I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time. I raised this question first in 1913 and 1914, but then I had no luck in the ballot, and the Bill which I presented never got a Second Reading. I have had luck in the ballot this year, and I trust that the House will now give me a Second Reading Since 1914 the situation has been considerably changed, because the principle for which I was fighting in 1913–14 has been applied by this House in the Increase of Rent Act of 1915. Clause 1, Section 1, Sub-section (6, b ) of that Act lays down that where the increase in rent is on account of an increase in rates the landlord has to serve on the tenant a statement giving particulars of the increased amount charged in respect of rates. This Bill makes that statement compulsory, not only where there is an increase in rates, but also where there is a decrease. This Bill ensures that in compounded houses the occupier shall be informed clearly of the amount which he is paying in rates for the house which he occupies. As showing the importance of this matter, I have seen it stated that in Leicester, out of the 60,000 houses upon which rates are levied, no fewer than 43,000 are compounded for. The question of compounding for houses was discussed greatly in the Press between 1911 and 1914, and the Leicester papers, especially the "Leicester Daily Post," the Liberal newspaper, largely favoured the total abolition of compounding. In October, 1911, the latter paper described compounding as an unsound and demoralising system which strikes at the root of true efficiency of local administration. I have various other cuttings, but I am not here concerned with compounding. The law on the subject is well known and is clear, and it rests with the Government to take action to abolish compounding if they think fit. Therefore I do not touch on that question in this Bill. In February, 1912, the "Globe," referring to London houses, had an article in which it said: When rents are raised because rates are higher tenants of landlords who have com- pounded suppose the increase to be due merely to the grasping avarice of the latter, and naturally enough vent their annoyance upon the wrong people. We should like to see an Act passed directing all demands for rent to be made in writing or in print, and compelling the landlord to state as precisely as possible how much of the demand is really for rent and how much for rates. That is what this Bill proposes to do.

When I first introduced the Bill on the 13th March, 1913, the "Leicester Daily Post," on the 2nd April, 1913, commenting on my proposal, described it as "an Amendment so far as it goes," but added the misfortune is that it does not go far enough, so long as it spares compounding at all. I simply introduce this Bill as an Amendment, and leave it at that. I do not wish to touch compounding. All I ask is to make it incumbent on all owners of property to have at least two columns in their rent demands, one for rent and the other for rates, so that the occupier may know exactly how much he pays in rates. At present they are all lumped up in one sum. Very often the occupier has no idea that he is paying any rates at all. Such a state of things is a drawback to the success of local government, and I am simply trying to remedy it in the simplest possible manner. This system which I advocate of having a double column in the rent book, one for rent and the other for rates, has already had success in various parts of the country. I have here specimens of rent cards which I would like hon. Members of the House to inspect. The first, described as the modern rent card has been in use a great deal for houses rented at from £8 to £20 a year. On the back of each card there is a table showing the exact amount of rates payable either by the week, month, or year, according to the rate levied per £ of rateable value. Another variation of the cards is called the Cottagers' Rent Card, which is used chiefly for houses in parishes in the country, rented at from £3 to £8 a year. I have numerous cuttings, including cuttings from papers in my own county during 1918. I have here a leading article from the "Leicester Daily Post," of 9th March, 1919, stating: As a matter of general principle and in the public interest we should like to see the compounding system abolished altogether and direct payment of rates by every occupier. If that is not possible, then collection by the landlord with some recompense for his labour, but the rate in every instance compelled to be shown on the rent book and the rent, of course, advancing or declining automatically as the rates rise or fall. The Conservative paper, the "Leicester Mail" on 25th March, 1918, said very much the same thing: Before the War broke out we more than once advocated a sliding scale of terms for tenementary property based on rent plus rates, and it looks as if such a method is now within the range of practical politics. We pleaded that whether the charge for a house was 2s. 6d. a week, or 10s. a week, the agreement with a new tenant should set out clearly what proportion of the total sum represented rent and what proportion rates, and that the latter should automatically rise or fall as the rates went up or down during the occupation. I mention this to show how very much the country is interested in this question. When my present Bill was introduced in March last all the notices in the newspapers regarding it were universally favourable so far as I saw. I have here one from the "Western Daily Mercury," published at Plymouth: Towns like Plymouth, where rates are largely compounded in the rents of the great number of premises, will be interested in the 'Statement of Rates Bill' introduced by Colonel Yate and backed by Mr. Walter Long among others. It provides that every demand for rent or rent receipt shall state the amount of rates paid or payable in respect of the premises. That is a most reasonable proposal. It is a just claim that the occupier should know exactly what he is paying for rent and what for rates. It does not matter whether a man is living in a large town like Plymouth or in a small country parish the effect is the same, and I think it is a most reasonable proposal. In addition to the cards I have already mentioned, I have lately received specimens of a fresh kind of rent card. There is one from Nottingham, entitled "The Up-to-date Rent Book," and another from Cardiff called "The Reform Rent Book." These are still more modern than those I have previously shown, and I mention this to show how general the use of these books is becoming and how very easy it would be to make the system universal. I trust the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would say why he does not extend this Bill to Ireland?

I have applied it only to England. If the hon. Baronet wishes to extend it to Ireland, he is welcome to do so, or to Scotland. I dealt with the country with which I am principally concerned.

I beg to second the Motion.

The more you go into this Bill, and the more you study it, the more you will find it is clearly necessary, and wanted not only in Leicester, to which the hon. Member referred, but all over the country. The Bill is simple and concise, and I think I shall be able to show that it is non-contentious. The purpose of the Bill, as stated on it, is to provide for the information of the occupiers what amount of the rates are paid for the houses they occupy. I contend, and I do not think that any hon. Member will say that I am wrong, that those who pay rent with rates do not know, if the rates are compounded, what rates they are paying. I have just stated that the Bill is non-contentious, and, in proof of that, I would point out that the original supporters of the Bill in March, 1913, included Mr. James Mason, Sir Gilbert Parker, Mr. Whitehouse, the hon. and gallant Member for Melton and myself, and at that time also the Minister for the Admiralty who was not then Minister. Of course, it is not in order now for a Minister to back a Bill, but I think that was done through misunderstanding. I think you will see that the names I have mentioned embrace all parties. That is the spirit in which we bring the Bill forward to-day for the consideration of the House. The object of the Bill is to amend the law relating to the recovery of rents in respect of hereditaments for which under the existing law the owner is rated instead of the occupier. The Rating Acts of this country are many and very complicated. Though the hon. and gallant Member said he was not going to touch on the question of the compounding of rates later on, I hope to say that I am thoroughly against the compounding of rates. The Bill is brought more home to us now because of the Act that was passed in 1915 referring to the increase of rents on dwelling houses and the increase of rates thereon. The part we want to touch is that referring to the increase of rents. As things stand at present, a person who pays rent on a small house which includes the rates may not, and in many cases does not, know how much he pays for the rates. He may receive demands for increases in small amounts, but perhaps the rent is not decreased if the rates are lowered. We want to see that the rent should be stated on the cards and also the rates clearly defined. My hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned the system of cards and I have some here.

If you put the rate on the wrong coloured card, what happens then?

I do not think the hon. Baronet would be so colour blind as to do such a thing. I contend it is not the colour that the man would look to, but the rate on the card, and if this Bill were passed he would find there clearly and definitely stated what the rent was and what the rates were. The Increase of Rent Act gave a great exception in cases where the landlord pays the rates chargeable on, or which, but for the enactments relating to compounding, would be chargeable on, the occupier of any dwelling house, etc. It is most clearly denned that this great exception should be on this question, and we bring forward this Bill to enable that to be carried out in a clear and concise manner so that the occupier should know exactly what he is doing. Is it not right, especially at this moment, when the rates of this country are rising practically everywhere, that it should be known. It is only right that the people of this country should know what the different Government Departments and local authorities are doing and what they are spending, and I do not see how it can be clearly defined unless on a card somewhat on the lines described by the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) seems to think that the colour is everything in this card, but with all respect I submit that it is the writing on the card.

I had nothing to do with the colour, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said that for every pound of rent there would be a differently coloured card.

That is quite correct. Each of the cards, for the sake of the person who is filling them up, is slightly different in colour, but they are so worded that on the back it is clearly stated that the house is situated at—, is let to—, on the terms for rent and rates as stated on the inside. The cards are worked this way. We will take the lowest card, of a house rated at £8 per annum. If the rates are from 6s. 3d. to 6s. 9d. in the £, that works out at 1s. per week payable by the tenant, and it is so stated on the card, over and above the rent. As the rates rise the next figure is 7s. 4d., and the amount goes up to 1s. 1d. a week, and so on, right away until you come to the rate, if it ever gets there—and it is so in certain places; I know of towns where it is no less than 16s. to 16s. 6d. in the £, where the amount payable is 2s. 6d. per week, and would be so stated on the card. If you go through the different cards the £9 house is slightly different, and so on up to the last card, which is for the £20 house, where you will find that if the rate is from 7s. 9d. to 7s. 11d. it is 3s. payable weekly. You will see, therefore, how the tenant can clearly and easily see what he is paying for rent and what he is paying for rates. We contend that this is a matter which can be easily adopted and worked out if these cards are procured, and they are very easily procured. They are entered at Stationers' Hall, and can be got by anybody, being very cheap. They enable the tenant to know what he is paying; but more than that, they will be of use to the estate management for those who have to carry out the duty of collecting rents. I said just now that I was against the compounding of rates, where the landlord pays the rates on the different hereditaments, where I think hon. Members will consider that the occupier should certainly pay the rates, and it should be allowed for by the landlord. I think I am right in saying that the first time that this compounding came before the House of Commons—

What has this to do with the Bill?

It is the compounding that enables the landlord to pay the rates, which he again charges to the tenant.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the Bill said he did not intend to deal with this question in the Bill, and there is nothing in the Bill relating to it. We all know what is the compounding of rates, but I think the hon. Gentleman must limit himself to the Clauses of the Bill dealing with the system of notation of rates.

I will not detain the House longer, because I only rise to support the hon. and gallant Member for Melton, but I think that this is a Bill which is wanted to enable the Rent Restriction Act of 1915 to be carried out, and to prevent fraud, and also to make the tenant take an interest in the rates. I therefore hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

My hon. and gallant Friend is to be congratulated on the Meltonian manner in which he has taken this fence, and I wish him all success; but in his country there is generally on one side of the fence a ditch, which, if you do not leap wide enough, brings you to grief, small as it looks from the train and the railway embankment. I hoped my hon. and gallant Friend would have taken his courage in both hands when taking the fence, and dealt with compounding also, because that is the root of the whole thing. But as you have ruled that out of order, Mr. Speaker, I cannot, of course, do more than merely mention it. My hon. and gallant Friend says that the absence of some such measure as this is a great obstacle to sound local administration. That is so, but I think his Bill might be defended on the far higher ground that the absence of some such provision as this leads to wholesale waste and extravagance all over the country, because the majority of voters are those who pay rates in this way. They have nothing to show what is rates and what is rent. They never realise that, while they vote for the most extravagant schemes—anything that is labelled "social reform"—it is a positive boomerang, which comes back and hits themselves and empties their own pockets. It would be a very good thing, and this Bill, I think, would do a great deal to bring it about, if the majority of small householders realised that it is quite impossible to have extravagant schemes, which are lumped together under the all-embracing name of "social reform," without to a considerable extent emptying their own pockets. I remember, during the election, I was continually told by electors—Socialist and so on—that a country which could provide £8,000,000 a day for slaughter could afford 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 houses on its head, without thinking about it. It is that attitude which this Bill would do a great deal to correct. The ordinary householder has not the slightest idea, when he votes for his ward candidate or Parliamentary candidate and asks him to support every conceivable extravagance, that he himself is not only going to pay but he is bound to pay, and no ingenuity can prevent his paying his share of the extravagance of which he is in favour. Only yesterday or the day before an hon. Member opposite said he would like to see something analogous to the baths of Caracalla in every ward of every town in England.

