for agricultural workers in county areas and, to that extent, making fewer smallholdings available for agricultural workers outside the county boroughs.
    Mr. G. Williams: I am certain that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be grateful to the Minister for having introduced this new Clause because we do not want to upset any existing arrangement where the county councils have smallholdings. On the other hand we do not wait to enforce them to provide them where that is impracticable. There are some words in Subsection (5, a) which I do not quite understand, and I should be grateful if the Minister will explain them. It is quite obvious today that allotments are a very important factor in producing food, and allotment holders are crying out for security of tenure. They also need loans to help produce the food, and protection against the Town and Country Planning Bill. Subsection (5, a) says that

    231
    agricultural matters may be referred to the Smallholdings Committee. It goes on to say that in connection with allotments:
    "those matters shall not be referred to the smallholdings committee unless a sub-committee of the smallholdings committee is constituted."
    It appears to me, therefore, that matters concerning allotments may not be referred to this sub-committee unless there is a special sub-committee of the sub-committee itself to deal with allotments. Surely, allotment problems must come under discussion from time to time by county councils, and it seems that they should be allowed to put their problems before the sub-committee irrespective of whether or not there is a special subcommittee to deal with allotments. I would ask the Minister for some explanation on this point.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: As I read Subsection (5) of the new Clause it in no way alters the existing conditions, I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that allotment holders are calling aloud for security of tenure, but I am afraid we cannot deal with allotments in this particular Bill.
    Mr. G. Williams: Allotments are being dealt with in this Bill, and the new Clause says that nothing can be done about them unless a sub-committee of the smallholdings committee is constituted. This seems to rule out any question of matters connected with allotments being dealt with under this subsection.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) considered.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Supplementary provisions as to s. 36 and s. 37.)
    (1) Where by virtue of Section thirty-six of thirty-seven of this Act the liability for the maintenance or repair of any item of fixed equipment is transferred from the tenant to the landlord, the landlord may within the prescribed period beginning with the date on which the transfer takes effect require that there shall be determined by arbitration under the Act of 1923, and paid by the tenant, the amount of any compensation which would have been payable either under Section twenty-eight of this Act or in accordance with Sub: section (3) of that Section, in respect of any previous failure by the tenant-to discharge the said liability, if the tenant had quitted the
    232
    holding on the termination of his tenancy at the date on which the transfer takes effect.
    (2) For the purposes of so much of Subsection (3) of Section twenty-eight of this Act as prevents a landlord claiming compensation in respect of the same holding both under a contract of tenancy and under Subsection (1) of the said Section twenty-eight, any claim under the last foregoing Subsection shall be disregarded.
    (3) Where by virtue of Section thirty-six or thirty-seven of this Act the liability for the maintenance or repair of any item of fixed equipment is transferred from the landlord to the tenant, any claim by the tenant in respect of any previous failure by the landlord to discharge the said liability shall, if the tenant within the prescribed period beginning with the date on which the transfer takes effect so requires, be determined by arbitration under the Act of 1923.
    (4) Where it appears to the arbitrator—

    (a) on any reference under Subsection (2) of Section thirty-six of this Act that by reason of any provision included in his award, or

    (b) on any reference under Section thirty- seven of this Act that by reason of any provision which he is required by that Section to include in his award,

    it is equitable that the rent of the holding should be varied, he may vary the rent accordingly, and for the purposes of Subsection (3) of Section thirty-four of this Act any variation of rent under this Subsection shall be disregarded.
    (5) The award of an arbitrator under Section thirty-six or thirty-seven of this Act shall have effect as if the terms and provisions specified and made therein were contained in an agreement in writing entered into by the landlord and the tenant and having effect as from the making of the award or, if the award so provides, from such later date as may be specified therein.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Its object, roughly speaking, is as follows. Hon. Members will remember that Clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill have the effect that in certain circumstances the liability to repair and maintain fixed equipment can be transferred from the landlord to the tenant or vice versa from the tenant to the landlord. During the discussion of these two Clauses in Committee it was pointed out that apparently the effect of that would be that in the event of such a transfer, and of the landlord or the tenant, as the case might be, committing a breach of his obligations before the transfer, the parties would have to wait until the termination of the tenancy before damages could be claimed

    233
    for that breach. It was further pointed out that that was unsatisfactory, and the argument was adduced that supposing, in the event of such a transfer taking place, it became apparent that the landlord or the tenant had committed a breach of his obligation to repaid and maintain fixed equipment, it should be possible there and then for the wronged party to claim damages or compensation for that breach.
    What this new Clause seeks to do is to bring that about. If they will look at it more closely, hon. Members will see that Subsection (1) provides that in the event of there being a transfer of liability the landlord may ask that the arbitrator should determine his claim for compensation. Subsection (2) is machinery, intricate and complicated, and I think the House would not want me to go into much detail about it. It impinges upon Clause 28, and is necessary in order to prevent certain results from ensuing under that Clause. Subsection (3) enables a tenant to have his claim adjudicated upon by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. The tenant's normal remedy in regard to a breach of obligation would be to sue for damages under his contract, and he will still be able to take this course if he wishes. The advantage of Subsection (3) will be that he can adopt a more convenient procedure by having his claim dealt with by arbitration under the Act of 1923 if he wishes. Subsections (4) and (5) are only drafting and machinery provisions. If hon. Members will look at Clauses 36 and 37 they will see that Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 36, and Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 37 are identical in wording. The proposed new Clause gathers these parts of those two Clauses together, for the sake of brevity. Later Amendments will deal with other aspects of the same matter.
    I should point out something which was referred to during the Committee stage. If hon. Members will look at the last line of the proposed new Clause, they will see that it brings about the result that the award is to operate with effect from the date of the order, or from such later date as may be specified. In other words, it cannot be made to operate retrospectively. In Clauses 36 and 37, orders can be made to operate retrospectively, but now they have to start at the date of the award. I hope that the House will think that the
    234
    new Clause is satisfactory and meets the objects for which it was designed.
    Sir T. Dugdale: We have given careful consideration to the proposed new Clause, and we are grateful to the Solicitor-General for the explanation he has given. We agree that it is a little definite improvement in the drafting of the Bill, and we thank the Minister for it.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Variation of factors determining operation of arrangements for providing guaranteed prices and assured markets.)
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "appropriate Minister," and to insert "Minister."
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Am I to understand that you have passed over my proposed new Clause—[Co-operation among producers]?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member's proposed Clause has not been selected by Mr. Speaker.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: We had a discussion in Committee on the points raised in the Amendment which I have moved, but for the benefit of hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee I should mention that the "appropriate" Minister whom we wish to see removed from Clause 3 and from subsequent Clauses is either the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Home Secretary in relation to Northern Ireland, or the Minister of Food. Those who have studied the Bill will realise that in these Clauses very wide powers are given to the person described "the appropriate Minister", who I take it will be either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Food. That Minister will have power, when it appears to him expedient or in the public interest, to vary the guaranteed price for any particular agricultural commodity He can also limit the quantity to which the price is applied and can vary the methods by which the price is paid. I think hon. Members will agree that questions of price and method of payment are essentially agricultural matters, and

    235
    should be the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture.
    In the Committee, the Minister answered the case which we put forward with a very plausible, and in some ways a reasonable argument. He said that in the conditions we have in the country today, rationing being in force, many questions as to price had been settled by order or by regulation under the authority of the Minister of Food. That Minister had power to do it, and it was administratively convenient that he should do so. The Minister of Agriculture went on to say that he, as Minister of Agriculture, took full responsibility although he may not have made the orders himself. On this side of the House we hope that existing conditions will not prevail for very much longer, and that we shall soon see the end of the present system of rationing. We feel that it should somehow be made clear in the Bill whether the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Food is responsible on these vital questions affecting the agricultural industry. If the Minister cannot accept this Amendment and the consequential Amendments, we hope that he will give us some firmer assurances than we have had so far that this procedure will not be extended indefinitely. We hope that he will take the earliest opportunity to get back for the Minister of Agriculture those powers which, in the opinion of hon. Members on this side of the House, should be vested in him, and in him only.
    Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Amendment.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: This Amendment brings up the very important question of the power of the Minister in relation to other Ministers. The essential thing is co-operation. I had down a new Clause relating to co-operation among, smallholders which was not called. Here I am talking about the co-operation of the Minister. All will agree that Ministers working separately will not do so effective a job as Ministers working in close co-operation with one another. If the Ministers are co-operating they will be anxious to see that the smallholders are co-operating. I hope the Minister will accept this suggestion and see that a great deal of co-operation takes place. We are often told that those en-
    236
    gaged in agriculture work "from see to can't see," from early dawn till the last hour of night. They have to exploit their own living to make a livelihood, and it is hard work. I have had some experience of this. I remember on a hot summer's day standing with the sweat running down my forehead watching the wife cultivating the garden. Recently she has revolted and she now does the watching and I do the groaning. The smallholder can only hope to make a success of his smallholding if we have co-operation between the Ministries and co-operation to the utmost among the smallholders.
    Mr. T. Williams: I know from the Debate we had in Committee that hon. Members opposite do not like the Ministry of Food. They made that very plain, but their reasons, I thought, were very thin. The effect of this and other Amendments on the Order Paper is to preclude the Ministry of Food from taking any action under the Bill. It is clear to me that hon. Members are not quite seized of how the Clause will work. Certain actions under the Bill which are of vital importance are reserved exclusively for the agricultural Ministries, and there is co-operation between those three Ministries. The three agricultural Ministries are responsible for conducting the annual price reviews and for extending the powers under Clause 4, should that be necessary to give effect to their reviews. They are also responsible for fixing the periods during which minimum prices for livestock shall apply. The remaining functions and duties are concerned with the carrying out of the decisions taken by the three agricultural Ministries following upon these price reviews. Those functions may devolve upon any one or all three of the agricultural Ministers, or upon the Minister of Food. It is right that it should be so. I must repeat my statement in Committee that while food rationing remains, it is absolutely necessary that the Minister of Food should make the appropriate orders when prices have been fixed for various commodities. It is necessary for the Minister of Food to continue to purchase or control practically all rationed foodstuffs but he only makes an order following a price review. The Minister of Food purchases practically the whole of our meat. Therefore, once a price has been fixed for meat it is for the Minister of Food to make an Order giving effect to

    237
    that decision. Similar considerations apply to milk and cereals.
    This Amendment would, quite unnecessarily, complicate food administration in this country. This Amendment and the 13 or 14 Other Amendments on the same subject are therefore pointless. It is true that if at a later date it became necessary for the agricultural Ministers to make arrangements for the payment of guaranteed prices, it would still be inconvenient if they had in all cases to act jointly. Methods sometimes differ between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Bill distinguishes between those functions which are part of the determination of guaranteed prices which are a joint responsibility of the three agricultural Ministers and those other functions which are concerned with carrying out the various decisions taken. I could not possibly accept this Amendment. While the Minister of Food is responsible for purchasing and controlling all rationed foodstuffs he is the right and proper person to take action under Clause 3 following upon the price reviews. I hope hon. Members will see the wisdom of not pressing this Amendment, since it would completely upset the rationing system of this country.
    Mr. Baldwin: I am sure that the Amendment has served its purpose in getting the explanation which has just been given—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Is the hon. Member asking a question? He has already exhausted his right to speak.
    Mr. York: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend has not yet spoken.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am informed that the hon. Member seconded the Amendment. That being so, he has exhausted his right to speak. If he wishes to ask a question, that would be permissible.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: May I ask the Minister a question? I do not think he was quite accurate when he said that the Minister of Food will only make orders as a result of annual reviews. The Subsection reads that the appropriate Minister can vary prices and so on:
    "… when it appears to him expedient so to do in the public interest."
    238
    There are, later, certain safeguards to the effect that he cannot reduce the prices. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not quite accurate to say that these orders can only be made as a result of annual reviews and that he is, therefore, directly responsible for the orders.
    Mr. T. Williams: I think that is so.
    Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Bury St. Edmunds): May we take it from the Minister of Agriculture that the Minister of Food will, definitely, be the servant of the Minister of Agriculture in all matters connected with agriculture?
    Mr. Williams: I should be very sorry to employ any servants, let alone a Ministerial servant. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that my right hon. Friend would not willingly become the servant of myself or any other Minister.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: But as the Minister of Food has already said that he will buy the food in the cheapest market, how can he be anything but the servant of the Minister of Agriculture in these matters?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member seems to have forgotten that once the review has been conducted and the price fixed, it is the Minister of Food alone who provides the order to give effect to the conclusions.
    Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend clarify the position with regard to the fixing of prices for horticultural products? There is no question of any annual price review, but horticulture is covered by the Bill, and is the responsibility of the Minister. It appears, however, that there is no relationship in the fixing of horticultural prices, and that no responsibility attaches to the Ministry of Agriculture. There is, then, the extraordinary position that, for example, the price of tomatoes is fixed at 2S. 5d. a lb. Can my right hon. Friend tell us to what extent horticultural prices will come under review by the Ministry of Agriculture?
    Brigadier Mackeson: I also would like to ask a question about horticultural prices. Horticulture is to receive a certain amount of direction and supervision, but it is not to receive any guarantee in regard to the commodities

    239
    that have been mentioned. Some hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee that considered this Bill, and who come from horticultural districts, are very perturbed about the matter, as is also the National Farmers' Union.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am afraid that if I were to attempt to reply to these questions, I should be out of Order, since the price review affects only the commodities mentioned in the First Schedule.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I should like to refer to what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) might have said a few moments ago if he had not already exhausted his right to speak. This short Debate has been well worth while in that it has drawn from the Minister an assurance that there will be no statement with regard to prices made by the Minister of Food without prior consultation with the Minister of Agriculture. That, of course, is what the farmers throughout the country want to know. If they were under the impression, as a result of reading the Bill and not knowing Parliamentary procedure too well, that the Minister of Food could one day make an announcement without having previously consulted his colleagues in the Government, they might feel unhappy about their future. It is clear from what the Minister has said that that is not likely to happen, and I hope that will reassure the farmers that their position will be safeguarded by the Ministers in conference, and that the appropriate Ministers will invariably consult with the Minister of Food before any announcements are made.
    Amendment negatived
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, in page 3, lint 13, to leave out "as nearly as may be."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that in fixing or varying prices and quantities, all the factors shall be taken into account by the Minister at the time. We are anxious that the Minister in using the machinery of price fixing, should make a clean job of it once a year, and not have it at the back of his mind that he can fiddle about with one or other of the factors in the price structure and
    240
    thereby alter the effects of the price settlement which in future years, we hope, will have won the approval of the farming and consuming community. We want to make sure that the Minister will make a clear job of price fixing once a year. It is very necessary that the farmers should be able to look ahead with confidence to definite guaranteed prices and markets. In the past it has been the curse of the agricultural industry that it was so often left open to the whims of imports, and that the farmers never knew how the market would settle down six, 12 or 18 months ahead. One of the virtues of the Bill is that it puts stability into the market for the British farmers and, therefore, for the British farm workers, so that they will know where they will stand 12 or 18 months ahead. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment. In Committee he went a good deal of the way to meet us and expressed a good deal of sympathy with us, and, therefore, I have some confidence that he will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I cannot see why the words "as nearly as may be" are necessary in the Clause. I should have thought it would have been quite possible in the price review to fix the quantity as well. Personally, I hope it will never be necessary for quantities to be specified. It has always been the contention of hon. Members on this side that there should be no limitation of quantity as long as the farmers are able to produce at a reasonable price. I would like to point out a difficulty that might arise if prices and quantities are not fixed at the same time. For instance, would it be possible for the Minister to fix the price of, say, sugar beet in a February price review, and then at some later date before the beet was harvested to limit the quantity of beet that was to be accepted for sale?
    Mr. T. Williams: It would be impossible.
    Mr. Baldwin: If the Minister says it would be impossible, that helps, but I still think that the words "as nearly as may be" are unnecessary, and I hope the Minister will agree that, when fixing prices, he should fix the quantity at the same time.
    Mr. Marquand: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said in Committee that he viewed a similar Amendment with sympathy, and would consider whether it might be administratively possible to agree to the exclusion of these words without causing administrative inconvenience. My right hon. Friend has considered the matter again with great sympathy. I think hon. Members recognise my right hon. Friend's desire to do his best at all times in price fixing, to safeguard the interests of the producers, but he finds that it would be administratively inconvenient to remove these words. The effect of the Amendment would be that, if the appropriate Minister found it necessary to limit the assured market quantitatively, he would not only have to announce his decision on this point at the same time as he announced the prices and other factors, but would have to include it in the same order as that relating to prices and other factors. It is here that the point of administrative inconvenience arises. My right hon. Friend does not feel certain that it would at all times be possible for him to do this, and if it were difficult for him to do it, surely the effect would be that when he was ready to announce a price he might have to hold up the announcement of the price until the other Minister engaged in the consultation was fully ready to make an order concerning quantity. Surely that would be a disadvantage to the producers? Surely they would like to know as early as possible what the price is to be, instead of having to wait for some short interval to see if there is to be any change of quantity? My right hon. Friend has already given an assurance that he will, wherever possible, do this at the same time or make the interval as short as possible, and therefore we feel unable to accept the Amendment.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think my hon. Friends on this side of the House are at all satisfied with that reply. The Minister must make up his mind what quantities of any commodity he wants and, having decided on the amounts, he fixes a price
    upon which he hopes he will get that quantity. If he does not adopt such a policy, I am quite certain we shall be in a serious state before many years have passed. The whole basis of Part I of this Bill is the price structure and the Government policy of giving the agriculturist a guaranteed price and a guaranteed market. Unless the Government know what quantity they require produced, it is impossible for them to decide what price should be given to the farmer, because upon the price will depend the quantity produced. For that reason I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on this Amendment.
    There is another point. In Committee the Minister made sympathetic reference to this subject, and so did the hon. Gentleman just now, but they were not able to accept the Amendment because it is said to be administratively inconvenient. All farmers will be affected tremendously by the question of whether the Amendment is carried or rejected. If it were carried, the farmers would know that when a price was fixed; a quantity limitation would be fixed at the same time, and therefore they would know how to plan. It is not good enough to say that these words cannot be deleted, because it is not administratively convenient to do so. The Minister went so far to say previously that he was in sympathy with the proposal, and although it was inconvenient administratively, yet it was not impossible.
    Mr, T. Williams: Not impossible.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I will read out exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "I am informed it would be administratively inconvenient, though perhaps not utterly impossible. [OFFICIAL REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE A, 18th February, 1947; c. 124.]
    Now time has passed and the Minister has looked at this point again. He has failed to meet us on this side of the House and I feel that we should register our protest.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 103.

    Division No. 231.]

    AYES.

    [5.25 p.m.

    Adams, W. T, (Hammersmith, South)

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Berry, H.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Balfour, A.

    Beswick, F.

    Alpass, J H.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Attewell, H. O.

    Barton. C

    Bing, G. H. C

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Battley, J. R.

    Binns, J.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Ayrton Could, Mrs B

    Benson, G.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Boardman, H.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Bowden, Flg-Offr. H. W.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaten)

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Pryde, D. J.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pt Eton ge)

    Hicks, G.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Hobson, C. R

    Randall, H. E.

    Bramall, E. A.

    Holman, P.

    Ranger, J.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    House, G

    Rees-Williams, D R

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hoy, J.

    Reeves, J.

    Brawn, George (Belper)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Brown, T. J (Ince)

    Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pten, W.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Burden, T. W.

    Irving, W. J

    Royle, C.

    Burke, W. A.

    Janner, B

    Sargood, R

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Scott-Ellict, W.

    Carmichael, James

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Castle, Mrs. B. A

    Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Panoras. S.E.)

    Sharp, Granville

    Champion, A. J.

    John, W.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Shinwell, Rt. Han. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitohin)

    Shurmar, P

    Cooks, F. S.

    Kenyon, C

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Coldrick, W.

    King, E. M

    Silverman, S S. (Nelson)

    Collindridge, F

    Kinley, J.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Collins, V. J.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Colman, Miss G. M

    Lang, G.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Cemyns, Dr. L.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

    Cook, T. F.

    Levy, B. W.

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camberwell, N.W.)

    Lewis, J. (Bolton)

    Stamford, W.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Stephen, C.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Crossman, R. H. S

    Lyne, A. W.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Daggar, G.

    McAdam, W.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    McGhee, H. G

    Stubbs, A. E

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Mack, J. D.

    Swingler, S.

    Davies, Hadyn (St Pancras, S.W.)

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Deer, G.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Dobbie, W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Thomat, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Mailalieu, J. P. W

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Dumpleton, C. W

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Dye, S.

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Edelman, M.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Mathers, G.

    Tolley, L.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Medland, H. M

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Viant, S. P.

    Foot, M. M.

    Monslow, W.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Forman, J. C.

    Montague, F.

    Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)

    Gallacher, W.

    Moody, A. S.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Gibbins, J.

    Morley, R.

    Watson, W. M.

    Gilzean, A.

    Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Glanville, J E. (Consett)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Gooch, E. G

    Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E)

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Mort, D. L.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Moyle, A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon A. (Wakefield)

    Murray, J. D

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

    Nally, W.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Grierson, E.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Gunter, R. J.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Willis, E.

    Guy, W. H.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Wills, Mrs. E. A

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Wise, Major F. J

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Woodburn, A

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Paton, J (Norwich)

    Yates, V. F.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Young, Sir R (Newton)

    Harrison, J.

    Piratin, P.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Snow.

    NOES.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Baldwin, A E.

    Byers, Frank

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Carson, E.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Challen, C.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Birch, Nigel

    Channon, H.

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

    Boothby, R.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Drewe, C.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir I. (Richmond)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Cole, T. L.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Cooper-Kay, E. M

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    244

    245

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Gage, C.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W

    Smithers, Sir W.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Spense, H. R.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Grant, Lady

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Mott-Radolyffe, Maj. C. E.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

    Nicholson, G

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Henderson, John (Cathort)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Wadsworth, G.

    Hinohingbrooke, Viscount

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Osborne, C.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J,

    Pickthorn, K.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Hurd, A.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Hutchison, Li.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

    Prescott, Stanley

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Kendall, W. D.

    Raikes, H. V.

    York, C.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Major Conant and

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Major Ramsay.

    Low, Brig A. R. W.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Good estate management.)
    Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, to leave out from "land," to "is," in line 7, and to insert:
    "whether treated by itself, or as affecting other land."
    We have left chapter 1 of this Bill, with its limited blessings, and have arrived at the longer chapters, with their almost unlimited sanctions. Clause 10 attempts to define the rules of good estate management. That has not previously been attempted in any Statute. As at present drafted, Subsection (1) makes rather heavy weather of the definition.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it might be an advantage if we discussed at the same time the next two Amendments together—in page 7, line 10, after "husbandry" to insert:
    "or such an occupier of other land affected by the adequate management of the first mentioned land."
    and, in line 16, after "owner" to insert "has been and."
    Mr. Vane: Subsection (1) as I say, attempts to define what is and what is not good estate management, and the Amendment which I move is purely administrative. It attempts to improve the definition, but not to undermine the 'principle which is in this Clause, and more particularly in this Subsection. As the Subsection is at present drafted, an owner
    "shall be deemed to fulfil his responsibilities to manage it in accordance with the rules of good estate management in so far as his management of the land and (so far as it affects the management of that land) of other land managed by him is such as to be reasonably adequate."
    246
    That means that if a man owns two farms, one slightly further up the valley than the other, and allows the drainage from the slightly higher farm to flood the slightly lower farm, then in considering the management of the lower farm acts of neglect which are presumed to have taken place in respect of the higher farm are likely to be taken into account. We consider that that is the wrong way round. If any complaint is to be made about the management of the higher farm, the whole question of whether or not that land is being managed according to the rules of good estate management should be limited to the top farm, and not approached by the very devious and intricate means of going into the management of the farm lower down the valley. This view was put forward by my hon. Friends in Committee, and commanded a certain amount of sympathy from the Minister. On a previous Amendment this afternoon, the Solicitor-General suggested that it was necessary to avoid inordinately long Clauses. I am sure it -is also necessary to avoid inordinately confusing definitions. The difficulties which will arise in assessing whether or not land is managed according to the rules of good estate management, unless these words, or something similar to them, are accepted, will be extreme, and will give rise to an enormous amount of dispute.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish also particularly to support the second Amendment which has been referred to. These two Amendments would

    247
    work together. We shall find great difficulty in deciding these matters if we have to take into consideration more than one particular piece of land. I hope the two Amendments will be inserted in the Bill.
    The Solicitor-General: Both the mover and seconder have sought to justify this group of Amendments on the ground that they clarify the definition contained in Clause to (1). That is a laudable motive, but I must ask the House to reject the Amendment now before us, because as I see the position, the words which it is sought to substitute for those which at present appear in the Bill not only do not clarify the position, but, on the contrary, introduce a great deal of obscurity. I know hon. Members will say "If it is only a matter of drafting, surely you can improve the words and to that extent assist us?" I would if I could, but there is a fundamental vice underlying the Amendments—that if an owner manages land in such a way that it affects any other land, whether in his ownership or not, then he is guilty of bad management, if that effect is injurious. That is obviously much too wide.
    What the Clause seeks to do is this: Supposing there is an owner who own plot A and also owns or manages plot B, and his management of plot A adversely affects the management of plot B, he comes within the terms of the Subsection. The Amendment would result in a much more indefinite position. Its result would be that, supposing the owner of plot A so manages it that it injuriously affects, in the wide sense of that word, any other land, say plot X, Y or Z, in which he has no interest, which is owned and managed by completely different people, and which may be at a distance from plot A, he comes within the scope of the Subsection. I am sure that hon Gentlemen do not wish to bring about that position. It would impose an intolerable burden upon the landowner, and greatly multiply the responsibilities placed upon him by Clause to. In contradistinction to that, we say that we are only concerned, in Clause 10 (1) with holdings or areas of ground which can fairly be said to be managed by the landowner, that is to say plot A, which he owns, and plot B, which he manages, in the sense that he may have let it out to a tenant. Therefore, in considering whether he is within the purview
    248
    of the Clause we simply say that consideration must be limited to those two plots. The Amendment would require that the area all round, which could in no sense be said to be under that person's ownership or management or under his responsibility, would have to be considered. I ask the House to say that the Amendment not only does not improve the Clause but that in so tar as it is easily intelligible—I do not mean that in any depreciatory sense—it would impose an intolerable burden on the landowner. Indeed, the word "affect" being of such general significance in the context of the actual Amendment, in which it is used, it is impossible to see how far its extent would go.
    5.45 p.m.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Having heard the explanation of the Solicitor-General, I am not yet satisfied that the original terms of the Bill really meet the point, though I am prepared to admit that the Amendment, as drafted, may not be in the appropriate words to effect what we desire. The point we want to make clear is whether when this Bill becomes an Act it will be right to bring in the management of other land when deciding whether an owner is fulfilling his responsibilities of management in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. We do not like the wording of the Clause as it stands. We appreciate the point made by the Solicitor-General and on behalf of my hon. Friends, I would ask whether the Government, appreciating our point, with which I believe the Minister is much in agreement, will look at these words again before this Bill becomes an Act. We ask them to see if the words can be made clearer than they are at present, and at the same time to bring out the point about considering the effect on other land, when deciding whether an owner is fulfilling his responsibilities to manage land in accordance with good husbandry. Could the Solicitor-General give an undertaking that he will look at these words, and see whether they meet the point which my hon. Friends have made?
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I confess I am rather muddled as to exactly what these words mean. From what the Solicitor-General said and from my reading of this Clause, it would appear that if an owner owns land in one county, and also owns land in another county or

    249
    another part of England, it is possible to consider these two separate pieces of land in conjunction when deciding whether he is carrying out his responsibility for good estate management. The Solicitor-General said that the words we desire to have included in the Bill would make the Clause far too wide, and would involve consideration of how the management of one piece of land affected neighbouring farms. It seems to me reasonable that that should be taken into account—far more reasonable than to take into account how the owner concerned was managing another piece of land, very widely separated from the land in question.
    Amendment negatived.
    Major Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, in page 7, line 16, after "owner," to insert, "has been and."
    Subsection (2) of Clause 10 is important because it lays down the rules of good estate management by which owners will be judged. We are a little afraid that if the words in that Subsection are not altered a rather too narrow construction may be placed upon them. As now drafted the Subsection reads:
    "In determining whether the management of land is such as aforesaid regard shall be had, but without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection, to the extent to which the owner is providing, improving, maintaining and repairing fixed equipment …"
    If a too narrow interpretation is placed upon those words, it might apply only to actual current expenditure. That would be an unfair yardstick because, first, on a great many estates it has been the custom to do repairs on farms in rotation and, second, the actual current expenditure on fixed equipment is no criterion of whether a landowner is able or willing to do his job properly. Owing to the extreme difficulty of getting licences and permits to do essential work, landowners who may be anxious to get the work done are sometimes unable to do it in terms of current expenditure. We feel that if a man's future tenure of land is to be judged in the narrow sense of this Subsection, it would be fair to take into account past expenditure in addition to current expenditure.
    Mr. Vane: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Whereas maintenance and repair are primarily matters of small outlay to meet
    250
    current deterioration, provision and improvement constitute large outlay. That is what we are thinking about. Often such improvement cannot be arranged on every holding on an estate except at an interval of so many years. Normal standards of good estate management in this country allow for major expenditure to be carried out on holdings in rotation. It might very easily be argued that if the Clause is left as at present drafted, considerable expenditure which took place when a tenant came in—and one is glad to say that tenancies are, on the whole, of very long standing—would be ruled out completely from consideration when a dispute arises. If these words, "has been and" are inserted, then where previous expenditure is relevant it will not be excluded from consideration. At the same time, it does not compel undue consideration of that expenditure, because it is always possible to argue that it was reasonable at the time but that it has no particular relevance to the present. The acceptance of these words would not weaken the case at all. I feel that it would be a great deal stronger in some instances and a great deal fairer.
    The Solicitor-General: I follow the motives behind the Amendment, but I must advise the House that the fears expressed are not well founded. If I can summarise them, it is feared that the word "is" is too narrow. It was argued that it would shut out anything that had gone before and anything that came after, and would involve simply looking at me actual state of affairs at the moment by reference to which one is judging. The advice I give to the House is that the word "is" in this context permits and indeed requires a general circumspective view. It requires the consideration of a trend: not only the state of fact at the moment. If the words which are sought to be introduced, "has been and," were in the Clause, the position would be very much more difficult and it might be unfair to the landowner.
    Suppose there was a case of a landowner who in the past had done very little in the way of good estate management. There may have been a great deal of complaint and it may be that latterly he had entirely changed the position and put in a good deal of work, greatly improving the position of the holding. The result of introducinc, the words of the Amendment would introducing that in a case of

    251
    that sort one would not only have to say to oneself, "At present the estate management on this farm is excellent," but one would have to discount that by reference to the fact that by looking back two or three or five or six years, one found that under the management of the same landowner the farm was in a very bad state. It would be very bad luck for the landowner if he had done a great deal to improve the farm and had brought it up to the requisite standard, that one should have to say, "Because in the past you have neglected this estate, we shall write you down and we shall, condemn you for your past record. We shall not allow you to gain the credit of having effaced that, and having brought your estate up to a very good pitch of management." That would be the effect of these words.
    As the Clause stands, anybody considering the position must look at it generally and consider what has gone before, what exists at present and what is likely to be the trend in future, to see whether it can fairly be said to be in a state of good management. One is not tied down to discounting a good present record by a bad past record. If one were tied down to that—and one would be if the Amendment was accepted—it would be very bad luck on a landowner in some cases, and in others it might advantage him. It would impose an entirely unnecessary and unfortunate restriction. It would work very unfairly in many cases. The Clause is sufficiently widely worded to enable a general view to be taken, making due allowance for all the relevant considerations which one would consider in asking whether an estate is properly managed.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: I do not think that the Solicitor-General's argument is satisfactory. If the landowner in the past has not been doing well, there is no reason why that fact should not come out. If he is now doing the work in a proper manner, it shows that he has improved and is getting on with the job. There is no reason why his past record should not be known. If it happens that a man has had a good past record, the words, "is providing," do not mean that one can consider that past. There are many great estates in this country where the work cannot be done in one year or two years. What has been done on farm A last year, is done this year on
    252
    farm B, and perhaps next year on farm C, before it is done again on farm A. That cannot be taken into account under the words "is providing." "Is" denotes the present; "has been" the past. If a man did work two years ago and he intends to do it again in the cycle, that can be considered under the words "has been" It will be very hard on the man who has done good work if it is not recognised because the word "is" is in the Subsection.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. J. H. Hare: The argument put forward by the Solicitor-General was quite extraordinary. He said that if these words were accepted it would be bad luck on the landowner. It would be bad luck only on the man who is a bad landowner. There is the case of the man who had ignored his land for years, and I think that the Solicitor-General or the Minister should give a rather better explanation than that to which we have listened. My hon. Friend pointed out that it has been impossible for the last few years to do these repairs, had the landlord wished to do so, and, therefore, landowners who spent large sums of money in keeping their holdings up to date before the war are not going to get any benefit at all when their cases are considered. I hope we shall have a more helpful explanation in answer to the arguments put by my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Sargood: I would like to ask whether hon. Members of the Opposition are really urging that the legislation which we are now framing should be made retrospective.
    Mr. W. Roberts: The term "is providing" cannot possibly be strictly interpreted as meaning what the landlord provided before the war. That is seven years ago, and, grammatically, it does not seem to me that, if a landlord provided certain improvements seven years ago, we can say that he is providing them now. That was seven years ago, and the term "is providing" cannot mean what was done seven years ago.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Why not? The buildings are still there.
    Mr. Roberts: We certainly cannot say that a landlord "is improving" if the last improvement which he carried out on his

    253
    land was done before the war, and it seems to me to be very hard indeed that somebody who is interpreting this Bill strictly at a later date may be able to argue that these improvements which were carried out before the war should not be taken into account. Very little was done during the war, and it is exceedingly difficult to do anything now. I suggest that there is another form of words which might appeal to the Minister, and it is this: "The extent to which the owner provides, improves, maintains and repairs fixed equipment on the land." I think that would convey the sense which we all intend to be conveyed, and that is that, over a period, the owner does provide these things, and not that he provided them seven years ago and is not providing them now, or that he is not providing them now when he did so seven years ago. It would convey, generally speaking, that he does provide what is required for the working of the farm.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It would be very unfortunate if the idea got abroad that the past record of an owner may not be taken into account. The learned Solicitor-General, I think, gave a very cogent and clear explanation. It is perfectly clear from the language of the Clause that the past record is to be taken into account. What this Clause does is to say that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions in Subsection (1), nevertheless, in order to get a balanced view of the contributions which the owner has made in the way of maintaining and repairing machinery and so forth, we are to take account of what is being done at the moment. That seems to me to be very sensible and fair. Supposing the' owner's previous record has not been so good, but that he is trying to make up for past faults by doing more at the present time. It is provided that all that shall be taken into account, in order to give him an opportunity to satisfy the test whether there is an attempt at good management or not. That does not mean that the past is to be cut out. Supposing, on the other hand, his past record has been good. That will be taken into account with what he is doing now. His general record will be taken into account, and this Clause is intended to be the means of getting a balanced view of the whole situation. It takes the past completely into account with the present in order to get that balanced view, and, in my submission, the
    254
    argument of the Opposition on this point is misconceived.
    Mrs. Manning: I think the syntax of this Clause is perfectly good, and that what Opposition hon. Members are seeking to do is to make the Clause very much worse for themselves than it is now. If we say that a farmer is providing certain things, it must be, by and large, everything on the farm in the way of buildings and so on. He is providing and continuing to provide them at the time. If a barn was built 100 years ago, and it is still in use, the owner is still providing it, and, in. fact, everything which is provided and which is continuing to be used he is providing at the moment. If the owner knocks down that barn, or it is destroyed and he does not put it up again, he would not be providing it, but, if it is still there, he is providing it. Hon. Members opposite are trying to make the Minister look back into the past, when he will find out something which I think will make this an infinitely worse Clause from their point of view.
    Mr. Hollis: I think it is obvious that this Clause requires reconsideration. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) and the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) have all spoken of this Clause in three different senses. Surely, there must be some very good reason for this confusion? The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester said that the Solicitor-General gave a cogent and fair answer. It may have been cogent, but it was not fair, according to the hon. and learned Member, because the two arguments were entirely contradictory one with the other. The learned Solicitor-General argues that it would be extremely bad luck if the past record is taken into account. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester says that the past record would be taken into account, and if it is bad luck that the past record should be taken into account, and, at the same time, it will be taken into account by this Clause, then, surely, it follows that there must be something wrong with the Clause? The hon. Member for Epping says that if a farm building was built 100 years ago and is still being used, the owner is providing it. No doubt, that is true, but what we are concerned with at the moment is the fact that where, owing to an act of God,

    255
    an act of the Government, or an act of somebody else, the barn or fence has fallen down, in present circumstances it is not possible to carry out repairs, not for any lack of good will on the part of the person concerned, but because one cannot get repairs done. I agree with the argument of the hon. Lady that, when the building is not usable, then we cannot say that the owner is providing it. That is a very cogent argument, but it surely follows that this Amendment should be accepted and not rejected, or, at least, if the Amendment is not accepted, that the Clause should be looked at again and redrafted. I would appeal to hon. Members opposite to recognise that they have demonstrated the cogency of this Amendment even more convincingly than have my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would like to lend my plea to the eloquent effort of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown). We have heard three different explanations of the Government attitude towards this Amendment. We heard the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) who, on the Agricultural Committee, we described as the "legal conscience of the Socialist Party," and, may I say—I hope in Order and in parenthesis—there was a moment when we feared we might be losing his services—that some service outside might take him away—but we were glad to hear that there was unlikely to be a by-election—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I have very great difficulty in finding anything in the Amendment related to that matter.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for letting me get so far. Then we heard from the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) what appeared to be the only logical and commonsense defence of the Government's point of view. If her reading of the present position is that what grandfather provided should be maintained for the use by a tenant, then there would be reason to think that there was some sense in it. But even on that reading, owing to the difficulty of maintaining in proper repair what grandfather provided, one might well find oneself legally
    256
    compelled not to provide something which one is only too anxious to provide. Taking all these things together, surely, in fairness to the Committee and to the House, the Government should withdraw this Clause and think again.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Baldwin: I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "and to the rental value of the land having regard to the economic condition of that section of the agricultural industry which comprises produce of the kind produced by the occupier of that land."
    The object of this Amendment is to protect the landlord, which I know is something not very popular in this country at the present time. But landlords are a long-suffering race, and, therefore, I think it is our duty to be reasonable towards them. The Amendments seeks to protect the owner of a farm from having to erect or provide some fixed equipment for which the farm is not suitable. As far as I can see, there is nothing in this Clause to protect the landlord by way of appeal if the executive officer or the sub-committee appointed decide whether fixed equipment shall be provided or not. As an instance of what might happen, I would point out that, at the present time, grass drying is a very popular job and plants for this purpose are being erected at considerable expense all over the country. It may well be that the executive officer for a district is a grass-drying maniac and that there may be some tenant in the area who is also a grass-drying maniac. He may decide that the landlord should erect grass-drying equipment which might be wholly unsuitable for the land on which it is erected. I know it may be argued that if such equipment is erected, the landlord can get a re-assessment for rent, and that he is protected in that way. But that is no protection at all, because the tenant, after carrying on for one or two years, may find that grass drying on that particular farm is not an economic proposition, and may then give notice to quit, and the landlord would then be left with the uneconomic equipment, which may have cost him several thousands of pounds to provide, and which another tenant may not be willing to take over. I feel that there should be some protection for the landlord from

    257
    anything which is not fair, and, therefore, I would ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, or to insert some words on the lines of this Amendment.
    6.15 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I endorse all that my hon. friend has said. It is most important that we should not force a landlord to erect some equipment which is uneconomical and expensive, and which is only likely to be used by one particular man.
    Mr. Marquand: In considering this Clause, we must remember the background of the whole Bill, which is intended to give stability to the agricultural industry by means of guaranteed prices and assured markets. In return for this guarantee of stability, the State very reasonably imposes certain requirements of good management which are set out in the Bill. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) seem to fear that, somehow, the Bill is going to be 'administered by maniacs. I agree, of course, that if the Bill is so administered it will not work. It may be, of course, that in the neighbourhood of their own constituencies there are some maniacs in the employ of county agricultural committees. I can see that my right hon. Friend will have to look into that possibility, but, as regards the rest of the country, there is no reason to fear on that score. I feel that to suggest that the criteria of good management as set out in this Bill, which are criteria of the equipment and the provision of adequate facilities on estates, should be extended to include monetary gains which may be made, is quite unacceptable. Therefore, we could not agree to this Amendment. It is perhaps remarkable that the mover and seconder of this Amendment have not suggested that any similar provision should be inserted in the rules of good husbandy. They are seeking to differentiate between the owner and the occupier, a differentiation which we have been careful to exclude from the Bill. For these reasons, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Oliver Poole: I was unable to follow the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite. If I understood him
    258
    aright, he said it would be wrong to take into consideration the economic position of the farm, the money which can be made out of it, when telling the landlord to provide certain equipment. If that is what the hon. Gentleman meant, it is quite wrong, and this Amendment should be accepted. In order to illustrate his point, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) gave what was obviously an extreme illustration. But the fact that an extreme illustration was made, should not make it possible to say that there is a much narower margin between what can be provided on a farm and what cannot be provided. It is obvious that on a small farm a certain amount of profitability can be taken out; it is equally true that if a certain amount of equipment is put in and capital spent on it, the output and the consequent profitability of the farm is increased. But there comes a moment when any more equipment that is put on the farm becomes an uneconomic proposition, and, as my lion. Friend the Member for Leominster said, it is no good increasing the rent, because if the point is reached where the tenant cannot pay the rent, it is obviously unsatisfactory for everybody.
    The object of this Amendment is to give a direction as to what equipment can be put on a farm, and to guide people so that the economic position and the increased profitability of a farm should be assessed in conjunction with the equipment that is put on it. If the case of the Government is that such matters should be taken into consideration, I do not quarrel very much with the Minister, but, if I understood the Paymaster-General aright, he said that the question of how much money is made on a farm should not be taken into account, and if he means that, I for one am prepared to support the Amendment in the Lobby.
    Major Mott-Radclyffe: Everybody sympathises with and appreciates the difficulties of the Paymaster-General in assisting the Minister of Agriculture in this Debate because, through no fault of his own, he was not a member of the Standing Committee. Nevertheless, I was surprised that he advanced the argument that the economic aspect of a farm in relation to repairs and fixed equipment should not be taken into consideration. Does he follow the logical implication of that argument?