I want to correct the hon. Member's view of what I said. I did not suggest that all these beautiful structures should be erected at the public expense, but that miners should put up their forty millions of extra wages, and spend them in a better way collectively than they could individually.

The hon. Member misunderstood me. It is not my objection to baths that they should be beautiful. Baths can be as beautiful as any that the most distinguished Roman architects designed, if you like. My point is that the attitude which his speech illustrated is all-pervading and is absolutely fatal. It induces the monstrous extravagance which rules in this country, and my hon. Friend's Bill, pro tanto, would be a corrective of this national calamity, this rushing to ruin, of which I myself see signs in every direction. My hon. and gallant Friend quoted in his interesting speech from newspapers supporting his proposals. Leicester, where there are encouraging signs of repentance, supported my hon. and gallant Friend, but stated, as I do, that he should have taken his courage in both hands, and dealt with compounding, instead of the mere statement of what rates are as distinguished from rent. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has poked fun at the many-coloured cards with which the cottager and others will have to deal in future. I do not think these will be any real obstacle; in fact, they will serve the most useful purpose. I would only ask my hon. Friends in the House to look at them. I read upon one here: The landlord acts as collector of rates to save the tenant being troubled by the rate-collector, and to avoid additional expenditure being incurred by the assessment authority in collecting small amounts. What an admirable provision! I think this really will do more to educate a cottager in his duties as a democratic elector than all the election addresses and all the local lectures that ever were delivered in the whole of his life. I read on: The rent and rates together constitute the whole charge for the premises— I fancy they knew that before— The rent is a fixed amount, and cannot be altered except by agreement. That is a most important matter to bring home to the cottager. He is under the impression that every increase of rates is the work of the wicked landlord— The rate is a variable amount, which is determined by the ratepayers themselves through their representatives on the local authorities. That is most important. You cannot ram that home too often or too strongly. They do not realise that when they return their local representatives to support almost any proposal, for expenditure which may be called an improvement, that expenditure comes back upon themselves. So much for the slate-coloured cards. I think we are rather accustomed to slates in connection with collections. Now we come to a brown card. Here again the modern rent card is most distinctly an improvement upon anything now in force. You have on that also an exceedingly valuable admonition to the rentpayer to watch his rates and to watch his ward member and the actions of his council and board of guardians. This is positively priceless advice, and if he takes it, and it sinks into his brain, I undertake to say he will be a far wiser man and a far more useful member of the commonwealth than he has ever been before. The pink card, so far as I can make out, has no special features distinguishing it from those of the other colours I have mentioned. My hon. and gallant Friend upon these benches said—I do not agree with him, but I hope he is right—that this Bill was uncontentious. I shall be agreeably surprised if the professed social reformer is not heard before this Debate is over in opposition to this Bill. I do not know exactly how they will explain that opposition, but I am inclined to the view that it will be in the vein, I have ventured to indicate to the House. In my opinion, quite frankly, a time like this is not the time for private legislation, but if there is any subject that should come before the House just now above all others, it is the one which would inculcate into the people the very necessary knowledge that there is a relation between expenditure and revenue. If they could only realise that, in this matter, the resources of the country are in the main rates and taxes, and that these come from other people's pockets—if, I say, this could be brought home to the public, we should, I think, have an end to the unrestrained and extravagant expenditure from which we are suffering. The effect of the franchise has been to extend—

The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the mark. Perhaps he would confine himself to the provisions of this measure.

I apologise, Sir. I only meant to say that I thought that the necessity for bringing this matter home was greater now that the electors were more in number.

I rise to say a few words in support of this measure. The hon. Member for East Nottingham managed to be humorous on such a matter-of-fact proposal as this Bill contains. I must congratulate him upon having been able to address the House in such a merry mood on such a dry and ordinary subject. I would, however, warn him against the revolutionary tendencies manifested in the declaration in the opening part of his speech in which he proclaimed the limitations of this Bill, saying that it did not deal root and branch with the whole subject, but with only one part. The Bill is a small step along the road to rating reform. As was explained by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who submitted the Bill, it deals not with the whole subject of rating and compounding, but with just one troublesome and contentious aspect of it. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had introduced a Bill covering the whole area, it would probably have been pointed out to him that he had wandered outside the sphere of the efforts of the private Member, and that so big a subject ought to be taken up by the Government itself. The discussion, therefore, has shown that within these limits and apart from the larger proposals, there are very many difficulties of machinery. These, however, are rather points which can be exhausted better in Committee than in discussing them on the Second Reading. I suggest that the House ought to give its wholehearted approval to the measure now before it.

Hon. Members behind me, therefore, wish me to say that they fully approve of the principle, because it removes a great many doubts which exist in the minds, especially of simple folk who, and which are not before the mind of the hon. Gentleman who last addressed us. The Bill does tend greatly to simplify administration, and enable those concerned to overcome the present difficulty, which leaves them in a serious state of doubt as to what exactly they are paying and why they are paying it. I personally support this Bill because it is quite in keeping with the principle of direct taxation. That, however, I know belongs to another subject, and I am not going into it. But the Bill is in the direction of enabling people the better to understand what they are paying and in what way they are called upon to pay it. As to the objection addressed in an interruption by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, I think that in discussion it can be shown that the conditions of rent payment and rent arrangements in Scotland and Ireland as compared to this country are so different that it is better to deal with them in different proposals, and not seek to cover the whole area of the United Kingdom in one Bill. Therefore, without going fully into the details, I desire to inform the House that we are warmly in agreement with the principles of the measure, and trust that it will receive unanimous support.

I am not interested in the colour of the cards shown by the hon. Member for East Nottingham, but I do want, in a few words, to support the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The underlying principles of the Bill have at last been made quite clear. We had from the hon. Member for East Nottingham the general effect if this Bill were carried. It is quite an easy matter for a man with an income of £2,000 or £3,000 a year to provide himself with a good bath or a good bedroom. The hon. Member for East Nottingham says the country is going to ruin. For the last thousand years we have been seeing it go to ruin. Why are we going to ruin? I suppose because in the last half century, in particular, we have spent money collectively on education, on improvement of housing, upon the provision of parks, baths, and so on. Men with an income of £2 or £3 a week cannot afford to provide baths and other objects which cost perhaps two or three hundred pounds. Therefore, if improvement is to be made it will have to be made in a kind of collective way. This brings it down to every man and woman in the home who are paying, exactly how and for what they are paying towards the public services. Therefore, I entirely agree with the Bill. I do not think it would check what the hon. Member for East Nottingham apprehends. As a matter of fact, I believe that once people know what they can get by paying 6d. or 1s. collectively, you will have more collective action than ever before. Not quite, therefore, from the hon. Baronet's point of view I support the Bill.

I want to give one further reason. I happen to have spent the greater part of my life in a colliery district. If this Bill gets a Second Reading and goes upstairs, I should like to follow the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we should amend and extend it. I want to deal with a body of men who, in their social conditions, have been very prominently before the country in the past few weeks—I refer to the mining community. I should like to see upon every pay-bill in the mining areas, where the miners are supposed to live rent free, what amount out of their wages is, or ought to be, allocated to rent and to rates. As they stand to-day in Northumberland and Durham we have the most deplorable housing conditions, and where very little public expenditure has been incurred the result is doubly bad, not only for those districts but for the nation as a whole. Therefore, I would like to say that when the miner draws his wages at the week-end he should know how much is calculated for rent and how much for rates. There is no such thing as free houses, and nobody gets off without paying something towards the local rates. For these reasons I entirely support this Bill. If hon. Members in country districts think that when a man in a rural area sees 6d. or 3d. a week put on his card he assumes that this will be a check upon local public expenditure, I think they are entirely wrong, because I believe the effect would be in the opposite direction. These men would know that they get so much for the spending of this extra 3d. or 6d., and they know that they would get a great deal more than they would obtain by individual action.

I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will find if this Bill goes into Committee he will not be able to explain its provisions. The object of the Bill is "To provide for the information to occupiers of the amount of the rates payable for the houses which they occupy." Therefore any Amendment introduced which goes beyond providing information to occupiers and the amount of the rates would be beyond the scope of the Bill, and consequently the advantages which the hon. Member thinks might arise will not occur. It has been said that the conditions in Scotland and Ireland were different, and that it would be better to have a separate Bill for Scotland and Ireland. I would like my hon. and gallant Friend opposite to give us his reasons for not including Scotland and Ireland, because I was under the impression that in Scotland there was a different system of rating. I never was able to understand what the difference was, but I know that in Ireland there is no difference in the manner of collecting either rent or rates except that in Ireland there is sometimes very great difficulty in collecting either, and possibly you may find yourself on the ground with a bullet through you if you attempt either. If you try to collect information I am afraid it would be still more dangerous.

1.0 P.M.

I would like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate) upon the extremely pleasant relations which exist between himself and the Press of Leicester, because they seem to be lost in admiration of the splendid efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend in regard to the introduction of this Bill. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has read the reminiscences of Sir Edward Clarke or whether he is following his example. Perhaps the House does not know that Sir Edward Clarke when he was in the position of my hon. and gallant Friend found that some papers were not altogether favourable to him, and he solved the problem by buying those papers. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has become a shareholder in those papers which now approve so much his great efforts.

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely misquoting me, and he is absolutely wrong from beginning to end. Every one of these papers was urging the application of the system which I have just introduced, and in applying this personally to me the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong.

I am very sorry to hear that, because I thought my hon. and gallant Friend had impressed Leicester with the way he had done his duty to the advantage of the party to which we belong.

I carry out the wishes of my Constituents.

Now I understand the hon. and gallant Member is only a delegate, and that is a different thing altogether. He has stated that the principle of this Bill was accepted in the Restriction of Rent Bill of 1915. I hope I am not now misquoting my hon. and gallant Friend. May I point out that that Act was, in the first place, a temporary war measure, and it is hardly right to found measures which are going to be permanent upon the same lines as a war measure? What does that Act do? I have not had time to look up the Act, but my hon. and gallant Friend says under that Act The landlord has to give a statement where an increase of rent is demanded owing to the increase of rates. All the landlord has to do is, if he is asking for an increase on account of the increase of rates, is to say so, which is totally different to compelling everybody to put this information on a receipt or on a card stating the amount of the rates.

The exact amount of the increase in the rates has now to be shown on the card to be presented to each person whose rent the landlord wishes to raise, and that is the same under this Bill.

Quite so, but for a different reason. I am very sorry if I have not made my meaning clear, but this Bill is for all time. I hope we shall in a few weeks' time have peace. The Bill to which my hon. and gallant Friend has alluded was a temporary measure introduced during war-time, and it dealt with quite a different set of circumstance than those which are arising now. I must not go at any length into the question of compounding because that is not in the Bill, but, as my hon. Friend has already said, that question ought to have been in the Bill.

If that question had been in the Bill, I might not be so strongly opposed to it as I am at the present time. What does my hon. Friend think that he is going to do with his coloured cards? I gather that the idea is that everybody would at once see that he has to pay a certain amount in rates, or rather that in his rent is included a certain amount for rates. Hon. Members seem to consider that the effect of that would be various according to the view that they take. My hon. Friend below me (Sir J. D. Rees), who is not a very ardent supporter of social reform, thinks that it would be a check upon social reform. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) opposite seems to think that it would encourage social reform, and that everybody when he saw one of these cards would immediately think that he ought to have a bath.

My hon. Friend has quoted the "Globe," which apparently approves of the Bill. You must not look at it, however, from the point of view of London or Leicester or any other large town only; you have to look at it from the point of view of England, which I gather from the Bill includes Wales, and therefore from the point of view of the country districts where it would be very troublesome and do very little good. I am very much surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Sir B. Stanier), who has a great knowledge of the country, supports the Bill. I hope to be able to convince him that he is entirely wrong, and to induce him to go into the "No" Lobby. It may be all very well in London or Leicester, but let me take a simple illustration. We will presume that an engine driver is asked to pay his rent, and that he gets one of these cards and sees a great number of calculations and a variety of statements in it. Do you think that he will look at it? He will be too tired with his day's work, and he will say, "What does it matter to me? I have got to pay £7 and that includes the rates." It does not matter in the least whether the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate), who is receiving the £7 has to pay £2 or £3 in rates. "It does not matter to me; I am not going to pay it." If my hon. and gallant Friend has said that the occupying tenant must pay the rates, then I would have been with him, but the tenant already knows that he does not pay them and that the landlord pays them, and to tell him that over again on a different coloured card with a large number of figures back and front will not make the slightest difference to him. Now let us come to the country. I happen to own a few cottages in the country and I compound for them. I have not the remotest idea what is the amount of rates on each cottage. The overseer sends me in a demand note for a lump sum. It is no use saying that he is a poor overseer. You have to take facts as they are. The cottages are let at low rents, one I believe at one shilling per week to the postmistress, and I should rather think that the rates on that cottage are as much as the rent. How am I to find out the amount of rates on each cottage? Am I to go to the overseer and ask him, instead of sending me one demand note, to send me twenty-five, and, if so, how about economy? You will want another overseer.

Each assessment is in the rate book with the occupier's name.

He may have it in his rate book, but he has to send twenty-five demand notes where he now sends one.

The overseer will give you the amount at which each cottage is assessed when the list is made and he will give you notice when the assessment is altered. In the meantime you only want to know the amount of rate in the pound.

Who is going to calculate it? Am I to calculate the rates? It varies every six months. Supposing I am wrong, shall I be liable to a fine of 40s.? I should have to check every calculation on this card, and there are a large number. I maintain that the landlord or his agent and the overseer will be put to an immense amount of trouble and labour for no result whatever. Is it to be supposed that an agricultural labourer, coming in after a hard day's ploughing, or between, say, twelve and one, to have his dinner, would not throw that card away without looking at it, and just pay his rent as usual?

He might look at it on the Saturday afternoon half-holiday.

He would be digging in his garden—a much more useful occupation. It would be perfectly useless to him. It does not concern him in the least, because the landlord will continue to pay the rates, and whether the landlord has to pay less or more does not concern him in the least. I certainly consider that it is a mistake that any person who lives in a house should not be obliged to pay his rates. I think it is absolutely necessary, if we are going to have economical administration, that every person who occupies a house should himself pay the rates. If the hon. and gallant Member for Melton can enlist the sympathies of the Press of Leicester and other places in favour of that proposal, I will support it, but I believe this is only a pin-pricking device, which will do no good to anyone. It will not secure either economy or extravagance. It will leave things exactly as they are at the present moment, while it will put the landlord, and especially the landlord in a country district, to considerable trouble in actually ascertaining the amount of the rate. It might easily arise that a cantankerous person—though this would be more likely in the town than in the country—might refuse to pay his rent, and give any amount of trouble, on the ground that the particulars of the rate have not been correctly given. As I read the Bill, though I may be wrong, if the particulars of the rate are not correctly given, the tenant may refuse to pay the rent. It is only a sort of rough estimate, and a small error might easily be made. But if there were an error of only a penny or a halfpenny the tenant might say, "You have not given the correct particulars, and therefore I shall not pay," and all these calculations would have to be made again. I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Member who represents the Board of Agriculture (Sir Arthur Boscawen) is here. He will be able to deal with the agricultural point of view. I do earnestly trust that the hon. and gallant Member for Melton will be content with his efforts so far, and will not proceed further with the Bill. Perhaps on another occasion he will bring in a Bill really dealing with the subject, and providing that the tenant shall pay his rates, rather than allowing all the responsibility to rest on the landlord. I think that is most essential, in these days when all tenants have votes, and if he will bring in such a Bill, I think it will do some good, and I shall be glad to support it.

In rising to make a maiden speech in this House, I venture to claim the indulgence of hon. and right hon. Members, and I feel that the atmosphere of the House on this occasion is such that I shall at least have its support. I am opposed to the recommendations contained in this Bill. It seems to me that the object behind the Bill will not be achieved in the way that is proposed. The only way in which this matter can be really brought home to those to whom it is desirable to bring it home, is by eliminating the compounding of rates. There are many difficulties connected with the proposal now submitted to the House. In the county borough of Derby, for which I have the honour to be one of the Members, we have a water rate. Shall we want another column in this rent book, so as to set out the amount paid for water rate, in addition to the local and district rate? The whole thing bristles with difficulties. It will be necessary, if we are to carry out this proposal in its exactitude, to go into decimals, and I cannot see how the advantage is to be gained by the proposition which has been set forth. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and the hon. Member for East Nottingham have stated that they do not understand social reform. I can well believe that, because they have confused social reform with social extravagance. That has nothing to do with this Bill, because the necessary social reform and improvement in the conditions of the people will be carried out whatever the cost, and the fact that the amount paid in local rates is entered in the rent book will not in any way interfere with those very necessary projects which are being carried out up and down the country. The only people who, in my opinion, stand to benefit by this particular Bill are, perhaps, the Government themselves, who are responsible for British Dyes, Limited. We shall want a great many more cards to indicate all the differentiations in the charges, so that, perhaps, the Department which is responsible for British Dyes, Limited, will give the Bill their support, should some other member of the Government be opposed to it on real economic grounds.

May I interrupt the hon. Member for a moment to say that there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the question of the colour of these cards. These cards are merely submitted as specimens, and, simply for the convenience of the occupiers, it was suggested that they might be of a different colour for each difference of £1; that for £8 the card might be of one colour, for £9 another, and so on, so that the occupier of a compounded house might know the amount at which his house was rated. If they were all of the same colour it would make no difference; it is only a question of convenience.

There will still be great complications in making these differences up and down the country, especially where the rates vary in houses of different rentals, and I do not think we should gain any particular advantage from accepting these suggestions. If it is desired to point out to the tenants how much is paid in rates, why not carry the thing right through to its logical conclusion, and start, with a gross rental of a certain amount? You would have a column for your local rates, water rates, and your Income Tax, and finally a column in which you would enter the full amount which the landlord has to pay in order to show the difference between that which he receives and pays away. I think that we shall not gain any benefit by bringing legislation of this character into operation at this particular period. We are passing through a very trying period, and the work which will be entailed in making this alteration would be so great as not to be worth the experiment. I trust the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw this Bill and bring in a Bill which will achieve the object he has in view in a much simpler form.

Notice taken of the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present —

I had no intention to intervene in this Debate. It is the first time that I have addressed this honourable House, and I do so with some diffidence, but it will be for a very short time. I should not have intervened in the Debate had it not been for the inconsistencies of the last two speakers opposing the Bill. We had from my right hon. Friend who is not now present, the Member for the City of London, a very interesting and very amusing speech, but, while it was full of interest, it was also full of inconsistencies. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down showed the same inconsistencies. Both of them said that if this Bill had not been a Bill simply showing to the tenant the amount of rates he is paying, but had been a Bill to do away with compounding, they would have supported it. Their great objection to the Bill was that it would give a great deal of trouble to overseers. The Member for the City of London mentioned that twenty-five or thirty demand notes would have to be issued in place of one. I happen to be in a similar position to the right hon. Gentleman, the owner of cottages in the country, and I see no difficulty at all. The Bill says, as far as I can see, that every demand shall state either the annual, half-yearly, or quarterly amount of such rates paid or payable in accordance with the last demands received by the owner. It does not complicate the thing with weekly payments of rates. You only have to show to the occupier the amount that you had demanded from you by the over-seer in the last demand. They were very nervous about the overseer having to do a little more work. It would not increase the number of demand notes, or the work which the overseer has to do, and it was to point out these inconsistencies in the speeches of these two hon. Members that I rose to address the House. I would like to say now that I think this is a step in the right direction. It is no use trying to close your eyes to the fact that the occupant pays no rates. He pays rates in his rent, and I think he is entitled, like other ratepayers, to know what he is paying in rates. He would like to know, and he would be interested in knowing, the amount he is paying, and I think the cottager is entitled to know. It will give the cottager an interest in local affairs. We lack in our villages the interest of the cottagers in local affairs, and the best way to rouse that interest is to point out to them from time to time what money they are being called upon to pay in rates for the maintenance of their village—whether the county rate or the district rate, as the case may be. When they have that information before them they will take an interest in local affairs, and it is because this Bill will supply information to the occupiers that I support it.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down for the very excellent maiden speech he has delivered, which I regret a larger House did not listen to, because, if he will allow me to say so, he put the case for the Bill in a very concise form, and he showed what is really the important principle. Certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, for reasons which I do not question, treated this Bill rather as a joke. I think a very important principle is involved, and as one who has as wide a knowledge of this particular question as anyone in the House, as president of a ratepayers' association which represents over £3,000,000 of capital, and as a very considerable owner of small-house property, both in the town and country, I should like to say that the Bill is all to the good. I would like to make one reference to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City, who I regret has left the House so soon after the interesting speech he delivered. He said in the course of his remarks that the Bill would be all right if it made the tenant pay rates. Knowing what my right hon. Friend's views are on all questions of social reform, and not having agreed with anything he said in his speech, I was delighted to see that he said that personally he had no interest in social reform. I never heard a statement in the House which more honestly expressed the true feelings of the speaker. He never has had any interest in social reform, and therefore he is not likely to approve of this Bill which in our judgment will lead very probably to a great improvement in local administration and, therefore, indirectly to social reform. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Bill made the tenant pay rates, if in other words it dealt with the question of the compounding of rates, he would have been in favour of it.

Personally I should not be in favour of such an alteration in the law as would make the tenant pay the rates. What I am in favour of, and what is the principle which this Bill carries out is that of making the tenant of all property realise what the correlation is between rent and rates. That is what in effect this Bill does carry out. Hon Gentlemen have spoken as if the ordinary tenant of small house property was an idiot. They pay a very poor tribute to the intelligence of their fellow countrymen. If the ordinary tenant of property, small or great, can be shown in a simple and concise form what the rise or fall in the rates is, and consequently what the co-relationship between rent and rates is, it will have a great effect on his mind. The trouble at present is that the vast majority of tenants of small property have not the slightest idea when the rates rise or fall. I have some knowledge of this subject. Let me give the House an example. I know a certain estate in London. The rates in that district have gone up during the War by no less than 10s. in the £. A short time ago the owner, under the Rents Restriction Act, presented a demand to his tenants for the rise in rent. He was approached by a large number of the tenants who said that they did not object to paying it but that they had not the slightest idea that the rates had gone up to that extent, or, indeed, at all. If it were shown to the tenants of small property in a simple and concise form, as it will be under this Bill, they will be able to understand it. They have not been able to do so simply because there is no machinery for acquainting them with the position.

I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clynes) support this Bill. In a speech, with which I found myself in considerable sympathy, he said he was in favour of the Bill because it was quite in keeping with the principle of direct taxation. It would not be in order to discuss that principle on this measure, and I therefore make no statement as to whether or not I am in favour of that principle. I am in favour of the Bill because it will clarify the cause and effect of local taxation as represented by rating and will show what proportion the rates bear to the rent that is being paid. No one who is interested in local government or in social reform can deny the value of encouraging an interest in the question of the co-relation between rates and rents and co-relation between rates and general local government expenditure. Some hon. Members have said that the effect of the Bill will be to make the tenants of small house property careful by their votes at local elections to keep the rates down. On the other hand, one hon. Member has said that the Bill will have the opposite effect and that many tenants of small houses will be in favour of putting the rates up. I am not concerned with what the effect will be, whether it will lead to greater or less local expenditure. That is not a point which can be properly discussed within the comparatively narrow compass of this Bill. It is in the highest interests of the State and of the individual, both landlord and tenant, that more people in this country should realise the co-relationship between rates, local government expenditure and rent. At present they do not. It is of tremendous importance that they should do so.