    259
    Supposing a landowner is ultimately dispossessed for being unwilling or unable to provide fixed equipment, the Land Commission will take over. Will the Land Commission carry out to the farm buildings improvements which, owing to the nature of the farm, are entirely uneconomic? If so, the uneconomic expenditure will be at the expense of the taxpayer. I was surprised that the Paymaster-General should argue that there was no need to protect a landowner from being asked to provide fixed equipment for a farm which he knew to be uneconomic, because the farm in question was unable to carry the extra rent which that capital expenditure would involve.
    Mr. Vane: I was surprised at the speech of the Paymaster-General. He began by pleading amateur status, and I think he gave us a demonstration of the little connection he has had with the practical side of agricultural management when he asked the House to reject this Amendment. He said, quite rightly, that stability is one of the things we want in agriculture, and then he discounted instability which resulted from over-capitalisation. He then apparently forgot that the history of agriculture, which is repeating itself today, is a history of the advice of faddists; and if one reads books of the 17th and 18th centuries one finds an immense amount of advice put forward by faddists, much of which has been forgotten and only about 5 or 10 per cent. of which is bound up with our agricultural progress. Therefore, it is as well to bear in mind that in a few years' time, something between 5 and 10 per cent. of present advice will have passed the test of time. Another point is that at the moment in this country there is a great dearth of professional men whom one can call consultants in farm buildings. I know the right hon. Gentleman is hoping to appoint a certain number of people to such positions, but the professions as such have among their ranks very few architects or surveyors with a specialist knowledge of agriculture and of farm buildings. I do not refer to people who can put up buildings, because anyone can do that. I refer to people with the knowledge to advise in a consultative capacity in relation to what is right and wrong.
    The hon. Gentleman said he was surprised that we had not tried to insert
    260
    similar words affecting the farm tenant. I do not think the situation is exactly parallel, but if it were, I for one, and, no doubt, my hon. Friends, would immediately accept any form of words which would put the farm tenant in the same position. The illustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was ridiculed on the grounds that it was exaggerated. No one can say it is, exaggerated when one remembers that in this country there are at least a million acres of marginal land, and that every day a great number of occupiers of that land suggest to land agents, owners and others how much better it would be if this, that or the other could be done on their farms, but that when it is explained that the economic return for such an improvement will add so much to the rent they think again and say it is not worth while. That is because Part I of the Bill, which is intended to be so strong, has a number of inherent weaknesses. So long as we have limitations on the production from marginal and other land, so long will those weaknesses remain when one tries to expend capital in a big way economically on marginal land. Therefore, the House would be right in rejecting the argument of the Paymaster-General and in accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: I intervene in this Debate with diffidence. I do a little farming myself, but I had not the advantage of being on the Committee. I fail to understand the arguments which have been put forward, particularly those put forward by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). This Subsection specifies one consideration that is to be borne in mind, but it follows a Subsection which contains the main points which have to be considered. Those main points are:
    "the character and situation of the land and other relevant circumstances."
    I find it impossible to see how anybody, having looked at those points, should omit to consider the marginal character of the land or, having to consider other circumstances, should fail to consider the rental value. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to add the proposed words to Subsection (2). Moreover, I find the greatest difficulty in understanding what the Amendment means. If it said,
    "and to the rental value of the land,"

    261
    and stopped there, I should have had some idea, but the remainder of the Amendment seems to me, with all respect to those who moved it, to be bad grammar and extremely bad sense. After the words,
    "and to the rental value of the land,"
    it goes on to say:
    "having regard to the economic condition of that section of the agricultural industry which comprises produce of the kind produced by the occupier of that land."
    That, I think, is rather horrible English, anyway. We were given the case of the grass-drying maniac. I assume that a farm would, at any rate, produce grass, since otherwise the maniac would have no room in which to exercise all his frenzied activity. Therefore, we have to look at
    "the economic condition of that section of the agricultural industry which comprises produce of the kind produced by the occupier of that land."
    What do we have to look at? Mixed farming, grass, arable, or what? I would have thought that the acceptance of this Amendment would produce a state of affairs which the ordinary landlord or farmer would find extraordinarily difficult to understand. I would like hon. Members opposite, since this is their Amendment, to tell us what they suppose it really means, because so far I am quite unable to understand it. Let them give us concrete cases, and. explain the application of these words, for example, to the case of an ordinary mixed farm.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. W. Roberts: I understand the feelings of those who put down this Amendment. It is simply to ensure that landlords should not be expected to provide more fixed equipment than is economically reasonable. There are always a certain number of tenants who desire to have all kinds of improvements, which may not be economically sound. I understand that point of view. However, I do not think this Amendment achieves the object which they have in mind. I follow the lion and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in saying that this is covered in Subsection (1). The relevant part of that Subsection is in the last few lines which, paraphrasing them, state that a landlord will be doing his job if he provides the sort of equipment which is necessary to enable a farmer to farm properly. Now, farming properly is not grass-drying. I
    262
    approve of grass-drying, and do it myself, but it is not the sort of farming which any war agricultural executive committee could expect the landlord to provide.
    There are difficult marginal cases. There is no limit to the amount of fixed equipment that the tenant farmer can use. He can always use more hay boxes; he can always use more covered yards. But that, I think, is covered by Subsection (1). I do not think that the war agricultural executive committees, composed of farmers and landlords, will expect a landlord to provide an unreasonable amount of equipment. That is the second safeguard. Therefore, I do not think that this rather complicated addition would add clarity to the definition of the good management of land.
    Mr. Collins: The real danger in this Amendment lies in the fact that it is, so far as one can understand it, a very muddled Amendment. It appears to be designed to ensure that the farmer will not get necessary improvements, or will find it difficult, if not impossible, to get them. Therefore, it is something of which we should be very wary. Surely, the really operative words in Subsection (2) are:
    "to enable an occupier of the land reasonably skilled in husbandry to maintain efficient production.…"
    If he is to maintain efficient production all the extravagant and extreme cases which have been suggested are quite unnecessary. I am sure hon. Members opposite would find it impossible to indicate any part of the Bill which would compel landlords to put in the different kinds of equipment such as they have suggested might be found necessary under the Clause as it stands. Marginal land was mentioned, and the new improvements needed to bring it up to a certain state of efficiency. Surely, the point is that husbandry on marginal land must be related to that land, and efficient husbandry on that land must have regard to the condition of the land? I suggest that this Amendment, so far as I can understand it, would be detrimental to the tenant.
    Mr. Baldwin: I regret that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) do not understand the Amendment. I thought the arguments put forward by my hon.

    263
    Friend about the economic conditions had made it quite clear.
    Mr. T. Williams: On a point of Order. I hate to intervene between the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and the House, but, surely, on Report hon. Members can speak only once, unless they have the leave of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. When a Bill comes to the House from a Standing Committee the mover of an Amendment is entitled to speak again. That is in Standing Orders. I was just looking it up as the right hon. Gentleman rose. The hon. Member is entitled to speak again.
    Mr. Baldwin: Having been caught out once this afternoon, I did not intend to be caught out a second time. What we are nervous about is, who will decide the revelant circumstances. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for North Cumberland thought the wording of the Clause protected a landlord from having to do something which was not economical. I contend that it does nothing of the sort. The word "maniac" has been used. There are extremists, shall I say, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) said, have appeared throughout the centuries, who have insisted on a particular line. At one time it is all silage, and the next time all grass drying. There may be an executive officer in the county who is all for one particular form of farming, yet that particular form will not last. The executive officer may force a landlord to put up some building —and I will stick to grass-drying—which will not prove economical to that farm. Who is to decide—and I hope the Minister will think this is sufficiently important to tell us—whether that fixed equipment is necessary, or is an economic proposition?
    The Paymaster-General said that I was visualising these executive officers as maniacs. I did not quite mean that, but I will say there are extremists. If he thinks they do not exist I will give him a concrete instance, not from my own county—where he thought we had maniacs—but from an adjacent county. The executive officer for that county was what I call a "ploughing-up maniac." A client of mine had an order to plough up 202 acres of a 240 acre farm; he knew
    264
    it was not ploughing-up land, and had not been ploughed up during the previous war, and he refused to do it. Consequently, he was dispossessed, and he is still out of that farm today.
    We must protect farmers from those executive officers who get a bee in their bonnet, and who compel landlords to do something which is not economical. That is all we are asking. We are not retrograde; we want to see proper equipment put on the farms, but we also want to see that it is proper equipment and not merely something which is not worth while being forced on a landlord. We want to see that the equipment is necessary. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) said they would provide the necessary equipment. But the landlord is not protected; there is nothing to say what is necessary and what is not necessary. We say the landlord should be protected from extremists; that is all.
    Mr. Mitchison: Could the hon. Member tell us the meaning of the words after "rental value"?
    Mr. Baldwin: The hon. and learned Member says he is a farmer I wish he got his living at it, because then he would probably have more sympathy with the people on the land. I mentioned grass drying. Would the hon. and learned Member suggest that it is an economical proposition to put a grass drier on an ordinary mixed farm, probably of hilly land, of 150 acres? It is nothing of the sort. There is an economic level at which a grass drier could be put in.
    Mr. Mitchison: Could the hon. Member now tell us what the words mean?
    Mr. Marquand: Perhaps I might be allowed to speak again, with the leave of the House. I may have replied a little shortly and cavalierly to the remarks of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). The arguments which he and his hon. Friend advanced were so thin that I felt they could not mean them sincerely, and I answered in a rather flippant way. I do not wish it to be thought for a moment that we do not attach importance to the general economcis of the situation. I do not wish it to be thought we do not recognise that a reasonable return on capital has to be earned, or that it is possible to over-capitalise. I thought that

    265
    all these matters were adequately covered in Subsection (1) by the words "other relevant circumstances," and, therefore, I was addressing myself to the Subsection to which the Amendment relates Subsection (2) has to be read in relation to Subsection (1). All that is at issue is whether these Subsections will be reasonably and sensibly administered, and whether there will be regard to economic circumstances. I would point out to the hon. Member for Leominster that the authority to determine these matters will be the county executive committee. They must have regard to the relevant circumstances, and it will not be one of their officers exercising dictatorial powers. As he knows, the county executive committees consist of practical agriculturists.
    Mr. Baldwin: It does not say that there is any form of appeal to the county executive committee. Is it a fact that the county executive committees have to decide this point?
    Mr. Marquand: I am sure that that is so. The officer concerned is only the servant of the committees, and it is certainly possible for the individual owner to approach the committee if he dislikes something their servant has done.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Power of Minister to supervise estate management and husbandry.)
    Mr. Speaker: Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown.
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I have put down a very good Amendment and it is apparently being passed over. I cannot understand it.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may have thought it was a very good Amendment, but, unfortunately, the Chair did not think so, and it is not being selected.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, after "satisfied," to insert:
    "on representations by the appropriate County Agricultural Executive Committee appointed under Part V of this Act."
    We are now moving from the stage where one is expected to be a good boy in farming and. coming to the stage where the big stick is appearing. According to the Minister, supervision is better than lifting up the big stick. We think that
    266
    this Amendment should appear at this stage in the Bill, to make quite clear who it is that will advise the Minister in future. We all agree that this will be done by the county executive committees, but that is only for the moment, and this Bill will last a long time. It should be stated that the people who are to advise the Minister are the committees, so that there is no chance of it being said that the Minister did not take the advice of a committee but did something off his own bat. I am not saying that this will be done now, but it is a possibility which may occur in the future. During the war we found that certain committees were not doing all that the Minister or the farmers thought they should do, and there will be a chance in a few years that a Minister may be tempted to say that he could not go to a committee because he knew it was not doing its job properly. We do not want to see that happening. We want it to be clear that the committees are the people to advise the Minister and we want to see it laid down in black and white.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Ministers occassionally have representations made to them by individuals who may have a particular axe to grind. There are such things as anonymous letters and signed letters which are written out of spite to a Minister and serve no good cause. It is most desirable, therefore, that the Minister, in his own interest, should safeguard himself by acting only on the advice of the county executive committees. By doing that he will reinforce the good relations between the committees and the Ministers, because nothing' is more injurious to good relations than for the committees to feel that someone is going behind their backs and getting some action taken by the Minister If this part of the. Bill is to work at all, it will be dependent on the fullest confidence between the Minister and the executive committees. We do not want to see Ministers acting on a few private words, but on the recommendations of the committees.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) should have associated himself with this Amendment. I am sure he knows that the county executive committees are

    267
    the only bodies from which the Minister would expect to receive representations and advice. The insertion of these words is both unnecessary and undesirable. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) cannot get out of his mind that Part II of this Bill is a big stick. He is willing to accept Part I, but is very reluctant to accept Part II. We have witnessed this on a fairly wide scale from the Opposition Benches. We made rapid progress on Part I, but the moment we came to deal with Part which introduces a quid fro quo in the form of control, our progress was very different. The Bill has been drafted on the basis that the Minister will be delegating his functions under Clause 69, subject to such conditions or restrictions as he may consider desirable, to the county executive committees. The county executive committees should be made absolutely and entirely responsible for day-to-day administration. It would be entirely wrong to attempt to circumscribe the Minister's powers of delegation in the way suggested. Nothing could then be done until after representation by the Minister's own agents to the Minister, which would be an absurdity, and no one knows that better than the hon. Member for Newbury.
    If a county executive committee, responsible for day-to-day administration, is not to be able to place a person under supervision, or to give a direction until it has, first of all, made representations to the Minister, for him to say, "Yes, go ahead," then the whole business will be held up. The Government's intention, in producing this Bill, has been to set up county executive committees consisting of practical agriculturalists, men who have the confidence of their counties and the agricultural industry. They are to become the Minister's agents, under Clause 69, when power is delegated. Therefore,it is absurd that, having been appointed agents they can do nothing without first of all making representations to the Minister, and getting his word to go ahead. That is the object of the Amendment.
    While the county executive committees are responsible to the Minister for day-to-day administration, the Minister is responsible to Parliament for all their actions, and it is constitutionally undesirable to insert a provision in the Bill
    268
    requiring the Minister to be satisfied, after representations have been made to him by his own agents, before they can do anything. That seems absurd, and could only retard and delay the county executive committees in doing their work. Further, if these words were inserted here, they would have to be repeated throughout the Bill. I hope hon. Members opposite will take it from me that there is nothing sinister in this form of administration. It has been going on for seven years; it was very effective during the war. I hope my predecessor did not act on the basis of an anonymous letter, or because someone whispered in his ear. I hope he acted, through his county executive committees, on the basis of their practical knowledge and good sense. Unless those committees carry with them the goodwill of the industry, administration will suffer. I hope the House will not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Gallacher: I do not like this Amendment, and I did not like the remark made by the Minister, that it would only be from the county agricultural executive committees that he would take advice: They are not elected to be the sole parties who can give the Minister advice. It may be that a Member of Parliament, carrying out his job, will discover a situation which requires attention. He should be able to give the Minister advice. During the war, I had to raise, with the then Minister of Agriculture, questions about the bad advice and attitude of certain county agricultural committees. I had to fight against some of them occasionally. It is possible to have a county committee in one area which has a bias for grass. That would be dangerous. The decline of agriculture in this country, before the war, was due to the neglect of millions of acres of land. Special inducements had to be given to plough up that land. We have to see that the correct balance is maintained. As things are going at present, we are drifting back to where we were before the war.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not now discuss an Amendment which I did not select.
    Mr. Gallacher: I would not wish to do that, Sir. I only want to draw attention to the fact that it would be a bad thing for the Minister to leave these matters

    269
    entirely to the county agricultural committees. A committee in the north of England may adopt quite a different attitude from a committee in the south. There may be bias in favour of a particular form of management that would unbalance agriculture as a whole. I therefore ask the Minister to make the fullest possible use of the advice given by the county committees, but always to be prepared to take advice from Members of this House. We must ensure that an effective and efficient balance is kept between the county agricultural committees and the land that is under their consideration, so that our agriculture can prosper and not decline as it did before the war.
    Major Mott-Radclyffe: There is nothing sinister in this Amendment at all. All we are seeking to do is to ensure that not merely will justice be done, but that it will seem to be done. Nobody is suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman would act against a farmer as a result of a whispering campaign, any more than anyone would suggest that his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) had acted in that way. But we feel that where a supervision order is pending—which is a serious matter for the farmer concerned —it is only right that the farmer should be certain that the Minister has acted only through his responsible agents, the county agricultural executive committees.
    Captain Crookshank: The Minister seemed very uncertain in his opposition to this Amendment which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) has just pointed out, has nothing sinister about it. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was unnecessary and undesirable to put these words into the Bill, because the county executive committees were the only people to whom he would look for advice. Then, towards the end of his speech, he said that the business of considering whether or not a supervision order would he made would be held up if the Minister had to wait for the advice of the county executive committees. The two statements do not tally. Either the right hon. Gentleman is going to take the advice of those committees or not. I do not know on which leg the right hon. Gentleman wants to stand.
    Mr. T. Williams: Both.
    7.0 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: Splendid. Then the right hon. Gentleman had much better do what we say and put these words into the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman also said that it was the intention that agricultural executive committees should be absolutely and entirely responsible in these cases. If that is so—I do not quarrel with the decision that it should be so because that is what we are trying to put in as an Amendment—it is much better to put it in. We have heard, time and time again throughout this Bill, that the Minister is to do something about which we all agree but, unfortunately, it does not appear in black and white in the Bill. Here is a sample case. He says that he will take the advice of the county agricultural executive committees because that is the only way the Minister can be satisfied on a matter of this kind. If he says that he is to take that advice, I cannot see why that should not be put in the Bill. He said something to the effect that it would be unconstitutional. I do not know from where he got that. Is it unconstitutional to put in the fact that the Minister will take advice from his own servants? I do not know whether "unconstitutional" is the right word, but in a Bill we do not say that the Minister shall be guided by any servants in his own Department. Obviously, that is why they are there — to advise, guide and help. I did not think, until the Minister used that argument in that context, that anyone in the world thought that the county agricultural executive committees were servants of the Minister in that sense. He does not mean that these gentlemen, or ladies, who are to sit on these committees are to be held in the same position as the ordinary civil servants in Government Departments from the point of view of giving advice. Surely not; but that is what he implied in using that argument. If he likes to withdraw that—
    Mr. Williams: The Minister does not mean to withdraw it.
    Captain Crookshank: The position then becomes more confounded. Are these committees to be considered as civil servants giving advice in the Civil Service sense of the word, or are they not? We say, "No." We agree that they are there to give advice. The Minister also agrees that they are to give advice, and

    271
    he would not dream of acting in cases of this kind without their advice. Having agreed to that, the obvious thing to do is to put the words in the Bill I cannot see that there is any argument which the Minister has given against it, and unless he changes his mind, I would advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.
    Mr. T. Williams: In view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's determined effort to confuse the issue, I think that I should say a further word, with the leave of the House. That is, to remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he will read the first few words of Clause 12 he will see that where the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is satisfied, he may do certain things. Clause 69 states that the Minister may make regulations providing for the delegation to a county agricultural executive committee of certain powers. The county executive committee, therefore, will be an executive body—an executive body acting for the Minister which need not tell the Minister every little thing they do during their day to day administration. That is why we call them county agricultural executive committees. There is no reason, therefore, to have these words in the Bill.
    Mr. David Renton: The Minister's further remarks have done nothing to close the dangerous door left open by the Minister in Clause 12. I do not think that the Minister can, deny that under Clause 12, as it stands, it would be legally possible for him or one of his successors to act independently of representations and advice of the executive committees. I he fact that under Clause 69 the Minister may delegate such of his functions as he cares to specify does not mean that the danger will be removed. The Minister may so frame his regulations delegating powers to the executive committees as still to leave it open to him to carry on independently of them. That being so, and in view of the Minister's
    previous remarks—for, as has been pointed out, there is not a great deal of disagreement as to the wishes to be fulfilled in this matter—I should have thought that the Minister would have been well advised to accept the Amendment. He is establishing a system—a hierarchy within the Civil Service. One will only have a successfully working Civil Service if there is no short-circuiting. That has always been the experience of the Services, whether Army, Navy or Civil Service. To leave this loophole open shows the lack of faith of the Minister, and he would do better to close it by accepting this simple Amendment.
    Mr. Dye: It seems that the Amendment which the Opposition are proposing to press is at complete variance with everything that they have said so far as the application of this Bill is concerned. They have always argued that they do not want farming from Whitehall, but the implication of this Amendment is that every supervisory order that is issued should come from Whitehall, after they have received the advice of the county agricultural executive committee.
    Mr. Hollis: The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) has put forward an argument which is equally incomprehensible. There is nothing in this Amendment which suggests that supervisory orders should be issued. The question of the extent to which supervisory orders should be issued is not touched by the Amendment. It is simply whether the Minister should have power to issue them uncontrollably or under certain circumstances, and the hon. Gentleman's argument, therefore, seems to be completely nonsensical.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 270.

    Division No. 232.]

    AYES

    [7.9 p.m

    Amory, D. Heathcoal

    Carson, E

    Cuthbert, W. N

    Baldwin, A. E

    Challen, C

    Darling, Sir W. Y

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Channon, H

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Beamish, Maj. T V H

    Clarke, Col. R. S

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

    Birch, Nigel

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)

    Cole, T. L

    Duthie, W. S.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J G

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Fyfe, Rt Hon. Sir D. P. M.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.

    Gage, C

    Glyn, Sir R

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Smiles, LI.-Col. Sir W

    Grant, Lady

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Spence, H. R.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    Stuar., Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Haughton, S. G.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir C

    Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E

    Touche, G. C.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hollis, M. C

    Nicholson, G.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Wheatley, Colonel M, J.

    Hurd, A.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

    Osborne, C.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Jeffreys, General Sir G

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Jennings, R.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

    Lambert, Hon. G

    Prescott, Stanley,

    York, C.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Renton, D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Mr. Drewe and

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Major Conant.

    NOES.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Dumpleton, C W

    Kinley, J.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Dye, S.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Allen, A. C (Bosworth)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lang, G.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Edelman, M.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Attewell, H. C.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Leonard, W.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    . Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Bacon, Miss A

    Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Baird J.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Balfour, A.

    Farthing, W. J

    McAdam, W

    Barstow, P. G.

    Foot, M. M

    McGhee, H. G.

    Barton, C.

    Forman, J. C.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Battley, J. R.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Benson, G.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Berry, H.

    Gallacher, W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Beswick, F

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Gibbins, J.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Binns, J.

    Gilzean, A.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Boardman, H.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C

    Mathers, G.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Medland, H. M.

    Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

    Greenwood, A. W. J (Haywood)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Messer, F.

    Brock, D. (Halifax)

    Grierson, E.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Mitchison, G. R

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Gruffydd, Prof. W J

    Monslow, W.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

    Gunter, R. J

    Montague, F.

    Buchanan, G.

    Guy, W. H.

    Moody, A S.

    Burden, T. W.

    Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B

    Burke, W. A.

    Hale, Leslie

    Morley, R.

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

    Byers, Frank

    Hardy, E. A

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Carmichael, James

    Harrison, J.

    Mort, D. L

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Moyle, A

    Chamberlain, R. A

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Murray, J. D.

    Champion, A. J.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Nally, W.

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Cocks, F. S

    Hewitson Capt. M

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Coldrick, W

    Hicks, G.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Collins, V. J.

    Hobson, C. R

    Oldfield, W. H

    Colman, Miss G. M

    House, G.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Hoy, J

    Paget, R. T.

    Cook, T. F.

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

    Paling, Rt. Hon, Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Palmer, A. M. F

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Irving, W. J.

    Pargiter, G. A

    Crossman, R. H. S

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Parker, J

    Daggar, G.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

    Pearson, A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Peart, Capt T. F.

    Deer, G.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Delargy, H. J

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Diamond, J.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Dobbie, W

    Kendall, W. D

    Pritt, D. N.

    Dodds, N. N

    Kenyon, C.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Donovan, T.

    Key, C. W.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    274

    275

    Randall, H. E

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Ranger, J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Rankin, J.

    Stamford, W.

    Watson, W. M.

    Rees-Williams, D. H.

    Steele, T.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Reeves, J.

    Stephen, C.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Rhodes, H.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Roberts, W (Cumberland, N)

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Swingler, S.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Royle, C.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Sargood, R.

    Taylor, R. J, (Morpeth)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Scott-Elliot W

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Segal, Dr. S

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Williams, W. R (Heston)

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Williamson, T

    Sharp, Granville

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Willis, E.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. G R. (Ed'b'gh, E)

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Shurmer, P

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Woodbum, A.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Timmons, J.

    Woods, G. S.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Titterington, M. S.

    Yates, V. F.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Tolley, L.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Mr. Collindridge and

    Sorensen, R. W

    Wadsworth, G

    Mr. Hannan

    Mr. Baldwin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, to leave out "appointed by the Minister," and to insert:
    "to be selected from the panel of persons appointed under paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923."
    In moving this Amendment may I first call attention to a printer's error on the Amendment paper. Reference is made to paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, and it should be paragraph 5. We are now coming to a Clause which is causing more heartburning in the agricultural world than any other in the Bill. The Minister rather taunted us on this side of the House with having accepted Part I very quickly and making a considerable amount of fuss about Part II. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason why Part I was passed through so quickly was that you decided that the first Amendment on the Order Paper should not be called. If that Amendment had been called, I can assure the Minister that he would not yet have arrived at Part II.
    This is the Clause which forms the chains in which the industry has agreed to bind itself in return for what it is promised in Part I, and it is to see that justice is accorded to the landlord or the tenant if either is aggrieved that I am moving this Amendment. I should declare that I have some interest in this matter, and that I am, or rather was, on the panel of arbitrators. I have not acted for the last two years, and I do not intend to act—in fact, the Minister said upstairs that there were
    276
    some names on the panel that he would like to remove, and it is possible that by this time he has put his pencil through my name. The argument the Minister uses with regard to the arbitration Clause is that a tenant or a landlord is protected because he has to have a decision made by the county executive committee. May I call attention to the wording of this Clause where it says that the Minister must be
    "satisfied that the owner of agricultural land is not fulfilling his responsibilities to manage …"
    He has to be satisfied by going down one step in the ladder to the county executive committees, and the county executive committees accept advice from the district committees, while the district committees accept advice from some smaller committee. The danger that the agricultural industry sees is that this decision of the Minister's should be influenced through the various stages by a small committee who may not be practical agriculturists and who may not be the right sort of persons to deal with such a question.
    I can assure the Minister that in spite of all the glowing words he used about the executive and district committees, they were not all angels, and it is in order to protect any aggrieved persons from a decision which is wrong that I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment. He knows full well that bad decisions were come to by executive committees during the war. I know that he will reply that it was the decision of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) that

    277
    there should be no appeal from dispossession cases. I do not defend that. I always condemned the fact that there was no right of appeal, and I am condemning it today. It is the inherent right of every Englishman to have the right of appeal to another tribunal if he is dissatisfied with a decision which has been given against him. That is all I am asking for, and the reason why I want the decision to be made by someone from the panel of arbitrators is that they are independent, and the industry would feel that a decision given by one of the members will not be affected by Ministerial influence. I hope to get the support of the leader of the Communist Party, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), for this Amendment. I am sorry that he is not here. He supported this appeal on the Hill Farming Bill and it was carried, much to the annoyance, I believe, of the Minister. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not feel annoyed with hon. Members on both sides of the House who fall in with the suggestion which I have put forward.
    The names on the panel of arbitrators are the names of those sent forward to the Lord Chief Justice, and they are drawn, from various professional bodies, having been selected for their practical knowledge and integrity. They are men who are familiar with the whole industry, and in my opinion they are men who will give a fair decision whether it is for or against the Minister. During the war we had decisions brought to light on several occasions which were bad decisions. There was no right of appeal from a dispossession order though there was the right of appeal when a landlord gave his tenant notice to quit and asked the county executive committee for a certificate that the tenant was not farming according to the rules of good husbandry. The decision of the county executive was upset on many occasions, and quite rightly too.
    I was interested in one case where the owner of a farm was himself farming as a tenant. As a member of a district committee I helped to dispossess him of his farm. He owned a farm himself, and he said, "It I am farming badly, my tenant is farming worse and I will get rid of him." He applied to the county committee for a certificate of bad farming and we as a small committee advised the county executive of Worcester that the certificate should Lot be issued. There was a right of appeal
    278
    to the committee and both sides attended. At once the chairman of the executive committee, by his opening statement, showed that he was not there to decide whether the tenant was farming according to the rules of good husbandry, but he was going to make a decision on the fact that the landlord was a bad landlord. We felt at the very outset that we were up against a brick wail, and the decision was that the man was not farming according to good husbandry although we showed that he had never reaped the work that he had done in three years. That shows that an executive committee is not infallible. We appealed to the arbitrator of the same county in which this decision was made, and without any hesitation he upset the decision of the county executive committee. That illustrates what will happen under the new set-up if there is not some form of appeal. I know that the Minister has said that the county executive committees will be composed of practical men. No doubt some of them will be, but some of them will not be. What I want to point out is that of the set-up of 12 members it is proposed to include only three farmers, two landlords—
    Mr. Gooch: And only two labourers.
    Mr. Baldwin: And two labourers. If there was an appeal from the decision of the executive committee on the question of labourers I should be very interested to know what it would be. The hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) has got this particular grievance in his mind. If the agricultural labourers were interested in this Bill I should be willing that they be given equal representation. The landowners are interested in this Bill and they are only a small minority on the executive committee. It is for that reason that I and my hon. Friends maintian that an aggrieved person should have the right of appeal, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to give it. Let us realise what the absence of such an appeal during the war really meant. At the present time there is a Motion before the House signed by some 37 Members asking for a Royal Commission to be set up to deal with cases of dispossessed farmers during the war. I did not put my name to that, because I do not agree with many of the cases quoted, but it is to avoid grievances of that kind that I ask for the right of appeal to be included in the Bill.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. York: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I want to deal with it in rather wider terms than those used by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). This is the first occasion on which this expression "representation to the Minister" occurs in the Bill, though it is there later on and it is also used in a number of cases, the most of which vary according to circumstances. The Solicitor-General on the Committee stage attempted to make it clear that this was an appeal. He said, in effect, that this was an appeal because the farmers concerned could make their case after it was considered by the full committee and in that sense it was an appeal; I wonder whether any rational man really considers that it is an appeal to take a case to a body, a considerable proportion of which has already judged the issue.
    I am bound to say that I think that the great majority of people would reject that as any kind of appeal at all. I suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion that at any rate the Minister's Land Commissioner might be a suitable person to bring a fresh mind to bear on the subject. I am afraid that owing to the fact that the Solicitor-General was unaware that there was such a person as a Land Commissioner—he took it to mean a member of the Land Commission, which is something quite different— that question was never taken up. The point we are making is that in an appeal against the decision of the committee a fresh mind should be brought to bear. My hon. Friend suggests that the single arbitrator should be the man to apply a fresh mind to the question, and that is reasonable because it has been the case to such an extent under the old powers. The Solicitor-General rejected our similar demands in Standing Committee because, he said, the Government did not want the whole matter to be re-opened. That in itself implies that the case has already been judged. If you refuse to accept the principle that a new mind should be brought in to consider the subject then surely you are also admitting that the case, on re-presentation to the Committee, has been prejudged.
    I consider that the single arbitrator is a very reasonable compromise between
    280
    the two points of view. I know that some of my hon. Friends would like to see this particular provision that where supervision—a very heavy penalty—is to be inflicted on a man, the case should go to the land tribunal. I can see that there is some force in the argument of the Minister that that would add excessively to the work of the land tribunal, but here there are single arbitrators. They are all practical men who know their job and have had practice in this difficult matter of deciding points of fact. They have been used throughout the industry, they are trusted, and it seems to me that there would be no delay and complete fairness. On the one side, the man about to be placed under supervision would receive fair treatment and, on the other side, the Minister and his agents, the committees, would be quite certain that their case also would have adequate weight given to it. For these and other reasons which I will not develop now, I urge upon the Minister that this is a reasonable Amendment, and one which should be accepted.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment should have concentrated so much upon appeal tribunals and dispossessions—as if dispossession had anything to do with this Clause. All the hon. Member's wartime experience is apparently vitiating his point of view at the moment, and because of that I do not think he sees the thing quite as clearly as might be the.case. It is true that in Committee hon. Members opposite tried to provide for appeal to the land tribunal before a person could be placed under supervision. That Amendment was rejected by the Standing Committee, and the present Amendment is designed to ignore the Committee once again and to- allow an arbitrator to decide whether a person should or should not be placed under supervision. That is contrary to the whole spirit of this Bill, which is designed on the basis of the control of the industry from within. Hon. Members opposite want it to be controlled from without. Indeed, this Amendment means control of the industry by an arbitrator, and not by a county agricultural committee.
    The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) referred to the heavy penalty imposed upon a person who is placed under supervision. What sort of heavy penalty, and

    281
    for what? After all, no person can be placed under supervision except for bad farming or bad estate management. Therefore, it cannot be described as a heavy penalty and, in any case it is only after a person has been receiving the advice, guidance, and help of a county agricultural committee for a considerable period and has, perhaps, had many warnings that a decision is finally taken to place him under a supervision order. Subsection (1) provides that before making a supervision order the Minister must afford the owner or occupier an opportunity to make representations to the county executive committee in writing, or by being heard by a person appointed by the Minister. That provision runs throughout the Bill, and the county agricultural committees are the persons who would hear the representations of the person concerned. After all, despite what the hon. Gentleman said about his particular county, I think that county executive committees throughout the country have been composed of reasonable men. When he refers to there being only three farmers on one particular committee I can only say that I do not know it. Throughout the period from 1939 to 1947 there have been, on the average, nearer nine than three farmers on each of these Committees.
    Mr. Baldwin: I meant on the new panel which is to be set up. I was not referring to the old panel.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member speaks of the past when he refers to what happened during the war, then tries to relate that to the future, and the result is that no one knows just where he is at any given moment. If he will stand by his wartime experience when there were approximately nine farmers on every county executive committee, instead of thinking in terms of the possibility of a minimum of three in future, we shall understand what he is talking about. I do not accept the theory that either landowners or farmers, or technical agriculturists or agricultural scientists, are not able to decide whether or not a person should be placed under supervision. I feel that it is the county executive committees, which are responsible to the Minister—who is in turn responsible to Parliament—who should decide whether or not a person should be placed under supervision.
    Mr. Edgar Granville: Is the Minister saying that the appeal of the individual in such a case is to be made to the county agricultural committee, and that the same committee are responsible for issuing the order or recommending it to the Minister? In other words, is he saying that the appeal is to the same people who have in fact issued the Order through the Minister? The right hon. Gentleman knows, from his experience during the whole of the war, the number of times when the Minister did not exercise his power, which was the main cause for hundreds of injustices.
    Mr. Williams: I do not accept the statement of the hon. Member. He suggests that there were hundreds of instances throughout the war, but so far as I have been able to ascertain there were very few instances indeed. Of course, during the war, there was no such body as the agricultural land tribunal. For every case where dispossession is proposed, as distinct from supervision, there is an appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. I could give the hon. Member figures for this year of the number of appeals that have been heard by the appeal tribunals. However, we are speaking now not about dispossessing a landowner but merely of placing a person under supervision in order to help him to improve his farming, and to reach a high standard of efficiency. It is not a proposal to "down" the person, as is frequently thought by some hon. Members opposite.
    Who is more capable of deciding the issue whether a person should be put under supervision or not than the county executive committee? They have had the case of the particular farm under review for perhaps 12 months or 18 months before they reached that point. It is not a matter for an arbitrator but for the county executive committee, who know all the facts and the farmer, and know what they have done to try to help and advise him, and the warnings which they have given him. Before placing a person under supervision they will listen to any representations he may care to make. They will say, "You may bring along a friend, if you wish, a practical farmer or otherwise, to show cause why you should not be placed under supervision."
    It seems to me that there could not be anything more democratic and more calculated to provide the atmosphere of

    283
    control of the industry from within than the policy that we are pursuing. It would clearly be wrong if the county executive committee—the appropriate body to which representations should be made—were sidestepped and the case submitted to an arbitrator. What would happen in the last analysis would be that the committee would learn only at second-hand, of the proceedings before the arbitrator and of the evidence submitted to him. We think that they must hear the views of the parties themselves and not learn them at second-hand. What is more, the party concerned would have no right of access to the county executive committee, if the Amendment now proposed were accepted. I do not know whether the mover and seconder of the Amendment appreciate that the landowner or tenant involved would have no right of access to the committee.
    Mr. Baldwin: We do not mind that.
    Mr. Williams: It would destroy the very basis of co-operation on which the Bill has been built up. The committees consist of practical agriculturists, whether they be landowners, farmers or agricultural workers. They are the persons who can best weigh all the evidence when representations are made. The Amendment would undermine completely the authority of the committees and divest them of the responsibility they carry. Despite the plea made by the mover and seconder, I ask the House without hesitation to reject the Amendment.
    7.45 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: From the speech of the Minister of Agriculture one might not have thought that this matter had been discussed before at all, or that the Amendment which we have moved, was defeated only by a majority of one in the Standing Committees. One would not have thought, for example, that two members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party opposite expressed views strongly in favour of the line we are taking. That is all left to me to bring to the attention of the House. I am very glad to do it. The object of the Report stage is that everybody should know all the facts. I would recall that the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise) said he hoped that the Minister would have another look at this
    284
    point. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) who always had a great deal to say in the Committee, was in support of our view. It all arose because not until we reached Clause 101—as it now is—did it really come out what "making representations" in this case meant. The Minister quite rightly said that that was a thing which runs as a sort of thread right through the Bill. It was discovered that making representations "to a person appointed by the Minister" meant making them to the people who had taken the decision in the first place.
    If the Minister will not accept our Amendment I beg him to redraft the words round about lines 32 to 34 so that anyone reading the Bill for the first time will understand what it means. In simple language, the effect of the Bill at the moment is, as it has now been discovered, that the Minister has to afford to the person an opportunity
    "of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister."
    That is what the Bill says. The Minister may first offer an opportunity to people to make representations to himself, but in both cases "himself" means not the Minister as a physical entity, but the county agricultural executive committee. Therefore, we ought to write into the Bill that when there is a question of a supervision order the county executive committee shall afford the owner or occupier an opportunity of making representations to the county agricultural executive committee, whether in writing or on being heard by a person selected by the county executive committee. In fact, it is the committee themselves, in three different roles. The Minister's answer is that they are the right people all the time. If we accept that, let the right hon. Gentleman say so, so that any one reading Clause 12 will recognise that that is what it means. Ordinary people reading Clause 12 at present will think that the Minister will arrange that a person will have his case brought before a person appointed by the Minister and will never believe that the Minister is really going round and round in circles, and that it is the county executive committee acting for the Minister all the time.
    The Minister charged us with wanting to get an appeal against orders of the

    285
    land tribunal, and said we were now trying to get a form of appeal before an arbitrator. As a matter of fact, that is not so. It is not surprising that he misunderstood, since our Amendment which deals with that matter was not called. If the Amendment which we had down for the recommittal stage had been called, the right hon. Gentle- man would have seen that it is still our desire to have an eventual appeal to the land tribunal. That is another matter. We are now talking about an earlier stage, where the Minister says, "You have a perfect right to go and make representations." The whole point at issue between us is: To whom are those representations to be made, before the supervision order is made? The right hon. Gentleman always comes back to the same point of playing down the effect of supervision orders. He says that, as a matter of fact, this is machinery which is meant to be very helpful. One would almost conceive that every farmer would go to his executive committee and ask, "Let me have a supervision order. It is such a delightful thing and is going to do me such a lot of good."
    Mr. Alpass: A lot of them would be better off if they did more often.
    Captain Crookshank: I am learning some of the ideas at the back of the minds of hon. Members opposite. The Minister certainly gives us the impression that so far from being harmful it is something very helpful, and that everything will be very good when there is a supervision order. I do not think that the bulk of people look upon any form of disciplining, even the highest form which you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, exercise over us, as any fun at all. The Home Secretary, as an old school-teacher, will know. One may realise in after years that it was very good. I do not suppose that at the time any of his victims thought it was such fun.
    It may be that in the long run people who have been under supervision orders may think that that form of discipline was a good thing, but it does not follow that the Minister is correct in his bland assumption that everyone will enjoy themselves under a supervision order, and enjoy themselves particularly, because the county committees are such an agreeable body of men. It does not follow that they all feel that way, because they do not. They feel that they ought to be heard and
    286
    that they should be able to make representations to someone. Because of that we do not think it is right that the Bill should remain as drafted. In defending the general outline the Solicitor-General went so far as to say that the result of this was that the person affected is given the right of insisting on having his case known. That, I am sorry to say, was met by laughter by the Committee because it did not seem to be a very big concession. The Solicitor-General said—and indeed the Minister said it too:
    "If you are to hinder and fetter agricultural committees by saying that they cannot arrive at any decision without knowing that it will be reviewed by somebody who is altogether independent it will be quite impossible for them to carry on and operate this Bill."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee A, 17th April, 1947, C. 974.]
    There was no laughter after that statement. It was a very strange one coming from one of our legal advisers. To say that anybody's actions are going, to be fettered by the mere knowledge that some decision they make may be taken to appeal—even the most wrongful decision—was rather shocking.
    I ask the Minister to consider this again. There is a case here which was supported by some of his own hon. Friends, and if the Liberal Party had been present on that morning—I do not know where they were—we should have carried this Amendment at an earlier stage. No doubt the Liberal Party went to a party meeting and were not able to give us the support in the Lobby which they are morally giving us today. They agree with us on this issue, as many other people do. I ask the Minister to accede to the very wise alternative suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend or else let him redraft the words of the Bill and make it quite clear so that everybody really understands that making representations is a completely futile thing to do.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I join with the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in his appeal to the Minister. I doubt whether I can make such a good speech in support of this Amendment as the Minister did. It was only his strong dogged Yorkshire tenacity which prevented him seeing the strength of his own argument. May I remind the House of the position. The Minister's words are very well worth reproduction. When dealing with this

    287
    Clause in Committee he expressed a view which did not go quite so far as the view he expressed today. He did not indicate at that time that a supervision order was something quite so desirable as he rather gave the House to understand this afternoon. The words he then used did not indicate that farmers were likely to jump at the opportunity of being placed under a supervision order. He said:
    "… let me at once make it perfectly clear that a supervision order is not necessarily a disciplinary measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th February, 1947; c. 208.]
    I emphasise the words "not necessarily." It is perfectly true that it is not necessarily a disciplinary measure, but the probability is that it is the first step towards a disciplinary measure. Therefore it is only right and fair that at that stage when the supervision order is first brought into action, the facts of the case should be ascertained where they are in dispute between the two parties concerned, on the one hand the county agricultural committee and on the other hand the farmer, whether he be the landlord or the tenant farmer. That is undoubtedly an issue, and in fact the Minister recognised it later on when he said:
    "There is one thing that I should like to point out. He"—
    that is to say, the person who is likely to be put under the supervision order—
    "will be tried"—
    I emphasise the words "be tried"—
    "not by officials but by his own peers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th February, 1947; c. 209.]
    —referring to the members of the county agricultural committee. When one uses the expression of a person being tried, surely it presupposes an entirely different attitude and atmosphere to someone who is gladly yielding to a suggestion that he should be put under a supervision order. In what he has said today the Minister has put an entirely different complexion on what supervision orders are and what they are going to mean to farmers than he did when he was discussing the matter upstairs. With regard to the actual procedure, let me again quote the Minister's words. He said:
    "What will actually happen in practice"—
    I quite agree that it is what will actually happen in practice—
    288
    "is that members of a district committee will, perhaps, declare that a person's farm is not what it ought to be. They will have watched the farm over a long period of time"—
    I emphasise that expression to the House:
    "They will have watched the farm over a long period of time"—
    that must mean that they have for a long time been in contact with the person whom it is proposed to put under a supervision order. They know one another's case. If one likes to use the analogy of a trial, they know one another's case from beginning to end. The Minister went on to say that they:
    "… will have spoken to the farmer at the beginning, not in unpleasant terms, but in the terms of the old school tie."
    The Minister knows what representatives he is going to appoint to the Committees and so we must accept that they will speak in the terms of the old school tie, whatever that may mean. The Minister went on:
    "They will say to him that things are not looking too good on field No. 444 or field No. 443, and they will do their best to advise him …"
    and so on—
    "It after all this advice, he still fails, then, finally, he is warned that he is likely to be put under a supervision order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th February, 1947; c. 208.]
    The sole point we make in support of this Amendment is what is the advantage—what difference can it make—in giving to a person who is being served with a supervision order the right to make representations to the very people who have been looking over his farm, who have been in contact with him, who have been talking to him in terms of the "old school tie," who have then been talking to him in, apparently, somewhat different terms, and who, finally, have been suggesting to him that they are warning him he is to be put under a supervision order? What difference will it make to him, and what good will it be to him, to have the right to go back to those people and make representations, with or without a friend? I feel that the Minister is putting into the Bill a provision—perhaps unintentionally—the only result of which can be to mislead the farmer, or the person who is to be put under a supervision order, that he has some right of appeal against an order which will affect him, his farm and his career, whether as

    289
    a farmer or a landlord, for a considerable period of time.
    It is all very well to say that there may be opportunities of appeal later on, but it cannot but be derogatory to his reputation, in whatever branch of the profession he may be practicing, to be put under a supervision order, and it is at the time he is put under that order that the matter should be independently assessed to see whether or not the facts justify the supervision order being made. It is utterly impossible for those facts to be assessed in an unbiased and independent way by the committee which has, through all that period of time, been working up to the point where finally it has come to the conclusion that a supervision order is necessary. I appeal to the House on grounds of fairness, honesty, straight dealing and common sense, to agree that the Amendment is right and proper, and to accept it.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Granville: I am glad to be able to support the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and to express the hope that he will press this Amendment. I do not complain that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman took the opportunity of twitting the Liberal Party, but I would point out that the thing which we are debating tonight did not begin in the Committee upstairs, but when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was sitting on the Government Front Bench, with a Conservative Minister of Agriculture and a Socialist Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture beginning the first wartime experiment of the agricultural executive committees. We are now finding it extremely difficult to find fitting machinery whereby the small farmer—because it is the small farmer who has to fight for his independence here—can have a proper right of appeal in regard to supervision. The Minister knows that there have been good committees and bad committees—
    Mr. Alpass: Who appointed them?
    Mr. Granville:—and there have been scores of occasions when it has been found that the only appeal which a small farmer had was an appeal through a committee which came up to the Minister, and I think there were about two occasions on which the Minister disagreed with a committees recommendations. There were
    290
    good committees in some counties and bad committees in other counties. What guarantee is there under the provisions of this Bill that the small farmer, who may have been struggling for 20 years in conditions for which he was not entirely responsible—
    Mrs. Manning: Is the hon. Gentleman now talking about dispossession?
    Mr. Granville: No, I am not dealing with dispossession, but with supervision. I happen to have represented an agricultural constituency for a good many years and this is not the first time we have had to discuss this problem. Will the Minister guarantee that all the things which he now promises are within the terms of the Bill? Will he guarantee that the committees are really going to assist the farmer to run the farm? Will he guarantee that the farmer's credit will not be damaged? Will he give an assurance that the farmer's standing and status in the local agricultural community will not be damaged? The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has never faced the problem that is involved in supervision. If the words of the Amendment are not appropriate, will the right hon. Gentleman find some appropriate form of words so that he can honestly say that he is finding an independent form of appeal for the small farmer when he is being subjected to supervision? Considering the experience we had with the war agricultural executive committees and the number of injustices and hardships that were caused, I am amazed that the best that a Labour Minister of Agriculture can do to safeguard the independence of small farmers is to provide this inadequate machinery. When this is known even to the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters in the country, it will be said that, whereas he had a great opportunity he has lost that opportunity by not giving the proper machinery.
    Mrs. Manning: I am very depressed by the Debate that has taken place. It has destroyed another one of my illusions. I was always under the impression that hon. Gentlemen opposite had the greatest interest in seeing that there was the very best husbandry of the land. I had always believed that they had some trust in the judgment of their peers on the county executive committees. I had always felt that with regard to this Bill, a great deal of which they support, they would not,

    291
    as they are doing tonight, play down the question of supervision. I do not know whether it is a question of playing up or playing down. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite said that the Minister was playing down the question of supervision, so perhaps it would be right to say that they are playing up the difficulties of supervision when they ought really to be doing propaganda in favour of it, if they believe in good husbandry. What we want to get out of this Bill, in return for what we are giving in Part I, which hon. Members opposite accept with the greatest alacrity, is the very best that can be got out of the land. Surely, it is a fact that all farmers are to some extent under supervision all the time by the executive committees? The executive committees are watching to see whether the land is being cultivated, whether it is in good heart, and whether there is good husbandry by the farmers. If not, how is it that any farm at any one time comes under the suspicion of the county committees? There is some watching going on all the time, and we feel that is right, if we are to get out of the Bill what we hope to get from it. There comes a point at which the watching which the executive committee must do becomes so positive that they have to tell the farmer, "We are going to watch your land for a year or i8 months in order to get to know what is happening on your farm, and if at the end of that time we feel that you really need help, we hope you will take the help that supervision gives.
    Mr. Granville: It sounds all right.
    Mrs. Manning: It sounds all right, and ii is all right.
    Mr. Granville: In practice it is not.
    Mrs. Manning: It is right both in theory and in practice, and if it is not, it is up to hon. Gentlemen because they have representation in those areas. They know the farmers on the executive committees, and it is part of their job, as it is of ours, to see that the executive committees do their work properly. I hope we shall have the co-operation of all hon. Members opposite in trying to get farmers to co-operate with the executive committees. I hope they will not think them all unworthy and not to be trusted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But hon. Gentlemen opposite have been
    292
    talking tonight in that very strain—that the executive committees are there to "do down" their friends. What we want is that you should try to get co-operation. You should be out in your areas doing propaganda to show how important these executive committees are, showing that you do trust them, that they are to do a job of work in co-operation with this House—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the hon. Lady that it is not my duty.
    Mrs. Manning: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Hon. Members should be doing propaganda to get farmers to accept the importance and the standing of these executive committees as bodies who are engaged, with them, in getting the very best out of the land in their areas. If that is so, and if the members of the executive committees have been running the farms until the time they have been put under supervision, how ridiculous it is that we should ask for some independent person, with no knowledge of the situation, to come in and act as judge in the case of an appeal. Hon. Members opposite say that somebody should come with a fresh mind; but it is not a fresh mind that is needed, it is somebody with full knowledge of what is going on in the farms. What is wanted is an impartial tribunal—impartial in the sense that they want the best out of the land, but with full knowledge of what is going on in the farms. Those are the people who, in the opinion of the Minister and most of us on this side, are best capable of judging whether the farms should be put under supervision.
    Mr. Frank Byers: I am sorry to interrupt, but may I ask the hon. Lady whether she thinks there should be no appeal, as far as supervision is concerned? Does she agree with the Minister's idea of planning an appeal to the land tribunal?
    Mrs. Manning: At the moment I am talking about this Amendment and its relation to this Clause. This Amendment suggests that there should be an appeal to some persons selected from this panel who would not know the facts of the case but would come, as has been said, with a fresh mind—in this case with an uninformed mind. I say it is much better that the people to whom the appeal is

    293
    made should be people who know something about the situation. Therefore I appeal to the Minister to reject this Amendment, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite not to be led away by carping criticism, but to go to their constituencies and do propaganda as we on our side are doing propaganda.
    8.15 p.m.
    Major Mott-Radclyffe: The real difference between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite is in regard to what we think of a supervision order, and the stage at which an appeal to an independent person should be possible. There is a view held by many hon. Members opposite that a supervision order is a friendly act; that the recipient of a supervision order will welcome it with both hands and, if it comes at Christmas time, will put it on his mantelpiece with such Christmas cards as he may get. There is the other point of view, which we hold, that a supervision order will not be widely welcomed. The intention of the county committee may be all right, but a supervision order casts a slur on the man who receives it because, as the Minister said, it means that he is suspected of being a bad farmer or a bad landlord, and it may be the first step to something much more serious, namely, ultimate dispossession. We believe, therefore, that is only fair there should be an appeal to an independent source.
    I agree that to attempt to ask the agricultural tribunal to listen to appeals against every supervision order would be to overload grossly that body. That is why we suggested that the appeal against a supervision order should go to an independent arbitrator from the panel under the 1923 Act. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are several references in the Bill already to such an arbitrator. In Clauses 36 and 38 there is reference to an arbitrator from the panel laid down under the 1923 Act. It seems to us to be a curious form of appeal—though I do not think "appeal" is the right word to use—which is now suggested, namely, that a man appeals against a supervision order to the body of men who are issuing that order. Actually the word is "representations" but the average landowner or farmer reading the Bill, and not acquainted with the niceties of Parliamentary language,
    294
    seeing the word "representations" will take it to mean "appeal."
    It would be better, if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this, to cut out the phrase altogether and make it clear that the only form of representation which the recipient of a supervision order can make is to those who serve the order on him. Nobody suggests that every county committee is infallible. I know hon. Members opposite referred to them in Committee as "all-wise bodies of men," but "all-wise bodies of men," some of whom may be appointed by the Minister, are occasionally fallible. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) quoted in a different context cases where war agricultural executive committees had made unwise decisions and where appeals against those decisions had been upheld. The Minister said there was not injustice generally. I do not think we ought to be concerned with the question of whether injustice is done, or is likely to be done, in 50 or 100 cases. What we should be concerned with is to see, as far as is humanly possible, that no injustice is done in one single case because if this Parliament means anything, it means that the right of even one individual should be assured. That is why I beg the right hon. Gentleman to think about this Amendment again and, in order to gain the confidence of the farming community, to agree with us that an appeal against a supervision order should be made, not to those who serve it but to an independent arbitrator from the panel laid down under the 1923 Act.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: When the right hon. Gentleman, in chiding us for having failed in our attempt to get an appeal to the land tribunal, said that we were now seeking to set up a panel to which an appeal could be made, he was slightly unfair. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said that a great many of us did not realise until the later stages of the Bill in the Committee—until what is now Clause 101 was reached—that in point of fact the opportunity of making representations to the Minister only meant making representations to the agricultural executive committee which had already considered and decided upon the case. That knowledge came as a real shock, not

    295
    only to us but also, I think to hon. Members opposite on the Committee. As far as I remember, when we asked why the right hon. Gentleman took the trouble to provide an opportunity for making representations to the Minister, he said it was in case some new fact had come to light, which was not in the possession of the executive committee when they arrived at their decision. Tonight he told us that in point of fact the executive committee are the right people to deal with these questions, because they are the people in possession of all the facts. There is a psychological question involved here. It is important when a supervision notice is served, whether on a landlord or a farmer, that he should feel not only that justice is done, but that he has received justice from the Minister.
    I can understand the arguments of the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), from her point of view. But, as has been pointed out, some of us take a slightly different view of a supervision order. If one feels there is no particular slur in receiving a supervision order, it is difficult to see why we should go to such pains to put into the Bill an opportunity for representations to be made to the Minister. If we took the point of view of the hon. Lady we should let the executive committee consider the case and decide on it. But, it would appear from the wording of the Clause that the Minister wants to give some opportunity for an appeal for further consideration of the case. In point of fact we have now found that any further consideration is to be by the people who have already taken a decision. It is leading the farmer or landlord "up the garden path," to leave words in the Bill which would lead to the belief that there is an appeal, but which would not be considered by any legal authority as giving a right of appeal.
    Mr. J. H. Hare: Probably I am the only hon. Member who was not a member of the Standing Committee who has spoken in the Debate. Having listened to the arguments, I am convinced that my hon. Friends have put forward a case which has not been answered by the Minister. We have been taunted by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) who suggested that, presumably, we did not wish to get the best out of the land. We do not believe we can get the best out of the land, if at the same time perpetrate an injustice. We feel that a grave injustice is being done to the small farmer by not allowing him a proper right of appeal. The right hon. Gentleman is underestimating the opposition which his attitude this evening will create in the farming industry. Is his Bill designed to assist the farmers? Has he consulted the farmers? Do the farmers consider the attitude he is taking up will be helpful to them?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]— I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not going the right way about getting the good will of the industry first by trying to mislead farmers into thinking they have a right of appeal, and then when the cat is let out of the bag, saying that it is merely a question of putting people under supervision; that it is not so bad really and that they can be dealt with quite fairly. Those arguments will fool no one, and the Minister would be wise in his own interests, let alone those of farming, to give the farmer a proper opportunity for appeal, which is the normal right any Englishman would expect under those circumstances.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 106.

    Division No. 233.]

    AYES.

    [8.26 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Barton, C.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Battley, J. R.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Allen, A. C (Bosworth)

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Benson, G.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Berry, H.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Beswick, F.

    Buchanan, G.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Bing, G. H. C

    Burden, T. W.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Binns, J.

    Burke, W. A.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Blyton, W. R

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

    Boardman, H

    Carmichael, James

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Cattle, Mrs. B. A.

    Baird J.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Champion, A. J.

    Balfour, A.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Chelwynd, G. R.

    Barstow, P. G

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch'ge)

    Cobb, F. A.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jeger, Dr. S W. (St Pancras, S.E.)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Coldrick, W.

    John, W.

    Rhodes, H.

    Collins, V. J.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Colman, Miss G. M

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Cook, T. F.

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Royle, C.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Sargood, R.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Key, C. W.

    Shackleton, E. A A

    Crossman, R. H. S

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Sharp, Granville

    Daggar, G.

    Kinley, J.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)

    Davits, Harold (Look)

    Lang, G.

    Shurmer, P.

    Deer, G.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Delargy, H. J

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Simmons, C J.

    Diamond, J.

    Leonard, W.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Dobbie, W.

    Leslie, J R.

    Skeffngton-Lodge, T C

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lewis, T (Southampton)

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Smith, C (Colchester)

    Dumpleton, C. W

    McAdam, W.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Durbin, E. F. M

    McGhee, H. G

    Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)

    Dye, S.

    Mack, J. D

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Edelman, M

    Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

    Sorensen, R. W

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    McKinlay, A S.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    McLeavy, F

    Sparks, J. A.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Stamford, W.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Steele, T.

    Evans, S N (Wednesbury)

    Mainwaring, W H.

    Stross, Dr. B

    Ewart, R

    Mann, Mrs. J

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Farthing, W. J

    Marquand, H A.

    Swingler, S.

    Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

    Mathers, G.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Foot, M. M.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Forman, J. C.

    Medland, H. M

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

    Messer, F.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Thomson, Rt Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E)

    Gaitskell, H. T. N.

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Gallacher, W

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Ganley, Mrs C S

    Moody, A. S.

    Timmons, J.

    Gibbins, J.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B

    Titterington, M. F

    Gibson, C. W

    Morley, R.

    Tolley, L.

    Gilzean, A.

    Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mort, D. L.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C

    Moyle, A

    Usborne, Henry

    Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

    Murray, J. D

    Vernon, Maj. W. F

    Grenfell, D. R

    Nally, W

    Viant, S. P.

    Grey, C. F.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Grierson, E.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J. (Derby)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Watkins, T. E.

    Guy, W. H.

    Oldfield, W. H

    Watson, W. M.

    Haire, John E (Wycombe)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Hale, Leslie

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Hall, W. G.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Palmer, A. M F

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Pargiter, G A

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hardy, E. A

    Parker, J

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Harrison, J.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Patan, J. (Norwich)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pearson, A-

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Williamson, T.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Willis, E.

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Wills, Mrs. E. A

    Hicks, G

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Woodburn, A

    House, G.

    Price, M. Philips

    Woods, G. S.

    Hoy, J

    Proctor, W. T.

    Yates, V. F.

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

    Pryde, D. J

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, NO

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Randall, H E

    Zilliacus, K.

    Irving, W. J.

    Ranger, J.

    Janner, B.

    Rankin, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Rees-Williams, D R

    Mr. Michael Stewart and

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Reeves, J

    Mr. Collindridge.

    NOES

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V H.

    Byers, Frank

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

    Beechman, N. A

    Carson, E.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C

    Boles, Lt.-Col, D. C. (Wells)

    Challen, C

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Bower, N.

    Channon, H.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Clarke, Col. R. S

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    298

    299

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Ramsay, Maj. S

    Digby, S. W.

    Kendall, W. D.

    Renton, D.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Roberts, W (Cumberland, N)

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. F. W.

    Lancaster, Col. C G

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Drewe, C.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

    Foster, W (Wigan)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Smith, E. P (Ashford)

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Low, Brig. A. R. W

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Gage, C.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Spence, H. R.

    George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Maude, J. C.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Grant, Lady

    Medlicott, F.

    Thorneycroft, G. E P (Monmouth)

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    Touche, G. C.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Vane, W. M. F

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

    Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Haughton, S. G.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C

    Nicholson, G.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Henderson, John (Catheart)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Orr-Ewing, I L.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hollis, M. C.

    Osborne, C.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hope, Lord>l

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    York, C.

    Hurd, A.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Jeffreys, General Sir G

    Poole, O. B S. (Oswestry)

    Mr. Studholme and

    Jennings, R

    Prescott, Stanley

    Lleut.-Colonel Thorp.

    Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 9, line 15, to leave out from "Subsection," to the end of line 16, and to insert:
    "as soon as may be after the expiration 01 twelve months from the coming into operation of the order, and, where one or more reviews have already been held under this Subsection in relation to the order, such a review shall be held as soon as may be after the expiration of twelve months from the previous or last such review."
    This Amendment and the subsequent Amendment in my name in page 9, to leave out lines 22 to 24, go together. They are necessary in view of the new Clause, which provides that in the case of each annual review, when either the owner or occupier is under supervision, either party may request the committee to dispossess the owner or occupier as the case may be. If the committee refuse, then one or the other may appeal to the land tribunal. In view of this new right which is attached to the annual review, it is clearly desirable that the first review should take place after the Minister's power of dispossession has arrived, namely, after the first 12 months of supervision. Under Clause 12 (2) as at present drafted, the first review would have to be held during the first 12 months' supervision, before the Minister has any power of dispossession at all. The effect of these two Amendments is to make sure that the first review shall take place as soon as possible after the first year of supervision has elapsed. Subsequent reviews would, of course, be approximately at annual
    300
    intervals. Hon. Members will appreciate the need for these two Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "and upon any change taking place in the ownership or occupation of the land or agricultural unit."
    There were certain complaints earlier today from the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and other hon. Members opposite that they had not been able to master the meaning and intention of some of cur Amendments. This one will be well within the comprehension of all. Clause 12, as we all now know, is the Clause, which enables the Minister to place art owner or occupier under a supervision order. Subsection (2) lays down that when a supervision order is in force it must be reviewed from time to time, and paragraph (2, a) lays down that it shall be reviewed once every 12 months. We want to extend that provision so that the order will also be reviewed whenever the land or farm changes ownership. This is necessary and desirable. When a new farmer takes over a farm which is under a supervision order, there should be some form of valuation or assessment so that the Minister can see later what improvements have taken place during the 12 months, and so that possibly he may remove the supervision order. When a new tenant comes in, we think he should

    301
    have 12 clear months in which to reorganise the farm before it is again inspected with a view to seeing whether the supervision order can be removed. As the Minister no doubt is aware, we have several Amendments on the Order Paper which seek to ensure that when a new tenant or farmer comes in he is no longer subject to a supervision order. Whether or not those Amendments are accepted, the matter should be reviewed when a new tenant takes over, and he should have 12 clear months before it is reviewed again so that he can have a proper opportunity to improve the condition of the farm.
    Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
    What we are suggesting is in accordance with the best traditions of good estate management. It is exactly what any owner or his agent, or both, would do if they could. When a new tenant came in, they would look at the holding as he took it over so that they would know later whether or not he had improved it or whether he had let it down. It is in accordance with the custom of taking a schedule of condition. I hope the Amendment will be favourably received.
    Mr. Marquand: We have every sympathy with the arguments put forward, and I do not think there is any difference between us. I suggest that the Amendment is really unnecessary. Clause 13 provides that:
    "where a supervision order is in force in respect of an owner or occupier, any disposition of land to which the order relates … whereby some other person becomes the owner or occupier of that land shall not, unless approved by the Minister either before or after the disposition is completed, affect the continued operation of the supervision order."
    The saving words there to ensure the purpose expressed by hon. Members opposite are, "unless approved by the Minister." The Clause provides that where there is a change of ownership or occupation, any supervision order in relation to the land shall continue unless the new owner or occupier is approved by the Minister. Therefore, it will be open to the parties concerned to ask the Minister for his approval and, in that way, for the lifting of the supervision order. This will mean automatically that the question of the continuation of the supervision order will have to be reviewed. If the new owner is satisfactory, it will be possible
    302
    for the Minister to remove the order and let the new owner go in and continue to manage the property.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think anybody on this side of the House and, I suspect, this applies also to quite a number of hon. Members opposite could accept such an easy and fallacious way out of the difficulties propounded by my hon. Friends. If the argument is carried to its logical conclusion it means that the Government propose that the disposition of all land, whether in ownership or by tenure, if the land has once been subjected to a supervision order, should be at the disposal and in the hands of the Government of the day. There was no such intention when this Bill was first drafted. These supervision orders are personal orders against an inefficient landlord or tenant. We in the Conservative Party wholly agree with His Majesty's Government that bad landlords and bad tenants should have some sanction against them if they are to get the advantages which some parts of this Bill confer.
    8.45 p.m.
    These are personal disabilities under which only an incompetent landlord or tenant should labour. There comes a change and a new man comes along. Surely he should not be subjected to the disability which his predecessor suffered. Now the Paymaster-General is suggesting that the incoming landlord or tenant, if he wants to avoid the penalties of his predecessor, must get the Minister's sanction before he buys the land or becomes the tenant of it. Since when has one been obliged to go to a Government Department and ask permission to buy a piece of British land, which, after all, is the common heritage of all of us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Most certainly. The eager anxiety with which the Co-operative movement in this country is trying to buy up the land of England—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not propose this time to allow the hon. Member to get so far away from the Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With all respect, I think I am in Order in pointing out that there is a natural anxiety among all sections of the community, not limited to those who historically are regarded as the landowners of Great Britain, to own and cultivate the land of this country. We

    303
    welcome this interest which the Government of the day are showing in it. What we very much object to is the assumption that an incoming landowner or tenant, if he Wants to avoid the sanction of Clause 12, must get the Minister's permission before he buys the land or becomes the tenant, even though there has never been the slightest suggestion that he would be an incompetent landowner or tenant. We agree that if, after coming into such a place, a man continues the bad practices of the previous owner or tenant, he should himself be subject to a supervision order in his own turn, but he should wait until it has been proved that he is the sort of person who deserves that sort of sanction. The hon. Gentleman would not, I think, claim that he has ever himself either lived on the land, earned his living by it or been deeply concerned in the welfare of the people who do, and for him so easily to dismiss this as if all a man has to do is to ask the Minister's permission to become the landlord or tenant, is straining the credulity of this House a little far.
    We believe that this Amendment should be carried and that, on any change taking place in the ownership or occupation of the land or of the agricultural unit concerned, the supervision order should lapse automatically, and that the incoming owner or tenant should be given a chance to prove that, as a free man in what we are always told is a free State, he can do his job properly. If he then fails to do it, we are at one with the Government in saying that sanctions should be imposed against him. This Amendment has the further effect that it will give a new owner or tenant a clear 12 months to put the old property in order and to show that he can so conduct himself that the penalties of this Clause need not be imposed against him. We look to the day—and I think we, almost alone in the State, believe in private ownership—when an ever increasing number of people will be able to own the soil of Britain. We are not in the least frightened of that development. We would like to ensure that the people who come along to establish their own stake in the country should not be penalised by the faults of their predecessors.
    Mr. Vane: If the. Paymaster-General really has this sympathy, I wish he would
    304
    accept our method of giving expression to it. It would be very much better to accept our Amendment, and then perhaps he would be able to find it possible to omit Clause 13 from the Bill completely. If that could be done, the end would be served and the Bill would be simplified. There is a certain difference of opinion between us on this matter of supervision orders. We have always maintained that this supervision is really a personal matter, and it is utterly wrong that the stigma of supervision should be transferred from the person to the land. By this method, we are going to create in the countryside two different kind of markets for land—one for land where there is a supervision order in force, and another for land where there is not. I think the Minister will find that there is the greatest reluctance among farm tenants to take land where a supervision order is in force. The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) rather talked as if she was coaching backward children for examination, and she seemed to think that the average farmer would be only too glad to welcome this supervision as being some form of assistance. I can assure her that the truth is the very opposite of that, and that there will be a great feeling of shame among farmers when the county agricultural committee does put a man under supervision, and that they will be extremely reluctant to take such a farm. I hope the Minister will change his mind, because it is not too much to ask that he should accept this Amendment and agree with our objective.
    Mr. G. Williams: The Minister of Agriculture is usually a very logical man, and argues in a logical manner, but, as the Bill now stands, it does not really make sense, because it suggests that the man should be supposed to be guilty before he is proved so. If the police go looking round public houses to find landlords who sell drink after hours, they are perfectly justified in doing so, but if the ownership or tenancy should change, the police are surely not justified in snooping round to see that drinks are not being sold after hours. Similarly, because the owners of land have been bad farmers in the past, why should a new tenant be considered to be a bad farmer before he starts? In this way, the Bill almost savours of persecution. The Amendment should not have been necessary at all, because the Clause itself should have been omitted.

    305
    As the Bill stands, the new tenant coming in may well be the best farmer in the country, but if he has to take over a farm which is under a supervision order, he may be as shy as some of us on this side of the House are of red tape and refuse to take it over. The Minister will thereby be defeating his own object of bringing a good farmer to that farm to get the land back into good heart again. Equally, the landlord who owns the farm will also be losing a good farmer, simply because he will not face taking on a farm which is under a supervision order. I believe that what is really at the back of the Minister's mind in this matter is the idea that a change of ownership may be brought about by starting a bogus company, so that a man who is placed under a supervision order may form a new company and start up again. If the Minister wants to legislate against that sort of thing, he ought to be able to do so, and I am sure that if he takes the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will receive a few tips on the way in which he should do it.
    Mr. W. Roberts: I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment. I think that the way in which he proposes to deal with this problem is the better way. I hope it will not be necessary in very many cases to carry on a supervision order from one tenant to another or from one owner to another, but I think it is quite right that the Minister should have the opportunity of doing so if necessary. In the past, it has far too often been the case that land which had gone down remained down, and that a farm which had been badly farmed by one tenant was taken over again by another bad tenant. It was often a cheap farm, on which the buildings were bad, and which only a bad tenant would take over. This is the sort of thing which Clause 13 will prevent. If it is not bad enough to be taken over completely, the fact that the Minister's approval to the new tenant is required will mean that the land would be put in order, so that a tenant who is reasonably likely to farm well will be selected. I think it is much the better way of bringing a farm up to the condition in which it was kept under previous tenants or owners, rather than assuming that, once the ownership or tenancy is changed, the supervision order will be immediately released. I hope it will not, in fact, be necessary in changes of that sort to carry
    306
    on the supervision order, but I think it is necessary and that the best way of handling the matter is by giving the Minister the power to continue the order. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) never was in favour of any sort of sanctions, but—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am rather mystified about what the hon. Gentleman is referring to.
    Mr. Roberts: The word "sanction" at one time had a quite important international significance—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not seem to me to have anything to do with the Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. Roberts: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will not pursue the matter further. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford set me a bad example in this matter. I think that this provision should be applied as a means of improving the farming or management of land. It is one that the Minister should preserve and I hope that he will not give way.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I am sorry to speak again, but, before we take a decision on this matter, I would like to bring the House back to the Amendment and what it seeks to do. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) was very far removed from the Amendment in his speech, and I am afraid the Minister when he replied appeared to be replying to other Amendments which we have put down to Clause 13, and especially when he said that we wished to revoke a supervision order. That is not what this Amendment seeks to do at all. All it does ask is that there shall be a review when a new owner or occupier comes in, so that no new man takes over a farm unless there is some basis by which his work can be judged in the future.
    If a review takes place when he takes over the farm, another review will have to take place in 12 months' time, when the Minister might possibly see that a great improvement has taken place and might be able to revoke the supervision order which, if he had nothing by which to judge the amount of improvement, he might not be able to do. I think that this is a most reasonable Amendment, and I am sorry that the Minister did not address

    307
    his remarks to it. As I say, this Amendment does not revoke a supervision order; all it says is that it shall be reviewed when a new tenant or a new occupier comes in.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Quite a lot has been said by hon. Members opposite to the effect that this particular Subsection is unfair. In my view, it is as reasonable as anything could be. First of all, if this Amendment had been properly worded, the effect would have been that, as soon as there was a change of ownership, there would no longer be a question of whether the Minister should review it or not; the review would be automatic, and the supervision order would cease. Suppose the change of ownership is built upon an attempt by the old owner, who is under a supervision order, to avoid the effect of that order by getting somebody else in in his place. What is going to happen? Is he to be allowed to defeat both the order and the Minister? This Clause does not say "at the end of 12 months"; it says "during each year." In other words, as soon as the new owner comes on to the scene, the Minister may, and naturally would, look into the matter at once, and, if he finds everything in order he can remove the supervision order. I cannot understand what complaint there can be against that.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will give way—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Not just at the moment. Apart from that, what the
    Opposition have done here is rather comical. Instead of making one condition apply, they have made a double condition apply. If they read the Amendment, they will see the position is that a review shall be held under this Subsection during each year that the order remains in force, and also, in the words of the Amendment,
    "upon any change taking place in the ownership or occupation of the land or agricultural unit."
    Therefore, there are two things before the review takes place. That defeats the whole idea behind this Amendment, and it should be rejected.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All I wanted to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman was whether he appreciated that we have no wish whatever that the supervision order should not be applied or re-applied if there had been any "phoney" business such as he suggested. All we ask is that there should be a technical review on a change of ownership. If, on review, it is proved that there has been some collusive action whereby the old owner or tenant remains in charge, although legally he should not, then we would have no objection to the order being continued.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The language of this Clause already provides for such a situation.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 260.