The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London made what I can only say was an amazing statement of his own ignorance of the assessment of his cottages in the country, an ignorance which I hope is not universal among owners of property. I believe the majority of them have some idea of how their property is assessed. That statement was an amazing one from a gentleman who is a director of a great railway company and also of a bank. He went on to say that this Bill would involve an enormous amount of extra work on owners of property by reason of the fact that they would have to acquaint themselves with the changing assessments every six months and that they would have to make out cards at frequent intervals to show the tenants what the position was. He said it was an altogether unheard-of proceeding and could not be compared with the law as it stands under the Rent Restriction Act. What is that law? At present, if the landlord of property under a certain value which comes within that Act wishes to raise the rent in consequence of a rise in the rates, he has to make out a card or form, which is furnished by a Government Department, for every single tenant on his estate, on which he has to state clearly the amount of the rates on the 4th August, 1914, and the amount at which the rates stand to-day. He can only claim the increased rent when there is an increased rate. A large number of owners of property have availed themselves of that Act. I know an estate, with which I am closely connected, containing over six hundred houses which, in peace time, had a large estate office. During the War the majority of the persons working in that office went on service. Notwithstanding the shortage of staff, they were able simply and easily to make out these cards in order to recover the increase of rates during the War. There is no reason why that should not be done equally well in peace-time. The opposition to this Bill is based on a misconception of its effect. That effect is simple, but very important. Until the Rent Restriction Act was brought in there was no machinery for showing the tenants of small properties that they had a responsibility—a selfish, individual responsibility as voters in local elections—in seeing that there was some control over the rates. Until that Act was passed there were no means of explaining to the ordinary tenant of small property that he had any interest whatever in keeping down the rates. I want to make it clear that I am not concerned with the keeping down of the rates, especially in view of the somewhat reactionary speeches which we have listened to this afternoon. As one who prides himself on not being reactionary, my reason for supporting the Bill is not based on the belief that it will have an effect in keeping rates down. In some respects I am not in favour of keeping the rates down. I support the Bill because I want to see the general public and the tenants of small houses realise that they have an interest in local expenditure. Speaking as the president of a large ratepayers' association in a certain part of England, which represents £3,000,000 capital, I can say that since the Rent Restriction Act was passtd there has been brought home to the tenants of small property the co-relationship between rates and rent, and we have found a very much greater interest taken in the proceedings of the association and many more small people ready to join it. After all, whatever views you may have on local expenditure, there can be no one who will quarrel with this contention, that it is highly desirable in these days, when it is so often testified in all quarters of the House that expenditure of all sorts is going up by leaps and bounds, that the man who has after all to bear the expenditure in the long run, that is the public, should know what he is getting for his money, and how that money is being spent.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate) has every reason to receive the congratulations of the House on the successful way in which the Bill has been introduced. It is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It is essential that people should know what is the cost of local improvements. Although I agree with so much that the Noble Lord has said, I am afraid I differ from him on one point. I still believe that one of the chief objects of a ratepayers' association is to keep down and not keep up the rates.

I think the object of the ratepayers' association which I mentioned, as set forth in the constitution, is to see that the ratepayers get due value for their money.

My experience is that the general effect is to bring the rates down tremendously. I support the Bill on that account. I think it will have a tendency to reduce increases in the rates which come from time to time. I believe if you see your rent is going up you will take more trouble in the local administration. You will see that the greatest expenditure does not go on, and you will think twice before you even take the prospective benefits which are offered to you which involve an increase in rates. I am fully in favour of the Bill. I shall be very pleased if it will be possible to extend it in Committee. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) thought it would be outside the scope of the Bill if the Amendment indicated by the hon. Member for Northumberland were inserted, but I differ from him. The title of the Bill is very wide indeed. It is To provide for the information to occupiers of the amount of the rates payable for the houses which they occupy. That is as wide a Bill as you could possibly have. It is true in its present form the Bill is, as far as I understand, intended to be restricted simply to cases where the rates have been compounded. If that is the intention of the Bill I should certainly support in Committee the extension indicated by the hon. Member. Of course it is more vital possibly in the case of smaller tenants, but the principle applies to a very large number of other people as well. There is a very large number of people a long way above the compounding limit in London who take not the slightest interest in the rise or fall of the rates because they pay a rent which includes rates and taxes—flats and dwellings of that kind. I think this principle could well be extended to those houses as well as to those cottages in which the rents have been compounded. I have no idea as to the number of houses, quite apart from compounded rates, or flats which exist in London. I believe there is a very large number even of low rented dwellings in which a lump sum is paid which includes rates, even in those cases where there is not necessarily compounding. The words to which I am calling attention in the Bill are these: which includes any sum for rates paid or payable under the existing law by the owner instead of the occupier. The ambiguous words are "payable under the existing law by the owner instead of the occupier." I think that is probably meant to be restricted simply to cases in which the landlord has compounded the rates under the existing law. If it is restricted in that way I should support an extension rather than restriction of the Bill in Committee and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will consider the point. Some of our Friday Bills are very harmful, but I cannot think this is harmful. The worst that has been said against it is that it will cause a certain amount more trouble to a certain number of people in giving out forms. No one likes forms less than I do, but I think there will be a definite return in this case in bringing home to every occupier of a house that when rates go up it is probable that, sooner or later, they will fall again—not immediately, but at some future date. At present we are meeting reckless extravagance at every turn and the ratepayer is certainly not getting value for his money. In these days economy is the one thing which we need, both in private and in public life. I am very glad my hon. and gallant Friend has brought in the Bill. Far from opposing it, if he wishes to see it extended in Committee I shall help him.

I welcome this Bill. I carry back my mind to 1911 when we had the Scottish House Letting Bill to deal with, and when for the first time in the case of great and small houses in Scotland above £4 the rates were compounded. We made an attempt in Committee to secure just what my hon. and gallant Friend is now proposing, that with the rent paper there ought to be a distinct statement of the portion which represented the rates as distinct from the actual rent, with the object of keeping the ordinary occupier in the closest possible knowledge of what was going on and of the expenditure incurred by the local authorities. In Glasgow, where compounding under that Act had been in force, there has been a lack of interest in that matter. Tenants do not know when an increase of rates arrives and they very seldom have the advantage of any decrease, so that they do not have the same interest in controlling the expenditure and criticising those who make it that they will have when they know what these improvements, and everything else which are nowadays so very extravagantly carried out, cost. Therefore I very much welcome the Bill. There are difficulties when the rates are increased or reduced, but after all that can be got over. You can always make up a statement with regard to the rent to be paid including rates, and if you can do that you can very well say what part is rates and what rent. Anyhow it is a step in the right direction, and I hope the House will accept the Bill.

If the purpose of the Bill is to bring home to the ordinary occupiers throughout the country the amount that is paid in respect of rates with the view of impressing them with the importance of the rate question, I am entirely in favour. I know there will be difficulties in regard to huge quantities of property throughout the country where the rents are collected weekly and where the rate alters every quarter. I speak with some experience in relation to the East End of London, where the rates have gone up beyond all expectations, and where it has been constantly affirmed that it did not matter if the rates were 20s. in the £, so long as quixotic ideas in regard to this, that, or the other were given effect to. In my judgment this Bill does not go far enough. I would have it, if it were possible, and I suppose most things are possible to this House, that each occupier should pay their rates direct, and that they should feel the full onus of responsibility of the rates imposed, because until that time arrives the large rank and file of our population will never appreciate the burden of the rates in the particular localities in which they live. I know there are objections to that proposal. Local authorities would say, "How are we going to collect it?" That is their concern, but I would have it that each one should feel apprised of the burden and realise the importance of this question of the rates. The real purpose of this Bill, I take it, is to bring home to the people what the rates really mean. I do not know whether they will be impressed, and I do not know whether it will lead to any altered demands upon their part as to what the local authorities should do for them. If it has that effect, then, in my judgment, it will be of the greatest possible value. This question of the increasing rate is a great and overweening burden in many directions, and I do not think anyone will controvert that. Therefore, if this Bill is for the purpose of educating people as to the real importance of the rates, and what they really mean in relation to the premises they occupy, I shall give the Bill my very hearty support.

2.0 P.M.

My hon. and gallant Friend who brought in this Bill read various extracts from the Press of the town which I have the honour to represent, and he himself represents a neighbouring constituency. He also read extracts from the London Press, and as I happen to be a Londoner by birth and residence and a representative of Leicester, I feel I should like to give my blessing to this measure. May I join with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University in congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend on the chorus of praise which has been sung in favour of this measure. It is true that the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and my hon. Friend and namesake who represents Derby, opposed the Bill, but on the whole the speeches have been in support of it. I support it, and I notice that the first words of the Bill say that it is to provide for the information of the occupier. I should always be in favour of any Bill which was to provide information, because there is such a large number of people who are ill-informed that the more information you can provide by Parliamentary or other means, the better. Seriously, on this part of the question I want to endorse what has been said by other hon. Members as to the importance of bringing home to tenants the effect of the rates and letting them know really what it is they are paying for rent and what they are paying for rates. I think, therefore, that it is extremely desirable that this Bill should pass, for that reason. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Clynes) said, and I should be prepared to support a Bill which went a good deal further than this. Perhaps Amendments may be made in the Bill when it goes to Committee, which will make it an even larger Bill than it is. I am always in favour of getting half a loaf if I cannot get a whole loaf. I believe in the truth of the proverb that half a loaf is better than no bread. I know there are some people who do not think so, and who, if they cannot get everything they want, will have nothing. I am not of that way of thinking. Therefore I support my hon. and gallant Friend in getting half a loaf. I endorse what has been said by several hon. Members as to the advantage that this measure, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, may, by bringing home to the occupiers of houses that they will know exactly what they are paying in rates, serve as a curb on tremendous extravagance.

There are those, and there are some in this House, who are quite reckless as to what is spent, but I maintain that after the huge expenditure of this War it must be obvious to everybody that some sort of curb must be put on the vast expenditure which is provided for in some of these Bills. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University pointed out, in reference to a remark by my hon. and gallant Friend, that he did not think that ratepayers' associations as a rule would support a measure that was likely to lead to a rise in the rates. There are those who do not mind that. I remember hearing a story which I believe is perfectly true of a very distinguished man, the late William Morris, who, when he took a house in a district of London, was invited to attend a meeting of the Ratepayers' Association. They thought, seeing that he was occupying one of the highest rated houses in the parish, that he would be in favour of a reduction of the rates, but he threw a bombshell amongst them by saying that he had heard a great deal about the importance of reducing the rates, and that he wished to see them go up by leaps and bounds. That may have been all very well in the days when William Morris used that phrase, but some curb must be put on extravagance now and I cannot imagine a way in which that is more likely to be brought home to people than by the knowledge as to what expenditure means in regard to the rates. As this measure is intended to bring home these facts to the people, showing them what they are paying in rates, it is a measure which should be supported.

I think we have had a very interesting Debate and at times a very amusing Debate. I wish to indicate the attitude of the Government. We do not intend in any way to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill; we leave it to the House. We feel that this is a very proper Bill to receive a Second Reading and to go to a Standing Committee, where the whole of the details can be carefully threshed out. No doubt the Bill might be improved if it went a bit further. Its whole bearings must be carefully considered, but that is a matter for Standing Committee. All we can do to-day is to allow it to get to Committee. Speaking personally, I agree with what has been said by hon. Members, and particularly by the hon. Member who has just spoken, as to the importance of bringing home to the electorate of the local authorities their responsibility as regards the rates, what it is they are paying, how much is rent and how much is rates. That will be a good thing. That is not because I want to limit the expenditure of local councils on bond fide social reforms. Far from it. Nor do I want in any way to reduce rates unnecessarily, nor again do I want to see any unnecessary extravagance. But the present position is that a man pays his rent in a lump sum which includes rates. He goes to the poll and votes for this or that candidate at a local election, and has not got the slightest conception how much rates he pays, nor does he know of the various expenditure incurred by the council, and whether the money is being well spent or not. In the interest of seeing that the rates are properly spent, that value is got for the money, that there is no needless extravagance, shall I say, in the appointment of officials or something of that sort, and in the interest of bringing home responsibility to the individual elector who is responsible for the election of the council, this Bill from that point of view will certainly do good.

I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. but how is the fact that somebody else is going to pay the rate going to induce economy on the part of the voter?

If I understand the Bill aright, it will be stated on one of these cards how much is rent and how much rates. If the rates go up there will be an increase in the amount paid, and that would bring home to the elector the fact that if the rates are increased the amount he has to pay is increased.

I do not gather that that is the effect of the Bill.

I understand that that will be the effect, and if that is so I think it very desirable to make the ratepayer feel that he is responsible for the vote he gives at the next election. If that is not the effect of the Bill, that is one of those points that can be carried out in Standing Committee. Under the present temporary Act there can be an increase in rents if there is an increase in rates. This Bill will, so to speak, regularise the procedure and show the individual ratepayer precisely what the increase in the rates is, and how he will be affected by an increase in the rates. I understand that if there is a reduction in rates the amount he has to pay also would be reduced.

indicated assent.

If that were not the case we should be up against a most ridiculous position.

I do not think that that is so. The only effective Clause is Clause 1, and all it does is to say that every demand note shall make a statement of what the rates are.

I am informed by the promoters of the Bill that that is the effect, but what the Government say is that it is a proper Bill to be given a Second Reading. If the point raised by my right hon. Friend is not clear in the Bill, that is an additional reason why we should send it to a Standing Committee. As far as I can see the Bill can do no harm, and if it brings home to the individual ratepayer what he is paying in rates, to that extent it will do good, and will tend to more efficient local administration. The Parliamentary elector returns a Member whose duty it is to look after the finance of the nation. It is quite true that we do not always do it as efficiently as we should, but still the Parliamentary elector knows when the Budget is brought in and by the demand for Income Tax and other taxes whether taxes are going up or down. The local elector has not got that information. It is not brought to his knowledge. If this Bill brings it to his knowledge it does some good, and puts him in a much more clear position, the position of the Parliamentary elector at the present time. For these reasons the Government leave the Bill to the House which I have no doubt will see fit to give it a Second Reading.

I desire to say a word in support of this Bill. For instance, in my town if local improvements are carried out and the rates go up a shilling in the £1 there will be some grumbling about it, but if the ratepayer knows the cause it will be more satisfactory. The intention is to build new baths and a new library and to make an extension of the town hall. I support this Bill, because it shows what the expenditure will be for.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time. I do so with more confidence because this Bill is in the exact form in which it left the Scottish Grand Committee prior to the outbreak of war. This Bill had got a Second Reading in the House of Commons and had been to the Scottish Grand Committee and had been amended by the common knowledge of the Scottish Mem- bers, and reported to the House, two months, I think it was, before war broke out. Possibly with a little luck which sometimes sometimes falls to private Members on Fridays it would have had its Report stage and possibly have left the House. Of course, I may be anticipating a little too much, but when the Bill was killed by the outbreak of war it was in the position of being on the threshold of its Report stage. Therefore, purposely, I have made no alteration in the Bill as it left the Scottish Grand Committee, so that no objection can be raised to the Bill in this form and no argument can be used about the introduction of fresh matter. There is another reason for the hope that this Bill may receive a Second Reading, because on looking at the Division List on the previous occasion I find that no fewer than sixteen members of the present Government, including the Prime Minister himself, the Attorney-General, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Minister at the India Office and at the Irish Office and the Scottish Office, with ten other Ministers, voted in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill before it was amended in the Scottish Grand Committee. I venture to think that with so large support on that occasion from the members of the present Government than on the present occasion, whatever may be its ultimate fate, the Bill will be sent to Scottish Grand Committee. I do not intend to take up very much time in arguing the case in favour of the Second Reading. As a matter of fact Scottish Members in particular do know that owing to the War the operations of the Scottish Land Court, which is the operating machine so far as Scottish small holdings are concerned, has been suspended, and that a great many Scotsmen have been unable on account of that to get the small holdings which they so very much desire. I think the Members who are conversant with the Land Court Report issued by the Scottish Office have been struck, and indeed must have been, by the arguments used by the Land Court in favour of doing something to get Scotsmen on to the land. There is a quotation in this matter from the last Report of the Land Court which is better than one could make in the course of a speech, and puts the matter quite briefly. They say, in talking about the services of the smallholder class in Scotland to the nation: We need not dwell on the services which the smallholders have rendered to the country and the Empire both in peace and war. They are known, and, in words at least, universally recognised. They have by their industry brought into cultivation and produced food from lands which large farmers would have used only for pasture. They have brought up large families, contributed sons and daughters to almost every profession and industry, and have powerfully aided in the development of our Colonies and Dominions. No class has more promptly or in such proportion or at the cost of greater sacrifices answered the call of honour and of patriotism. In Lewis alone, for example, about one-fifth of the whole population is engaged in naval or military or auxiliary service. No class has deserved better of their country and none is more essential to its well-being. The exhortation is even more important because they go on to say: There is every reason to fear that, unless the Acts intended to preserve and extend small holdings are effectively reformed, at least to the extent of urgent necessary amendments, and as soon as practicable, and unless the system of law and policy which places the preservation of deer and other game above the production of food, and which permits or encourages the depopulation of the country for the pleasure of the wealthy of this and foreign nations, is completely reversed, this decline in population will rapidly accelerate. The younger men will, in increasing numbers, emigrate to the Colonies which offer land on just and generous conditions rather than continue to bear the evils and abuses which the beneficent intentions of the Legislature have mitigated, but as yet have failed to suppress, or they will, as happened before the Crofters Act passed, refuse to obey land and game laws which they feel to be unjust, and often cruel, and which are clearly inconsistent with the spirit of modern legislation and the national interest. My hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) asked me if that was a quotation from the Land Court. I am sure it was a quotation from the time when Lord Kennedy was Chairman of the Land Court which my hon. Friend expected, and which he previously criticised, but instead it is from a Land Court more akin to my hon. Friend's own views. Putting all that kind of thing aside, I think that every Scottish Member, at any rate, will agree that however it has got to be achieved, and putting aside the method of achievement, it would be an excellent thing for Scotland if we resuscitated its rural population, and that they would do very much better than they do now in crowded cities. Everyone of us agrees about that. We may differ about the method, but I think there will be an unanimous assent to the statement that, so far as Scotsmen are concerned, we want to do it. One of the great troubles in connection with the Scottish Small Holders Act prior to the War—as since it has been to a certain extent in a state of suspended animation—has been the conflict between the decisions of the Land Court and the Court of Session. There is a remarkable phrase in the Land Court Report, to which I invite the attention of the Secretary for Scotland. The Land Court has submitted to Parliament this extraordinary dilemma: If we obey Parliament, which created us to carry out the Act of 1911 (The Crofters' Act), our orders will be over-ruled by the Second Division. If we follow the opinion of the Second Division we disobey Parliament and cripple the Acts and are made the instruments of great injustice to the small tenants. On the legal argument I am not competent to speak, but what the average Scotsman does not understand is how it is that when power is given in legislation approved by this House that legislation is continually thwarted by legal decision. The conclusion to which the Land Court comes is rather a remarkable one: It is with great regret that we have to report that the compulsory provisions of the Small Landholders Acts have been rendered practically unworkable by the judicial interpretation of the Clause in Section 7, Sub-section (11), which deals with compensation to the landlord. I need not say to my colleagues in this House that, as a matter of fact, that represents the situation. However much we may differ in our views, there is this stone wall against which the operation of the Act has come. The result is that Scotsmen who desires to get access to the land for the purpose of small holdings are prevented by the operation of these decisions in the Second Division of the Court of Session which make it impossible really for anyone to have that access. With regard to my Bill, may I say that the experience of the working of the Act in the year prior to the War was that there were 8,000 applications made by Scotsmen for land, and in that year only 300 managed to get small holdings in Scotland. It is therefore obvious that if you have a demand which amounts to 10,000 applications, and you are only able to deal with 300 of them, it is time we looked into the operation of the Act to see whether we can expedite it. Of course, the Act has been to a large extent suspended during the War. The causes of the delay are, I think, two—namely, the provisions which are in the Act with regard to acquiring land, and defective machinery. Among the provisions of which I complain is that which imposes on the Board of Agriculture the duty for negotiation, and a great deal of the settlement of men on the land was held back by the fact that unless there were agreements there could not be compensation. I suggested in my own Bill an Amendment by which it would be possible to undertake negotiations, and even when land was taken under negotiations to give the compensation that was necessary in getting rid of the landlord for that portion of the land which he was having taken from him for small holdings. I made it perfectly clear that while we wished to give to the Board of Agriculture the power to negotiate, we had no desire to deprive the landlord of the compensation to which he was entitled. The original Act allowed that when the amount of compensation exceeded £300 resort could be had to arbitration, and that amount of money made it inevitable in most cases that the negotiations were prolonged.

I think that 20 per cent. of them appealed to arbitration.

I think that is quite right, but the amount of the compensation did put a further obstacle in the way of getting people on the land. In regard to defective machinery, we have always considered that the machinery was not adequate. We suggested various alterations, by increasing the members who were on the Land Court, and decreasing the size of the quorum, and also putting it within the power of one of the members of the Land Court to do the work with or without assessors that was usually given to the whole Court. The provisions of this Bill as it stands now are these: In Clause 1, Sub-section (3), the Board of Agriculture is entitled to call for particulars of expiring leases, and the Land Court is given power to compel the landowner to produce those cases, so that if there is the opportunity in such a case provision may be made for smallholders getting upon that land. Sub-section (5) makes it no longer the duty of the Board of Agriculture to negotiate, but leaves it to their discretion, and that I think is a widening of the power which would do a tremendous amount of good in Scotland. Subsection (7) gives power to the Board to go to the Land Court, either before or after negotiations, for power to prepare a scheme, and that again is a very useful provision. In those cases the landlord is not allowed to let that land pending the decision of the Land Court; while we re- fuse him permission to let, we do not deprive him of the compensation to which he would be entitled if the land were taken. Sub-section (12) provides that where an agreement is reached, the Board of Agriculture will be bound to pay compensation. That gives the landlord an additional security, that we are not trying in any sense to filch his land. Then there are various provisions set out with regard to compensation. As to improvements in machinery, I have just referred to them. I suggest that the Land Court should be increased from five to six members and the quorum reduced from three to two, and that powers may be delegated to single members, with or without assessors, a provision which will enable them to work much more speedily. Similarly with the Board of Agriculture, the maximum number is increased from three to five, and the Secretary for Scotland is given power to delegate and distribute the duties of the Board according to the administrative needs of the situation. We give to the Secretary for Scotland a greater liberty of action inside his own office, in using his material, than ever he had before. Power is given to the statutory small tenant to secure the enlargement of his holding, and enlargements can be made from more than one landlord, a point we discussed at great length in Grand Committee. There are also provisions in regard to water supply, pastures, grazing, and land within burghs. That, briefly, is the scope of the Bill, and the alterations that are made.

I do not want to say more, because I am hoping that we may agree to have this Bill sent up again to the Scottish Grand Committee. I know the Government have certain proposals in the future, and I hope the near future, for dealing with land settlement in Scotland, but I do not imagine my right hon. Friend can tell us this afternoon what those proposals are, and I know in conversation with other hon. Members that some of them think it might be well to wait till we saw those proposals of the Government. If those proposals of the Government cover the operative amending machinery of this Bill, nobody will be more glad to withdraw my Bill than I, but my right hon. Friend will be in this position this afternoon, that he will not be able to tell us, as representing the Government, what their provisions are, and being a Scotsman and cautious, I think a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and therefore this Bill in Grand Committee is much more secure than in any other position in the House. I assure my right hon. Friend that there would be no difficulty in meeting the Government at all if their proposals do cover these, but I should like to be assured that the proposals of the Government do cover the machinery of the Scottish Smallholders Act. It might be very well worth the while of Scottish Members in this House, especially in view of the promises and pledges which we have given to serving men who have come home, with regard to taking up land all over Scotland, that they should be in a position to make at any rate what machinery is in existence as effective as possible for those men. It is because of that, because I feel perfectly certain that we have in Scotland, perhaps, a finer opportunity for the development of small holdings, a larger class of the community who are accustomed to work on the land, and make work on the land productive, that, I venture to suggest, if my right hon. Friend will agree to the Second Reading this afternoon, and will send the Bill to Grand Committee, together we can consider how to fashion out an instrument for the benefit of our fellow-countrymen.

I rise with great pleasure to second the Motion of my hon. Friend. He has, he says, an interest in this Bill in that he introduced an almost similar measure on a former occasion, and got it through Grand Committee. I also have an interest in this measure, as it was my good fortune in 1911 to have the opportunity to introduce the Bill which became an Act, and I think one of the earliest speeches in that Debate, and certainly one of the most forcible was by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland in support of that Bill. He knows, as I know, what bright hopes we had when that Bill went on the Statute Book—how the agricultural workers in Scotland and the smallholders thought that at last their day of deliverance was at hand. Now we realise the sad fact that, notwithstanding the immense amount of public goodwill which was behind that, and notwithstanding the devoted efforts of the officials of the Board of Agriculture, we have to confess that if the Act has not been a complete failure, it has fallen so far short of the hopes that were raised with regard to it, that to make it anything like an effective instrument requires the most drastic amendment. What were the main reasons for that, and how far does this Bill seek to remedy the defects? One of the main reasons was the expense. Owing to the decision in the famous Lindean case, the amount that was placed at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture for the creation of new holdings became quite ridiculous. It was hopeless to expect that with that amount, or even double that amount, anything really effective could be done. The result of the decision in that case was that the amount of money paid for the part of the estate taken for small holdings was as much as the value of the whole estate. [HON. MEMBEKS: "No!"] Whatever the figures were, it was a perfectly ludicrous contrast between the value of the whole estate and the amount of money compelled by the decision to be given for the small holdings. At once the cry was raised all over the country, "Here is your idea of economic small holdings. Look at the vast sum you have to pay out for these, and you cannot get an economic rent from the smallholder. Therefore the whole thing is a failure." What lies at the root of that lies at the root of all land reform, and that is the power of the landlord, in some way or other, to get an undue share of the public moneys for creating public improvements. To that has been very largely due the torpedoing of the Act. To some extent this Bill meets that.

There are many other points on which this Bill, in some measure, seeks to improve the present administration. Take such a case as this. At present, if a man has a post office or a blacksmith's shop he cannot, owing to the decisions, take advantage of this Act. When a man carries on an ancillary trade, for instance, which is not really divorced from the needs of the district, or from the occupation of the land, what earthly reason can there be, simply because the man has an ancillary trade, which is improving the amenities of the district, why he should be shut out from the benefits of the Act? Surely that is a matter which should be speedily put right. Then there is the question of the injury done by game. Here we have again one of the old troubles constantly cropping up. It ought to be made perfectly clear by Statute that the tenant should have the complete right to protect his holding against any form of game, where it is necessary that he should have that power. The principle, at all events, is a perfectly sound one that he should have the un- doubted right to destroy any game which, in any substantial form, affects the holding. Wherever you look through the existing legislation, you find the necessity for some such Bill as this, and even a much greater measure of reform.

We should very much like to know what my right hon. Friend proposes to do, because suggestions of legislation being brought forward are no excuse whatever for asking leave to withdraw this Bill, and I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that, in any event, this Bill ought to have a Second Reading and go to Grand Committee. There is no need to press for it to be dealt with at once. We do not mind the Bill being put back to enable other Scottish measures to take their turn. When that Bill is put back from Grand Committee it will give my right hon. Friend a reasonable opportunity of laying before the House in concrete form his proposals for dealing with these grievances. I am sure my hon. Friend would gladly agree to such a course. That just shows the reasonable attitude which he has taken up with regard to this matter. The appeal he has made, which I most strongly reinforce, that this Bill should be allowed to go to Grand Committee, is a very fair one. After all, we should have something, so to speak, to bargain with in the event of the proposals not being definite and sufficient. We should have the opportunity, on the part of the Scottish Members, to hammer this measure into such a reasonable shape that, at any rate, it would be a substantial instalment of a reform now long overdue.

I cordially agree with what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said in regard to the desirability increasing small holdings in Scotland, and more especially in providing, as quickly as possible, more land settlements for ex-soldiers both in Scotland and in England. I cannot, however, quite agree that this Bill will in any way facilitate or promote these objects. I am more inclined to agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Midlothian when he said that this Bill was a little bit out of date. I should be inclined to say that it was hopelessly out of date at the present moment. As regards practicable politics, it is now only an interesting relic of prewar policy. The Debate this afternoon, dealing with land settlement, has been most useful and coming as it does before the Government proposals in respect of land settlement are introduced. On this ground I think the discussion will be most useful. I think the manner in which the Ministry of Health Bill passed into law gives a most excellent example of what can be done by Scottish Members. Before that Bill was introduced the Secretary for Scotland had discussions with local authorities and others concerned, and with his Scottish colleagues, and after he introduced it it was fully debated in Scottish Grand Committee with a good spirit. It only took a few sittings practically, as it came downstairs as an agreed measure, and was passed with the consent of all the Scottish Members. I think that the Scottish Health Bill example may be well followed in dealing with the urgent problem of land settlement in Scotland. Equally here, with a little good will and the spirit of concession amongst Scottish Members of all shades of opinions, we can equally well hammer out a satisfactory measure dealing with land settlement in Scotland.

There are large questions of devolution and Home Rule which are agitating the people of Scotland, and which, for various reasons, cannot be dealt with immediately, but we shall go a long way to meet the demands and wishes of the Scottish people if we continue to deal with the details of Scottish Bills in Grand Committee after the principle has been approved by English, Welsh, and Irish Members. When Scottish Bills have been thoroughly discussed and agreement come to over details, English, Irish, and Welsh Members may simply pronounce "Aye" or "No" to the measure downstairs. These are the lines on which I think Scottish legislation can proceed in future and satisfactorily, provided we continue to have that general agreement and general wish to push forward useful legislation in the best interest of the Scottish people. On these lines I do not think it is desirable or that it will promote land settlement in Scotland that this particular Bill should occupy the time of Scottish Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, who introduced the Bill stated that there was no desire to press this Bill in Scottish Grand Committee for the reasons he gave. What then is the need to occupy time with it beyond the general principles which we are now discussing?

What I said on behalf of my hon. Friend and myself was this: We did not desire to press this Bill on Grand Committee until we had had an opportunity of hearing from the Secretary for Scotland what were his land proposals, which might make this Bill unnecessary?

I see! What the right hon. Gentleman desires is to hold a pistol at the head of the Government to enable them to do their duty?

Certainly!

I think that the Scottish Members, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Government, supported by the large majority of Scottish Members, are quite well-qualified to do their duty without this particular Bill held at their heads by other hon. Members. In respect of this Bill, Scottish Members are aware that a Bill has already been debated. We know very well that many of the points in this Bill are identical with that which left the Scottish Grand Committee in 1914. It has already been pointed out that that Bill occupied nine or ten long sittings in Grand Committees. It was then reported, and passed—without discussion, I admit. On the other hand, there were various Clauses which are still contentious and will involve pretty long discussion. I should have thought it was better, under the circumstances, not to awaken the old discussions, but to start with a clean slate on the Government proposals. There was a great difference of opinion as to bringing forward this Bill. With the best intentions it is very difficult to avoid raking up old quotations and talking about Lindean, landlords, and so on, which we want to forget, and to try and start again. We want to get on with the job, to get on with Scottish legislation. I would point out that last night this House had before it a measure, one Clause of which absolutely deals with compensation and arbitration in Scotland; and, in effect, practically the Scottish Small Holders Bill which the hon. Member for East Midlothian considers a more important Bill than his own Bill before the House. So that we shall have two Bills before Parliament, both actually dealing with the same particular matter. Does the hon. Gentleman consider himself in opposition to the Scottish Clause of the Bill, which was read a second time last night? That is not all. Until the Land Settlement Bill has been printed, and we know more or less the Government proposals, it will be well to wait. I think the right hon. Member is under the impression that the English Land Settlement Bill offers very much better terms for smallholders, soldiers in particular, than anything he is offering under his Bill. We do not know what the Scottish Secretary is going to introduce in his Land Settlement Bill, but we are entitled to hope it will not be a worse Bill for Scottish smallholders and for ex-soldiers than the English Bill will be for English smallholders and English soldiers! I think we can trust that that will be introduced shortly. Surely the hon. Member for East Edinburgh does not propose to set his own Bill up in opposition to that of the Government?

The hon. Member knows that the English Land Settlement Bill proposes to amend the English Agricultural Holdings Act, and it is not too much to expect that the Scottish Land Settlement Bill will also radically amend the Smallholders Bill of 1911. Therefore, we have a Bill with the very point raised in this Bill, and there is another to be introduced in a very short time. I know the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) is a great advocate of the rights and interests of soldiers, and I have frequently acknowledged what he has done in this respect, but I think both Scotsmen and Englishmen are anxious to promote land settlement, and they think that ex-soldiers should have the first opportunity of being placed on the land. Does this Bill in any way facilitate that object? I can see nothing in it in that direction. The English Bill provides for erecting houses and the cost of the houses and the interest on the capital is to be included in the rent under the English Bill, and eventually the whole of the cost over and above the fair rent is to be written off in seven years. This Bill provides nothing of that kind. Under this measure the Scottish landlord has to pay for the erection of the houses, and the wretched smallholder has to pay interest on the money, in addition to his rent. I know the hon. Member hopes for something better, but there is nothing better in his Bill.

3.0 P.M.

Again, the British Bill provided for loans in order to stock the farms. Under the present Smallholders Bill money may be advanced for stocking small holdings, but under the Bill now before the House there are no such powers. I submit that in the past the delay in creating small holdings has largely been, owing to the expense of providing the building, and also the difficulty of intending smallholders providing capital for stock. That has been one of the hindrances to the development of small holdings. The English Bill provides for gardens and allotments with houses and small holdings of one acre. That is a very satisfactory proposal in the interests of soldiers, and I am confident that the Secretary for Scotland will in his measure offer the same facilities as are being applied to England. I am only trying to show that the Government are offering something very much better than anything the hon. Member for East Edinburgh proposes. I think, with a little patience, we shall get very much more. The hon. Member's Bill is really a pistol at the head of the Government, and in that policy I do not feel inclined to assist him, because the Government are just as anxious as the hon. Member to assist smallholders and ex-soldiers, and Scottish Members can exert pressure without the absolute pressure of a Bill being held over the heads of the Government. The Selborne Report states that the Scottish Board of Agriculture is working quite satisfactorily except for the great cost of its procedure, and they say that they can pronounce no opinion as to how far this is due to the excessive rates of compensation allowed by the Act. They recommend that the whole question should be made the subject of an impartial inquiry by independent experts before any Amendment of the Act is attempted, and they state that they believe that the Act should provide for free sale to the tenant as a natural corollary of fixity of tenure with some chance of becoming owners of their holdings. We think both these systems should be tried, and that smallholders should be given the opportunity both of becoming tenants and proprietors of their holdings. The hon. Member has made no offer to give smallholders the opportunity to become proprietors.