    Division No. 234.]

    AYES.

    [9.5 p.m.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Drewe, C.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. R.

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M

    Low, Brig. A. R. W.

    Bower, N.

    Gage, C.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Macpherson, Maj. N (Dumfries)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Grant, Lady

    Marples, A. E.

    Carson, E.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Challen, C.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Maude, J. C.

    Channon, H.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre A V.

    Morrison, Maj, J. G. (Salisbury)

    Clarke, Col. R. S

    Haughton, S. G.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon Sir C

    Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nicholson, G.

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

    Hollis, M. C

    Noble, Comdr. A. H P

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C

    Hope, Lord J.

    Osborne, C.

    Crosthwaile-Eyre, Col O. E

    Hurd, A.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

    Pickthorn, K.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Jennings, R.

    Poole, O. B S. (Oswestry)

    Digby, S. W.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Prescott, Stanley

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Renton, D.

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P W

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Roberts, Maj P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

    Studholme, H. G.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Smith, E. P (Ashford)

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Touche, G. C.

    York, C.

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Vane, W. M F.

    Spence, H. R.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    White, Sir D, (Fareham)

    Major Ramsay and

    Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

    White, J. B (Canterbury)

    Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Forman, J. C.

    Medland, H. M

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith South)

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Messer, F.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Gaitskell, H. T. N.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Millington, Wing-Comdr E R

    Attewell, H. C.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Gibbins, J.

    Moody, A. S.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Gilzean, A

    Morley, R.

    Baird J

    Glanville, J E. (Consett)

    Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

    Balfour, A.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Barstow, P. G

    Gordon-Walker, P. C

    Mort, D. L.

    Barton, C.

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Moyle, A,

    Battley, J. R.

    Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

    Murray, J. D

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Grenfell, D. R

    Nally, W.

    Benson, G.

    Grey, C F

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Berry, H.

    Grierson, E.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J (Derby)

    Beswick, F.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Bing, G. H. C

    Guy, W H

    Oldfield, W. H

    Blyton, W. R.

    Haire, John E (Wycombe)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Boardman, H.

    Hale, Leslie

    Paget, R. T.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Hall, W. G.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Palmer, A. M F

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Pargiter, G A

    Brooke, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Harrison, J.

    Parker, J

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Parkin, B. T.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Bruce, Maj. D. W T

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Pearson, A

    Buchanan, G.

    Herbison, Mist M.

    Peart, Capt T. F.

    Burden, T. W.

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Byers, Frank

    House, G.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Carmichael, James

    Hoy J.

    Price, M. Philips

    Castle, Mrs. B. A

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Cobb, F. A

    Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Cocks, F. S.

    Irving, W. J

    Randall, H. E

    Coldrick, W.

    Janner, B.

    Ranger, J.

    Collindridge, F.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Rankin, J.

    Collins, V. J

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Colman, Miss G. M

    Jeger, Dr. S W (St. Pancras, S. E.)

    Reeves, J.

    Cook, T. F.

    John, W.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr G

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Rhodes, H

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Roberts, W (Cumberland, N)

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Crossman, R. H. S

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Daggar, G.

    Kendall, W. D

    Royle, C.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Kenyon, C.

    Sargood, R

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Key, C. W

    Soott-Elliot W

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kinley, J.

    Shackleton, E. A A

    Davies, Hadyn (St Pancras, S. W.)

    Kirby, B. V

    Sharp, Granville

    Deer, G.

    Lang, G.

    Shawcross, C. N (Widnes)

    Delargy, H. J

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)

    Diamond, J.

    Leonard, W

    Shurmer, P

    Dobbie, W.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Dodds, N. N

    Lewis, T (Southampton)

    Simmons, C J.

    Donovan, T.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Lipton, Lt.-Col M

    Skeffington-Lodge, T C

    Dumpleton, C. W

    McAdam, W.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Durbin, E. F. M

    McGhee, H. G

    Smith, C (Colchester)

    Dye, S.

    Mack, J. D.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

    McKay, J (Wallsend)

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W)

    Edelman, M.

    Mackay, R. W G. (Hull, N. W.)

    Sorensen, R. W

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    McKinlay, A S.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    McLeavy, F.

    Sparks, J A

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Stamford, W

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Steele, T.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Stress, Dr. B.

    Ewart, R

    Mann, Mrs. J

    Stubbs, A. E

    Fairhurst, F.

    Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

    Swingler, S.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Marquand, H A

    Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

    Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E)

    Mathers, G.

    Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

    Foot, M M.

    Mayhew, C P

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    310

    311

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williamson, T.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Willis, E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Wise, Major F. J

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Watson, W. M.

    Woodburn, A.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Woods, G. S.

    Timmons, J

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Yates, V. F.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Tolley, L.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Zilliacus, K

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Ungoed-Thomas, L

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Usborne, Henry

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Mr. Snow and

    Vernon, Maj. W. F

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Mr. Michael Stewart.

    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 22 to 24.
    This is consequential on the Amendment already made in page 9, line 15.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Directions to secure good estate management and good husbandry.)
    9.15 p.m.
    Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 11, line 40 after "Part I," to insert:
    "or Part II in so far as such an improvement would if carried out alter the character of the holding."
    Subsection (1, b) lays down that where a supervision order is in force for the farming of an agricultural unit, the Minister may give such directions as he thinks necessary to secure that the unit is farmed in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. The Clause provides that such directions as are made do not entail making improvements falling within Part I of the Third Schedule, unless, whether on application of tenant or Minister the landlord has consented to the improvement, or in accordance with certain provisions of the 1923 Act, which relate to market gardens, compensation for the carrying out of improvements does not depend on the landlord's consent. Part I of the Third Schedule deals with the making of water meadows, or works of irrigation, the planting of orchards or fruit bushes, and so on. We want to add these words so as to include certain changes which the tenant might have performed under Part II of the Schedule, which includes the erection, alteration and enlargement of buildings, and the making or improvement of permanent yards. We believe that under that head might be comprised such things as the erection of a Danish piggery or the removal of permanent fences. These might make a complete change in the way in which the farm is being run. There might be an alteration from dairy farming to arable.
    312
    Our Amendment is designed to make the Clause consistent, both as regards Part I and Part II of the Schedule.
    Mr. John Morrison: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Colonel Clarke: On a point of Order may I have an answer?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have collected the voices.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. Points of Order and matters of courtesy are sometimes interwoven. Is it not possible to have an answer to this important point which has been raised.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is true that I have collected the voices, but I have not declared them. If the Minister desires to speak, he can do so.
    The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I may briefly state the reply I was going to give. One has to try to draw a distinction between the improvements referred to in Part I and those referred to in Part II of the Schedule. It is not within the purview of this Debate to discuss their nature and why they have each been put in the Parts in which they appear, and why it has been necessary in regard to Part I, that the landlord's consent must be obtained before compensation is paid if an improvement is carried out, and why, in respect of those in Part II, they can be carried out, and compensation can be obtained, despite the landlord. There has been that radical distinction before. For the purpose of Clause 14 we have selected those that appear in Part I, those which require the landlord's consent as an indispensable necessity before compensation can be claimed for carrying out an improvement. The differences in character in the improvements set out in Part I and Part II are comparatively

    313
    clear and we do not feel that we can accept the Amendment. It is reasonable, in our view, to say that where an improvement cannot be carried out by the tenant without getting the landlord's consent—if he is to get compensation—a direction should not be given to the tenant to carry out those same improvements unless the landlord has consented. When we come to the other category of improvements under Part II of the Schedule which can be carried out by the tenant, despite the landlord, compensation being payable notwithstanding the fact that the landlord has refused his consent—provided the Minister gives his consent—we are on entirely different ground. It is reasonable, in that case, that the Minister under Clause 14, should be entitled to direct the tenant when a supervision order has been made, to carry out those improvements. He could give his consent if he were asked, and it is reasonable that he should have power to give necessary directions. The two categories of improvements are in no sense analogous. A reasonable dividing line is being drawn between the two, and I ask the House to follow us in adhering to that dividing line.
    There is a further point. The wording of the Amendment would lead to a great deal of difficulty. The Amendment qualifies improvements which may not be subject to direction by tying it to those which alter the nature of the holding. Even an improvement of a minor character might be said to alter the character of the holding. Alteration of a building in a very small degree might alter the character of the holding. Therefore, we feel that the introduction of these words would give rise to a great deal of uncertainty and obscurity. What would be meant by an improvement which was an improvement which did not alter the holding? We feel that almost every improvement does alter the holding. If we admitted the Amendment it would mean that a direction could not be given under Clause 14 in respect of even a trifling improvement since it could be said that, to a certain extent, the improvement would alter the character of the holding.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) said that a tenant may be given directions to carry out an extensive alteration to the building. If he does, he is entitled to compensation, but he is only
    314
    entitled to compensation equivalent to the increase in value to the landlord of his holding by reason of the carrying out of the improvement. Even ii the landlord has to pay that compensation the landlord does get an equivalent increase of value in his holding. When he re-lets to another tenant he can charge an increased rent in proportion to the increased value of the holding. We have drawn the line carefully between those improvements which should and should not be subject to direction, in limiting the ones which cannot be subject to direction to those for which it is indispensable to get the landlord's consent for compensation to become payable.
    I put that to the House as a fundamental answer to what has been said. Secondly, I say that the wording of the alteration is bound to occasion difficulty and obscurity and probably rule out any improvement, even the smallest. If the tenant carries out extensive improvements of the type contemplated in Part II of the Schedule, he gets compensation equivalent to the increased value of the landlord's holding, but the landlord when he relets can charge an extra rent equivalent to the increase in that value. The landlord gets a holding which is more valuable than it was before, exclusively by reference to the increase in the value due to the carrying out of the improvement. For those reasons I must oppose the Amendment.
    Mr. Vane: It is very much within the purview of this Amendment to know what is the principle underlying the division in the Third Schedule of Parts I and II, and why one part is included in this Clause and the other half is not. It was explained to us in Committee upstairs that the improvements in Part I of the Third Schedule were improvements which were expected to change the character of the holding as distinct from those in Part II which are improvements not expected to change the character of the holding. I do not think that distinction has been entirely successful. In Part II will be found a number of items which I think no practical man would dispute are likely to change the character of the holding. If this Amendment is accepted, I do not anticipate the difficulties which the learned Solicitor-General seemed to think would arise in a great many cases. In fact, if one looks at several of the improvements listed in Part II of the

    315
    Schedule, such as the erection of buildings, the making of roads, and the provision of embankments or sluices apart from their repair and maintenance, I think one must agree that it would be very hard to carry out work under those headings without altering the character of the holding. I wish that the Government would think again before they exclude our suggestion that works under Part II of the Third Schedule which change the character of the holding should be treated as in the same class as those in Part I. We are not bringing forward this Amendment because we anticipate hardship, but because we consider that the Clause as at present drafted is likely to achieve bad administration which could be easily improved by its acceptance.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: I wish to support the Amendment. The reference of the learned Solicitor-General to the use of the word "alteration" seemed to me to be a little short of a complete description because it is not alteration that we are protesting against, but the alteration of the character of the holding. I would give a simple example of what might alter the character of a holding very considerably: Supposing that a tenant of an arable farm—very likely a good arable farm—wished to change the character of the holding and make it a dairy farm. It surely would not be reasonable to ask for compensation for the very considerable extra buildings which would be necessary for the purpose of a dairy farm. That would alter the character of the holding, and I do not think that would be a reasonable excuse to make. The Solicitor-General also referred to the possible loss or gain to the landlord in consequence of any such alteration. I suggest that the average landlord is perfectly well aware of the factors that may affect the value of the holding which belongs to him, and he would be very unlikely to object to anything which would enhance its value and make it a better holding. I do not think any objection would be raised on those grounds, and I suggest therefore that the Government might think again. This is a very simple Amendment which makes a very small alteration; it would not alter the strength of the Bill in any way, and would certainly make the Clause fairer in
    316
    its operation, and I hope the Government will think again and accept it
    9.30 p.m.
    Major Mott-Radclyffe: The learned Solicitor-General has over-simplified the object of this Amendment. It is not quite as simple a proposition as he tried to convey to the House. What we think is undesirable is that a tenant should be directed to carry out an improvement on a holding which in fact would completely alter the character of that holding. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) gave the obvious example of a farm being changed from an arable farm into a dairy farm. That is the most obvious example one could give, because the actual cost of such a conversion would be very high indeed. The learned Solicitor-General said that in such an event it was all right, because the landlord could perfectly well charge extra rent in relation to the improved value of the holding. It is not, however, only a question of whether or not the landlord can charge extra rent; the really important question is whether, in view of the new use to which the farm is to be put because of the alteration of its character, the economic level of the new type of farming will enable that particular farm to carry the extra rent to pay the interest on the capital expenditure. That involves the whole issue of whether or not, by altering the type of a farm, one is running into the very great danger that in a few years' time the new type of farming which will be carried on on that farm may well be entirely uneconomic, and therefore quite unable to carry the interest on the capital expenditure.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Supplementary provisions as to directions.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 31, after "him," to insert:
    "within twenty-one days from the service of the notice."
    This is the Clause which deals with the giving of directions to provide fixed equipment. Under Subsection (3) of the Clause the Minister has power to require information as to the obligations subsisting in the tenancy with regard to the provision of fixed equipment, and he can serve a

    317
    notice requiring that those concerned shall give him the information. During the Committee stage of the discussions the argument was advanced that the person on whom that notice was served should be given at any rate some minimum time in which he could furnish the information. The time proposed in Committee was 28 days. My right hon. Friend, having promised that he would consider the matter, feels that 28 days would be rather too long and would lead to unnecessary delay, but he thinks that 21 days would be reasonable. Therefore, I am moving this Amendment, which provides that when such a requirement has been made the person who has been asked to furnish the information shall have 21 days in which to do it. That I think would substantially meet the arguments adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the difference that we say 21 days instead of 28, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
    Captain Crookshank: We are very much obliged to the Government for this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 34, after "case," insert "within the said twenty-one days."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

    CLAUSE 16.—(Dispossession on grounds of bad estate management.)
    Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 15, line 6, after "show," to insert "reasonably."
    I believe it will be found very difficult to find a really adequate definition for measuring the failure or success of an owner or farmer under supervision. This Amendment is put down to improve the drafting, and from the point of view of what I feel that the Minister's real intentions are. In moving the Amendment I want to put myself in the position of a county executive committee or a tribunal which has got to make a decision on dispossession. In reading the terms of the Clause, I see that the Minister has to be satisfied. As one of his servants or officers, I know the Minister has a very high standard and that he is not easily satisfied. At the same time I know he is a reasonable man who appreciates that, particularly with work done out of doors, it is very difficult to get the high standard that one wants. I think that anybody
    318
    who has to do with out-of-door work, either agriculture or soldiering, knows there are two characteristics of which note has to be taken: first, such work always takes longer than one expected, and, secondly, one seldom gets exactly the standard that is wanted and very very often it turns out differently from what is wanted. I believe that the Minister appreciates the difficulty of getting real perfection and when he is dissatisfied he would take reasonable notice of the many circumstances that stop him getting perfection. If these words were added to the Bill it would make it possible for his officers to interpret the Bill as I believe he would wish it to be interpreted.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that I have rather a short reply to the argument that has been advanced, and that is that I cannot for the life of me see why the words "reasonably satisfactory" are more satisfactory than the word "satisfactory" itself. "Satisfactory" is an ordinary, intelligible English term, and if people were asked to consider satisfactory improvements they would know exactly what it was they were asked to consider. On the other hand, I think they would have some difficulty in doing so when we get the word "reasonably" qualifying the word "satisfactory." It could lead to interminable tangles and instead of improving the Clause the word "reasonably" would make the position much worse, because people would really begin to wonder what it was they were asked to decide. It would lead to confusion and in my view the word "satisfactory" is perfectly satisfactory as it is.
    Colonel Clarke: I regret that I failed to convince the hon. and learned Gentleman of what I was trying to say. "Satisfactory" in the eyes of the Minister must be perfect, but it is almost impossible to get perfection in anything of this sort within a short time, and, therefore, he might have to be content with second best. I do not want a provision inserted in the Bill which it is really impossible to implement truthfully. The Minister may obtain reasonable satisfaction, but if he has the standards which I believe him to have, he will never obtain satisfaction in the legal sense of the term.
    Sir William Darling: I intervene in this matter only because of the somewhat plausible and unsatisfactory explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He wants to tell the House that the word "satisfactory" and the words "reasonably satisfactory" mean one and the same thing. I suggest to him that if I drink a glass of water it is satisfactory in so far as it quenches my thirst, but if I dilute it with my national beverage—a little Scotch whisky—it is reasonably satisfactory. I agree with my hon. Friend that the interpretation of this word, far from obscuring or confusing the Clause, gives it a clarity which the ordinary man, at any rate, will appreciate. I speak with some knowledge of agriculture because, I am proud to boast, I manage and farm some 300 acres on the borders of Scotland. If my speech has no other justification it has that of inducing the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is somewhat too modest and timid in this House, to come to his feet and speak on behalf of this Bill. I am confining myself now most strictly to the Clause whatever my temptations may be, and I address myself to the Clause—
    Mr. Speaker: An Amendment is under discussion and not the Clause.
    Sir W. Darling: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should have said that I address myself to this Amendment in support of the contention of my, hon. Friend that the addition of the word "reasonably" does elucidate and strengthen the Clause. I should be sorry if the hon. and learned Gentleman dethroned reason in association with such a word as "satisfactory." I hope that he will reconsider his view on this matter and make the Clause more acceptable to those who, like myself, believe in elucidation and modification. We have a hymn in Scotland which has a direct bearing upon this Amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I will quote only two lines:
    "Thus to perfection's sacred height.
    We nearer still may rise."
    By the use and interpolation of the word "reasonably" we shall rise nearer to perfection's sacred height, and I commend that to the right hon. Gentleman
    Sir G. Jeffreys Sir G. Jeffreys rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already exhausted his
    320
    right to speak by seconding the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, in page 15, line 8, to leave out from "to," to the end of line 10, and to insert:
    "order the sale thereof within three months from the date of so certifying and in the event of a sale not being effected by the owner within the said period the Minister shall have power to sell the same on behalf of the owner and shall account to the owner for the proceeds of such sale."
    The effect of this Amendment is to deprive the Minister of power automatically to purchase land compulsorily where an owner is being dispossessed on grounds of bad husbandry, and to insert instead a requirement that the Minister shall order the sale of the land within three months. If the owner who is being dispossessed on grounds of bad estate management fails to sell the land within three months then the Minister shall have power to sell it, and shall account to the owner for the proceeds of the sale. We feel that it will not really be helpful to the smooth working of this Bill or, indeed, to economy in public affairs, if the Minister, through the Land Commission, is to own odd patches of land all over the country which he has acquired under this Bill because they were being badly managed by their owners.
    On this side of the House, we do not find any particular magic in the public ownership of land—even by a Land Commission as proposed under this Bill. Ownership of land by the Minister and its management by the Land Commission may prove a very great embarrassment to the proper working of the Bill. We fear that it will slur over what we hope may be good features of the Bill by some of its very bad features. Moreover, Parliament will want to know year by year, the results of these activities of acquiring land and managing it under the Clause. Rather than cumbering himself with the ownership of patches of unsatisfactorily managed land it would be better if the Minister required the owner who had fallen down on the job, to sell his land within three months. If the owner did not do so, if he were a difficult man, the Minister should then have power to sell the land in the open market, so that somebody else could take it on and manage it properly. There are many people who

    321
    would be only too ready to put their money and their skill into the ownership of land. We believe that that is for the good of the country. We do not believe in the State putting its dead hand on patches of land throughout the country.
    Mr. York: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do so on three grounds. The first is that, as the Clause stands there is no option for the Minister to do anything but to purchase the land. The test which we should apply in deciding where land should go and how it should be managed is the efficiency with which that land can be managed. In a large number of cases where an owner-occupier is dispossessed, and the management is taken away from him, that small plot of land will be like an island, and will probably be a long way from other pieces of land of a similar sort. In order to manage those pieces of land in the proper way, the agent will have to make long journeys. There will be no possibility of carrying out the duties of ownership, repair and maintenance properly. In general, those pieces of land will be divorced from the main activities of the Land Commission. Surely, the efficient management of these odd pieces of land would be far more easily attained if the land was sold to an owner occupier approved by the Minister. A landowner might be at an Oxford college and might not be able to carry out the maintenance and repair jobs.
    It would be far better, instead of giving the Minister no latitude at all if the owner who is not carrying out the job properly could sell the land to a purchaser who would be a better and keener owner. The Minister will know that the land will be under supervision and therefore subject to the ordinary provisions of Part II. It is far better that it should go to a man like that, than that it should pass into the hands of a commission which, at best, could only give it, a cursory inspection from time to time if it is an isolated site, and in any case will not of itself necessarily, or even probably, increase the efficiency with which that land is managed. Quite apart from the fact that we see no great advantage, to put it very mildly, in the State owning this land, reasons of good management and efficiency in the running of the land demand that it should be sold to another
    322
    private owner, be it a corporate body or a private neighbouring land owner or owner-occupier. Without a great deal of hope, I admit, we recommend this to the Committee as a far better alternative to ownership by a Land Commission.
    Mr. T. Williams: The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that where an owner is being dispossessed on the grounds of bad estate management the Minister should not have power to buy the land compulsorily. He would have to order the landlord to sell within three months, and if the landlord failed to do so, then the Amendment turns the Minister into an estate agent. The Minister would have to sell the land and account to the landowner for the proceeds. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) and the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) never even suggested that the Minister should get a commission out of the sale. I am rather amused at the solicitude for the State of those two hon. Members. They think it would be intolerable for the State to have to buy little bits of land here and there and that it would impose an intolerable burden on the poor wretched Land Commission. I quite appreciate the Opposition's objection to State acquisition of land. It is a good old Tory prejudice. It dies very hard indeed.
    Sir W. Darling: All Tories do.
    Mr. Williams: It is true that the Tories die hard too, but long before that they do on occasions become utterly ineffective and this appears to be one of those moments. There seems to be no need for this Amendment. The owner can sell his land at any moment during the course of the supervision order. If he is placed under supervision, which must run 12 months before the Minister can do anything about dispossession, down to the 29th day of the eleventh month he has power to sell if he wishes to. There is, therefore, no necessity for the Minister to give him three months more, in which to sell land which he could have sold at any time during the previous 12 months. If at a later stage, however, after being given an opportunity to sell, he fails to improve his management, then it is right and proper that the State should have the right to purchase that property. If he were allowed to sell at that stage, after the expiry of 12 months during which he had been under supervision, the State

    323
    would have absolutely no guarantee that the estate would be better managed in future than it had been in the past. It could be sold to anybody with or without cash or capital, and to that extent we should have no power. The Bill is designed to produce agricultural efficiency, and agricultural efficiency carries with it good estate management.
    Therefore, it seems to me that in a case such as we have in mind, once the State has had a person under supervision for 12 months, once it has prevailed upon the estate owner to improve his management and he has failed to do so, the State is at least entitled, from that moment onwards, to say that the estate in future is to be better managed than it has been in the past. In any case, the estate must prima facie have been badly managed or the estate owner would not have been dispossessed. That implies, therefore, that probably a good deal of money will require to be spent to bring the farm back to a decent state of management. I submit that, despite the fact that there is a genuinely prosperous agriculture, due to this Bill, during the period of this Government, and that there are plenty of would-be buyers of agricultural land, that is no reason why the State should not take possession and exercise control over the future management. This Amendment seems to me to have no merit—not even political merit—and I hope the House will reject it.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The logical outcome of the right hon. Gentleman's argument would be to put a stop to all sales of all agricultural property, because he said that if one puts up property for sale, one does not know who will buy it, whether it will be a bad farmer or a person who has insufficient capital. That applies to anybody who sells a farm on the open market. Wiley should it apply any more when a farm is put on to the open market because of a compulsory order for possession. I do not think there is anything that can be accepted in the Minister's argument. Everybody will know, when he goes into the market to buy a farm in respect of which an order has been made, that it is likely to require a substantial amount of capital to be put into it to bring it up to a standard of efficiency, and a person will buy it with that knowledge in view, and the
    324
    further knowledge that if he does not bring the farm up to a proper standard of efficiency he, too, in turn, will first of all have a supervision order made against him, and subsequently, if he fails to comply therewith, he will be subject to a compulsory order for acquisition. I cannot see that there is any merit in the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
    Perhaps I may again refer to a statement on somewhat similar lines that was made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in the Standing Committee. First of all, the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was common ground that estate owners were trustees for the nation. I am not sure what he meant by that, but the phrase was again used by him very shortly afterwards, when he said that he did not think that it would be contended that the State was less able to put an estate in good condition in conformity with the minimum standards of good estate management than a private owner. I would not dissent from that view, but even the Government spokesman on that occasion did not claim that the State would be able to put an estate into a better condition or into better conformity with the rules of good estate management than a private owner, and when not even the Government claim that, it is difficult to see why they should now be arguing that it is right and proper, in the interests of good estate management and good agriculture, that, rather than give the opportunity to another individual to enter into the agricultural world, as an estate owner or an estate manager, the State itself should take over the property by compulsory acquisition.
    10.0 p.m.
    May I refer again to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is a most specious point. For once, that deep fund of psychology from which the right hon. Gentleman is generally able to advise the House is wanting. He pointed out that for II months and 29 days, the owner of the property will have the opportunity of selling it himself. I quite agree with him, but not even the right hon. Gentleman can claim to have all his arguments both ways. We have just been hearing from him that a supervision order which in certain circumstances leads up to a dispossession order, is a happy state of affairs which will be welcomed by the majority of farmers throughout the country. If that be so, then no farmer

    325
    or estate manager or owner will, during that happy time, say, "The outlook is so black that I have to sell." He will hang on to his farm or to his estate, working in co-operation with the friendly advisers who are all out to help him, in the belief for 11 months and 29 days that he will be able to pull the farm round and bring it into a satisfactory condition. Two days later the right hon. Gentleman changes his mind and says, "Ah, that is all wrong. You have been under a supervision order which was a warning that unless you mended your ways, unless you brought your estate into good and proper repair, a penalty would be inflicted and your estate or farm would be acquired compulsorily."
    I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Even if he argues, as I do not think he is entitled to do, that compulsory acquisition is a proper penalty upon a farmer or an estate owner for having failed, with the assistance of the county committee, to bring the farm or estate into a satisfactory condition—even then I put it to him that it is not in the interests of the agricultural industry as a whole. It is arguable, as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would argue frequently, that it is best in the interests of the industry for the whole of the agricultural community to be nationalised and managed by the State. It is equally arguable that it is in the best interests of the industry for it to be under private enterprise, but one thing which is not arguable is that it is in the best interests of the industry to go half and half. We cannot possibly have a free system such as the Government are conceding generally, and to inject into that system a partial percentage of State ownership and State management of farms without killing the initiative and efficiency of the industry.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at it from this point of view. If you stultify the free market in farms; if you prevent people coming into the industry from buying land for agricultural purposes, from taking up farms and bringing new blood and new money into the industry, by this system of compulsory purchase and the handing over of the property to a Land Commission, you will do far more harm to the agricultural community and industry than you ever would by the one chance in 10,000 of getting into the ownership of the property, a
    326
    person who is not able to carry out the business of farming or estate management as well as the Agricultural Land Commission. Therefore I ask the House to support this Amendment so as to give an opportunity to the owner or the farmer to effect a sale in the open market on the orders of the Ministry of Agriculture. It is no more than that, and I cannot see why the Minister should not give the person who is under the supervision order, an opportunity to dispose of his own property.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: Speaking as one who did not take part in proceedings upstairs, I will be very brief. I was very disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), who I thought would make a substantial case. I suggest that we should look a little deeper into this matter. Is this going to be a fair deal for the State and for the owner? I think that what is proposed in the Bill is fair to both. As the Minister has pointed out, there is nothing whatever to prevent the owner selling up to the last moment. If it is a decent property, it will be in his interest to sell, and he will sell. But, if it is badly neglected—and very likely it will be seeing that it is badly farmed—he might not be able to sell. The Amendment requires the Minister to make a forced sale of that property to an unwilling buyer. The owner, in other words, would get a miserable price. It is in the public interest that the property should come into the hands of the State, because the State would be more likely to be willing to put up capital to put the place in order, and to have it properly farmed. I imagine, and no doubt my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, that instead of getting the 1939 price, as the owner would have obtained some time ago, he would get the up-to-date price, and at the same time would be putting the land into the hands of the State.
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I take very strong objection to compulsory purchase, and I think the Minister has put up a very poor case in rejecting the Amendment. He gave no indication as to how he could economically administer a great number of widely dispersed units. He told us nothing about the price at which the proposed purchase would be computed, and how owners are to judge

    327
    whether they will get a better price from the Minister than in the open market.
    Mr. T. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member must be aware that if the landowner feels disposed to sell his farm in the period in which he is under supervision he gets the open market value.
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I am coming to that, and it is another great weakness about compulsory purchase. The Minister should say how he proposes to reckon the value of the land. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) said that if the property were put for sale the owner would get a miserable price because it was in poor shape. But in actual fact the value of agricultural land does not depend very greatly on the condition of the buildings. It depends on the district in which it is situated, and on the value of the soil. Any good farmer or landowner is prepared to buy land at a fair price, provided the land is basically sound, and in a good district. The Minister has not told us whether there is any alternative to compulsory purchase, and I think he should have told us something about that. In an interjection, he said that an owner had an opportunity of selling during the time in which he was under supervision. That is one of the worst features of this compulsory purchase. Every landowner under supervision will have to gamble as to whether it is going to pay him to try to improve his land while under supervision or to sell in the open market and to get the best price he can while he still has the power to sell. That is a very bad feature.
    The whole object of the Bill as the Minister frequently tells us is to create confidence and to help people who are not doing well to improve their land and to give them an opportunity of putting it into good shape. The position as it stands means, as I have already stated, that the owner has to make up his mind whether it will pay him best to sell and get out, or to try to improve the estate. I hope that under these circumstances the Minister will consider accepting this Amendment. Another point to be considered is that if the Minister is to take compulsorily all this land which has come under supervision he will tend to drive up the prices of that amount of land which remains for sale in the open market. Will the Minister follow the rise in prices in his compulsory purchases of land from which he has dis-
    328
    possessed the owner? I hope that he will answer some of these points, and accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: We on this side of the House see two evils, that of the forced sale and that of the forced purchaser, which must be the State. The State will be forced to purchase these estates or plots of ground which, through inefficient management, are compulsorily sold. If these estates are in a poor condition the ideal person to manage them is some individual who is prepared to buy them out and make a really good job of putting them on a paying basis, not some large body like the Land Commission. It is certain that some of the estates will be in poor condition, and that the labyrinthine working of the Land Commission will not prove anything like as effective as the drive of someone who puts up the money himself with the intention of making a good show of the venture.
    The second point is the question of resale. Supposing there is the compulsory sale of an estate which is not suitable for the Land Commission to run; it well may be the type of estate which the Land Commission is not prepared to manage. Whose duty is it to make a decision? The Minister will have to decide then whether there is to be a re-sale of such estates. To turn to the point of the forced sale, it is manifest that the effect which the Minister has pointed out through all the stages of the Bill, the beneficial effect of supervision, will be reduced, to nil. As my right hon. Friend has said, any owner, once under supervision, will be forced to become a gambler—to decide whether to push on with the help of the Agricultural Committee, which has been promised, to make a going concern of the estate and pull himself out of the rut of supervision, or to gamble for a forced sale, and depart from the spirit of the Measure by letting the land decline. That is what this unpleasant Clause does. It is a Clause which, I agree, must exist in some form, but I suggest that it is here in a bad form in that it compels not only the forced sale but also a forced purchaser, which is the State.
    10.15 p.m.
    Brigadier Peto: Two matters of principle occur to me. The first is the question of whether it is better to farm land under State ownership or under

    329
    private ownership. These are the fundamental differences between this side of the House and hon. Members on the Government benches. The Minister of Agriculture said that this Bill is designed to improve the efficiency of agriculture. I am afraid that it may be designed as a first stepping stone to the nationalisation of the land.
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment merely deals with ordering the sale within three months. Already this discussion is getting very wide.
    Brigadier Peto: The Amendment raises two questions of principle. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) has said that the State is more likely to pay a fair price and put up proper buildings, and so on, when they have acquired the land, than a private individual. That brings up the question of the spending of public money which an ordinary private individual cannot—
    Mr. Speaker: That again is quite outside the scope of this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member really must confine himself to the Amendment.
    Brigadier Peto: I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter which is one upon which everybody in the farming community feels very keenly. It has caused quite a stir in my part of the country. I resent the State being allowed to purchase land compulsorily.
    Mr. Baldwin: I want to address a few remarks from the point of view of the owner-occupier. I think the Minister is well aware that more owner-occupiers were dispossessed during the war than any other class of owner. The Minister is not being hard on the owners of the large estates The hardship will fall on the smallholder. The smallholder occupier is an optimist, or he would never be a farmer. During the 11 months and 29 days while he is under supervision, he will be optimistic enough to think that he will be allowed to carry on at the end of the 30th day. It will be somewhat of a shock to him when he wakes up to find that the State have decided that he is not to carry on and that they are to take his farm from him.
    I ask the Minister to consider the arguments. If he does not agree with the Amendment as it is worded, can he not
    330
    think of some other method by which he can give the owner under supervision a fair crack of the whip? If he thinks three months is too much, I suggest that two months would be sufficient for the owner to dispose of his farm. If the Minister is not prepared to go as far as that, I suggest that before the 12 months is up—at the end of 10 months—the Minister should intimate to the owner under supervision whether or not he will be able to carry on. That would give him an opportunity of selling the farm within two months. If the man is stupid enough not to take the opportunity of selling, then he will not get much sympathy. If the Minister cannot agree to the Amendment, I ask him to consider whether he can find a way in which to give fair play to the smallholder occupier who will be the man most likely to be dispossessed.
    Mr. Vane: When the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) was examining this Amendment, he did so from the point of view of the owner and of the State. He forgot someone who is very important. I refer to the new owner who wants to come into the industry. This country alone, of all the countries of Western Europe, has for years had a free market in land. Land is very much cheaper and more easy to buy in this country than in any other country in Western Europe. I should be surprised if any hon. Member could suggest any country where the market in good land is wider or cheaper. Since, under this Bill, the Minister's powers over land are so restrictive, it is likely that, in the near future, that particular privilege of the natives of this country will be taken away from them. The market in land will be restricted, and the prices of land will rise enormously. I think that, perhaps, the Minister's reputation in years to come will rest, not so much upon having stabilised prices as on having removed the free market in land.
    Captain Crookshank: I am glad we have had some discussion on this question, but I am rather surprised that no one has spoken from the Liberal Benches, because hon. Members there were interested in this matter at an earlier stage. It was worth having this Debate, if for no other reason than that of calling the attention of hon. Members here, and the public outside who are interested in our proceedings, to the speeches of the Minis-

    331
    ter to be found in columns 319 and 320, and those of his Parliamentary Secretary in columns 316 and 317, in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings on a similar Amendment. They will find it laid down there as a pure doctrine of Socialist procedure, that if a case has been expounded by one speech from the Government, and one from the Opposition, there is no point in having any further Debate. It is a most astonishing theory, and it is only the fact of our having this Amendment discussed which enables me to call attention to it.
    Of course, there is a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on this issue, but I do not Understand why the right hon. Gentleman should end his speech by saying that this is a poor Amendment and that it has no political merit. We do not look for political—reasons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We realise, from the applause which that remark occasioned from hon. Members opposite, that they put forward everything on purely political grounds, but we do not. We have been trying all through the progress of this Bill, to help the right hon. Gentleman, and he has been good enough on many occasions to acknowledge the help we have given.
    On this Amendment, it scans to me that there is really one test, the test which the Minister himself wants to apply all through this Bill, the test of efficiency. Which is going to be the most efficient way of handling this problem in the long run? The right hon. Gentleman did lead us astray—I do not think he meant to do this with those of us who are not very expert in the finer points of this Bill, but he did rather lead us astray when he said that there was nothing to prevent the owner, during the 11 months and 29 days in which he was under supervision, from selling out. Of course there is not, but that is not the point. The point is what happens, when is the Minister going to say that there is to be a certificate of dispossession? How is the man to know that there is going to be a certificate of dispossession? Then, what becomes of the argument advanced by the hon. Lady and others earlier? The, whole point of supervision was to clear the ground nicely and help people to carry on with good husbandry and good manage-
    332
    ment. We are now told that we knew all along what was to be the case. That is the conclusion to which we are driven—that dispossession will automatically follow, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really means that—
    Mr. T. Williams: I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can take it that I meant that at all. He knows that I meant that the State will know in the case of the supervision order whether the owner is trying to improve or not.
    Capt. Crookshank: But that is not the test. The test which the Minister has to apply when he gives the certificate is not whether the owner is trying, but whether or not certain fairly satisfactory improvements are being made—quite a different thing. After that rather unfortunate interjection of the Minister's may I come back to the point which I was trying to make. His argument is that under this Bill we have to try to see how we are going to get the greatest efficiency. Very well. We say that the greatest efficiency does not automatically follow the Minister purchasing compulsorily. He claims that it does. We say—and several of my hon. Friends have said it with greater strength than I can—that somebody coming in and buying this property, which the Minister under this Amendment will have to sell, will be just as likely to put it in good order as is the Minister through his Commission, but with the difference that the private purchaser will be doing it at his own risk and with his own money, and the Commission will be doing it with the money of the taxpayers. [An HON. MEMBER: "That will be much better."] I do not know that taxpayers will agree about that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is in such a high grade of Surtax that the little 6d., one way or the other, does not matter.
    As I say, on the point of efficiency, that is the difference of opinion between us. I dare say we may never agree on that point. The Minister thinks it will be more efficient for the State to do it at public expense. We say that that is not proven, and that it would be much better to do it in the way we suggest, and that there should be a compulsory sale in the open market when the private purchaser could

    333
    come into play and the place could be put in good order. There is no reason in the world why it should not.
    I wish to end on this point of efficiency. The Minister, of course, knows, although some hon. Members do not, that Clause 13 is still there, and that any dispossession of land will not affect the position. Therefore, he will be able to keep up all his ordinary efficiency, in spite of the fact, as the result of accepting this Amendment, that a private person has bought the
    property. We are quite convinced of the rightness of our point of view. I have no doubt that the Minister, who has repeated the line he adopted on the Committee stage, is also convinced of the rightness of his point of view. For our part we would like to put our view on record by going into the Division Lobby.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 98.

    Division No. 235.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Mack, J. D

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Dye, S.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Alien, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    McLeavy, F.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Attewell, H. C.

    Ewart, R.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Farthing, W. J.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

    Mathers, G.

    Baird J.

    Foot, M. M

    Medland, H. M.

    Balfour, A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Barton, C.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

    Battley, J. R

    Gaitskell, H. V. N.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Gallacher, W.

    Monslow, W.

    Benson, G.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Moody, A. S.

    Berry, H.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Gibbins, J.

    Morley, R.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Gilzean, A.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Boardman, H.

    Glanville, J. E.(Consett)

    Mort, D. L.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Moyle, A.

    Bowen, R.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Murray, J. D

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

    Nally, W

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Grey, C. F.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Grierson, E.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J (Derby)

    Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Oldfield, W. H

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Guy, W. H.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Brown, T J (Ince)

    Hall, W. G.

    Paget, R. T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Burden, T. W.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Palmer, A M F.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Pargiter, G. A

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Parker, J.

    Byers, Frank

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Carmichael, James

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Piratin, P.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Cobb, F. A.

    House, G.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Cocks, F. S

    Hoy, J.

    Price, M. Philips

    Coldrick, W.

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Collindridge, F.

    Irving, W. J.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Collins, V. J.

    Janner, B.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Colman, Miss G. M

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Randall, H. E.

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    John, W.

    Ranger, J.

    Cook, T. F.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Rankin, J.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Rees-Williams, D. R

    Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camberwell, N. W.)

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Rhodes, H.

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Kendall, W. D

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Crawley, A.

    Kenyon, C

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Kinley, J.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Daggar, G.

    Lang, G.

    Rogers, G H. R.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Leonard, W.

    Royle, C.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Leslie, J. R

    Sargood, R.

    Deer, G.

    Levy, B. W.

    Shackleton, E. A A

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sharp, Granville

    Diamond, J

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)

    Dobbie, W

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St

    Donovan, T.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Shurmer, P

    Driberg, T. E. N

    McAdam, W.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    McGhee, H. G

    Simmons. C J

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Smith, C (Colchester)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

    Timmons, J

    Williamson, T.

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Titterington, M. F

    Willis, E.

    Solley, L. J.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Usborne, Henry

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Woodburn, A.

    Stamford, W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Woods, G. S.

    Steele, T.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Yates, V. F.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Swingler, S.

    Watson, W. M.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Weitzman, D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Mr. Pearson and

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Mr. Michael Stewart.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    NOES

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Grant, Lady

    Nicholson, G.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Osborne, C.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Haughton, S. G.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Bower, N.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Prescott, Stanley

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Raikes, H. V.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Ramsay, Maj. S

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Renton, D.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon R. S. (Southport)

    Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Carson, E.

    Hurd, A.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Challen, C.

    Hutchison, Lt,-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Spence, H. R.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Crowder, Capt. John E

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Touche, G. C.

    Digby, S. W.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

    Marples, A. E.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Drewe, C.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Maude, J. C.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Gage, C

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    York, C.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Dispossession on grounds of bad estate management.)
    10.38 p.m.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 15, line 10, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister in relation to any land to which the foregoing Subsection applies or to the owner thereof that the circumstance hereinafter set out prevail, the Minister shall, before exercising the powers conferred by the last foregoing Subsection, afford to the persons hereinafter described in relation to each of the said circumstances, the opportunity, if they so elect, of assuming the management of the said land, and if they do so elect, the Minister shall entrust the management thereof to them.
    The circumstances and persons hereinbefore referred to are:—

    (a) where the land is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 5925, the trustees of the settlement;

    336

    (b) where any child of the owner of the age of twenty-one years or over notifies the Minister of his desire to avail himself of the provisions of this subsection such child, or, if more than one, children, or, where there is no child surviving, to such grandchild or grandchildren being of the age of twenty-one years or over, as shall notify the Minister aforesaid;

    (c) where there is no child of the age of twenty-one years or over or, there being no child whether of that age or less, there is no grandchild of the age of twenty-one years or over, to such person as may on application to the Minister for the purpose satisfy the Minister that they are fit and proper persons to be entrusted with the management of the said land for and on behalf of any child who has not obtained the age of twenty-one years, or, if there is no such child, of any grand-child who has not attained the age of twenty-one years.

    For the purposes of this Subsection a person's stepchild, adopted child (whether

    337
    adopted in pursuance of any enactment or otherwise) or illegitimate child shall be treated as a child of his."
    This is rather a long Amendment but it is self-explanatory and I do not intend to take up much time because I am hopeful that the Minister may accept it. I base that hope on the grounds that, first of all, when the Clause was under discussion upstairs the Debate was concluded by the right hon. Gentleman saying that if there was a real point of substance—and I think there is such a point—he would look at it.
    He said that if something was put forward which did not open the gate too wide he would look at the matter on the Report stage, but he added the cryptic remark that hon. Members must not hold him down on that promise. I hope that, as a result of his having looked at it again, he will accept the Amendment. It turns very largely on the same general point as the last Amendment. It is designed to make more workable, and to facilitate generally, the very difficult and awkward situation bound to arise when a dispossession order is made in respect of land. It does not carry out any new intention not already included in the Bill.
    The object of the Amendment is to enable the Minister, instead of carrying out compulsory purchase where dispossession is necessary, to allow the property to continue to be managed on behalf of minors who would in the normal course of events inherit the property or by or on behalf of trustees for those minors, and generally speaking where there is an inheritance point to enable the property to be carried on until the minors or trustees are in a position to take it over themselves. Curiously enough, this is a point which affects principally small rather than large landlords, and it is the multiplicity of small landlords who for one reason or another are most likely to suffer and be caught badly if some such provision as this is not included in the Bill. The Minister has already stated that he has power under Clause 14 to carry out the general intention which we have in mind in this Amendment, but I think it would be carrying out that intention by rather backdoor methods. Under Clause 14 (2, a) the Minister has power to make a direction as to the carrying out of work and may require that the management to which the direction relates shall be entrusted to a person appointed by the owner to whom the direction relates and
    338
    approved by the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted that power to justify the fact that he can already do what is intended by this Amendment. But I think it is agreed that it is not really a very open-handed way of doing it, and it would be very much better to have direct power in the Bill. I think the House generally would be sympathetic towards the provisions of this Amendment, and I trust that it will be accepted.
    Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: It is perfectly true that the Minister said he would consider this matter further, and he has considered it further. The result of his further deliberations, I am afraid, is that this Amendment would not in any way improve the Bill. After all, what is the situation? On the discussion of the last Amendment, the general principle was again gone over as to whether there should be a compulsory power of purchase, and the House again, by the Division which has just taken place, affirmed its, view that, when there has been no satisfactory improvement, the compulsory power of purchase should exist and be exercised. What does this Amendment seek to add? It proposes, in the event of land being settled land within the Settled Land Act and there is no satisfactory improvement, that the trustee should be given a further chance to do what the owner or tenant for life had failed to do. Is there any guarantee, so far as the Minister and the country generally are concerned, that the trustee would be able to manage the land any better than the owner?
    As the whole object of compulsory purchase of land is for the land to be used efficiently in the interests of the nation, what really is to be gained by transferring land from an inefficient owner to persons as to whose efficiency there is no kind of guarantee? In the case of settled land managed by a tenant for life, what would happen would probably be this. The trustee would be a solicitor who, having an office in some town and knowing absolutely nothing about agriculture, would be quite unsuitable as a manager; and the land instead of being improved and brought back to efficient production and made to work really efficiently in the interest of the nation, would be allowed to continue to go downhill and get worse and worse.

    339
    Precisely the same consideration applies in the event of land being handed over to children or grandchildren or anybody else appointed to act on their behalf. There is absolutely no guarantee that there will be any improvement. It might be a complete and absolute waste of time. There might be an estate which is badly managed by the owner and it might be taken out of his possession and passed to people who would manage it as badly as it had been managed or even worse. Indeed, in the case of trustees or solicitors they would probably manage it worse, because they will not know anything about agriculture. I would advise the House that the Amendment does not in any way improve the Bill, and might simply result in a waste of time, with a badly managed estate being even worse managed, and going so far downhill that it would be difficult to reclaim it.
    10.45 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said that there was an analogous power in the Bill. That power is exercised by the Minister and the arrangement is subject, of course, to the Minister's supervision. Under Clause 14 (2, a) the Minister can direct that the management of the land must be handed over to a person designated by the owner, but that person must be approved by the Minister. That was described by the hon. Member for Chichester as a backdoor way of dealing with it. I do not think that that makes it any worse, even if that is an appropirate description. What would happen would be that an owner of land would be managing it badly but would not want to lose possession of it. While he felt that personally he could not bring it up to the required state of efficiency, he would have an opportunity of designating somebody who would thus manage the land. That person could manage the land if he were approved by the Minister as a person with the necessary qualifications who would not let it go further down the hill. In point of fact, he might begin to improve it, and such a person could be approved by the Minister and could be entrusted with the land. The object of the Amendment can therefore be covered by powers at present contained in the Bill. I would ask the House to say that this Amendment should not be adopted because it would only result in a further waste of time and would not con-
    340
    duce to efficiency. Insofar as a suggestion of this sort would conduce to efficiency it can be done by the Minister exercising the powers conferred upon him under Clause 14 (2, a) of the Bill.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I have not taken part in the previous discussions on this Measure and I only rise to comment upon the spectacle of Satan rebuking sin. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is Satan?"] I think it would be unfortunate if anyone suggested that the learned Solicitor-General has any intentions which could be called Satanic.
    Mr. Alpass: Is he more like an archangel?
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I would not say that, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman deplored the possibility of lawyers acting as trustees and taking over these duties, undoubtedly he was a little unjust to the learned profession of which he is so great an ornament. There have been many occasions in the past when this sort of thing has happened and when property has fallen into the hands of trustees. Such property was quite often agricultural land. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself will, probably have many cases in mind. Of course, a firm of solicitors did not proceed to carry out the work; they put in someone who was efficient to manage it. When the hon. and learned Gentleman adduced that objection to this Amendment it was a little unkind to solicitors in general. Often they have carried out these trustee duties with the greatest possible efficiency. I think that there is something to be said for the attempt made in this Amendment to make it possible to maintain the hereditary succession. After all, the hereditary system is very dear to many hearts. Even the dockers the other day were planning a system by which their sons could-go into the docks. They almost stopped work as a result. In the farming community this principle probably goes far deeper, and while it may be the Government's view that this Amendment is unworkable, I do not think that the views put forward by the learned Solicitor-General should weigh with us at all.
    Mr. G. Williams: The learned Solicitor-General said there could be no guarantee that the trustees will manage the show better than the owner. He has no reason to think they will do any worse. In any

    341
    case, they will probably not do worse than the Land Commission which is to take over in certain circumstances. We must consider this matter from a human and ordinary every-day point of view. For instance, there may be a son who has lived on an estate all his life and has great sentiment for that estate He is a thoroughly good fellow—he may be so thoroughly good that he would even satisfy the Minister that he would make a satisfactory tenant. He knows the tenants of the land well, and he has his heart in the estate. Why should that man lose his hereditary right to take on that estate just because his father has been a thoroughly bad farmer? His father may have been a hopeless man in more ways than one. He may be aged and infirm and incapable of carrying on his farming management properly. He may be bordering on lunacy; he may be a drunkard. But because his father is a thoroughly bad old man and has let the estate down, why should the son be persecuted under this Bill? There is no doubt that the trustees should be given a chance to put the place in order and to try to get the man who is entitled to succeed the renegade father into his proper position.
    The trustees would not ask for the chance of running the estate unless they thought they could do it properly. If solicitors are the trustees, no doubt, as the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken said, they will get efficient managers to do it for them. In some cases the heir to the estate may well be an enemy of the person who is running the estate at the present time. The latter may deliberately let down the estate because he does not want his heir to succeed. He can in that way very easily hand it over to the Minister instead of to the heir. I do think that in this country we still should give some credit to the right of heredity, and I hope that the Minister will change his mind once more and agree to this Amendment.
    Mr. Hollis: I would like to comment on the extraordinary principle upon which the learned Solicitor-General has based his argument. It is a principle which seems to me to strike far deeper than this Amendment. The principle which he laid down is that there would be no guarantee that the trustee would manage the estate better than the owner. Surely, the whole basis of English law is that people are considered innocent until they are proved
    342
    guilty. In discussing this Amendment, and every Amendment which comes before us, that is the assumption—that a man is a good citizen.
    It is quite exceptional that a person is not a good citizen and that special measures have to be taken against him. If we cannot accept that principle the whole basis of the democratic system goes to the ground, and upon what the Solicitor-General has laid down it does go to the ground. In exceptional circumstances we would have people who are actually performing the functions doing so badly, but how can we possibly give a guarantee beforehand that they will perform them satisfactorily? As a proposition it is entirely without meaning and strikes not merely at the root of the Clause but at the whole Bill.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Vane: The speech of the learned Solicitor-General is just another revelation that the Government's attitude is a prelude to dispossession. He pooh-poohed the idea that any help should be given to ensure that a farm which may have been hundreds of years in a family's possession should remain in the family. What rests in the minds of hon. Members opposite and in the mind of the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) is that all owners of land are men in a big way, and he makes a sort of connection with those in another place. The very opposite is likely to take place. It is the small owners of land who are likely to get into the bad books of the war agricultural committees. It is the small man owning, say, one small marginal farm in the North of England whose land the Minister will be taking possession of; not all those thousands of broad acres over which the hon. Member for Thornbury can lick his lips, but small plots of land in all parts of the country. It has been said by the Front Bench that efficiency is the great motive behind the Clause. If they persist in rejecting the Amendment they will be prosecuting a large number of small owners without adding to the efficiency of the industry.
    Captain Crookshank: I hope that the Minister will at any rate say he will look at this again. He has said it once already, but it has not been a useful look,

    343
    and he should particularly look now at the speech of the learned Solicitor-General. I do not think he was here when the Solicitor-General was speaking, but the Solicitor-General should be more careful than anyone else in speaking about solicitors. One of the reasons he gave for rejecting the Amendment was that one of the trustees who would have to look after the land might be a solicitor, but the Amendment does not make it compulsory for "inefficient" solicitors, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, to do anything at all. The Minister affords opportunity to certain categories of people to assume management. In that case I should imagine they would be less inclined to rush. They would not say, "At all costs, we must manage this affair." They would recognise their own limitations.
    What I want the Minister to look at is what my hon. and learned Friend said about Clause 14 (2, a). It refers to a case where, in the event of direction, it is possible for someone to be appointed to carry out the work. The Minister may require management to which the direction relates "to be entrusted to a person appointed by the owner to whom the direction relates and approved by the Minister." In the case of direction it is possible for a directed person to suggest someone else. We are now dealing with a case where a Minister has certified that there should be dispossession. It is a sort of half attempt to fob us off because there is something like this in the Bill. I hope the Minister will look at this again. The Solicitor-General in his unfortunate speech said that if you have trustees and somebody acting for the children, what guarantee is there that the trustees will deal with property better than the owner and will be acting in the interests of the nation? Even if you do not accept the assumption that the trustees will be efficient, what guarantee has the Minister that the Land Commission will he any better? It by no means follows that because it is a public body it will be frightfully efficient. We shall be a little more
    experienced a year or so from now when we shall see the results of every commission the House has set up with such rapidity. Anyhow there is obviously a need for guaranteeing efficiency. It is something which counts in this country from the point on view of sentiment that people like sons and children and trustees within the meaning of the Settled Land Act should be afforded an opportunity. The Amendment says that in these categories the Minister should afford them such an opportunity. All the time there is the shadow of Clause 13 under which he can see that efficiency is continued.
    Mr. T. Williams: I did look very carefully into this question on the Committee stage, and the longer I look the more convinced I am that my first opinion was right.
    Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman's mind is now more firmly fixed than ever.
    Mr. Williams: I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really appreciates what Clause 13 deals with. It has no relation to Clause 16. I suggest that he looks at Clause 13 again. Although the right hon. and gallant Member can look at Mr. Deputy-Speaker and feel satisfied that solicitors can always do their job, I am quite sure when it is a question of looking after agricultural land that my hon. and learned Friend was right in the submission he made. I therefore want to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman no sort of hope that there is any likelihood of a change of mind on this subject. We have looked at this thing very carefully, and with a will to do what we consider best in the interests of the industry, and we are satisfied that if we are to keep efficiency in front of our minds all the time we are bound to resist the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 209.

    Division No. 236.]

    AYES.

    [11.8 p.m

    Baldwin, A. E

    Butcher, H. W.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Bower, N.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Digby, S. W.

    Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Gage, C.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Spence, H. R.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Haughton, S. G.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (C'nc'ster)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A F

    Hollis, M. C.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Touche, G. C.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Nicholson, G.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hurd, A.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Osborne, C.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) |

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Jennings, R.

    Prescott, Stanley

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Renton, D.

    York, C.

    Lambert, Han. G.

    Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    NOES.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Farthing, W. J.

    Moody, A. S.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Foot, M. M.

    Morley, R.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Forman, J. C.

    Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

    Attewell, H. C

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

    Bacon, Miss A

    Gaitskell, H. T. N.

    Moyle, A.

    Baird, J.

    Gallacher, W.

    Murray, J. D

    Balfour, A.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S

    Nally, W

    Barton, C.

    Gibbins, J.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Battley, J. R.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Bechervaise, A E

    Gilzean, A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Benson, G.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Berry, H.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Bing, G. H C.

    Greenwood, A W. J (Heywood)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Grey, C. F.

    Parker, J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Grierson, E.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Boardman, H.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Pearson, A

    Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H W.

    Gunter, R. J.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Bowen, R.

    Guy, W. H.

    Piratin, P.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Hall, W. G.

    Piatts-Mills, J. F. F.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Price, M. Philips

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hastings, Dr Somerville

    Proctor, W. T.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Herbison, Miss M

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Burden, T. W

    Hewitson, Captain M.

    Randall, H. E.

    Burke, W. A.

    Holman, P.

    Ranger, J.

    Carmichael, James

    House, G.

    Rankin, J.

    Champion, A J.

    Hoy, J

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Cobb, F. A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Irving, W. J

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Janner, B.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Collins, V. J.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Colman, Miss G. M

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Royle, C.

    Cook, T. F.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Sargood, R.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Kendall, W. D.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Sharp, Granville

    Crawley, A.

    Kinley, J

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Crossman, R. H. S

    Lang, G.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

    Daggar, G.

    Lee, F (Hulme)

    Shurmer, P.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Leonard, W.

    Silverman, J (Erdington)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Levy, B. W.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Smith C (Colchester)

    Deer, G.

    Lyne, A. W

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    McAdam, W

    Snow, Capt. J W.

    Diamond, J

    Mack, J. D.

    Solley, L. J.

    Donovan, T.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Driberg, T. E N.

    Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.)

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    McKinlay, A. S

    Sparks, J. A.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    McLeavy, F.

    Stamford, W

    Dye, S.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Steele, T.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Mathers, G.

    Stross, Dr B.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Medland, H. M.

    Stubbs, A E.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

    Swingler, S.

    Ewart, R.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Monslow, W.

    Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

    346

    347

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Watson, W. M.

    Willis, E.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Weitzman, D.

    Woodburn, A

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Woods, G. S

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Yates, V. F.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Younger, Hon Kenneth

    Titterington, M. F.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Zilliacus, K

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wadsworth, G

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Mr. Collindridge and

    Watkins, T. E.

    Williamson, T.

    Mr. Simmons.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered To-morróow.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,

INCOME TAX: ARMED FORCES OF THE CROWN
"That—

(a) the Income Tax (Employments) Act, 1943, shall extend to pay, pensions or other emoluments in respect of service in or with the armed forces of the Crown assessable to income tax under Schedule E;

(b) regulations under Subsection (1) of Section two of that Act may make such special provision in relation to members of the armed forces of the Crown or women serving in any of the capacities mentioned in the Sixth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1946, as may appear appropriate."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Surely, we are to have an explanation from the Financial Secretary about this?
11.18 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The Budget Resolutions, which this Committee agreed to earlier on, imposed the Income Tax for 1947/1948, and also provided that
"All such enactments as had effect with respect to the Income Tax for the year 1946/1947, other than such enactments as by their terms relate only to tax for that year, shall have effect for the year 1947/1948."
These words mean that the Resolution should include provisions in any other Act of Parliament in so far as they refer to the collection of Income Tax for the current year. That included the P.A.Y.E. arrangements embodied and given legislative sanction in the Income Tax (Employments) Act, 1943. But the P.A.Y.E. arrangements in the 1943 Act
348
did not apply to the Armed Forces of the Crown, and the Resolution on Income Tax moved at the end of the Chancellor's statement on Budget day, should therefore have included a reference to Section 30 of the Finance Act, 1946. That would have enabled the Finance Bill, which will be before the House shortly, to include a provision to apply P.A.Y.E. to the Armed Forces of the Crown as from 6th April this year. The omission was a mistake, but, I hope, not a heinous one. This Resolution, which I ask the Committee to approve tonight, does not increase or diminish the liability of any member of the Armed Forces to Income Tax. It simply extends the method of assessment and collection as applied to all those who pay Income Tax under Schedule "E".
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

UNREGISTERED MANPOWER
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
11.20 p.m.
Mr. Swingler: I am sorry to detain the House, but these opportunities are few and far between, and I want to direct the attention of hon. Members to an aspect of the manpower problem which I believe to be of serious importance. It concerns the fact that there are a million men of working age in this country who are missing from the official records of the Ministry of Labour. Before analysing the problem, I want to remind hon. Members of the general line of discussion in the House on the shortage and maldistribution of manpower and, in particular, of two statements in the Economic Survey for 1947; namely, the statement that the potential labour force of 18,300,000 men and women at the end of December, 1947, falls substantially short of what is needed to reach the national objectives, and later

349
on in the same paragraph 124 of the Economic Report, the statement that the need to increase the working population is not temporary, but is a permanent feature of our national life.
The Ministry of Labour are today proceeding with, or planning, a campaign to recruit more women into industry in particular districts, to persuade those due to retire to stay on at work, and to put a number of foreign immigrants into selected industries, public services and domestic service in order to increase, by December, 1947, by the number of 100,000, the size of the working population of the country. I agree entirely with these objectives and the methods being used by the Minister of Labour, yet it seems to me to be of great importance that there are, in fact, in the country, according to what we know, some one million men of working age who are not gainfully employed, in addition to those who register as unemployed. How do we know that this is a fact? I do not want to give too many statistics to the House, but it is necessary to give some in order to establish the case. In Table IV of the Monthly Digest of Statistics, we have the analysis of the Ministry of Labour of the distribution of the total manpower in Great Britain. This analysis purports to be a complete analysis of the working population, including employers, self-employed, and employees and professional people, and it includes all males of working age from 14 to 64 years, except the one category of private domestic service.
If the figures in this analysis of the total number of men in the working population are compared with the actual number of men of working age in the total population for the whole country, it will be found that there is a discrepancy of some one and a half million men. Actually taking the population figures given every six months, on 30th June last there was a difference of 1,647,000, and on 31st December last year there was a difference of 1,781,000 in the number of men in the total male population of working age as against the number accounted for in the Ministry of Labour analysis of the total working population. Between one and a half million and one and three quarter million of men of working age are missing from the analysis which is called "Distribution of the total manpower in Great Britain." Some of these can be accounted for, although they are not given in this
350
particular analysis in the Monthly Digest. Those boys and men in a variety of cases are accounted for in other categories, and I propose to give those whom I have been able to account for myself. Here I would like to thank the Minister of Labour and his experts for the assistance they have given me over a period of time in order to enable me to give this analysis.
Taking the period twelve months ago, in June, 1946, the categories that can be excluded in this 1,647,000 men who are missing from the analysis of working population are as follow. There were schoolboys of 14 years of age or over in all kinds of State and private schools who totalled 395,000. University students or students at technical colleges or Government training centres totalled 85,500. Then there were pensioners totally incapacitated as a result of two world wars, who numbered some 54,000. There were the men who were in mental institutions of varying types who numbered 72,000. There was the prison population which, at that date, came to the astounding total of 15,000 with 5,400 in approved schools and 480 in remand homes, making a total of 20,840. Finally, there were the deserters from the Armed Forces who officially in June, 1946, were given as 20,800. That gives a grand total of 648,140 men and boys.
We are still left with a total of 998,000 men of the working population who cannot be accounted for in any way in this analysis of the total manpower of the country and who cannot be included in the working population. As far as the Ministry of Labour know, they are not gainfully employed. Who are these 998,000 men? They fall roughly into four categories. In the first place, there is the category specifically excluded from the analysis of the working population, mainly the private domestic servants. According to the Minister of Labour—and undoubtedly he is correct—the estimated number of domestic male servants in Britain is fewer than 25,000. That accounts for a very small proportion, not even 3 per cent. of this 998,000 who are unaccounted for in the working population. In the second place, there are those who are totally incapacitated as a result of industrial accidents. There is no record and no accurate estimate that can be made of the number of men in the country permanently sick or permanently invalided as a result of what might well be

351
called industrial warfare. Anybody can make a simple, rough estimate of their number, but until the National Insurance Act and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act come into force, the exact number will not be known. However, in computing this figure we have to take these people into account. In the third place, there are the men who have retired from work before 65 years of, age. No actual estimate can be given of the number of those men, but undoubtedly they make up some proportion of this 998,000 who cannot be accounted for.
Finally, there are what one might call, and what the Lord President of the Council, in another place, called, parasites and drones. They are those who are definitely not gainfully employed, a large number of whom may be both idle and rich. The latest figure for this class is, unfortunately, not very recent, but in the financial year immediately prior to the second world war—and this figure was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) in March of this year—a quarter of a million taxpayers made returns solely of unearned income, the total of which was £220 millions. This gives an average income of £760 per annum to these persons who are professional rentiers. They contributed nothing in the way of work, but took quite a considerable amount of unearned income. Furthermore, there are the men who are professional gamblers and drones on the community in other ways. During the fuel crisis, a weekly magazine in this country took some statements from various men in the street regarding the way in which the fuel crisis had affected them. The first man whom the reporter of this magazine met in the street was an ablebodied man of 32 years of age, who gave this statement:
"Ever since I left the Services, 18 months ago, I have lived entirely by gambling, old have kept my head well above water, and the wife and kids in comfort. I am a keen student of form, and have systems worked out both on the dogs and the football pools. I do not know what I shall do if the dog tracks do not open again soon."
How many men in the country are living without working in that way—ablebodied men who are not recorded in any form whatever, and who could be recruited into useful work? Yet we have decided to institute campaigns to ask for married
352
women to go into industry; to bring into the country foreign emigrés, and to ask men of 65 years of age to stay on at work. But there is an indefinite number of, men—it may be anything within this number of 998,000—who are not recorded in the analysis of working population, men of working age and men capable of work about whom nothing is known by the Minister of Labour. One can make what guess one likes as to how many men of that type there are.
I believe this demonstrates, in the first place, the urgent need for a national census in order that more can be discovered about the situation. In the second place, I think it demonstrates that the Minister of Labour should seriously consider taking a sample census—though I realise the difficulties of this—in a particular area of the country, based upon national registration, in order to be able to get some estimate of the numbers in the particular categories I have mentioned who must make up this unrecorded million men of the population who are not officially at work. Finally, I would like to know what proposals the Ministry of Labour have to bring into effective employment those men in this country who, at the moment, neither work nor want.
11.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the, Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) for having raised this matter in so helpful a manner. In order that there shall be no misapprehension, about the size of the problem, I think it is necessary that I should briefly run over the figures. In this matter I am not greatly in conflict with my hon. Friend. The total male civilian population in Great Britain in mid-1946, taking men aged 14 to 64, was 14,390,000. There were in the Armed Forces at that date 1,895,000, making a total of 16,285,000. At that date, there were recorded as members of the working population, including members of the Armed Forces, 14,638,000, leaving a figure of 1,647,000 who are not recorded as members of the working population. To that extent, my hon. Friend and I are in complete agreement. In order that the other figures may be placed on the record, perhaps I had better give them also. With regard to schoolboys over the age of 14, there were at that date 245,000. In the

353
universities there were 47,000; among trainees under the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Education, 25,000; and in mental institutions, 72,000. As to male domestics, I give an estimate of 30,000 in mid-1946. The figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, was 25,000, which was for a much earlier period. I agree that it is an estimate—it may be a shot in the dark—but it is reasonable, I think, for male domestics. With regard to the prisons and similar institutions, the figure of 20,000 is correct.
Roughly, in mid-1946, 1,208,000 male members of the population were not in the working population, and that is the figure that one has to explain in the light of the facts. I regard this category as a category of unrecorded persons, and in that category there are a number of types who are legitimately not in the gainfully occupied population, but I would like to make the point that at the time we were "scraping the bucket" in 1943, when every male could be put to use in this country, we had a figure of 1,127,000 not in the working population at a time when every man who was available was used, if he could be used, and at a time when hardly anyone was allowed to escape national obligations. At that time, too, the Government had authority to direct every available man into effective and useful employment.
This is no new problem. It is largely a statistical problem, but I am not denying the fact that there is a residue of people of the type referred to by the hon. Member for Stafford of whom one must take account. In 1939, there were 1,414,000 people whose function in life was not provided for in the statistics collected by the Ministry of Labour. Who are these 1,208,000 people? First of all, there are the deserters. It is not safe to take the figure of 20,800 in mid-June as being wholly accounted for in the working population. Actually, that makes my case worse and not better. Then, there are those men who are in receipt of 100 per cent. disability pension. There are 54,000 in that category, and a large number of them are in the gainfully employed category. Many of them are at work. It is equally true that very many men getting only 70 per cent. disability pension are not at work; they are not fully employed. And there are
354
those men who have proved that they are unemployable and who are not getting 100 per cent. disability pension, and thus the picture is even more confused. Then there are those men on long-term workmen's compensation who are not provided for as part of the working population. What proportion they represent is anybody's guess. I have in mind the silicotic cases in South Wales, men waiting for medical boards, and who, after waiting for more than 6 months, automatically disappear from the statistics of the Ministry of Labour.
Then there are the men permanently sick industrially, waiting to get compensation, who are industrially disabled, but who are not included. In addition, there is the very large category of men who have inherited, or who were born with, certain physical deficiencies which exclude them from the working population altogether. The number is, indeed, a very substantial one. Then I come to the category of the permanently sick, men who have lost their rights under National Insurance, who are on public assistance, and men in public institutions; the male population who have no relatives, but are in the sick wards of our public institutions. Then there are the persons who have retired, and equally there is a substantial number of men who have exhausted their paid leave, but are having a good time on their gratuity. This is a section that is worrying us, because there has in the last six months been a remarkable increase in the number of people who have not come into the working population, although we were entitled to expect them to do so, having regard to the rate of demobilization. When we take all these categories into consideration, we are left with persons living on unearned incomes, and on top of that we have to take account of those who are obtaining a livelihood in devious ways; but we have no means of estimating the size of this problem.
Commander Maitland: I have here rather an obsolescent document—an identity card. There is a heading "class code." Does not that give the right hon. Gentleman some indication where these people are? If not, what is the use of this entry?
Mr. Ness Edwards: There was some substance in that when registration was a fairly new thing and there was complete

355
mobilisation; but that is certainly not a point that arises in this Debate. This is a matter on which the House will express itself at another time.
Mr. Swingler: I refer to the ex-members of His Majesty's Forces who have not taken up employment. The figure is given in the Monthly Digest. Does not that refer to these men?
Mr. Ness Edwards: That refers to the men on paid leave, but it does not refer to men who have exhausted their paid leave and have not yet taken up gainful employment. There is a statistical basis for that figure, but there is no statistical figure for the men who have exhausted their paid leave and are continuing to enjoy themselves on their gratuities. As to the nature of the age groups of this category of 1,208,000, our best estimate is that 20 per cent. are under 21; 20 per cent. between 21 and 35; 26 per cent. between 35 and 50, and 34 per cent. over 50. I thought perhaps that information would be useful.
Now, I come to the nature of the men who are in these unrecorded categories. It will be of some information to the House if I indicate that during the war, when these men were being called up for examination by medical boards, we found that in the younger age groups 10 per cent. were rejected completely for service in the Armed Forces; and that for the older men going up to 40 years of age, the percentage of rejection was over 35. That leads to the conclusion that there is a very large number of men who are not fit for ordinary employment, having regard to the fact that at the time when we had control over every person in the country we had more than one million men whom we could not bring into gainful employment.
There is a second point, and that is that the type of person to whom my hon. Friend has referred will be found not in the industrial areas, but probably in the large cities. I am referring to the "spiv" categories. What the size of that problem is, no one knows. The question is whether or not it would pay a dividend, in terms of increased manpower, to erect a large machine in the cities for the purpose of finding out who are in those categories,
356
and having done that to get the House to decide the steps that should be taken to make these men perform a socially useful task. That raises the whole question of the direction of labour. It also raises the question of what is useful employment in our society; and further, the question of how many of these men would really be of use in the under-manned industries where physically ablebodied men are required.
We are asked what the Ministry of Labour are doing. The Ministry have no powers of direction. The question whether direction over this type of person is desirable is a matter for wider discussion than can take place now. With regard to inducements, the inducements to normal citizens to go into employment today are probably higher—except for one period during the war—than ever in our history. The inducements are good, and we are doing all that is in our power, by means of advertisements and appeals, by Debates in this House, and by the description of our economic position, to try to rouse the social conscience of these men and to get them to give their aid in our present situation.
That is the general position as we see it. It is our view that the number of people who are not doing socially useful work in this country is extremely small. If we are to make them work, it means that we must have a return to the powers of control over labour. About that there will be bitter controversy. But even if we got those powers of control, the question we would have to decide is whether the machinery to pull these people out and drive them into industry can pay sufficient dividends in terms of additional manpower to justify its introduction. There is a third point: it is whether many of these men—and this is a free country—who are performing what, in their opinion, is a right sort of task to get a livelihood, should be described by some tribunal as parasites. In the present economic position of this country no man worth his salt can blind himself to the necessity for every useful bit of effort we can get from every useful citizen.
Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

  BATTLE OF BRITAIN (POLISH PILOTS)
  BATTLE OF BRITAIN (POLISH PILOTS)
  GERMAN EDUCATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION
  GERMAN EDUCATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION
  SWISS VISITORS (VISAS)
  SWISS VISITORS (VISAS)
  NEWS RESTRICTIONS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES)
  NEWS RESTRICTIONS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES)
  HEATHROW AERODROME
  HEATHROW AERODROME
SINGAPORE
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Political Parties
  Political Parties
  Banishment Ordinance
  Banishment Ordinance
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Holiday Resorts
  Holiday Resorts
  Ice-cream (Sugar Allocation)
  Ice-cream (Sugar Allocation)
  Non-rationed Foods (Increased Allocations)
  Non-rationed Foods (Increased Allocations)
  PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS (OLD COUPLES)
  PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS (OLD COUPLES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  EARL WAVELL.
  Field Marshal the Right Honourable Archibald Percival Viscount Wavell, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., C.M.G., M.C., having been created Viscount Keren, of Eritrea and of Winchester, in the County of Southampton, and Earl Wavell—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD WILSON.
Field Marshal Sir Henry Maitland Wilson, G.C.B., G.B.E., D.S.O., having been created Baron Wilson, of Libya and of Stowlangtoft, in the County of Suffolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

MIGRATION TO NEW ZEALAND.
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether the Government have any statement to make on assisted migration to New Zealand.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, at the request of the New Zealand Government, negotiations have recently taken place on this subject. The original basis of negotiations was the conclusion of agreements similar to those made with Australia whereby the United Kingdom Government would provide free passages for former members of United Kingdom Forces and would share with the Dominion Government the cost of passages for other categories of migrants, less a proportion to be borne by the migrants themselves. In the course of the discussions, however, the New Zealand Government intimated that in present conditions they were willing to
122
find all Governmental contributions in respect of passages for both categories. They accordingly offered to meet the full cost of passages in the case of ex-Service migrants and the full cost, less £10 to be paid by the migrants themselves, in other cases. The United Kingdom Government gratefully accepted this generous offer.
The New Zealand Government have now announced their intention of opening schemes on the above basis. For the time being, the schemes will generally be limited to men and women between the ages of 20 and 35 who are either single or widowed and without dependent children, and who are willing to engage for a period of two years in certain selected occupations. Full particulars as to the schemes, including the date of their opening and the types of migrants desired, will be announced in due course by the New Zealand authorities. The House will, I am sure, be glad to know that these arrangements have been made, and will welcome the very liberal attitude which the New Zealand Government have adopted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for giving us this information. And may I say—and I know (his view will be shared in. all quarters—how grateful we are to the New Zealand Government for this very generous offer?