There was a pamphlet issued by the Minister of Reconstruction dealing with the problems of settlement, and it is very interesting reading. It gives us the result of considerable investigation by the Reconstruction Committee. This was published in 1919. The hon. Member has made no alteration in his Bill at all. I know he says that it can be amended in Committee; but what is the good of that? The measure is hopelessly out of date, and I submit we shall not serve any useful purpose by giving it a Second Reading. We may continue this discussion, and it will be very helpful, but I think the best course would be for the Debate to be adjourned, and if when the Government Bill is before the Scottish Grand Committee the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with anything in the Government Bill, and if there is anything in his Bill which could be usefully introduced into the Government measure it would be open to the hon. Member to move new Clauses, and I hope, as I have said, that with mutual goodwill among the Scottish Members we shall support the Government in carrying into law a really useful measure to provide for land settlement in Scotland for soldiers and others.

As one of those—

I beg to call your attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present.

We have only recently had a count of the House.

Was not that over two hours ago, on another Bill?

The Noble Lord's recollection is not quite correct.

As one of those whose name is on the back of this Bill, I should like to say a few words especially with regard to the suggestion just made that the Debate should be adjourned. I hope that the House will not listen to that suggestion. We must consider the times in which we are now living. We have been waiting in Scotland for a long period for an extension in the number of small holdings. The position is accentuated by the fact that there are a number of soldiers returning who are desirous of getting small holdings so that they may settle in their own country instead of having to look for their future careers abroad. If this House were to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill to-day the impression would go abroad that we were not serious in desiring to provide small holdings for these soldiers. The Government has introduced a Bill for England, and they propose to introduce one for Scotland. It may be that it will be a better Bill than this one, because nothing in the world is perfect, and I do not for a moment say that this is perfect, but this Bill is directed chiefly to removing an obstacle which prevented a previous Bill from achieving an object which we Liberal Members have at heart and making it possible to greatly extend the number of small holdings in Scotland. We thought that we should be able to greatly increase the number of smallholdings, but the Bill did not operate as we expected it to operate, and the number of small holdings has been very little, if at all, increased.

It is hardly necessary to point to individual experience, but in my own Constituency I have had the experience of a large number of people who want small holdings and who have been unable to get them. I have had the experience of a town council and the people in the neighbourhood clamouring for a farm which fell vacant to be made into small holdings and allotments, partly for the burghers who live in the town, and partly for the people who want small holdings outside. I found, owing to the condition of the law and one thing or another, that we were unable to provide small holdings, although that very suitable farm fell vacant.

When I see cases like that, I am not prepared to let any opportunity go by which may improve matters, and, while this Bill may not be perfect, if the House passes it to-day it will give the impression outside that we are serious in our desire to extend the number of small holdings, arid it will, I think, hurry on the Government Bill, which perhaps will be the most practical result. The Government Bill must then be hurried on, and we shall have the opportunity of passing it into law, whereas but for to-day's discussion it might be put on one side in favour of other measures of a more pressing nature. I do not want to enter into the merits of this measure at all, because I view it from a much broader standpoint. I say it is a matter of importance that we should pass the Second Reading of this Bill, because by doing so we may get a move on and get the Government's Bill introduced, hurried through, and passed into law.

I rise mainly to support, with any small weight that I have, the excellent argument put forward by my right hon. Friend. It would be ex- tremely damaging if we were to allow this Bill to fail or to lapse this afternoon and were not to give it a Second Reading. Public opinion on this matter has advanced very markedly in Scotland during the past five years. It is notorious that in almost every part of Scotland there is a clamourous demand for small holdings which cannot at the moment be met, and legislation is urgently needed for hastening their establishment. I quite agree that this is not a perfect Bill, but it is intended to remedy the defects of the Small Landholders Act, which, if I may say so without disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, is designed by lawyers apparently for the benefit of lawyers, and which, so far as Scotland is concerned, has been a disastrous failure. I do not see any reason why, if need be, we should hesitate to hold a pistol at the head of the Government. We all know that there is very great pressure on the time of the House of Commons. We hope that the proposed Government measure for the establishment of small landholders and for dealing with other aspects of the land settlement question will be a thoroughly comprehensive measure, but it is just as well for us to have a private Member's measure on the stocks so that if the official Bill does not come up to expectations we may have a weapon, whether a pistol or otherwise, which we can level at the Government and use the weight of the Scottish representation to endeavour to get passed into law. I do not propose to examine the Bill in detail. In many respects it is not a perfect Bill, and in some respects it is almost an incomprehensible Bill—we want something simpler—but it is a good Bill inasmuch as it proposes to improve the Small Landholders Act, and it is a very necessary Bill, having regard to the present lack of small holdings and the great demand for them. I do feel, in view of the experience that Scotland has gained from the Small Landholders Act, that we ought not to allow this measure to go by default, but that we ought to give it a Second Reading. We all know that within these walls there is a certain amount of manœuvring for position, which is not apparent in the constituencies, and, if it goes abroad that this Bill was either talked out or refused a Second Reading, the impression undoubtedly will be widespread that notwithstanding all that Scotland has done in the War and notwithstanding the very serious sacrifices which it has made in the loss of its best manhood, when it comes to a question of doing something for ex-Service men who wish to settle on the land, the measure is refused a Second Reading. All of us who more or less try to represent Scottish interests will find ourselves in very ill odour in our constituencies, whether we represent town or country. In view of the importance of this Bill, I do urge as strongly as I can that it should be given a Second Reading.

I do not think that the hon. Member who last spoke need have any fears if the Bill is refused a Second Reading, because there is nobody who is not agreed, on any side of the House, that the Landholders Act requires amendment in many respects. That is quite recognized. The machinery at present is defective and the difficulties which are placed in the way of smallholders are very great. One of the greatest blots on the present system is the provision that where a landlord makes a voluntary agreement he does not get compensation and is in a worse position than a man who receives compensation. Anything more ridiculous than a Clause of that kind I cannot conceive. I have spoken upon that point at various times in this House. Therefore the law requires to be amended not only on one side but also on the other—in the interests of the tenant, the smallholder, and the landowner. No doubt this Bill has been debated at very great length in the Scottish Committee, and to that extent it has some claim to consideration in this Parliament which it would not otherwise have. But if it comes to be read a second time the idea, we are told, is that it shall be postponed and sent to the Committee upstairs. That, I understand, is now agreed. But suppose you take this Bill to the Grand Committee. You may expect that the Land Bill to be introduced by the Government will be a measure of far-reaching importance and that it will enable you to move almost any Amendment you like. I do not think there is a single Clause in this Bill that could not be moved in the Grand Committee on a Government Bill either as a new Clause or as an Amendment. When that is done the pistol will no longer exist; it will have been fired off, because the Committee to which it has been taken in that form would have dealt with most of the points. I do not see any point that could not be dealt with in that way. If you postpone this Bill until the Committee stage of the Land Settlement Bill which the Secretary for Scoland will introduce, I do not suppose we shall hear any more about it. I do not care, therefore, whether this Bill is read a second time or not. An opportunity will be given of moving any Amendment they want, and that being so, we shall have the whole thing discussed. But it is a pity to confuse the thing by carrying it in this fashion. The Government has a land policy. We have not yet seen all the elements of it, but we know enough to say that the measure which will be introduced for Scotland will be a far-reaching measure, and will provide a good deal for the Scottish smallholders. It is absurd to think that the Government measure will not amend Clause 7 of the Act of 1911 in one direction, and we have the other measure which can also be amended. But with regard to this Bill a different system of arbitration is suggested. In one case, the Bill provides for a different system of arbitration. Another measure provides for arbitration. The thing is ridiculous, and I quote it as an example of the confusion that arises.

How does the hon. Baronet know that? Apparently he knows what nobody else knows with regard to these proposals. There are no proposals made by the Government.

The hon. Member, with his Parliamentary experience and study of these Bills, ought to know that there is a Bill for the acquisition of land which has been read a second time, and Sub-section (11) of the Small Holdings Act, 1911, is referred to. It says: The provisions of this Act other than the provisions of the Section thereof relating to rules for the assessment of compensation shall apply to the determination of any question which under Sub-section (11) of Section 7 or Section 17 of the Small Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1911, is referred to arbitration. There is a Bill which has passed its Second Reading, and which has already amended the Arbitration Clauses. The hon. Member wants a measure to stop arbitration and send it to a Land Court. It is perfectly ridiculous, and, though it may be a small point, I quote it to show the confusion which may arise when somebody else steps in with regard to this great land question which ought to be dealt with on the responsibility of the Government. It is too big a question for a private Member to deal with on a Friday afternoon, particularly in the present situation where the Government is pledged to a wide measure of land reform. I really do not care whether you read this Bill a second time or not, because if it is read a second time and then postponed for discussion in Committee, there will be every opportunity for discussing all such proposals.

We must dissociate the hon. Baronet who has just spoken from the hon. Member for North Midlothian (Colonel Sir J. Hope). The latter appeared to be opposed to the Bill.

I only said that the Bill was quite inadequate, but I did not oppose it.

The hon. Member says he does not want the present Bill, but he took a considerable share in the formation and discussion of the Bill and debated it in Committee, and now he says it is either superfluous or harmless. For instance, he suggested it did not increase the facilities for returned soldiers.

Quite so.

It certainly will make it easier for the people to acquire land, and therefore soldiers, who will have exactly the same facilities, will share in that. The soldiers already have certain facilities which other people have not, such as those under the Civil Emergencies Fund and they have other facilities. If the hon. Baronet's only objection, or main objection, or one of his objections is that it does not do enough for soldiers, let him in Committee put in new Clauses for the soldiers and I am sure all will agree to put them in the Bill. The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir George Younger) takes a different view. We know he is a power behind the Throne. I understand from the news that has come that the writ has ceased to run in certain parts of the country. His argument suggests a complete negation of private Members' efforts in this House. The Government met the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of this party with great reasonableness early in the Session, and these proposals have been greatly expedited by the Committee system. All agree in that. We are pressing this measure at the present moment to be sent to the Scottish Committee because the Scottish Committee has now no business before it, and although it is a private Member's Bill it is one which has been fully debated by the Scottish Committee, and we hope it will now be given a Second Reading.

The hon. Member is aware that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly willing to postpone it, and I based my speech upon that understanding.

We want to get this Bill because we want the advantage of the opinion of the Members of the House upon it, and because we think it is a needed measure. The only reason the right hon. Baronet urges against it is that the Government is about to produce certain measures of its own. Some people call this Bill a bird in the hand, others cal it a pistol, but, whatever you call it, it is of tremendous advantage to have something of the kind. There was a Land Bill passed last night to which some of us took exception. Now, if we had a Bill framed on the lines on which we approved, does not everybody think that those who opposed the Bill would be in a very much stronger position later on to secure well-thought-out and matured Amendments to the present proposals?

There is a portion of the British Empire in which a candidate for employment sometimes justifies his application by stating that he is a failed B.A. May I claim as a failed Scottish Member the privilege of speaking for a moment on this Scottish Bill, not that I would venture to ask the House to listen to me on a matter connected with Scottish law. In point of fact the affairs of Scotland are not parochial or local; they are of Imperial and world-wide interest. There is only one reason which I have for intervening, and that is in connection with the Clause relating to deer forests. It is-provided in Clause 1 (11) that Where the Land Court are of opinion that damage or injury will be done to any landlord or to any other person or persons in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of a new holding or holdings under the scheme, they shall require the Board in the event of such scheme being proceeded with to make payment of compensation of such amount as the Land Court may determine in respect of such damage or injury. It goes on to say: In determining the amount of compensation under any provision of this Act, no additional allowance shall be made on account of the constitution of any new holding or holdings being compulsory, nor shall any allowance be made in respect of any damage or injury done to the letting value of any deer forest as a sporting; subject by the constitution of one or more hold- ings on any part or parts thereof, but such allowance may be made in respect only of any damage or injury thereby done to the letting of such deer forest as an agricultural or pastoral subject. I will not say anything about the grammar of this Clause. I should have thought that the term "sporting subject" could hardly be applied to a forest, but it is quite clear what is meant is a sporting proposition. It means that no allowance is to be made on account of the value of the forest qua forest, which is the chief if not only value of immense tracts in Scotland. There are large areas there which are absolutely useless for any conceivable purpose except that of a deer forest. In many counties in Scotland the rent of these forests, particularly in North Perthshire, and still more so in Ross-shire, provides the bulk of the county income for carrying on the county business. I submit that this proposition really proceeds from an unreasonable prejudice against a sport which brings an enormous amount of money to Scotland, and which indeed is one of the glories of that country. Anybody who knows Scotland—and there are many of us who spend a great deal of our time there—I myself do—is aware that there he meets millionaires from America who spend enormous sums in maintaining gillies, keepers, and all the expensive paraphernalia of a deer forest. Is that no advantage to the barren, uncultivated tracts concerned? Why is this passed sub silentio in this House, no one saying a word on this exceedingly important subject?

I would compare the Clause which I ventured to read to the House with the corresponding Section of the Act of 1911, and I find there none of the predatory purpose of this Bill. No statement of the objects and reasons accompanies this measure. I am sorry for it. I should have thought it would have been a good thing to have stated those objects and reasons. In point of fact, this Bill places it in the power of persons hostile to sport to practically destroy the value of the deer forest which we know constitutes the main return from many Highland estates. If these forests were possible or potential agricultural propositions no one would have a word to say on the subject, but almost invariably they are not. Many hon. Members are familiar with immense tracts in Scotland where nothing can be done to cultivate them, and whose only value is a sporting one. Apart from their sporting value, which is expressly exempted under this Bill, the areas in question have no value, and not only will this provision prevent the owner from enjoying the rent of his own property, but it will very much damage the revenue of the local bodies and the general prosperity of the districts by keeping away from them those who now are almost the only persons who expend money in these otherwise desolate and deserted areas. Looking at a Debate when this Bill was before the House on a former occasion, I see that an hon. Member—and a very able Member, and one who is well known to have made a close study of this question (Lord Tullibardine)—took objectors to sporting rights from Glasgow and other great towns and showed them, and, I believe, convinced them, that in the case of his own parish, with a rental of £23,000, £16,000 of that sum was derived from the deer forests.

If it were a case of decultivating areas in order to turn them into deer forests, nobody could possibly at this time of day provide any possible excuse for such action, but that is not the proposition at all. The proposition is that the owner should be deprived of that which is and has been his property for generations, of a value upon the basis of which the property has frequently changed hands, and that he should be reduced possibly from a position of affluence to one of penury in due course of law. That is not a proposition which ought to pass this House without serious consideration. Hon. Members have spoken from the point of view, let us say, of Glasgow. Even so, I do not think they express the opinion of Glasgow as a whole. In point of fact, the immense prosperity of that great city—the second city in the British Empire—is due to the physical and intellectual strength of its able merchants, which is notoriously maintained by the use and enjoyment of these very forests it is now proposed, so far as possible, to destroy by course of law. The connection between these great urban areas, say, between Glasgow and northern Perthshire, is quite as close as the connection between Rob Roy and Baillie Nichol Jarvie when Scott wrote his well-known novel. I submit that the point of view I have laid before the House is one that should be laid before it. I sincerely hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland speaks he will be able to say that this should lie over for the Government Bill, as it is a subject more suitable for a Government to deal with. Whether or not he says that, I hope he will make reference to the subject to which I have referred, because he, as a Member for one of the far northern constituencies, must be aware that there is a great deal of truth in what I have said, although perhaps it is a little difficult to say it, because in this House it seems to be decided that anyhing connected with sport and sporting matters must be anathema maranatha.

I should like, first of all, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) upon his almost unvarying and enviable success in the ballot. It has enabled him to initiate to-day a discussion which has been both interesting and useful. The history of the Bill, of which he has moved the Second Reading, has been quite correctly given by him. It is a Bill which passed through the Scottish Grand Committee some years ago, and it has been reintroduced by him precisely in the form in which it passed through that Committee. It brings back to some of us echoes of a time which now seems to be very remote indeed. My attitude upon that Bill at that time is on record and is well known, and I want to add that my views have not in the least altered since the time when this Bill was being considered by the Scottish Grand Committee. Indeed, I think I may add, with the assent of the whole House, that there are two propositions upon which they are agreed. The first is that it is desirable at the earliest possible moment to settle upon small holdings in Scotland, in so far as they desire it, particularly ex-Service men; and, secondly, that in order to do so effectively and properly, the existing Act urgently requires amendment. On the first of these questions I was interested to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Springburn Division (Mr. Macquisten) say in a Debate which took place a few weeks ago, after congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) upon a speech which he had made— I want to assure him, and also the Secretary for Scotland, that there is no step which the right hon. Gentleman can take to ameliorate the condition of affairs— that is with regard to land settlement— that will not have the most hearty and cordial support from every Unionist Member who has the interests of Scotland at heart. I ask the Secretary for Scotland to take his courage in both hands, and deal in a most drastic way with the Islands and Highlands of Scotland in regard to the question of land which has been depopulated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1919, col. 1045, Vol. 113.] That was said in the course of a Debate in this House on the 10th of last month. I ventured to say, in response to that appeal: In that direction I welcome very sincerely the help which has been promised by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) on behalf of those for whom he speaks, and I think it is a good augury of what we may be able to accomplish when Unionists and Liberals, if one may use those words—which have almost a far-away ring about them nowadays—combine in pressing upon me the necessity of developing the system of small-holdings in Scotland and of setting people on the land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1919, col. 1048, Vol. 113.] My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn, in a subsequent speech in Scotland, reiterated those opinions with even more emphasis. Accordingly, having regard to that speech, and to the speeches delivered to-day by those who share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Spring-burn, I think I am correct in saying, with the assent of the whole House, irrespective of party, that it is the desire, not only of the Government, but of private Members of the House, to secure the settlement of ex-Service men upon holdings in Scotland, if they desire it, at the earliest time and in the most effective manner. I would venture to add that in order to do so effectively the Smallholders Act, 1911, requires to be amended. Its machinery has turned out to be both cumbrous and costly. With reference to what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has said with regard to the decisions of the Court of Session, I think he would do well to complain not so much of the interpretation of the law laid down by the Court of Session and by the House of Lords, as with regard to the provisions of the Act which they were called upon to interpret. It is in that view that I suggest that amendment of the Act is urgently to be desired. The question of the best way to amend that Act is a matter for consideration. One has to bear in mind that this Bill which we are now considering was passed through the Scottish Grand Committee under conditions which were widely different from those which obtain today. It was a pre-war measure, passed under the auspices of another Government, and it was frankly a party measure. There is no doubt at all about that. That is the first thing one has to remember about the Bill we are considering. Furthermore, I agree with some of the criticisms offered that this is a Bill as drawn which is narrow and limited in its scope. It does not purport to deal with a number of important questions relating to land with which I hope it may be possible to deal at an early date. Moreover, the Bill was framed and necessarily framed without any reference at all to the comprehensive land policy which the Government has announced, and which the Government is now in the course of carrying out. Those are considerations which should be borne in mind when we are considering this Bill. For example we have now the Acquisition of Land Bill, which was read a second time yesterday, under which a different system is introduced into the Small Landholders Act for the assessing of compensation. Under that Act in certain circumstances compensation is to be assessed by arbitration. The provision in the Acquisition of Land Bill is that instead of that compensation being assessed by an arbitrator it should be assessed by the valuers who are to be set up in virtue of its provisions. Now my hon. Friends suggest another solution, namely, assessment by the Land Court. One has thus to bear in mind the complications which have been introduced by the fact that a new and comprehensive land policy is now being carried out, and that this Bill was framed at a time when that policy was not in contemplation at all. Then we have the English Land Settlement Bill which is also before the House. And what is perhaps more to the point, we have in active preparation a Land Settlement Bill for Scotland. It was described by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) as shadowy. I can assure him he will find it of substance and not of shadow.

We have only the shadow of it here.

The substance will be very soon here and my right hon. Friend will be one of the first to agree that it is not shadowy but substantial. The suggestion was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn that it is necessary to hurry up the Government in the production of its Bill. But no such compulsion or pressure is in the least degree necessary. The Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible moment. Of course, it is not possible for me to-day to enumerate or even to foreshadow in detail the provisions of the Bill, but it will most certainly include Amendments of the Small Landholders Act. I welcome the opportunity of ascertaining to-day the views of the House with regard to points which are now under consideration in connection with that matter, and my hon. Friend has performed a valuable service in initiating this discussion. I wish he had found it possible to rest content with that. My own feeling—and I think it will be shared by many inside and outside the House—is that proposals for amending the Small Landholders Act, being an integral part of the land policy of the Government, would be more appropriately brought forward upon Government responsibility than upon the responsibility of a private Member. I think the country expects it. My hon. Friend would have the fullest opportunity afforded him in Committee, if he were not satisfied with the Government proposals for the amendment of the Scottish Landholders Act, to move Amendments to it and to incorporate into it when it is produced the Amendments he thinks necessary to strengthen it. But he and my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) are not contented with that proposal, and they have made an offer which I should be prepared to accept if I correctly interpret it. I understand the proposal to be that this Bill should be given a Second Reading on the footing that it should be postponed in Grand Committee to the Government Land Settlement Bill for Scotland, and that it should be withdrawn if the proposals of the Government are found to be satisfactory. On that definite footing, the Bill might be read a second time.

The hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) said no doubt there was a good deal of truth in what he said about deer forests, but there is a good deal that was wrong in what he said about deer forests. I understood him to imagine that deer forests are composed of land which is unsuited for any other purpose than that of sport. Is he aware that the Deer Commission reported over twenty years ago that there were then something like 1,750,000 acres of land under deer which were suitable for cultivation, and that area has been very greatly increased since that time. I can take him to one valley in the part of the world that I represent where there were no fewer than seventy crofters' holdings where there is only one now. The very estate he quoted had at one time, I believe, hundreds of crofters on land which is now occupied by deer.

Does the hon. Member think Caithness is really a representative Scottish county?

Regarded as a deer forest, very largely it is so. I have represented that county for nearly twenty years and I happen to know something about it. When the Secretary for Scotland introduces his Bill I hope he will incorporate the main part of this Bill. There are many most excellent suggestions in it which I think he should adopt. Further, I hope he will introduce his Bill with as little delay as possible. There is a state of feeling in the Highlands about this delay in carrying out the promises to establish ex-soldiers on the land which is becoming dangerous. I have had evidence and statements that unless the soldiers get the land very speedily they propose to take steps to take it themselves.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Eight minutes before Four o'clock.