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
TRAFALGAR ESTATES BILL.
Read 3a (according to,Order), and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
CITY OF PETERBOROUGH ORDER;
BOROUGH OF KETTERING ORDER;
BOROUGH OF PONTEFRACT ORDER;
BOROUGH OF WOKINGHAM ORDER;
BOROUGH OF YEOVIL ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF MARKET HARBOROUGH ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of this measure. For better or for worse, if this Bill finds its way to the Statute Book, it is bound profoundly to affect the development of building in this country. I am one of those who believe that if the future is to be happier and better than the past, it depends on the character and health and habits of the people of this country, and I believe there is no sphere in which we can more directly influence the character and health and habits of the people than in the proper lay-out and development of our towns. Therefore I commend this Bill to you. I admit that it is a very complicated one; I admit that there are few people who understand all about it, and I certainly do not claim to be one of them; but I commend it to the closest attention of your Lordships.
It is very difficult for me to compress into anything like a reasonable space all I want to say about this Bill. You will therefore forgive me if on this occasion I adhere more closely to my notes than is my practice, if only to restrain my garrulity, of which I am afraid your Lordships have had experience in the past. I shall not attempt to argue the case for planning, because that case is now established and I believe it is agreed in all quarters of your Lordships' House that it is proved. Nor shall I discuss those three great Reports—we always mention the three together—the Barlow, the Scott and the Uthwatt Reports. Like "The Pickwick, The Owl and The Waverley Pen" they "come as a boon and a blessing to men," at any rate to the men who have studied these complicated Reports. I assume that your Lordships have read, marked, and inwardly digested all there is to know about them.
124
Having said that, your Lordships will agree with me when I say that the real difficulty in the way of making any progress in planning has been this very complex problem which is described as the problem of "compensation and betterment." Unless you can get rid of that problem, you cannot, in my belief, effectively plan this country. If, when you restrict improper development, you are confronted with the position that you may have to pay large sums of money by way of compensation, then it is impossible to suppose that the planning authorities can ever undertake such a task. In the Coalition Government I played a humble part—I played it for a good many months—in investigating and trying to find some solution to this problem. I think that we who were members of that Government can take credit for the fact that we all contributed to the pool of ideas, and we all rid ourselves of our prejudices, so far as we could, in bringing forth the White Paper which the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, presented to your Lordships' House some years ago.
So far as the general idea of the out-and-out purchase of development rights is concerned, it is satisfactory to record that all Parties accepted that solution. To my mind, that White Paper failed in certain respects, which were forcibly pointed out in a debate in your Lordships' House in 1944. In the first place, I believe it to be quite untrue to say that there is any necessary equation between compensation on the one hand and betterment on the other. Spread over a long period of years, one might equal the other, or it might not, but deriving, as they do, from different concepts, there is no necessary reason why one should equal the other; and in so far as that White Paper presupposed there would be a balance, and a balance in the near future, I think we were building on sand.
Secondly, that White Paper had this disadvantage. Committed as we were to purchasing development rights, we had no idea as to how much that purchase would cost. I can recall discussions about that matter. I can recall wise men saying how very unwise it was for the State to commit itself to a plan if it had not the least idea how much that plan would cost, and as the Bill was to come into operation in five years' time, surely it was necessary to have some idea as to what

125
was involved. Thirdly, although the White Paper conferred a more generous right of purchase upon local authorities than the one which had hitherto existed, that right of purchase was not wide enough, for by removing a definite inducement to land owners to develop their land you are not sure of the profit motive operating to secure development. You must see there is a means by which development can be secured, and that pre-supposes that local authorities shall have an absolute power to secure development.
I think I can usefully begin by asking your Lordships to consider with me what were the criticisms of the existing code of planning which are indicated in the three Reports to which I have referred. The first surely was this. The Uthwatt Report told us quite plainly that the present system is essentially one of local planning. The Act of 1932 gave planning functions to no fewer than 1,441 authorities. Many of those have combined—not always willingly—into joint committees. On the whole, I am not sure that the joint committee system has been a success. If necessary, I can develop that point at a later stage. There are very obvious reasons why it has not always worked well. This Bill follows a recommendation of the Scott Report by making the new planning authorities the county councils and the county borough councils. In addition, joint planning boards may be set up to enable planning to take place over natural geographical areas instead of being confined to the sometimes arbitrary boundaries of local authorities. Although the county district councils cease to be planning authorities, there is ample provision to retain their interest in planning and to utilize their local knowledge. The planning authority are bound to consult them in preparing the plan, and may, and to a large extent will, delegate to thorn the control of development. Moreover, members of county districts may be co-opted on to the committees and sub-committees of the local planning authorities.
Speaking for myself, I confess that I am sorry that under this policy the Common Council of the City of London lose some of their planning functions. I should like to emphasize that this is no reflection whatever on the Common Council or on their consultants. It is simply that in the County of London, of
126
which the City is an integral part, there must be one plan, and one plan cannot be prepared by two authorities even though there is, as there should be and as there surely will be, the fullest consultation and the fullest co-operation. There is no question, as some noble Lords feared in the debate of 1944, of the Government imposing a national scheme for the whole country. Plans will still be local plans, though based on larger areas than at present; but the Bill gives the Minister ample powers for ensuring that these plans, though locally conceived, give effect to national requirements and that they reflect national policy.
The next criticism of our planning code was in regard to its purely permissive character. Until 1943 there was no planning control whatever in many areas. It was a great step for and when the Act of that year extended interim development control throughout the country. But even so, there is no enforceable obligation on local authorities to prepare a planning scheme, and until they do so there is no firm basis for considering applications for permission. This Bill places on every local planning authority the clear duty of submitting a development plan to the Minister within three years, and that plan must be preceded by a survey covering the resources of the area and the life of its people from every aspect. The third criticism is that planning schemes, where they exist, are too rigid, especially as any alteration under the existing code involves, as your Lordships know, a very long and complicated procedure. The new development plan is flexible. In its first stages it will be in outline only, and the details will be added as development becomes imminent in a particular area, so that the plan can be amended to suit changing circumstances, and the local planning authority are bound to review it every five years.
On the other hand, flexibility will not be carried too far. An amendment to the plan, like the plan itself, requires the approval of the Minister, and this avoids the risk of an irresponsible authority changing their plan so often that owners and developers cannot tell where they stand. The fourth, and perhaps the most damaging criticism of the code, was that the existing system is merely restricted. The Uthwatt Report says:
"The planning scheme secures that if development takes place it shall take place only

127
in certain ways. It does not secure that in any particular part of the area of the scheme it shall in fact take place."
This weakness has been, to some extent, corrected by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which enabled local authorities to purchase land compulsorily for the large-scale redevelopment of blitzed and blighted areas, and for certain other planning purposes, and enabled them to carry out development themselves. In passing that Act, your Lordships, I think, recognized that, in order to repair the losses of war and to deal with the scandalous conditions that exist in many of our towns—and we must admit that that is so—local authorities must play a more positive part in planning than they had before. The Bill merely applies the same principle over a wider field by giving local authorities power to acquire land compulsorily wherever necessary to carry approved plans into effect, and whether the development is to be carried out by a public authority or by a private developer to whom the land is leased, powers of purchase and development remain with the county district councils and with the City of London.
There is one feature in this part of the Bill which is new, and which has attracted some attention in another place, and that is the designation of land as subject to compulsory purchase. I want to discuss that with your Lordships for a few minutes. The local planning authority can designate in this way land required by public authorities, land destined for comprehensive development—such, for instance, as areas of extensive war damage—and any other land which they think should be subject to compulsory acquisition, to secure its use in accordance with the plan. They may designate in this way—and this must be noticed—only land which is likely to be acquired within ten years. That proposal has, I know, received criticism, and it will no doubt receive further criticism from your Lordships. But I think all your Lordships will admit that no planning system can work effectively without adequate powers of compulsory acquisition. If there is complete power to prevent development in the wrong place, surely there must also be equal power to secure development in the right place. Granted the need for these wide powers,
128
we must ensure that they are used in an orderly and not in a haphazard way.
Designation secures that the plan embodies not only the planning authority's long-term policy, which must be in fairly general terms, but also a more precise short-term programme of development for ten years ahead, the programme being extended at each five-yearly review of the plan. This has a planning advantage, in that it provides a means of making sure that the expansion of a town, or the redevelopment of a town, takes place in an orderly, methodical way. But it also helps the land owner, as an example will show. Let us remember that the full reconstruction programme for blitz and blight, as I pointed out to your Lordships a few days ago, will in many towns take fifty years, or even more. If the plan merely showed the total area to be reconstructed, all the owners in the area would be uncertain as to when their particular land was going to be taken. If, on the other hand, we show a ten years' programme, then the owners of that land know the worst, and the owners of undesignated land know that they are reasonably secure to continue their use of the land undisturbed for some period of years to come. It is quite true that compulsory powers of purchase in other Acts are unaffected, but I am sure that all Departments will co-operate by arranging that the land they purchase, or the purchase of which they authorize, is first designated in the development plan.
I pass to another feature of the Bill relating to advertisements. Here for the first time we have an effective and a uniform system of control. I think both the advertising industry and those interested in the protection of the countryside will realize that such a control is long overdue. The detailed control is rightly left to regulations, and the Minister is already discussing with the interests concerned the exact scope and content of these regulations. Broadly speaking, the intention is that in certain special areas commercial advertising will be almost completely prohibited, while elsewhere advertising will be allowed, either by the provisions of the regulations themselves, or only after permission has been obtained from the local planning authority. So much for Parts I to IV.
The Bill deals next, in Part V, with the price payable on compulsory acquisi-

129
tion, provisions which are sure of a welcome because they abolish the 1939 standard. When in the last Government we introduced the 1939 standard we gave it a life of five years—that was until 1949—but I should imagine that few of your Lordships would shed tears at its premature decease. In future the basis of compensation will be current values, with two qualifications. The first is a temporary qualification. It is the idea of the notional lease ending in 1954, which is a valuation device intended to eliminate the special scarcity value which at present attaches to vacant possession. The second qualification, which is not temporary, is the restriction to existing use value—that is to say, the price paid will be the value for existing use, since any value for potential development will have been withdrawn as a result of the Bill itself.
Parts VI and VII contain our solution of the compensation and betterment problem. But before I embark upon that I would like to say something about the Exchequer grants in Part IX. These complete the new system of positive planning, and they will secure that the bold projects for which local authorities now have powers are not frustrated, as so often in the past, by the high cost of land. These are very important provisions. It often happens that a local authority has to buy out land on the basis of one use, and then divert it to a use that is less valuable and provides a lower yield of income, leaving the deficit to be borne on the rates. In future, the Exchequer will make a substantial contribution towards that debt. With the details, which are left to regulations but which have already been largely worked out in consultation with the local authorities, I need not detain your Lordships.
The Government have recognized that, as the damage by air raids was a national disaster, reconstruction should be aided by contributions from national funds on a generous scale (much more generous than in the 1944 Act) and my right honourable friend the Minister announced in another place recently that all authorities will get the same measure of grant for dealing with blitzed areas. The proposal to reduce the grant for blitz to the richer authorities has been abandoned. In addition, for the first time, there are Exchequer grants under Clause 92 towards the re-development of blighted areas and their associated overspill areas,
130
towards compensation for planning restrictions, and towards compensation for the compulsory purchase of land. This grant will vary according to the financial strength of the authority concerned.
Now I come to Part VI, which deals with the £300,000,000 fund, a matter which has excited a certain amount of attention and controversy but which is capable, I think, of a simple and rational explanation. In some quarters it has been said that by this Bill we are nationalizing development rights. I think, if I may say so, that we had better not use that phrase because it is not accurate; we shall have confusion of thought if we use it. This Bill does not vest any legal rights in land in the State at all. Let me analyze what it does and, if I may say so respectfully, let us bear these points in mind in our discussion. First, the Bill says that nobody can develop or re-develop his land—that includes, of course, building on it or extracting minerals from it, or changing over to some new use—without planning permission, and that planning permission can be granted or refused. Your Lordships will appreciate that there is nothing new in that. That is the position under the planning Acts of 1932 and 1943. Secondly—and this is the new feature—there is no provision, save in a few very special cases, for the payment of compensation if permission is refused.
Up to the present time the approach of the present planning Acts is that an owner is entitled to use his land as he pleases, and if he is prevented from doing so he is compensated. There are important exceptions to that. You may exclude compensation, for instance, in respect of restrictions on density, height, type of building or use, if the use is what I may term "anti-social." But the broad rule hitherto has been compensation for refusal to develop. There is the crux of the trouble with which all your Lordships are familiar, and that is the compensation problem about which so much has been written. The Uthwatt Report ably demonstrated that the local authorities, if they planned properly, had to keep on paying out money snowball fashion for values which were not really destroyed but which shifted from one parcel of land to another until they finally settled where development was permitted, and the owner of that land received all the benefit.
But if some owners can be restricted from development without compensation—

131
which we propose—should the fortunate man who happens to own land that is suitable for the development be allowed to keep the development value? For instance, in the Green Belt round London we restrict development, and we propose to pay no compensation for that restriction. If that is right, it cannot be right to allow a man who owns land outside the Green Belt, to which the development urge comes just because you restrict the Green Belt, to reap the full benefit of the development value. You can, of course, take the line that it is just the luck of the day—some win, some lose; some are granted permission and some are refused permission—but I think all responsible people would say that we should not deal with the matter in that way.
I come now to the third point. Owners who are permitted to develop are required to pay to the State a development charge, based on the additional value due to that permission. That, of course, was the same proposal as in the Coalition White Paper, in which, you will remember, we were going to make them pay 80 per cent. I will deal with the development charge later, but here we are to say that the development charge shall be assessed having regard to the difference in the value of the land as it is and the value of the land with the particular permission. The fourth point is this. The Bill provides that in future the compensation payable on compulsory purchase should be the market value for existing use, and should no longer include any payment for development value. That, you will see, is the natural corollary of the first three points.
May I summarize the whole matter? All land owners are left free to enjoy the existing use of their land and to reap the value attributable to that use. But all land owners are deprived of the increases in value resulting from the selection of their land for development in the future. I stress the point that these are future values and are problematical. They represent income from land not yet reaped, and perhaps never capable of being reaped, an income which is dependent on future economic and social development, international development, public taste, and a host of other factors. It is the element of land value which has for long been the happy hunting ground of land speculators. It is what has often been
132
termed "unearned increment" and has long been recognized—at any rate, in some quarters of this House—as a proper subject for heavy taxation.
This is not an orthodox taxation bill. It approaches this age-old problem in a new way, and it, finds a solution more suited to the needs of our times, directed primarily to planning requirements. Our solution is at once more drastic and more just than the scheme of taxation. It is more drastic because we take away values; we do not let them accrue and then tax them—we do not let them accrue. It is more just because we meet the hardships involved. We recognize that there will be cases in which the operation of taking away development values, as compared with the former idea of merely taxing them, may work hardly on individuals, and the Bill therefore allots a sum of £300,000,000—which I submit is not an ungenerous sum—in order to meet cases of hardship that will arise.
I am not going to attempt to prove, either now or in the future, by calculations and figures, that that is exactly the right sum to meet all reasonable claims. Nor do I propose to attempt to compare it with the various cases of development value that have been made from time to time. They are all shots in the dark, and what is the use of trying to make these calculations when the fact of the matter is that the data upon which to make the comparison are not available, and could not be obtained even after many years research? And of what service would the comparison be? The Government do not admit that land owners have any right to compensation for the loss of values resulting from future development. We set out our view plainly in paragraph 26 of the Explanatory Memorandum which was published with the Bill. The £300,000,000 does not pretend or purport to be a global sum, in the sense that it is an estimate of the individual valuations discounted to eliminate floating value. It is a sum which, in the opinion of the Government, ought to be quite adequate to meet all reasonable hardship claims. It may be more generous or less generous than a global sum would be; but at all events it is generous.
If you take the global sum as being the sum of all the individuals' rights, and you arrive at a figure of "X" million pounds, you then admittedly have to discount it

133
by some proportion to eliminate the floating value. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and I in the old days used to listen to experts, some of whom said that there should be no discount at all. Others said the discount should be 80 per cent. and that only 20 per cent. should be paid. It is really very little good, as I used to find in my life at the Bar, going through elaborate calculations to try to find a figure when, after you have found it you have to operate upon some consideration which is quite incapable of any exact proof. The figure of £300,000,000 is the figure which we intend.
The next problem is how to distribute it. We could in this Bill have made specific provisions, but it would have been quite impossible to be certain that every deserving case was covered. We suffer from knowing far too little about land ownership in this country. Accordingly, what we propose is that all owners shall submit claims. This will provide much information that is now lacking about land values and land ownerships and about the effect of the Bill upon individual owners. When that information has been obtained the Treasury will prepare a scheme for distributing the £300,000,000, and that scheme has to be approved by affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament before it can become effective. I believe that this is a wiser course than trying to settle now, without adequate information, the precise circumstances in which payments ought to be made. I think it is a wiser course than trying now to fix an arbitrary percentage that eliminates "floating value." In previous debates several of your Lordships suggested a flat 50 per cent. payment. That may be the right figure or it may be too much or too little. We have no means of knowing. There may be some cases where a mere 50 per cent. payment itself would be a hardship and others where it would be too generous. Floating value is a curious phenomenon; land held already by builders for the erection of houses is an example where float is small and can be disregarded. The Minister has already stated that in such cases as that the Treasury scheme would provide for a full 100 per cent. payment in respect of it, and there seem to be other similar cases.
I am not going to discuss with your Lordships problems concerning ripe or
134
near-ripe land; that I will do at the proper time. The Act provides under Section 54 that the Treasury scheme may apply to war damage; and in the War Damage Act of 1943, Section 24, as your Lordships will remember, provides that in cases of a mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to receive direct such part of the payment as is fairly attributable to him. That is a matter will have to be taken care of by the Treasury scheme. I submit to your Lordships that the scheme we have adopted is a fair, statesmanlike, and practical measure.
Now I turn to a difficult part of the Bill—that which relates to development charge, which is to be collected when development takes place. I would like to emphasize a few point which ought to be kept quite clear. Let me make it quite plain that a development charge so called is not a tax on development, and there is in our opinion no reason why it should discourage the erection of or increase the price of houses or other buildings. In the ordinary case, the perfectly straight-forward case, of land being sold for development, the development charge is merely part of the purchase price of the land which the developer at present pays to the land owner. In future he will pay it to the Central Land Board, and in consequence should pay the land owner less. That is right, because the Bill takes development values out of private hands, and the land owner—who would of course have been entitled to submit a claim against the £300,000,000—ought no longer to be able to gel more for his land than the value appropriate to its existing use plus a reasonable sum to compensate him for any disturbance he may suffer.
Your Lordships will observe that this Bill does not lay down a hard and fast formula for calculating the development charge; but it does provide that
" in determining the charge the Board is to have regard to the amount by which the value of the land with the benefit of the planning permission to develop exceeds the value which it would have had without the benefit of such permission."
That is to say, the Board has to look at the purpose for which the land is going to be used and limit its charge to the value for that use. It will not base the charge on some other hypothetical use to which the land might have been put and for which it might command a higher—or lower—price. Suppose land, is wanted for

135
housing. That is not a private undertaking. But the same land might perhaps be used for a greyhound track, and if you go to the owner of the land he will no longer be entitled to say, "My land is worth so much money because I might have used it for a greyhound track." There may be a difference between the value of the land as it is to-day and the land if used for a housing estate.
Thirdly, I call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Bill does not provide for arbitration on the amount of the charge. I call attention to that because I like to call attention to these debatable points, and it may seem to some of your Lordships that this is dictatorial or bureaucratic. But I think noble Lords will agree that the Board will be in very much the same position as a person negotiating a sale of the land. In some cases, not infrequently, the Board will actually buy the land, either by agreement with the land owner or under compulsory powers. In those cases they will sell or lease to the developer and will negotiate a price just as any private owner or local authority or Government Department does now when disposing of land. It would be quite inappropriate to introduce arbitration in those circumstances. The ordinary processes have always worked satisfactorily in the past, and there is no reason why they should not continue to do so. If the Board do not actually buy the land, but merely dispose of what I may term the "right to develop" in order to secure the "development value" which the Bill vests in the State, is there any difference in principle? I submit not.
The Board will be in no different position from that of a person selling a commodity. They will be in the position of a willing—indeed I might almost say, an anxious—seller. They will be subject to the general direction of the Minister, and they will certainly not be permitted to hold up development necessary in the public interest by demanding a price that is excessive and which therefore frightens the developers away. Such a situation would be the negation of the process of planned development which the Bill seeks to achieve. Nor would this situation be avoided by providing for arbitration. The arbitrator might well award a figure which the particular developer finds excessive. He would then have to withdraw from
136
the development, and no positive result would be achieved.
I submit that it is much better to leave matters with the Central Land Board who can take into account all the facts of a given case and, in particular, at the instance of the planning authorities, can have regard to the need for encouraging development in some areas and not in others, and so on. It is because we are convinced that the inflexibility of the arbitration machine is much more likely to be harmful and discouraging to developers that the Bill avoids it and relies upon flexibility—flexibility not only in amount but also in the method and time for payment. Sometimes it would be a lump sum, sometimes an annual payment and sometimes a payment in the nature of a royalty.
Let me emphasize that we do not seek by this Bill to crush private enterprise in development; on the contrary, we want to mobilize all available methods, and to encourage all of them to play their part in the building and re-building of the country. We claim that the Bill will encourage private enterprise in two ways. First, it enables the land, which is the builders' raw material, to be made available in accordance with the plan instead of leaving the developer at the mercy of the land owner to build only where the land owner is willing to sell; secondly, it encourages building by enabling the land to be made available at a price that is governed by considerations of public policy, and not of private gain. That, my Lords, is the cardinal feature of this Bill. I have said nothing about Part VIII, which is the part of the Bill that applies to special cases. Much of Part VIII is non-controversial, but there are certain clauses—for instance Clause 79, dealing with minerals, and the clause dealing with land owned by Charities, which is, I think Clause 83—which are vital matters upon which we must have much discussion.
I have detained your Lordships far too long, but it is difficult to address one's observations to you in too short a time. Those I think are the main features of the Bill, but I would like to add this other consideration: that it is the fact that the discussion in another place, although it lasted for some one hundred hours, was subjected to a time table, or what is called "the guillotine." I do not doubt

137
that one of the problems—and there are many—which our democracy has to solve is to know what to do in these cases. On the one hand, if you have no time schedule and no guillotine it may be said, and said with truth, that Parliament becomes a mere talking shop—we have heard people say that about democratic institutions. On the other hand, the very essence of democracy is that it is government by discussion, and the real problem is to fix a time limit which allows adequate opportunity for discussion. Whether or not in this case we allowed adequate time I do not propose to say—it may be on the one Hand that we did not allow enough time, or it may be, on the other hand, that the time we did allow was not very wisely used. But there is no doubt about this: that parts of the Bill, because of their volume, have not had discussion in another place, and therefore your Lordships have the right and, if I may say so, the duty, to subject this Bill to careful consideration and careful scrutiny, and I am certainly not objecting to that at all.
I shall try, as I do with all these Bills, to meet reasoned argument with reasoned argument. I cannot promise that when the time comes I shall be master of the Bill in the way the Minister was, but I shall at any rate do the best I can to assist your Lordships, either when we get to the Committee stage or before we get to the Committee stage, because, after all, this Bill is a vitally important Bill. We are all committed to the broad principles of this Bill, and we must all work together to make this Bill as good as it can be. From my previous experience of your Lordships I do not doubt that, as a result of discussion and the exchange of views, we shall be able to improve this Bill in certain respects. It is a fact, of course, that the main structure of the Bill has been very carefully thought out, but I have no doubt at all that there are many details in which your Lordships can help, and I shall do all I can to help you in every respect.
There are some Amendments which I myself am going to propose. The principal ones are these. It is desirable, I think, to have some Amendments relating to Agreements made under Section 34 of the Act of 1932, and we have been obtaining information from local authorities with regard to that matter. Another Amendment that I want is to set out in
138
a Schedule, for information purposes, the provisions of the Act of 1944, so that we may see at a glance to what extent we are or are not altering the provisions. I am quite sure that we can examine this Bill together in a non-controversial atmosphere and make improvements, and, at the same time, see that reasonable expedition is reached.
I shall invite your Lordships to help us. I am not suggesting that this Bill will give us a new Britain, but I am suggesting that this Bill gives us the tools without which we cannot begin the job. The completion of the work which we are starting to-day will obviously be a matter for the generations yet unborn; but it was said that we are entering the century of the common man, and Mr. Churchill said, "We are joining the forward march of the common people towards their just and true inheritance. "I believe there is no better way in which we can help the forward march of the common people towards their true anal just inheritance than by seeing that there is built a far better and nobler Britain than in the past. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.49 P.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for the manner in which he has introduced this Bill to the House. We are faced, as he has indicated, with what is a long and, I must admit, very complicated measure, and many parts of it, as he has told us, fall to be discussed for the first time in this House. I believe, having made some calculations, that 52 clauses out of 144 were never discussed on the Committee or Report stage in another place, and 6 schedules out of 10, and I see that the Minister of Town and Country Planning said on the Third Reading:
" We, shall, no doubt, see something of the Bill once more when it returns to the House from another place, but I take my temporary leave of it with complete confidence that as amended it will stand up successfully to the close scrutiny which it will undoubtedly receive."
Whether the Minister's complete confidence is securely or insecurely founded we shall have to wait and see, but it is our duty, as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has told us,

139
to give due consideration and close scrutiny to a measure a large part of which is in fact being initiated in your Lordships' House, and to a measure which is so far-reaching in its consequences.
This Bill enables the Minister of Town and Country Planning, apart from the powers still vested in other Ministers—a point on which I shall make a comment later—to control the use of all land, to control all but de minimis building, and, indeed, to direct every activity that takes place on land in England or Wales. I know of no activity that does not, in some way, require the use of land. In addition, the Bill allows the Board of Trade to be the complete dictator as to where any industrial undertaking may commence business, and, indeed, as to whether such an undertaking may or may not expand its business on its present site. Again, this Bill gives the Central Land Board a complete monopoly to make what charge they like to anyone who wishes to develop. The Bill also gives to local planning authorities powers to designate (I do not suppose that many of them will do it) the whole of the land in their areas. In effect—and despite what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said, I am going to use this word—it nationalizes all minerals, and provides a maximum of £300,000,000 as compensation for all the values that are being taken over. That shows in broad outline what this Bill does. And that, I think, is full justification for us to give it a close scrutiny.
I want, if I may, to deal in more detail in a moment or two with those different heads. But before doing so I would like to make one or two general observations. Some people seem to think that the whole of the development of this country—which I still maintain is the most beautiful in the world—has been carried out by the community as a whole. They do not say that about some of the horrible development of the last century which I, equally with most of your Lordships, deplore. But, except with regard to a public park here or there, those who think or say that the community as a whole have produced our wonderful countryside are, in reality, quite wrong. It has been done largely by great and far-sighted land owners of the past, many of whom were numbered among the ancestors of noble Lords sitting in this House. I think that to them the country as a whole, owes a
140
great debt of gratitude. In this connexion, I am reminded of a story, which I may perhaps be allowed to tell in your Lordships' House.
A certain parson was walking down a street in the village where he lived, and looking over a fence he saw a man tilling his garden. He remarked: "What a beautiful garden this is, and what wonderful results can be produced when God and man work together." The man working in the garden looked up and replied:
" That may be all very well, Parson, but you should have seen this garden when God had it to Himself."
I think a lot of people of this age would have been quite surprised if they could have seen this countryside of ours when God and our forefathers of the Stone Age had it to themselves. However, times have changed, and land owners no longer have the means to develop the land in the way they did in the past. The very heavy burden of death duties has had a great deal to do with this, and the land—or some of it at any rate—has certainly got into the hands of those who are not developing it for the love of the beauty of the countryside, as many of the men of the past did, but for what profit they can get out of it. In those circumstances, all Parties are agreed that there must be some control over development. Indeed, I think we can claim that most of the previous measures dealing with this matter have been introduced and put on the Statute Book by the Party to which I belong.
But in a matter of this sort you can certainly have too much of the laissez faire attitude. You can, on the other hand, I submit, go too far the other way and get involved in too much red tape. There is no doubt that in the last century there was far too much laissez faire in regard to this particular problem, but I am quite convinced that in one or two respects the present Bill goes much too far in the other direction. I started by saying that the Bill enables the Minister to control the use of all land. There is complete centralization. It is quite true that the local planning authorities—and with the exception of the matter of the City of London I welcome the lessening of the number of planning authorities—submit surveys and then schemes, but the Minister can alter them and approve of something quite different; and ultimately the Central Land Board are the body of people who have, under the direction of

141
the Minister, complete control, by reason of the power they have to assess the amount of every single development charge. Under this head, what I would first like to submit to your Lordships is that the definition of development, as we find it in the Bill, is too wide. And it will be even more disastrous if the field for the imposition of development charges remains so wide as it is at present in the Bill.
May I take three classes of cases to illustrate what I mean? There are a large number of houses, both in the countryside and in towns, but particularly, for rural workers, which are too small inside. In passing, let me once more say that I think that position might not have been as bad as it is if the Government had allowed the Housing (Rural Workers) Act to continue; but they have not done that. I had hoped, after the last food debate, something might be done in that respect but so far they have been adamant on this matter and now, by the provisions of this Bill, no one will be able to improve such cottages by a cubic content of more than 10 per cent., without making himself liable to a development charge. It is true that with a house such as Hatfield you can acid 10 per cent. to it, and no doubt my noble friend could put on an extra bedroom and a bathroom and lavatory; but if you have a rural cottage of only 1,000 cubic feet you cannot add another bedroom and a bathroom to that, as many people want to do, without incurring the possibility of a development charge. One of the things I shall suggest, in the course of discussion on this Bill, is that at any rate for the smaller house the 10 per cent. shall be increased so that when you have a cottage—and there are quite a number in the country now-with a sitting room, kitchen and only two bedrooms you will be able to acid an extra bedroom, which is essential if there are girls and boys growing up together in the same house, and a modern bath and water closet, without incurring a development charge.
The second reason why I think the basis of this development charge is too narrow is that where there is a clamant need for more houses you should be able to divide some of the larger houses into separate flats. Under the terms of the Bill you cannot make this change without incurring the risk of having to pay a development charge. This has nothing to
142
do with planning. I am still one of those who believe that the Englishman's house is his castle, and so long as he does not commit a nuisance to his neighbours he should be able to do more or less what he wants inside. It would be different if he were going to pull the house down, and put up some different structure, but if he is only going to alter the internal features surely it is a matter which does not affect the amenities of his neighbours. If we can get that alteration made in this Bill we shall stop it preventing people from doing the right thing to the larger houses in the present time of acute housing shortage.
Take the case, too, of an old-fashioned office—there are a lot left in London—where alteration should be made to make more comfortable quarters for the staff working there. Again, if you make alterations or eliminate some cupboards to make more space for the staff, and go over 10 per cent. cubic capacity, you will incur liability for a development charge. And so either one of two things will happen. A man will say: "I am not going to do that; as things are this will still have to do." Or he will possibly say to his architect: "You can make out new plans but on no account increase the cubic content by more than 10 per cent." These development charges ought not to be left on what is done internally. Have development charges on sites, which is right, but not on existing buildings on the land.
I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will not merely meet reasoned argument with reasoned argument, but occasionally will meet reasoned argument with reasonable concession—as indeed we know he has lone when he has dealt with Bills in the period in which I have had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House. This narrow definition of development charge is not encouraging good planning. It is quite the reverse. It is not facilitating proper development: it will have the effect of hindering it. The tendency will be to prolong the life of obsolete buildings and prevent the proper adaption of existing buildings to the new and wider needs of the community which we all want to see fulfilled.
Another thing I want to mention in regard to the question of getting on with house buliding is that up to date the Minister has refused to allow interim

143
planning authorities to have any interim planning permission at all when the Bill becomes law. He knows the difficulty with which he is going to be faced. In fact, he said on Third Reading:
"You are aware that the county councils are new to planning, and that by and large, they have not at present the stall or the experience, and that the Central Land Board is not even set up. It will be an entirely new organization with people on it who possibly have not had a planning background. Other qualifications may well be required and it may not be possible to get all those in one individual. There will be a lack of trained staff among local authorities—the county councils and the county boroughs—and I am fully conscious of the fact that, probably, in the beginning, the machine may well creak at times, in places."
If that is the position, why are the present planning authorities not to be allowed to give interim planning permission, as they have done quite adequately in the past? So far as I can see, under the present policy, we shall have to wait until this machine ceases to creak, until the Central Land Board have their staff, before we can go ahead.
I want to come now to the centralized power of the Board of Trade to say where any industrial activity should take place. The officers in that department, good men as they are, are not practical industrialists. In fact, I discussed this problem with the then Permanent Secretary during the short term I was President of the Board of Trade, and I suggested that in the days after the war it would be a good thing to follow Admiralty practice. When an officer of the administrative grade has been in the Admiralty for two or three years he is posted down to the Fleet, and when he gets down to the Fleet he begins to learn what the people in the Fleet think about some of the orders he has drafted in the Admiralty. I suggested that it would be a good thing to second to industry for a year or two some of the young administrative officers so that they could look at the matter from the other side of the fence. At the same time, some selected people from industry could come into the Board of Trade to take the place of the administrative officers. They could then learn some of the difficulties encountered in Government Departments. I think things would work much more smoothly if that were done, but it has not been done.
144
Some of these men in the Board of Trade will be actually dictating to industries where they are to go, and what they may do. I know that a number of leaders of industry look with dismay on the necessity to obtain a permit from the Board of Trade before they extend an existing factory. I do not say that where they start a new factory on a completely different site they should not be subject to the Board of Trade. But where they have bought a site (and many of them have) they ought to be allowed to extend their factory on that site; they ought not to have to, seek permission for it, because, automatically, the zone is an industrial one from the fact that the factory is already there. There ought to be none of this red tape or hampering of industry at the present time. I am against making a development charge on these people for extending their factories. In our present state of affairs we do not want to place any extra burdens on the industry of the country which, by its work, is going to bring us through these difficult times.
It is no good replying that with the price attributable to the existing use of the land the development charge will only equal what they would have had to pay for the land, because in most cases they will already have bought the land at a price which included development value and will have it ready for the extension of their factory. In that case they certainly ought not to have to pay a development charge in addition to the price they have already paid for that land. While talking about Government Departments, I want to say that, despite the meticulous control of individuals and of planning authorities which we find in this Bill, there is no control over the worst offenders of all—the War Office, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and other Government Departments. I do not see the slightest control in this Bill on the activities of those who are really at the present time the biggest offenders in this country against proper planning.
Now I come to the power of the Central Land Board. This Board are being given a complete monopoly, and I am one of those who do not like monopolies, even if they are in the hands of the State. At present, if one landlord asks too much, there are a vast number of other land owners to whom one can go, because when we talk about land owners in this coun-

145
try it is not just a question of a hundred or so people. If one includes the people who own their own houses, this number, is above the 4,000,000 mark. Of course, all these people do not own land where there is further room for development, but there are a vast number of land owners in this country who do. Under this Bill there will be only one, the Central Land Board, the personnel of which is at present unknown. Unlike the judges, they will have no well-tried system to administer. We know and have great confidence in the way in which judges are appointed and we know their previous training; but here we have a body from which there will be no appeal whatever.
I know that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said it has worked well in the past, and that one did not have an arbitrator between a prospective purchaser and a land owner to see what ought to be the price. It worked all right in the past because there was another land owner to whom one could go. Now there will be this Board, who will be the only body that will assess all development charges. And, so far as I can see, there will be no kind of appeal by the developer against some kind of charge, however much it is, made upon him by this body; nor am I at all sure that this body will be open to criticism even in Parliament. The Coal Board, apparently, can buy house after house, not for offices but to house their senior members, and the Minister gets away with it with the answer that that is entirely within the discretion of the. Coal Board. I would like to know whether we are setting up another body like that, which is to be remote from criticism by Parliament and with no appeal whatever against it. It is not good to have set up these bodies which are above the law, and we ought to see that the Central Land Board are subject to some sort of appeal and are subject to criticism in Parliament for what they do.
I want to say a word or two about designation, with which the noble and learned Viscount also dealt. I think it was right to have designation in the blitzed areas, and I do not see any harm in it if it can be limited properly in some way. There is a lot to be said for a local authority designating a piece of land which they are to use within a reasonably short period, but I think that ten years is much too long. First of all, the whole survey
146
has to be done again in five years time, when another lot of land may be designated, so some land may be, as I understand it, undesignated—if that is the right word for a designation being removed—in the course of that survey. Ten years is certainly too long, and I think there ought to be some rights for the individual who has had his land designated to say at some period: "You either take off this designation or you buy it."
What is to happen with regard to these designated areas? Take the case of a farm just outside a town, which might well be designated because it is the next place for a housing estate. If the farmer is an owner-occupier he will cease to do much about repairs for the period of ten years mentioned in the Bill. That is quite obvious. There will be this blight upon the place, and he will do little to keep his buildings in repair, knowing that they may be taken away almost at a moment's notice within that period of ten years. We shall see derelict buildings in all these designated areas. If he is a tenant farmer he will not stay there long when once the land has been designated. I forget the exact period, but I think it is only notice of a month or two that has to be given to take it over for the purpose for which it has been designated. Then, of course, that farm tenant will say: "I want to go somewhere where I have greater security of tenure than I can have in this designated place." So as soon as he can get another farm he will leave that one. How on earth is the owner to get any other tenant to take over and run that farm which may be taken from him at a couple of months' notice? That is a part of this Bill that we can well alter, without affecting its fundamental structure, by saying: "Designate if you like for a period of five years, but if you do not do anything about it within that period, then the owner may say: ' Either you take over this designated land, or you buy it, because it is you who are causing this blight upon this land and you ought to take it over and deal with it yourselves one way or the other,'"
I am delighted to see in this Bill a considerable control over advertising. Some of the advertisements: which have been allowed to be put up in the beauty spots of this country in the past have been quite monstrous. The noble and learned Viscount said that all commercial advertising will be stopped in some areas of the

147
country. I hope that will also include the Government posters. It does not matter who produces the poster; it is a question of not having a poster at all in those areas. I hope, from that point of view, that the word "commercial" will be taken to include the Government advertisements. It is probably right to do it by regulations. I have no doubt that when we see them (we shall have to look at them very carefully) they will not restrict a man from putting his name on his shop, or what he is selling—as, for instance, a tabocconist or confectioner, or anything like that—and we shall not have any stupid planning authority trying to get rid of our familiar inn signs on our old inns up and down the country. People are sometimes a little fearful on those scores, and we have to be careful about them.
I would like now to come to two more clauses. Clause 79 was mentioned in passing by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. That seems, somehow, to have been tacked on to this Bill. It is the clause in regard to minerals. It is far wider than mere planning, and it is a difficult clause to discuss because, like a number of other clauses in the Bill, it leaves the matter to regulation; in fact, we do not know quite what we are doing when we look at Clause 79. It begins:
" In relation to development consisting of the winning and working of minerals, the provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Treasury."
So what is going to happen about minerals one just does not know. It refers merely to "such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed." It is a little difficult to discuss this problem intelligently without a sight of the regulation. But it means that in future anybody working the minerals, after the three years at any rate, will become liable to development charges. I think this will make people less keen to develop the minerals. It will also mean that anyone who has minerals in his land ought to put in a claim for compensation to be paid to him now. This clause being tacked on to the Bill seems to make the £300,000,000 a more absurdly small sum than it was previously.
There is a mineral which is called fuller's earth. I did not know that it had the great value that it has, but I am told that if proper value were paid for existing
148
leases this in itself would take one-twelfth part of the £300,000,000. We all know,about the clay pits, the gravel pits, and the various other things, and I must say that those are minerals to which people who owned the land have always had the right. The ancient common law doctrine that he who owns the land owns right down to the middle of the earth and up to the sky has long long been recognized. I remember that we had to modify it because it might have been trespass for an aircraft to fly over land. The doctrine was so well recognized that that point had to be dealt with quite early in the days of aviation in this country.
I know that some say no compensation should be paid at all, on the ground that the State is only taking away something to which the individual had no right. The short and simple answer to that is that it would have been no good saying that to the Inland Revenue authorities when they came to assess death duties on some land you had inherited. Indeed, Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1925, specifically separated the right of property in agricultural land into the agricultural and the development rights, and they called the development rights "the excess principal value." That had to bear duties at a higher rate than those borne on the agricultural land. So if compensation is not paid here, what will happen to a large number of people is that they will have been charged death duties on the value of the land by the Government of the day, and they will be told later on by the Central Land Board, or by somebody else, that they have no value in the land at all; that theirs is not a case of hardship, and they will not get anything out of the £300,000,000. I do not think that argument holds good.
Others say that no compensation should be paid, on the ground that the whole value has been created by the community. Does this apply only to land? If there were no community, would there be any value in having a fish shop or a tobacconist's? There would be nobody to whom to sell anything. Would there be any value in a solicitor's or barrister's practice? There would be nobody to befriend with good and learned advice. So I think we can get rid of that contention. There is one other comment I wish to make, and that is that one of the indirect effects of this measure—and we might as well face it—will be to reduce the

149
wealth available for trade and exchange in this country. Now that may seem an absurd statement at first sight, but if a farmer or anybody else wants to raise money now from his bank to use in his business, he can raise it on the full value of his land. After this Bill becomes law, he will be able to raise money only on the agricultural value of the land, and so we are taking away some wealth—some means of raising other wealth, at any rate—that previously existed. Of course, anybody who happens to own land, after this Bill is passed, will probably have far fewer disputes with the Inland Revenue with regard to death duties, because the excess value under the 1925 Act will no longer belong to the individual.
I do not think that the £300,000,000 is a big enough sum. I am always a believer that when the State, for the good of the country as a whole, takes over something which the individual owns, the burden should fall on the shoulders of the whole community and not on the individual concerned, and they should pay him a fair compensation. I do not think the £300,000,000 is enough. The Barlow Committee put it at £400,000,000, and when they did that it covered only development rights in areas not built up. Now the £300,000,000 is supposed to cover places with even such valuable sites as there are in London. Also, the Barlow Committee's,figures were based on 1938 value, when the value of the £ was certainly higher than it is to-day, and the Barlow Committee's values did not include minerals. If a fair compensation were given for the minerals, most of this £300,000,000 would go in that respect. It is quite clear to me, therefore—and it will be clear in the course of a few years to many people in the country who own small or large properties—that owners are going to be badly "done down" by this inadequate sum. I think four or five times this amount might be needed to give people fair and proper compensation.
There is, therefore, quite a lot to be said against this measure, although there are some good things to be said in its favour. It comes here largely undigested; some of it looks as though it will take a good deal of swallowing, and many people will have some aches and pains, especially those who are concerned with quick and good house building and the proper improvement and modernization of existing accommodation, unless, of course, we can
150
improve it in some of the ways that I have suggested. But it is our duty to try and improve it, and if we can get down, to use the same metaphor, to "chewing over it" together, we may by our joint efforts put a passable measure on the Statute book. It is certainly the wish of all of us on this side of the House that good planning should be encouraged and our countryside properly developed, but we want to see that done without red tape and with complete fairness to all sections of our people.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has asked me to say that he had intended addressing your Lordships personally, and it is only the fact that he is not at the present moment in England which is preventing his doing so. Noble Lords with whom I sit have also asked me to say that while there is much in this measure to which they take exception, they are in fact prepared to support this Bill. I should like, if I may, to join earlier speakers who have paid tribute to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. One thing he said gave me encouragement, and that was his statement that he did not profess fully to understand the Bill. May I use a phrase which may appeal to him and say that I find myself in pari delicto? I only hope that the penalty your Lordships may exact will not be a severe one.
Whatever view one may hold about the merits or demerits of this Bill, I think it is clear that in its complexity, in the effect it seeks to achieve, it far exceeds any measure that has been before your Lordships for a great many years. If this Bill becomes law, every acre of land in this country will come under its provisions, and further, what is not generally known, every building on that land will be included also. It is not easy to guess—and I doubt whether the Government themselves know—how many people in this country, in some capacity or another, or some interest or another, come within its ambit, or how much of our land is adversely affected by its provisions. But, at the same time, there is much in it which one can commend. There are the provisions for the preservation of ancient buildings and certain conditions for preserving trees. I heartily support also

151
the control of advertisements. I am reminded that that is necessary by something which I am assured happened recently, when an approach was made to a company notorious for its posters. They expressed their readiness to co-operate, but they added, "You need never have approached us, because we are most careful never to disfigure a beauty spot. We put our hoardings only in the open countryside."
I heartily support also the provision for starting new local planning authorities. Indeed, I would say that I anticipate that property owners in this country would welcome any measure of planning which they felt to be just, practicable and effective; but I fear that this measure, whilst it does not fail completely, at any rate falls short in some respects in at least the first two of those qualities. I consider that the measure is lacking in justice because, as the noble and learned Viscount has stated, the compensation is uncertain and in any case, as I hope to show, is quite inadequate. If my advices are correct, the Bill is likely to be impracticable for the reason that there do not exist in this country, and there cannot be created within a reasonable measure of time, the skilled, trained, technical men needed to carry out its provisions.
Can that be wondered at, if we really stop to think what the Bill sets out to do? Every acre of land in this country must be surveyed within a period of three years. In addition, where the value of an owner's land will be depreciated. Clause 55 makes it plain that he has a right to lodge a claim for compensation. That claim, will consist of an assessment of the unrestricted value and the restricted value—two calculations. The Government, of course, will not accept that claim without consideration. They have to employ their own valuers and will have to make those calculations over again. I suggest to your Lordships that far from this machine creaking, very soon you will hear the components groaning and the gear wheels grinding, as it lumbers to a standstill on a gradient which it never can surmount. There is one other unhappy feature of the Bill, and that is the uncertainty which clouds it. I would say one word in this regard about compensation. Compensation, as your Lordships know, is uncertain; you may never
152
get it, and the amount you may receive if you are fortunate is also uncertain. The manner in which the compensation will be assessed between Scotland and England is also uncertain.
Now let me turn to the question of development. Clause 66 states that the developer will have "to pay a development charge of such amount, if any,"— mark the" if any "—" as the Board may determine." The clause adds "no … operations shall be carried out … until the amount of the charge, if any, … has been determined." With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, whose arguments I do not feel competent to counter, is it right to say that a Bill so vague, so uncertain, so imprecise can encourage development? Is any man in his senses going to develop under conditions like that? Of course not. It cannot he said that the Bill can be anything but discouraging to the building of houses by private enterprise in this country.
It would be improper, indeed wrong of me, if, after the full survey of this Bill given by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, I were to attempt to follow in his footsteps. I therefore propose to use an instrument which has latterly become popular; I refer to the guillotine. The only difference between the Government and myself is that whereas they use it on the Opposition, I propose to use it on myself. In other words I propose to address myself to only four clauses which I consider important, with two of which my noble friend has already fully dealt. The first is Clause 55, which deals with the question of compensation. There is little there that I can usefully add to my noble friend's statement, but he will allow me, I think, to point out that while this Bill is limited to England and Wales, where compensation is concerned it extends to Scotland as well. Therefore you get this figure of £300,000,000, which, as the noble Lord pointed out, is £100,000,000 below the estimate made, not by the Barlow Committee but by the Inland Revenue on behalf of the Barlow Committee as compensation for England, Wales and Scotland.
Now the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that there are no available data. Surely, as your Lordships know, the Inland Revenue are possessed

153
of very considerable data; they know a great deal. I should have thought that their assessment would be as precise and as accurate as such assessments can be. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, pointed out, it did not include anything for urban values or anything for mineral values and was made at a time when properties were worth approximately half what they are to-day. In addition to the smallness of the compensation, which I think is a great deal less than property owners may in justice expect, there is the fact that no impartial arbitration is permitted. So harsh an attitude does indicate a feeling that development values accrue from the efforts of the community alone. But I suggest to your Lordships that this is by no means always the case. Take a man who at great risk develops an isolated site, creates perhaps a small town on it: surely by his initiative and enterprise, by the risk he has taken, he has created something. I agree that there are places where the development value accrues from the efforts of the community, but I feel that in these cases also it is by no means easy to avoid hardship.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to put the very elementary case of a man who owns a farm of one hundred acres. Imagine that the unrestricted value, the agricultural value, is £20 an acre. This man is a good farmer, he is anxious to build cow stalls, to increase the output of food. He wants to make a road, to put in electric light, to instal water. With that end in view he approaches the bank. The bank have the property valued, of course on the unrestricted basis, which we will assume to be £100 an acre, or a difference of £80 an acre, which gives an unrestricted value of £10,000, on which they advance him £5,000. As from the day that this Bill becomes law that land is worth £2,000 only and not a penny more. The farmer can claim against the fund of £300,000,000 but he may never receive a penny; or if he does receive anything it may be far less than he has lost—and it is uncertain when he will get it. I have no connexion with banking myself, but I think that in such cases the bank will be forced to call in their money. What is the position of the farmer if he has no other resources? He will have to sell his farm and go out to business.
154
The same condition a obviously operates in regard to other trustees who have advanced money on land. With great respect, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether he will enlighten us as to what our duty in such cases may be. Far be it from me to suggest that he has even inadvertently committed a breach of trust, but it appears to me that the position of trustees at this moment is a most unfortunate one, and that the banks—I am sorry that none of their representatives appears to he here—may have very carefully to consider their position in this matter.
There is the other point which my noble friend raised, the question of estate duty. I have a letter setting out very simply a case analogous to that which he had in mind. We have here a case in which the owner died in 1939. The agricultural value of the land was £42,000, and we find that the Inland Revenue claimed £580,500 for what they called the excess principal value—that is, the development value. This estate was 950 acres. Here you have the authorities claiming over £500,000 on one estate of under 1,000 acres. Does that suggest to your Lordships that a total of £300,000,000 is adequate compensation for all the land, the minerals, and the urban values in this country and in Scotland? In this particular case I am glad to say that the unhappy owner, by fighting the authorities, was able to reduce the claim to £340,000, on which he paid the increased duty which, as my noble friend Lord Llewellin, pointed out, was imposed by the 1925 Act. He has paid that increased duty, yet, assuming that he borrowed the money to pay it, what is the present value of his security? He is left with only that which in 1939 was worth £42,000. The Government did not attempt to dispute that small figure; moreover, as it carried a lower rate of tax they were perfectly happy. I suggest the example I have given illustrates a very unfortunate and a very unhappy position.
I was going to direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 11 and the Third Schedule, which deal with Houses and buildings, but I feel that now to be unnecessary in view of what my noble friend has said. I would only add that it seems to me an amazing supposition that if a man owns a large house he is not to be- allowed to divide it into two, that he is forbidden from making two homes and

155
housing two families; and, if he does that he must pay a development charge. In regard to the prohibition on exceeding the 10 per cent. cubic content of war-damaged buildings, I can suggest only that the architect would be sorely tempted to skimp the reconstruction, reduce the level of the ceilings, and cut out one or more bathrooms and generally to produce a result in which the accommodation is something far less than any responsible landlord would care to offer.
The other clause to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention is Clause 5, which deals with designated land. This is not an easy matter. I understand that the Minister felt that this clause would be helpful, and that it would prevent a lowering cloud of uncertainty hanging over a large area of land. But to my mind this clause defeats its own purpose. To my mind it is a direct incentive to authorities to launch out, especially when you read on through the subsections, and find in subsection (2) (c) permission to the authorities to designate "any other land." I think here you have a clause inviting the authorities to embark on schemes that are grandiose and ambitious. It is true that a public inquiry is permitted, but the result of these inquiries has not always been fortunate for those who have interests at stake. I suggest that the ten-year period in the clause should be reduced to five, and that the words "any other land" should be deleted.
The last point with which I wish to deal is one which is highly technical, and which I can assure your Lordships I would not touch were it not that it relates to housing; but I can assure you that I can do it in a moment or two. It is the question of ripe land. Speaking in another place, the Minister drew a distinction between land which was "near ripe" and land which was "dead ripe." By "dead ripe" land he means, I think, land on which the floating value has settled, land in regard to which there is no uncertainty as to its development value; it is going to be developed quickly and the position is known. He proposes that that land should carry no development charge. Except in so far as I feel that Clause 78 (which governs this) is drawn too tightly, and excludes much land which should be included, I have nothing more to say about it.
156
I, do wish to say something, though, about "near ripe" land; that is land in which there remains an element of floating value. It is land which forms the builder's reserve, it is his stock-in-trade, as it were. It is going to be developed as part of a long-term plan. Much of that land is represented by building estates which have been started and which have never been fully developed, owing to the incidence of war. It is very much in the public interest that building should be resumed, and that those estates should be developed, and I hope that on reconsideration the Minister may find it possible completely to eliminate all "near ripe" land from having to bear the burden of a development charge. I feel it is in the interests of the community that that should be so.
This Bill will control in years to come the lives of the people of this country in many vital ways. It has not received in another place the consideration which I feel it deserves. Only fifty-two clauses out of more than one hundred were ever discussed in full. Your Lordships have now a chance to give it that careful and competent consideration which it deserves—consideration which I feel sure it will now receive, and as a result of which I hope it will emerge a measure worthy in every way of the great purpose which it sets out to achieve.
4.58 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I think the House will find that I shall be adopting a somewhat more friendly attitude to this Bill than the noble Lords who have just spoken. That may be because I am glad that at last we have a comprehensive Bill of this nature before this House. During the Coalition Government some of us from time to time urged very strongly that such a Bill should be introduced. We had hoped that the noble Lord who sits on the Bench now opposite, Lord Woolton (and I believe he hoped so too), would be able to introduce such a Bill, but circumstances were too strong. I am now able, in looking through and reading this very complicated Bill, to recognize how controversial some of its clauses must inevitably be, and I understand now why it was impossible for the Coalition Government to bring forward a Bill so comprehensive as this. If this Bill goes into law it will be by far the greatest thing of its nature which has ever been passed

157
in this country, and will give this nation a lead over all other nations in the matter of physical betterment.
I should like to pay a tribute to the very great care with which this Bill has been drawn up. There have in the past been Bills which have been presented to this House nothing like so complete as this Bill. I know that very great care and trouble were taken in the preparation of it, and, just because so much care was taken in its preparation, I am sorry that so many of its clauses were not discussed in another place. That may be an involuntary tribute to this House, for if this House did not exist it would have been necessary to spend very much more time on this and other Bills in the other place. In fact, this House is a place of penitence and amendment for the Minister who is in charge of a Bill. Here he is able to do those things. which he did not do elsewhere, and to undo those things which he did wrongly elsewhere. I gather from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, that among acts of amendment, or reparation if you like, which will appear in this House there will be many which will come from the Government Benches.
I do not want to go in any great detail into the various clauses of this Bill. Quite frankly, I am among the noble Lords who cannot pretend to understand the whole of the Bill, but I feel that it is necessary that there should be such a comprehensive Bill, and I will deal with it very briefly on general lines. I believe it is necessary that there should be a planning Bill so that this country may make the best use of the limited amount of land which it possesses. Ours is a very over-crowded country. There is no other country in Europe which has such a dense population to the square mile. Whereas in Belgium there are 702 persons per square mile, in this country there are 766. This means that we should take the utmost care in using our land. Between the two wars a large number of houses were built. No country in the world, think, had such a fine housing programme as we had. Most of the houses were good, and most of the estates were well-planned. The fatal defect in all that building was that in the great majority of cases those estates were put down without any kind of reference to the industries in which their tenants would be working. The result was often that people had to make long and
158
expensive journeys backwards and forwards, to and from work, day by day.
I think it was in one of the broadsheets of that useful and valuable series called Planning that it was said that we used very strange modern inventions to take several hundreds of thousands of people backwards and forwards to and from their work in conditions so unhealthy that we would not submit valuable livestock to them. In addition, roads which were made for speed and safety have largely been rendered useless by ribbon development. Industries have gone to some towns where already there was plenty of industry, and they have been taken away from others, where there has been, consequently, serious unemployment. Towns already large have become much larger, and, in addition, we find good land for agriculture being steadily destroyed. I have not the actual figures, but I am told that every year several thousands of acres which ought to he used for agriculture go out of cultivation, as they are taken over for the building of houses.
That, then, is the first reason for a planning Bill—so that we may make better use of the land in this country. Already, we have been thriftless and extravagant in the way in which we have been using this possession. The other reason is that we may preserve all that is most beautiful in our countryside. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said a bout the beauty of our English country. No one enjoys more than myself going abroad and seeing the beauty of other lands, but I always come back feeling that there is no country which has greater quiet beauty and greater variety than our own. I know that the intelligentsia will say that that is a very insular opinion. I suppose it is, but I do not care; it is perfectly correct. The beauty of the countryside has been steadily damaged in these last years. One sees disused railway carriages perched on the tops of cliffs and doing duty as summer dwellings, unsightly bungalows situated in beautiful valleys, great factories occasionally put up in valleys where they squat like ugly toads, and rivers contaminated. And we go on doing these things.
There is still a great deal of the country left to us which is beautiful, but month by month. we are losing what is most beautiful and lovely in our country and

159
even in many of our country villages. Here again there is strong argument for a comprehensive Bill which will prevent our country being spoilt in this kind of way. I fully recognize that a good deal has already been done in the way of planning. It would be ungrateful and inaccurate to speak as if nothing had been done during these last few years. On the other hand, there have been certain grave defects which have stood in the way of comprehensive planning. First of all, there has been no clear purpose about our planning. Planners themselves have often engaged in controversies as to what ought to be done. There have been planners who seemed to believe that people should be cooped up in towns, and whose main idea was to build tenement houses higher and ever higher. Others have wished to revive "Merry Old England" in an unreal kind of way in the country. There have been many controversies and differences of opinion as to the kind of policy which should be adopted.
But with the publication of the three Reports which have been mentioned—the Barlow Report was a truly historic document—there has come about a great change of opinion, and we have agreed, I think, on three great principles. The first is the principle of dispersion: that so far as possible some of the population should be dispersed from the towns. Next, there is the principle of new towns on sites carefully chosen, built under careful regulations, and, thirdly, there is the principle of the preservation of the countryside—the establishment of the Green Belt and the preservation of agricultural land. I, for one, welcome this Bill because I believe that it will help that policy and those principles to be carried out. A defect which, I think, the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack pointed out in, if I may say so, that most clear speech with which he introduced this Bill, has been that in the past our planning has been conducted on lines which were much too local. Local jealousies and parochialism often stand in the way of comprehensive schemes. People accept in principle what is to be done, but will object to it very strongly indeed when it is to be applied to their own locality.
I know this well because of matters relating to the union of parishes which come to my notice. Almost everybody agrees with the necessity for uniting
160
parishes, but, as I know, a most vigorous resistance will frequently be put up by a parish concerned, especially by the parish which thinks that some advantage may be given to its neighbour. That sort of thing you find on a very much larger scale in purely secular affairs. You find cities and towns and villages and local authorities alarmed and jealous lest anything may be done that is derogatory to their own rights, and so they prepare their schemes, and go forward with their planning, quite indifferent to what their neighbours may be doing a few miles away. The result is that all sorts of queer anomalies have sprung up through the opposing views of different factions, and these anomalies show clearly how unsatisfactory is the present position. Half the country, I believe, has not yet had any kind of zoning or planning scheme, but for the other half there has been the greatest industry on the part of a number of various authorities and they have zoned the country so as to hold, I believe, if it were all built over, a population of 350,000,000. That is for half the country. It shows there is some strange overlapping in the present system. What we want are authorities which are really comprehensive and will deal with the matter on a large scale with, above them, the Minister, directing, guiding and influencing.
The third difficulty has been that the various local authorities have had, in the past, to face the cost of these various planning schemes. They have not been certain what the cost would be. In the past they have been waiting for some definite policy about compensation and betterment. They have known what they ought to do in many cases but felt they simply could not face the financial responsibility which might fall upon them. I think one of the greatest merits of this Bill is that it removes the responsibility of payment from the local authorities to the central organization which is going to be set up.
While I am supporting this Bill I am not for one moment claiming that it is perfect in every respect, any more than did the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. There are various matters on which I would like information and reassurance. I should like to know what the relation of the Planning Ministry is to be to the other Ministries. Will the Planning Ministry be able to make and carry through decisions, or will it have

161
to refer decisions to Ministry after Ministry? If that happens, we shall be in the tangle we are in at the present time. I believe that some of the minor but extremely serious hindrances to house building at the present time arise from the way in which so many different authorities have to issue licences and permits, and then they disagree with each other, and when five agree the sixth refuses and the whole matter is held up for months. We shall not get forward with planning on a comprehensive scale if this Ministry has to consult a whole series of other Ministries before it can issue an effective order.
I am bound to admit I am no financier, though no doubt it is my own fault, and I have not been able to understand the basis on which the £300,000,000 has been decided upon. Others have spoken upon that. The figure may be quite correct, and I have done my best to find out the reasons which led to its being adopted, but so far I have failed. Important points were raised by both the noble Lords who have spoken in criticism. I hope very much that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will not delay private development. It would be a serious matter if there were such delays on the part of the new authorities which are to be set up that progress could not be made by those who otherwise would be prepared to go forward with schemes of development.
I hope some answer will be given to the questions already put about the restrictions which this Bill may place (I am not yet convinced it does) upon the reconditioning of rural cottages or the division of large houses. If it does put restrictions upon the reconditioning of these cottages and the division of large houses it will be a. very serious matter. I am one of those who regret very much that the Government did not renew the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. The reconditioning of these cottages would have been a real contribution towards improving the serious position of rural housing, and I would like some reassurance on that matter.
One final matter on which I would like some definite reassurance is in regard to the kind of staff the Ministry has to carry through this tremendous scheme. Heaven forbid that I should ask that Government staff should be increased in any way, but my own impression is that while every
162
other Ministry is overstaffed (I know no Minister will agree with that) the one Ministry which is under-staffed is the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I believe that was the case some time ago. Great schemes such as are foreshadowed by this Bill cannot be carried through unless there is a strong staff of capable people at the Ministry. A different type of planner is needed, not simply to give good advice about soil and roads and drains, although these are quite essential, but to think out the position from the social, community point of view, and make a new approach to the whole question. I am not convinced that at the present time we have anything like the number of expert planners required for a scheme of this kind, but, with certain reservations and questions, I welcome this Bill. I hope it will become law with whatever Amendments may be necessary. I believe that this Bill will help the country to preserve wisely and economically its land for the best use, and preserve for future generations some of the loveliness of the country of which we are all proud.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, it will occasion, no surprise if I rise to support this Bill and commend it to your Lordships. When the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944 was passing through its Second Reading consideration in your Lordships' House, I ventured to say that the Bill was a "might have been" in, that it might have sought to deal comprehensively with planning. However, it failed to do so, and although it was amended with considerable advantage in your Lordships' House, a process in which I was privileged to play a modest part, it remained inadequate as a measure for comprehensive planning as planning needs to be done. The loud authorities, when seeking to operate the Act, speedily came to the conclusion that the misgivings of many of us were only too well founded. Both administratively as well as financially, the Act of 1944 contained substantial defects and did not give the local authorities the instrument they needed for effective planning. This Bill, I submit, largely remedies these defects and fills in many gaps left by previous legislation.
The word "charter" has perhaps become in these days a little pejorative, but I think this Bill, if it becomes an Act, can be termed the "Charter of Planning." It can be, and indeed is, in my opinion,

163
the key to unlock the principal door Which will open the way to tidy, ordered, and planned use of land in this country for the benefit of the people. It is the case, as the most reverend Primate has said, that the Bill is not perhaps without blemish. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor has already indicated that the Government will themselves propose certain Amendments, and I shall venture to ask your Lordships to give consideration to certain Amendments from the point of view of local authorities. But the Bill does aim at comprehensive planning.
It does not, it is true, abolish land monopoly, which was described by Mr. Churchill, in one of his recurrent moods of spaciousness, as being by far the greatest of all monopolies in that it is a perpetual monopoly and the mother of all forms of monopoly. But the provisions of this Bill, whilst they do not abolish land monopoly, will curb the exercise of that monopoly and will secure that the uncovenanted benefits which flow in many cases to owners of land from communal activity, both social and economic, will in future accrue in substantial measure to the whole community. It is the case that the land is not nationalized, but the future development of land will be nationally controlled through the local planning authorities. From the town planning point of view, the proposed restriction on the right of private owners to develop how, where, and when it may please them, will make sound planning, for the first time, possible and practicable in this country.
This afternoon I would like to deal with this Bill principally from the point of view of the planning authorities, who, when all is said and done, will be the executive agencies for planning. First and foremost, the Bill gives, for the first time, reality to the positive conception of planning. Pre-war planning legislation, as has been said by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, was largely regulatory. It gave local authorities a measure of control of private development as and when it occurred. It could prevent development, but it could not initiate development. This Bill adopts a positive attitude towards the problem, and gives the local authorities much wider and much more ample powers to secure and develop land themselves, if they and the Minister concur. It is the case that the
164
principle of positive planning was first adopted in the Act of 1944, to which I have referred, but in that case the powers, broadly speaking, were confined to areas of blitz and blight, and the procedure was different for even these areas. This Bill proposes to make the powers generally applicable.
Speaking as one not without some experience of town planning and reconstruction, I submit that these additional powers mark a notable and valuable advance. Areas of blitz and blight can now be dealt with for the first time in the new pattern of a comprehensive development scheme, without distinction between either or any of them. That should be most helpful to active, energetic planning authorities. The Bill introduces a new method; the method of the development plan. The procedure for making, and from time to time amending, a development plan is much more simple than the procedure under the existing law. I ask those who, like the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, criticized this Bill inter alia because of the increase of technical staff that it would occasion, to remember that there are some offsets to that, and that the simpler procedure now provided will assist local authorities in the difficulties which they are experiencing in finding adequate technical staff to carry out this kind of work.
The present cumbersome procedure for making a planning scheme, and then making declaratory orders with respect to blitzed areas, is, happily, to be done away with; one fairly simple procedure is to be available and to be applicable to all types of land. From the point of view of planning authorities, that is a most notable advance. Moreover, the working out of a development plan will allow a greater flexibility than the rigid application of a planning scheme under the existing law. Planning schemes and zoning have been the bugbear of town planners in the past. There is now to be much more flexibility and latitude. The provisions for the designation of land within a development plan make more general and wider the powers of acquisition. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, questioned the period of ten years allowed for the acquisition of land which may be designated, and suggested that the period should be reduced to five years because of the uncertainty under which owners might be. I only

165
wish to say this: I most fervently hope the Government will not reduce the period of ten years, because the local authorities concerned with the planning of urban areas are concerned whether the period of ten years is long enough, having regard to the large comprehensive schemes for development which they must undertake.
There is one other point in connexion with planning control on which I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, whether the Government would not consider some amendment. This is in connexion with the control of unauthorized non-conforming development. Under the Bill it will be possible to serve enforcement notices against this unauthorized non-conforming development, but the notices cannot be exercised after three years from the appointed day. In a closely built-up area such as London, or in other big cities of the country, to serve all the enforcement notices in connexion with unauthorized non-conforming developments will cast a very heavy burden upon the local authorities. I hope the Government may see its way clear to extend the period of three years to at least five years, in order that local authorities may be able to deal with this unauthorized blight on the development of their towns and cities.
I come now to the question of the acquisition of land, which is the basis of positive planning. It is no good giving to a local planning authority the power to develop unless, at the same time, you give power to acquire the land upon which it is to carry out the development. The development plan may designate land as being subject to compulsory acquisition by any Minister, local authority, or statutory undertaker, if such land is wanted for the purpose of any of their functions. But the provisions go much beyond that, and this is a most useful extension of the powers of local authorities. The local authorities will be able to acquire land required for any purely planning purposes. This is most valuable; it enables one to plan with some elasticity and some imagination, and tie powers to provide for expedited completion of purchase, which were first put on the Statute Book by the Act of 1944, are being applied by the to any land required for any planning purposes. The local authorities are very well aware of the important instrument which these provisions will
166
place in their hands in connexion with the obligation to plan.
With regard to the cost of land, the fact that after the passing of this Bill the land will be acquired at its restricted value—that is, its existing use value—will mean a considerable saving of expense to many local authorities. But it is only fair that I should point out that this advantage will be materially lessened in those areas, as is the case in London, where the land is a ready very highly developed, because the projected development value of much land in London is not much higher than its existing use value, due to the density of user and the exploitation, if I may say so, of land in London. On the other hand, the clause which abolishes the 1939 standard of compensation on compulsory acquisition will obviously increase the commitments of the local authorities to an extent which at the present time is not ascertainable. But if it be accepted—the Government have accepted it, and I rather regret that they have—that there is no longer any justification for the retention of the 1939 basis, then the Bill does safeguard local authorities and the public pocket by seeking to eliminate the present inflated value attributable to vacant possession. Local authorities will be very grateful to the Government for having been wise enough to include within the Bill provisions in order to restrain the inflationary value attributable to vacant possession.
I come now to the grant proposals. These proposals show a substantial improvement over the existing grant provisions; indeed, the proposals now before the House are a substantial improvement on the proposals originally submitted when the Bill was first introduced into another place. It is the case, however, that the extent of the improvement cannot be measured by individual planning authorities until the regulations are made. I hope I shall not be thought, to he churlish if I say that the local authorities will wish to make representations to the Minister when he is framing those regulations which will control the amount of grant which the planning authorities will receive.
I do not think there is any need for me to go into the details of these grants, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that—unlike the Act of 1944—they

167
provide for grants upon the cost of the acquisition of blighted land as well as blitzed land. It is the case that as regards blighted land the weighted formula basis of calculation is still to apply, although the Minister has indicated that he hopes he may soon be able to alter that basis. In areas where war damage is widely spread there will be difficulty in dealing with land if that part which is blitzed attracts a straight grant, not based upon any weighted formula, and the adjoining land which is blighted attracts a grant on the basis of the weighted formula, one of the elements of which is the rateable value of the district itself.
One of the most important essentials of good planning of built-up areas is the provision of adequate open spaces, fairly distributed. They are the lungs of the community—the places of rest and repose, of sport and entertainment, and especially of safety for the children. Opening up of built-up areas cannot be achieved only by reducing the number of buildings on the ground; we must also increase the number and extent of the open spaces. In London, not only are we very short of open spaces, but they are most unevenly distributed in the county. As your Lordships well know, in the County of London Plan it was suggested that at least four acres per 1,000 persons should be provided. In ten boroughs of London there is less than one acre per 1,000 persons. The London County Council have already resolved to acquire some 300 additional acres in 13 boroughs where they have less than two and a half acres per 1,000 persons. The estimated cost of the acquisition of that land was no less than £3,000,000. It is the case that the cost is now likely to be less, as a result of the provisions of this Bill, and I am sure we all devoutly hope that that will be so.
At any rate, under this Bill the London County Council and other local authorities will be able to buy land for open space purposes at the restricted value, and will not be required to pay on the basis of future development. Even so, the cost will be high in built-up areas because, as I have said, existing use value is already high. But the Bill provides, for the first time, for a Government grant towards the loss involved in acquiring and clearing land, and its use for a less financially valuable purpose—namely, open
168
space, a purpose which, though it may be financially less valuable, is certainly socially very much more desirable, especially in built-up areas.
One of the very valuable provisions of this Bill is that which assimilates the procedure for the acquisition of both blitzed and blighted land. It will be remembered that when the Act of 1944 was under consideration, those of us who were aware of the problems of planning strongly urged that it was unreal to make any procedural distinction between blitzed land and I blighted land; and we pointed out that if such distinction were maintained it would frustrate the proper development of areas which contained both blitzed and blighted properties. Such experience as we have had since 1944 has certainly confirmed that misgiving. However, that distinction is now to be removed, and the procedure is to be common to both blitzed and blighted properties.
As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said, the Bill for the first time provides for effective control of advertisements. As experience has shown, the provisions of existing legislation are inadequate for controlling outdoor advertisements in the way they should be controlled. For instance, under the existing planning legislation a scheme can provide only a limited control over advertisements on land especially defined as land to be protected, and the Advertisements Regulation Acts confine themselves to limited classes of outdoor advertisements—namely, those on hoardings more than 12ft. high arid advertisements affecting rural amenities. I feel that all persons of good will will warmly welcome the proposals to control more effectively outdoor advertisements which still deface many stretches of our countryside and outrage the amenities of many of our cities and towns. It is idle to plan for rural beauty spots, or dignified buildings in our urban areas, if every canon of amenity and good taste is to be affronted by the blatant ugliness of uncontrolled hoardings, posters, lights and signs. In too many places, sites rendered temporarily derelict by enemy action are now plastered with posters, authorized or otherwise.
In February, 1945, on a Motion submitted to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, this matter was considered, and it was the general view

169
of your Lordships that more effective control was needed over outdoor advertisements. This Bill provides for it. Outdoor advertisements will come under town planning control, and the power to preserve the amenities will be strengthened. I feel sure that the Minister will have the support of all worthy citizens if, when he is framing his regulations, he puts public amenity above vested interests in the right—I had almost said the "squatters' right"—to perpetuate ugliness.
So much for the general framework of the Bill as it will affect planning authorities. It is, in my opinion, a good Bill and a sound Bill. It will give planning authorities substantially the powers they need to plan and order the development of this country, its towns, cities and countryside. Its grant proposals, if not wholly adequate, go a good way to provide the financial assistance which is essential. As one who is deeply devoted to planning, I would commend the Bill to your Lordships' support.
Before I conclude, I feel sure that your Lordships will expect me to say something about the proposal in the Bill to transfer certain planning functions now possessed by the City Corporation to the London County Council, and indeed I wish myself to say something on this aspect of the Bill. A great deal of heat on this matter has been engendered in certain places, and there has been a good deal of criticism of the London County Council, both uninformed and misinformed. Up to now, the London County Council and I, as its Leader, have borne with silence—if not without effort, so far as I am concerned—this criticism, but I think it would be appropriate that I should now state the case for the proposed transfer and also indicate the position of the London County Council in the matter. I hope I can do both with more taste and more grace and, perhaps, more courtesy than has been shown by certain persons who have participated in the public controversy about this matter. I have never been able to understand why in some quarters, in order to exalt—as I think sometimes a little excessively—the historic virtues of the City, it is considered essential to denigrate the London County Council and the great work which unquestionably it performs for the teeming millions of this great county of London.
170
First of all, I would like to make it clear that the London County Council did not ask for this transfer of powers. It is the case, however, as I think any reasonable person must admit, that the step proposed is a proper step; is an essential step in the interest of the satisfactory planning of the county as one unit. There are at present two planning authorities in the County of London, one for an area of 116 square miles with a population of 3,250,000, and another for the City with an area of one square mile and a resident population of 5,310. Such a situation, I submit, is indefensible—two plans to be prepared by two separate authorities, one for 116 square miles and the other for one square mile. As the Minister said in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill:
"The City holds, as I have told them, a unique position in the financial and commercial life of this country. Nevertheless, situated as is it in the centre of the County of London, and forming an integral part of its normal administration, its status as a separate and independent planning authority preparing a plan for its own square mile is anamolous and indefensible. I hope the Corporation will, on reflection, recognize that in this matter the wider interests of London as a whole ought to prevail."
The Minister found reinforcement for that statement from The Times, which said on January 24 of this year:
"The special character of the City, however, can scarcely justify the demand that for planning purposes the City, alone of all the communities in the heart of a gigantic urban area, must be accorded the sovereignty of a county borough."
I would like to quote also the Evening Standard. I must say that up to the present, at all events, the solicitude of the Evening Standard and the support of the Evening Standard for a Labour London County Council have not involved us in any embarrassment, so I can quote that paper on this matter with perhaps more freedom and may be with more effect in certain quarters. This is what the Evening Standard said on the question in its issue of January 23, 1947:
"The difficulties entailed by the present procedure are in fact graphically illustrated by the tardy progress made by the Corporation's own plan for rebuilding the City. As far back as July, 1944, a scheme was sent to the Minstry of Town and Country Planning. One year later Mr. W. S. Morrison, the Minister at that time, rejected this plan. Another year passed. In July, 1946, a new interim report was completed. But no final plan has yet been approved."

171
May I say, in parenthesis, that of course the final plan has now been published. The Evening Standard goes on to say:
"The London County Council on the other hand submitted its plan to the Ministry in July, 5943; received approval in general print ciples the next year, and in July, 1945, directed their Town Planning Committee to go ahead with the plan, subject to amendments suggested by various bodies.
The claims of sentiment must not be allowed to obscure the true interests of London's 5,000,000 citizens."—
That is putting it a bit high; the number is about 3,250,000—
"They need London not only replanned, but rebuilt. If endless delays in Whitehall are to be avoided the L.C.C. is the only possible authority which can carry out the necessary work effectively and in accordance with the expressed wishes of the London people."
I should be the last to gainsay the unique position that the City occupied in the financial and commercial life of this country. But planning is a social, a local government matter; and in the field of present-day local government of the County of London, the City's position is no greater than that of a metropolitan borough council. Like the twenty-eight metropolitan boroughs, the City forms, as the Minister said, "an integral part of the normal administration" of the County. Indeed, the City Corporation carries not more, but I submit less, responsibility in the field of local government than an average metropolitan borough council, because of its very much smaller population. It is true that according to the last census—in 1921 I think—the City had at that time a day population of some 450,000, but its night population in 1931 was no more than about 10,000. Its night population, according to the estimates made in December of last year is, as I have indicated, 5,310. And its area, whilst being larger than some of the metropolitan boroughs, is much smaller than many others.
The average population of the twenty-eight metropolitan boroughs is nearly 120,000. The largest of the metropolitan boroughs has a population of 328,000,and an area of 9,107 acres. None of the metropolitan borough councils is a planning authority. I ask your Lordships to contemplate what kind of a plan would have been prepared for London if each of the twenty-eight metropolitan boroughs was a separate planning autho-
172
rity, preparing separately a plan for its particular area. The result would have been chaos, confusion, and nonsense. One needs only to state the proposition to realize how absurd and chaotic the situation would have been. The claims of the City in this particular matter—namely, to be a separate planning authority—are no stronger than, and indeed for reasons which I have stated, it could be submitted that they are not so strong as, the claims of the metropolitan borough councils.
The City—I pay tribute in this respect—can claim long historic and worthy tradition. But there is no historic tradition in the City in regard to town planning. The City has been a town planning authority only from 1932. The London County Council have been the town planning authority since the first Town Planning Act was put on the Statute Book in 1909, and until 1932 the County Council were the town planning authority for the whole County, including the City of London. It was only under the Act of 1932, when the situation was changed, that the City of London became a separate town planning authority. The County Council, of course, are still the town planning authority for the rest of the County. I submit that no reasonable person can question that the proper thing to have done would have been, in 1941 when the London County Council commenced to prepare their County of London Plan, for that Plan to embrace the whole of the County, including the City. There must be one plan for the whole County. The situation is that there are now two plans; but they must he merged into one development plan. And if they are to be merged the merger must be done by one authority, and clearly that authority must be the London County Council.
I suggest to your Lordships, I hope without any offence, or without any kind of thought of being in any way unappreciative of the historic position of the City of London, that in this matter no claims of tradition or prestige can avail. Planning is for the future, and while the past must be respected, it must not be allowed to impair or frustrate the future ordered development of London as a whole. That, I submit, is the unanswerable case for the proposal in the Bill. It may be of interest if I briefly sketch what the Bill proposes in this regard. It is the case that the London

173
County Council are to become the planning authority for the City, as they were before 1932. There is nothing punitive about this. The City has not been selected for special treatment; what is to be done in London is to be done throughout the country. A large number of existing planning authorities are to be relieved of their functions, which are to be transferred to the county councils, and it is not the case that the City of London is being specially treated; it is being treated in accordance with the national set-up for planning powers and planning operations in the future.
The London County Council will prepare a development plan which will embrace the whole County, and the County Council will be responsible for the implementation of that plan when it is approved by the Minister. But in the formation of the development plan, before determining applications and before making a tree preservation order or building preservation order which affects any land in the City, the London County Council will be required to consult with the City—and will willingly. The City Corporation will be the authority empowered to acquire compulsorily and to develop the land required for development in accordance with the development plan. This is a power which no metropolitan borough council enjoys at the present time, nor will any metropolitan borough council enjoy it under this Bill; it is a power which is to be left with the City. The City can therefore carry out re-development, whereas the metropolitan borough councils, at the present time and for the future, can carry out only redevelopment with the consent of the London County Council, and at the option of the London County Council. Therefore the City of London will have substantially wider powers than are possessed by the metropolitan boroughs.
In the discussions which took place prior to the introduction of the Bill, the County Council made it clear that they would be willing to consult with the City on all classes of application for planning permission. Here again is a procedure which is much wider than the one followed with regard to the metropolitan borough councils. As regards the metropolitan borough councils, the County Council are under obligation to consult only in respect of a limited class of appli-
174
cation, whereas the County Council will be prepared to consult with the City Corporation, the Common Council of the City, in respect of all applications for planning permission. Therefore I submit that the transfer of these planning powers from the City Corporation to the London County Council is sound, is reasonable, is desirable, and does fit in with the national scheme for planning envisaged by the Bill. The Council are willing to undertake this new responsibility. They did not ask for it, as I said earlier in my speech, but they will willingly undertake the responsibility, and they are convinced that it is the proper course for the Government to have taken.
I should, however, make this perfectly clear: that it is of great importance that any regulations which are to be made by the Minister should not in any way hamper the Council in the exercise of the responsibility which they assume, or endanger the proper implementation of the major London Plan. Finally, I do not doubt that when the Bill reaches the Statute Book, and when tempers are perhaps a little cooler, the London County Council and the City Corporation will be able to co-operate in a spirit of mutual respect in laying the foundations of a better and finer London, wherein the City will retain its historic place.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, this Bill was presented to Parliament and to the nation as a wholly innocent and well-intentioned Bill to secure better planning, the preservation of urban and rural beauty, to prevent speculation, and to secure for the State certain values which it is claimed should belong to it. When the proposals were first released I remember the charming description in the Government papers, and I would find it difficult to-day to recognize those accounts as being of this Bill, which is to such a large extent a financial measure with vast implications. It involves the imposition of fresh taxation, new charges on development in respect of buildings as well as of land, and a large-scale acquisition which one can fairly call confiscation (including that of minerals) from certain sections of the community—frequently, so far as one can see, without compensation—of values, to the largest extent that the Government feel bold enough or able to accomplish in one Bill. What is worse still must strike many

175
people: that these values are not likely to be transferred to the nation or the State; most or many of them will disappear. There will be a destruction of wealth and values—involving a loss to the nation, and to individuals—which have been very useful in the past. There will be also the destruction of incentive to create that same wealth.
I think it may fairly be said that the first reception given to this Bill was more favourable than the reaction is now, after much study and after revelations in another place, and the sabotage there of Amendments and proper discussion. I feel that we are all intensely indebted today to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the clear and able statement which he made to us. I was also grateful to him for emphasizing how complicated the measure is, and how difficult it is to understand and speak about. I hope, therefore, the shortcomings of people like me, who feel it very difficult to do either, will be excused.
I feel I should also say that, like many members of this House, I and my family are financially concerned in a measure of this sort. My experience is much more from the country angle—the land, rural local government, land management and agriculture—and I can only, therefore, endeavour to speak from that angle. I feel we can justifiably complain that this Bill, like so many others, has been designed far more for the cities and large towns and crowded areas than for application to the country. And I think it can be shown that there is much that is unsuitable and unnecessary for application to the country, and that there these measures will prove to be harsh and unjust. This Bill is in no way confined to planning, and much has been brought in under the mantle of planning for which it is difficult to see justification. I think it is agreed that this is a measure of exceptional magnitude and complexity, having profound consequences upon a very great number of people. The restriction on discussion in another place is admitted and, so far as one can see, was the deliberate policy of the Government. The task imposed on us here is all the greater, and there are many questions one would like to ask. There is much information that we still need, and many Amendments are still needed to improve the Bill.
176
Even if it were clear to the members of the Government and the members of the two Houses of Parliament, I feel that not enough attention is paid to those hundreds of thousands, or millions, of individuals who are affected by this Bill and who are being planned for, and to whether we are planning for them in the best way. While there is much that is good in this Bill, I do hope the Government will not spoil it by bringing in a great deal that seems to be bad and unnecessary. I feel that everyone is prepared to acknowledge that a big attempt is being made by the Government for better planning, based on the progress and the results of many investigations under previous Governments, and it does seem unfortunate that any good proposals for planning are associated with others that seem to be based mainly on political prejudice and not substantiated by facts.
The Lord Chancellor said, I think, that 'we are all agreed on the principle of planning, and that that was not, therefore, a subject which it was necessary to discuss. But I feel that we have to consider whether there is not sometimes too much emphasis on the word "planning," and that that, in itself, does not necessarily mean good planning. When one comes to deal with the landward districts, one finds that more and more a vast amount of time has to be devoted to small details. County councils, naturally, will have more work put upon them by these proposals; that is to be expected. But surely we ought to make every endeavour to avoid the imposition of a great amount of detailed work and red tape, additional costs, the employment of many more people, the setting up of more offices and the occurrence of delays, all of which are things that threaten to ensue in the case of a number of councils and committees dealing with these minor matters. Surely all such things should be eliminated so far as possible, and otherwise be kept to a minimum.
To those who represent the cities, this is perhaps a different matter. With them costs, possibly, do not matter so much. But with those of us who deal with much lower valuations these costs are a very important matter, and we find that they tend to become onerous. One receives the impression that good planning proposals have to give way to expediency. Even in comparatively small towns one finds that

177
good planning is the intention but that pressure is brought to bear, and what were regarded as fine open spaces are demanded, as a matter of expediency, for housing sites. In that connexion, it comes as a disappointment and a shock to us in the country that this sort of thing should happen also at the very centre of the Empire, in London itself, where recently, we have noted, there has been a controversy about the erection of an electric power station on the South Bank of the Thames. We have seen what we understood to be good planning proposals, proposals drawn up by experts and responsible authorities, overthrown for purposes of expediency. Now if that can happen in the very centre, in London itself, surely it is all the more disappointing to those of us who have responsibility in a much smaller sphere. In fact it is a discouragement.
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who speaks with such knowledge of the municipal affairs of London and other large cities, was perhaps a little scathing in his reference to land owners not being able any longer to plan as and where and when it pleased them. I felt that there was a note of sarcasm in his remarks, which he might not have infused into them if, perhaps, he had been more closely in touch with the more rural side. On that side, I feel that the land owners have done their utmost to play their part in regard to planning, and have made a very good contribution. Moreover, local councils in those areas are guided very often in their best planning work by the local land owners. If I remember correctly, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, during the Second Reading debate, made a remark which I understood to mean that the best planning in this country had been done by land owners in the time before planning officially started as planning.
The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, referred to the compensation side, and. I would like to say a few words on that. Even though it is a subject that may be dealt with at greater length in the Committee stage, there are certain things which deserve to be said now. The Lord Chancellor spoke of £300,000,000 as being, the global figure. I notice that he did not adduce any arguments in support of that figure, he merely said that it had been decided on by the Government. I noticed, too, that he
178
spoke at some length when he was dealing with the better and more constructive proposals of the Government, and passed over rather quickly what I would call the destructive proposals—proposals which could not be defended quite so easily, At the very beginning it was argued that that figure which I have mentioned was inadequate and unjust. Since then other claims on this pool have been discussed and made good, with a proportionate reduction for other genuine claims. The case, therefore, for revision and increases is stronger than ever.
I find it difficult to ascertain exactly what is to be the basis for compensation, and I also find it difficult to know how the word "hardship" is to be interpreted. It seems to me that the words "justice and fairness" would be more appropriate. About the time of the last General Election—both before and after the polling—leaders of the Government made several statements and gave a number of pledges about compensation in cases where any asset, were nationalized. In each case, or in most cases, the emphasis was on the words "fair compensation." I have a number of quotations, and I might perhaps give one as an example. The Right Honourable Herbert Morrison, Lord President of the Council, answering a question in the course of a broadcast to America, on August 17, as to what were the Government proposals for promoting the best use of the land, said:
"there is no question of us taking away private property without compensation. We stand fully and firmly for the principle of fair compensation and for a square deal for the individual."
I find it rather difficult to follow how those and similar pledges fit in with the policy which is embodied in this Bill.
It appears to me that these pledges are not being carried out; but perhaps the fact is that the Government are unaware of the probable figures. In that case there is all the more reason for revision. In many publications, including the Economist, which is not very friendly to the Conservative Party, I remember the word "robbery" being used frequently for descriptive purposes. It seems that out of this pool the compensation will be mainly for the cities and large towns, and it looks as if small claims and anything for the country generally will be eliminated. Let me ask

179
if this is so and why? Is it because it makes too much trouble if all these claims are likely to be small? The sums may seem small in comparison with the larger claims, but to refuse them is to cause hardship on small people, the owners of one or more farms on poorer lands, where capital and revenue from any natural or legitimate source is necessary.
Under the Agricultural Bill landowners are to be asked to manage, develop and equip their lands efficiently for production. They have been urged on many occasions to do this on business lines. A great many have been doing so and are doing so now. But it seems that the Government, by these proposals, will punish them, negative their endeavours and make it less possible to develop their lands in future. On most estates there are variations in the quality and value of the land. It seems a matter of good management to utilize revenue from more valuable lands to develop those which are less valuable. By regular or occasional sales of land for building, revenue is obtainable which can be used for the development and equipment of the rest of the agricultural land. In this way, much poor land has been developed and equipped which otherwise would not be possible.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that everything in this Bill was intended to encourage private enterprise, but in this particular case I feel that there is a distinct discouragement to private enterprise in regard to agricultural equipment and development. I would like to ask what justification there is for removing from agriculture this source of revenue, without compensation, and from where else the revenue is expected to come for this necessary work. The prices of land are naturally riot big in comparison with those in the towns, and the figures at stake are not large. The impression one gets is that the Government is apt to ignore this side of the problem. If there is no payment for the assets and the value they are expropriating, they are removing from agriculture at this critical time sources of revenue which are normally applied in efficiency measures to increase production. I hope the Government realize that, or that they will do so if they have not done so before.
180
In much the same way there will be a loss of income from royalties in respect of minerals, which are also to be confiscated and which are similarly used for agricultural development and for necessary expenditure on lands and farms. Between the two, this loss of revenue for agricultural purposes is a very serious matter, and I am sorry there has not been any reference to it from the Government side. The subject of minerals was mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but was somewhat quickly passed over for further discussion. I hope I shall be excused if I say a few more words now. It is very difficult to understand why the inclusion of minerals is necessary in this Bill, or how it is justified. It is an additional complication to the Bill. The reasons are obscure. There is no necessity for it. It certainly complicates the Bill and the compensation proposals. Little mention was made about the possibility of minerals coming into such a Bill in any of the pronouncements at a high level by this Government, and it was contrary to the recommendations in the Uthwatt Report, which dealt with it incidentally and suggested other treatment.
These minerals are very different from surface development values. Their values can be estimated and are generally well fixed. They are usually held on lease and are being developed. There is already planning control in the case of minerals and if that is not sufficient now it can be strengthened. But again we see the confiscation of assets, contrary to the pledges to which I referred. The provision for the inclusion of minerals seems to have been tacked on at a late stage, and the amount of the values appears to have been overlooked or underestimated. It is important to know if the Government have ascertained what are the values affected. I think they ought to have some information by now, as the matter has been under discussion for some time. It has been suggested there ought to be an inquiry to ascertain what they are.
Many subjects are included under minerals, and perhaps iron ore is rather prominent among them. Coming from Northamptonshire and the East Midlands, where this matter is particularly important, I wish to take this opportunity to say a few words about what is the principal problem there from a planning aspect—namely, the restoration of the disfigured

181
surface after the minerals have been extracted. It is very disappointing to people in the Midlands to find no reference at all to that matter in this Bill, especially as it has been a subject of so mach concern on the spot. The district was visited by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. There has been an investigation for many years into this disfigurement, with a view to making recommendations as to the best way of dealing with it. Local people on all sides co-operated—the iron ore producers, royalty owners and others—and expert advice was taken and recommendations made to the Minister. I am sure there will be much disappointment if the Government ignore these recommendations, do nothing about surface restoration, and still take as much money as they can out of the industry and leave those on the spot with fewer funds with which to make good this damage.
A global figure was considered the appropriate method for coal royalties, so why should it not be also appropriate for iron ore royalties? I believe that in another place an effort was made to show that in a large number of cases death duties must have been paid on development values and on minerals, often at high rates. and also that investments were made in land including payments for these valuable assets. If compensation is based on hardship, may I ask how it is interpreted in those cases? It is a factor which has to be taken into account. I was very glad that this subject was dealt with from the Liberal Benches so thoroughly and so much more clearly by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. I hope that the questions put by him (which are of interest to so many others) will receive an answer and that there will be some information at an early stage. I would like to emphasize that, in all these cases, one of the effects of the Bill will be the removal of capital from country areas where it is needed for local development of the land, and, as regards death duties, it seems quite inequitable to take large sums in taxation and then take the ironstone and other minerals without any payment, or, perhaps, with only a nebulous share of the pool fund for the development values in land.
References have been made to many of the important points in this Bill, and the blighting and sterlizing effects of designation have been referred to both from the point of view of the land owner
182
and of the agricultural tenant. It has been said that designation is for the benefit of land owners, but we have not been able to see how this is so. It is clear that there will be losses in different ways from designation. Reference has been made to the development charges on buildings as well as on land. It is very difficult to see how that is not a tax on development, and how the land can be secured more cheaply in the future. It is also difficult to see why there should be discouragement of the modernization of old buildings by development charges. To most people who are learned on these subjects it seems that this collection of betterment and development charges is likely to discourage development, and we do not see where the encouragement comes in. It is clear that the treatment of dead ripe and near ripe land presents problems which are not yet solved, and it is not easy to see how a fair and satisfactory solution is likely.
Theory, often of a political nature, seems to a considerable extent responsible for legislation of this kind, and the further this Bill is examined the more impracticable and unfair it seems in certain respects. There appears to be little in it which will really achieve what is wanted most of all now—the securing of more houses, better houses, and less costly houses. I am sure that everyone acknowledges that this is a most difficult subject upon which to legislate or for any Government to draft a satisfactory measure to deal with. I think there is recognition that much in the Bill is capable of improvement. In another place, the Minister gave a number of assurances and half assurances on a large number of points which, I understood, were to be dealt with before the Bill was finally passed.
There is much that still unknown and still uncertain, and I consider that we are entitled to some information at the earliest possible stage. There is also much in the measure that is controversial and unfair. The noble and learned Viscount has invited co-operation, and I feel sure that that will be forthcoming. I believe that the Government themselves can help much more to secure a better Bill and a more rapid passage through Parliament by giving concessions on a number of points about which there is strong feeling. I hope there will be an early indi-

183
cation of whether there will be concessions on different matters, and one matter I have in mind is the subject of minerals, upon which I have just spoken. I do not think that the Bill is workable at all in its present form and it is likely to break down. In any case, it is our duty to improve the Bill and to make it as beneficial and as workable as possible. Though disliking much in this measure, I feel sure that our co-operation will be forthcoming to the best of our ability.
6.38 p.m.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and Lord Latham between them have given an exceedingly lucid explanation of this admittedly exceedingly difficult Bill. I do not propose to go into the details of the measure as they have done, but what I would like to do is to show how the Bill will affect provincial cities, and I am thinking particularly of my home city of Manchester. In almost his last words, the noble Duke who has just sat down said that the Bill is impracticable, unfair and unworkable. I say that, with regard to Manchester, this Bill is exactly the reverse. I think all noble Lords will agree, including the noble Duke, that Manchester needs replanning and rebuilding, as do our other cities. We have what we call a slum belt. Around the centre of the city of Manchester there is a slum belt which contains about 80,000 houses, and 68,000 of these have been officially condemned by the medical officer of health as being unfit for human habitation. That, of course, is our major problem, but there are a great many other problems.
We have in Manchester, as in so many other cities, a bold and imaginative plan. The question is how far this Bill is going to help us to implement that plan. May T go back very shortly and give a historical sketch to show what the difficulties have been and what extraordinarily slow progress has been made? We built our slums between 1800 and 1850, at a time when this country was probably the richest country in the world, and Manchester one of the richest cities. Owing to the laissez faire attitude, which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, admitted—
LORD LLEWELLIN: It was mostly under a Liberal Government.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: That is where the Liberals made their mistake. But now we have had 100 years of slums. Under that system of unenlightened self-interest we built these slums, which are the foulest and most shameful things which human beings have ever built.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: The Glasgow slums are the worst.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: That went on for twenty or thirty years, and in 1830, as a result of all these slums, there were violent epidemics of cholera, smallpox, and so on. Parliament began to take notice and reforms were begun. The first era of planning began with sanitary reform to preserve health. That consisted only of getting proper drains, and a proper, clean water supply, and in letting air and light into the houses. Those were the first stages of planning, and that lasted until about 1914. The city councils did the whole thing by their various committees—nobody else did it—and they gradually cleaned up and improved the slums until the sanitary reform period ended in about 1914.
Then came the first Town Planning Act of 1909 and the John Burns' Act, and the local authorities set up planning committees. I was a member of the Manchester Town Planning Committee in 1912. We did not do much more than begin to think about planning; our powers were entirely negative, and in no way effective. The next step was the Tudor Wallace Report, under the direction of Sir Raymond Unwin, which laid down the "twelve to the acre" estates which we now know so well. That was the biggest bit of planning for the estates, and the 4,000,000 houses to which the most reverend Primate referred were built on those lines. That again was on quite a small scale. We had that bit of planning, and at the end of the First World War we had a great reform in housing, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was perhaps the leader, along with Mr. Lloyd George, and we had the "Homes for Heroes" campaign. Public opinion made up its mind that the slums had got to go, and housing then went ahead. But public opinion did not make up its mind that planning mattered, and planning did not go ahead. There were some rather feeble attempts which led us nowhere in the inter-war period.

185
I should like to give two examples of how. difficult it was in those days. In the first place, Manchester made up its mind to do something and showed a good pioneering spirit by building a satellite garden town, something like the new towns which we are now building. That town was Wythenshawe, from which I have the honour to take ray title. It was after I left the council that most of this happened. They purchased an estate of 3,000 acres in Cheshire, and they called in Sir Patrick Abercrombie and the late Mr. Barry Parker to make sure that it was planned on the best lines. They produced an admirable plan. But what happened? There was opposition from all quarters. There was opposition from the unimaginative section of the Manchester City Council, and it took years to overcome that opposition; there was opposition from the people of Cheshire, who hated the Manchester people coming to live in their beautiful county; there was opposition from Parliament, who rejected our Bill for the incorporation of these 3,000 acres, and we had to come back later to get it passed; and there was also opposition from, the Minister of Health. Public opinion was not ready.
It was only the pioneering spirit of men like Alderman Jackson of the Manchester City Council, who was one of the great pioneers of this generation, which led to the creation of the town of Wythenshawe. But it did go through, and after thirty years £10,000,000 was spent, and Wythenshawe is now a model of pioneering enterprise. We have several thousand acres under development which in the next two or three years will be completed, and there will be a population of nearly 100,000 there—roughly equivalent to the population of Chester and Gloucester added together—living under really good conditions. I hope that has contributed to this 'movement towards new towns, and that perhaps the new towns movement will benefit from our experiences at Wythenshawe.
The second experience I had was much more disappointing. Manchester did try in about 1936 to plan a Civic Centre. I am sorry to say that it was a pathetic failure. I went over to Moscow in 1936 to look at the planning and housing of that city. It was really wonderful. In the ten-year plan they adopted in 1931 they made up their minds to build the
186
finest capital in the world. for a population of 5,000,000; even the population was planned. The planners had full power and the full support of the Government. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Latham, is not here, because I should have liked him to hear the example I am going to give of what they did and what they are doing with their river. The river flows for fifteen miles through the City of Moscow. They planned that and made boulevards along the whole length of that stretch of river; they had granite embankments built, and raised the level of the river by ten feet; they planned eleven new bridges, of which five or six are finished; and they have made the river available for 20,000 ton ships to come right into the heart of Moscow. That is just an indication of their kind of spirit and their determination to succeed.
While I was there, the British Ambassador, who lives in a beautiful house just opposite the Kremlin—a house that is overcrowded, as are all other houses, and the kitchens are in the basement—received a letter front the Chairman of the Waterworks Committee of Moscow saying that they regretted that they had not advised the Ambassador before but they were increasing the depth of the Moscow river three meters, which would mean that the kitchens of the house would be so much under water. They hoped that this would not cause any inconvenience. That was all that was said. I do not know that we would care for such methods here, but the town planners there were the happiest and most enthusiastic people I have ever met. That was in Moscow, which was at that time, and still is, a very poor city compared to London. Yet that is the kind of imagination and drive which they put into their planning. They had one great advantage, of course, Which is that the land is all nationalized; it is not even valued, but just used for this purpose. I went back from there to Manchester, where the Town Planning Committee had planned a modest Civic Centre. Just before I got there an insurance company came along and bought a patch of land for £40,000, right in the middle of the Civic Centre. The Town Planning Committee said: "Can we buy that land back?" The insurance company said: "Yes," but the City Council said they were sorry, but they could not afford

187
£40,000. The City Council had no idea of the importance of planning in those days.
That is as far as we have got. I think one speaker said that we had already done a great deal of planinng, but I very much doubt whether we have, apart from this minor planning. Then came what we have already referred to, the period of Barlow, Scott and Uthwatt, and things began to move. We had a Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The noble Lord, Lord Reith, went round, as the first Minister, telling the local authorities to plan, and they did plan. I think that is very largely why these bold plans have been produced. It seems to me that we have now arrived at a stage in planning very similar to the stage at which we arrived in housing after the First World War. Public opinion made up its mind at that time that it would have houses, and it had houses.
I hope that this Bill, and the general welcome which it has received—apart horn certain financial criticisms—is a sign that public opinion has now made up its mind that it will plan. In that sense, I hope it is decisive. It does give the local authorities great powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said. It removes once and for all the bogey of compensation; it enables local authorities to purchase whatever land they may need for planning purposes, at what I think are likely to be reasonable prices when your Lordships' House has done with the Bill, and, above all, it enables one thing to be done which has never been possible before—that is, it enables the authorities to purchase land in the centre of the cities for adequate open spaces, and to build houses at a reasonable density in the centre. I think and hope that this Bill will enable local authorities to have, at least, something approaching adequate open spaces in the centre of the cities. I think it is true that our cities now have all the powers, and in some ways possibly even more than the powers, which enabled a few landlords in the past to carry out those model pieces of planning in Bath, Edinburgh, Regent Street and so on. I hope and look forward to the time when individual cities will do even better.
There is one other aspect to which I should like to refer—quite a different one. It is that this has an importance which
188
goes, I think, far beyond planning. There is a tendency, which is regrettable but perhaps unavoidable, to reduce the powers and responsibilities of local authorities. They are losing gas, electricity, transport and hospitals, and there is a great danger that the more vigorous and ambitious citizens may hesitate to go into local government if they find their responsibility decreased. Everybody here, I am sure, will agree that successful democracy does depend on local government, first of all because local government can do a great many important jobs far better than central government can possibly do them. Secondly, the Bill gives county boroughs and county councils very great powers of responsibility, probably greater powers than they have ever had before, and certainly in a more difficult subject than they have had before. In that sense I welcome this Bill particularly, and I believe that its success will be a test of British democracy. I should like to congratulate the Government, if I may, on their courage and faith in giving these great added responsibilities to local authorities.
Your Lordships know that many cities—I think I have already mentioned them—have courageous and imaginative plans, and I am parochial enough to believe that the Manchester plan is among the best. We now have, under this Bill, the powers and the support from the centre for which our Town Planning Committee has been praying for the last twenty years. One rather depressing feature of our rather drab, dirty and smoky towns, is that in this generation of the motor car almost everybody who can afford it has gone to live in the country—in Cheshire in our particular case—and comes into Manchester to work; and really those people have ceased to be citizens of the city. That is one of the serious features of local government. All over the world, except where you have a beautiful well-planned city, that flight to the country is taking place, and it is undermining the citizenship of those who live in cities. I hope and believe that that can be reversed.
We have, in Manchester, not only the great task of clearing the slums, but a particularly magnificent plan for what is called the cultural centre which has been worked out between the City and the University. Three hundred acres have been set aside there for the University and all ancillary buildings, with teaching hospitals, and civic buildings for

189
concerts, theatres, and so on. It is hoped that flats and houses will be built around this. We hope that the atmosphere can be cleaned within twenty years, as the Ministry of Fuel tell us. When we can manage that, it will be possible to get back to a condition of civilized urban life in beautiful surroundings, with all the amenities that a city can give but which the country can never give. We regard that as a great and exhilarating prospect in Manchester. We hope and believe it can be done, and that we shall get the kind of conditions you have in Zurich, in Stockholm and the best of the other Continental towns. If those happy days ever come—and I am young and optimistic enough to believe they will—I have little doubt that this Bill will have made the greatest contribution to those newer and happier days in Britain.
6.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord who has just spoken so interestingly this afternoon, although many of the points which he made are ones which I would be glad to follow. I will confine myself, with your Lordships' permission, to one point; and it is with particular reference to what I would describe as the "hook-up" of this Bill and another Bill which is coming before your Lordships' House at a future date. I would like some enlightenment as to how that is in fact supposed to work out. I notice in Clause 2 reference is made to "the Ministers," but in Clause 3 the word "Minister" becomes singular. I am not at all clear as to why that is so. Are we to suppose that in fact the Secretary of State for Scotland—who is one of the two Ministers—has no say in the tasks which fall under Clause 3; that is, directions which may be given to the Central Land Board? I do not know if that is so, and I do not know whether it would be proper for me to comment on remarks which the Secretary of State may have made in another place with reference to another Bill, which hardly seem consistent with such remarks as have been brought to my attention.
I would like to ask: what exactly is going to be the structure of this Central Land Board? Are they to have, in fact, a duality of control? I will go further, and say that it appears that they are to have a tripartite control, because I notice that under Clause 51 it appears that the
190
Treasury will have a great deal to say as to the way in which the Board's work is carried out. This Central Land Board have been represented as a department of the Inland Revenue, and I see no objection to their structure as such, but if they are a Revenue department, why does the Minister of Town and Country Planning wish to give them directions? If they are a Revenue department he would have no say at all. I noticed that the noble arid learned Viscount said that it was not a taxation Bill, and I should agree with that—it is, indeed, something much more. I am confirmed in that view by what appears in Cause 66, which says that "no such operations shall be carried out, and no such use shall be instituted or continued" (that is, the development of land) "until the amount of the charge, if any, to be paid n respect of those operations or that use has been determined by the Board," and the account so determined paid or squared.
It appears to me, quite definitely, that that is an administrative function, and is not simply a question of collecting revenue. I think it is common knowledge that so far as revenue is concerned it can remain uncollected for many years—if one is fortunate. It may lead to certain financial instability, but it does not slow up development. No, development can take place under this Bill unless this account is squared. That means to say it is quite capable of holding up any development whatsoever. There has been the suggestion made—and I do not know whether His Majesty's Government agree with it—that in effect this amounts to something approaching a Central Planning Authority. I do not think there is very much doubt, from the terms of the Bill, that it has Central Planning Boards, otherwise I see no reason why the Minister of Town and Country Planning should want to give it direction.
It is quite impractical to have a body which deals substantially with land tenure working 300 to 500 miles, away from Scotland, or any other part where the land concerned is situate. To everyone attempting to build a house the very long time that it takes to get permission is common knowledge. I can give an example of a housing estate which was begun eighteen months ago and still not one foundation has been dug. Yet nobody has suggested that there were any difficulties or anything improper about the

191
proposals. If you add to that the fact that an application for an assessment of valuation and authority to proceed has to be made to a Board 300 miles away it will, to my mind, constitute a really intolerable burden on development. There is another reason, and that is that the whole system of land tenure in Scotland is entirely different from that in England. I have grave doubts as to whether this Bill was in fact properly examined and passed by the law officers in Scotland.
Tenure by feuing is known to most of your Lordships and there are other forms of tenure such as udal, allodial, and burgage tenure. These are things which are quite unknown in England. I would also mention crofting; the law of crofting is quite unknown here and would constitute grave difficulties to any central board operating in this country. Another thing is common interest in stair or roof which the proprietor of a flat can have. That is hardly known in England. There is the question of the "real" burden of estates; there would be a great difficulty in dealing with that at considerable distance. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, once said that in Scotland the laws relating to estates are also radically different from those in England. A distinguished professor of conveyancing recently said that it would be as competent for a Scottish lawyer to advise his client with regard to the law of land in France as for an English lawyer to advise a client on Scottish estate law. This is a point which should be emphasized. The subject is one of great complexity. Moreover, in Scotland we have had for more than three centuries—since 1617—a central registration of land. I am informed that no such register exists in England even now. I contend, therefore, that even if there were no difference in the tenure of land there would be a strong argument for having an executive body in Edinburgh to deal with these matters, particularly development charges affecting land tenure. I believe the case to be unanswerable.
The difficulty has been raised that if a land board were to be set up there would be a difficult and embarrassing task in dividing the global sum. I do not think the Secretary of State for Scotland is anxious to place that in an Act of Parlia-
192
ment, because he knows well that under any division, whether you use the Goschen scale or a per capita allocation, Scotland would not get as much as England because the development values are greater in England than in Scotland. The giving of authority for development, however, is in an entirely different category and is a very important matter. A criticism has been made to-day—and it is a matter which even a strong supporter of this Bill must view with some anxiety—in regard to the cumbersomeness of the machinery. Even if you think the Bill good, there is no doubt that it may be rather heavy and cumbersome to work, and anything which means cumbersomeness must be regarded with some seriousness, bearing in mind the interests of good management.
I suggest that something could be established on similar lines to the Forestry Commission, or the Tribunal in the Transport Bill; or there is some parallel in the Crown Commissioners. If effective decision is to be given, it must be given in an area where competent men understand the nature of the tenure and where the central register is. If all executive decisions are given at a great distance it will enormously encumber this process, making it much less efficient and a much greater burden on the people who have to administer it.
7.5 P.m.
LORD BROADBRIDGE: My Lords, I must first of all make reference to the somewhat scathing remarks which were passed on the City of London by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I am sorry he has left your Lordships' House because I was going to say that I should have thought that in ordinary circumstances of courtesy he should have told me beforehand that he was going to attack the City. I should also have told him, when he referred to discourtesy offered to him during discussions with the Minister, that I, at any rate, was never a party to any of those proceedings or discussions; and the only reason why none of my colleagues is here in your Lordships' House to-day is, as will be obvious to your Lordships, that none has the right to be here.
The only reason I take up the cudgels for the City of London is that I can say, perhaps proudly, that at one time I was its first citizen and its chief magistrate. One does not like to be treated or to see

193
one's town or city treated like a naughty boy, especially when that city happens to be not only the capital city of this country but of our Empire. It is silly for any noble Lord or for anyone else who has been associated for a long time with the London County Council to say that the City of London has no greater power than any of our local government areas—West Ham or East Ham, and so on—because it shows a great want of knowledge of what the historic past and the great future of the City of London really is and stands for, I have no intention at this late hour of detaining your Lordships for any great length of time, but I cannot leave the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in a better way than by saying that they remind me of the story of a well known K.C. who was briefed to lead in an action. As he saw that there was no case at all, he handed his brief to his junior and endorsed it: "No case; abuse the other attorney." That, I feel, is what has happened this evening.
Let me say at once that I am not objecting in any way to this Bill, because is has been conceded that a Town Planning Bill is wanted. I have no reason for saying that the Bill now before your Lordships' House is not a good Bill. What I am objecting to is the proposal to eliminate the City of London from being its own town planning authority. There are in connexion with any Bill of this kind several schools of thought. There are those who object to any town planning, however good it may be; and there are large numbers of persons who do not want the delay which the planning provisions are bound to entail—and that applies, of course, very largely to the City of London, which has suffered such devastation and seen its merchants and industrialists robbed of proper office accommodation for themselves and their staffs. But I am at any rate deeply sensible of responsibility when one makes any remarks regarding the capital city of our country. I regarded it as a great compliment when the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that he regretted that the City of London was going to lose some of its planning authority, and I am quite sure, speaking for myself and for members of the Common Council, that we appreciate such a compliment from such a high quarter.
Now under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932, the City of London
194
fifteen years ago was made its own town planning authority, and that was done with the approval not only of the London County Council but also of other metropolitan bodies. If this Bill passes as it is now, the City of London, under Clauses 4 and III, will lose its planning authority. It may seem a very simple thing for a city or a body of local government to lose an authority of that kind; but it is far more than that; it is the loss of prestige to the capital city not only in this country but in other parts of the Empire and abroad, where the City of London is always looked to in giving the lead on all matters of national importance. Taking away its planning authority is just one of those meddlesome actions which is prejudicial to the influence of the City.
If there is any governing body in the country that is capable of carrying out a town planning scheme it is the Common Council of the City of London. The City Corporation knows its requirements from A to Z, and it knows better than anybody else or any other body how to carry them out. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, referred apparently to the Common Council as being either misinformed or misunderstanding things. I think the boot is on the other foot, and I would like to remind your Lordships what the City has done to justify its taking up the position it has done. For instance, it has provided out of it; private cash, and has maintained probably for 50 or 100 years, entirely free from asking the ratepayers for any money, four bridges over the Thames—Tower Bridge, London Bridge, Southwark Bridge and Black-friars Bridge. It is still maintaining them, and will go on maintaining them, free of ratepayers' money until the end of the world.
What have the Common Council done, besides that, to show that they have studied the welfare of the people? They have acquired and given to the public for ever, out of their own private cash, and also without asking the ratepayers for anything for maintenance, that great East lung, Epping Forest. That is not all. They have acquired in the same way, at their own cost, and maintained, that great sanctuary of trees, Burnham Beeches, in Buckinghamshire, which is the rendezvous at week-ends or holidays of the people of London who go there

195
to get a breathing space. There are many other similar open spaces. They have given Coulsdon Common, Riddlesdown, Farthingdown, and so on, all out of their own pocket, all done to add beauty to our country and for the benefit and the welfare of the people. Now it is proposed to take away the planning authority from them, when they have done so well for the people, and one can only conclude that it is a case of a political mess of pottage.
Even the Minister of Town and Country Planning, in another place, made this remark about the City; he said he would not wish to hurt the susceptibilities of this historic and important authority. The City, he said, holds a unique position in the commercial and financial life of the country. I might add myself that the City of London leads the country and the Empire in all matters that affect the welfare of the people. There is no authority that is more desirous of working in harmony with the London County Council, and it has in fact always done so, and we have always had the most friendly relations. I cannot help thinking that when the noble Lord, Lord Latham, referred to heat and temper it was not in any way in connexion with any discussions that have taken place, one might say, officially; it must have been discussion from outside sources which upset him.
But when one has regard to the way in which he laboured the matter, and from the heat which he showed in it, one can quite understand that there was perhaps some little feeling in the matter on both sides. I can assure him, however, that the Common Council of the City are desirous always of helping, of comparing notes, and of doing everything they can to dovetail all their arrangements. Even the plan which has now been prepared and finished for the City, in consultation with those two great planning experts, Dr. Holden and Professor Holford, whom I might regard really as Government planners, has been made to fit in and dovetail with the plan of the London County Council. There is nothing else in it. The heat arises because they want to eliminate the City from having planning authority. My answer to that
196
is that the City has a dignity to stand up for and protect, not only in this country but also in other countries. The first thing that some countries abroad and in the Empire will say is, "What has the City of London done to have their town planning authority taken away under this new Bill?" It is a matter that is not merely for the City Corporation alone, it is for the betterment and the welfare of the country as a whole.
There are other clauses in the Bill which will probably have to be the subject of amendment. I am not going to deal with them to-night, they can wait for the Committee stage; but when your Lordships come to take decisions on this Bill I do ask you to do nothing that is in any way going to affect adversely the prestige and the influence of the City of London. If I may quote a story, I would say this. In our life we have all been given a bag of tools and an hour glass, either to create a stumbling-block or to make a steppingstone. I can say this in regard to the great past of the City of London. There has never been an occasion in the whole of the historic record of the City authority upon which they have not created a stepping-stone for the benefit of the people of the country, and never a stumbling block. I have, I hope, said enough to induce your Lordships to feel that when the time comes to take a decision on this Bill, whether it be on the Second Reading or in Committee, you will bear in mind what I have said, and have full regard to the prestige and influence of our great capital city of London.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved: That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

BUCKLEY GAS ORDER, 1947.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Buckley Gas Company, Limited: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock.