I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is the fulfilment of a promise which I made in Standing Committee, to extend if possible to fences the penalty for damage to allotment crops.

Could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to extend the new Clause so as to take in temporary buildings or buildings put up by the allotment occupier on an allotment? Up and down the country allotment occupiers put up temporary huts or shelters for the storage of tools and seeds, and surely, if it is right and proper to protect the fences round an allotment, it is even more proper to protect the temporary building which the allotment holder has put up. Could the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment with that end in view.

I wish to support that appeal. Many cases of damage to these temporary huts have been brought to my notice. The answer I have always been given is that the existing law is sufficient. If my right hon. Friend would have regard to the statement just made it would be in the interests of allotment holders generally to have the statutory provisions strengthened.

Anyone who has visited allotments must have noticed the care which the holders have shown in putting up some of these huts and the pride they have in them. You cannot say to them: "You are protected for your fences," and then say later, "You are not protected for your buildings, in spite of the labour you have put into them."

If the House would permit me, I am willing to extend this new Clause, but I have already given a rather wider extension than has been suggested. It has been pointed out that sometimes ground is damaged by people tramping on it, If it were in order, I would withdraw the new Clause in the form in which I have moved it and move it in another form so that it would read as follows:

"Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-one of The Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919 (which imposes a penalty on a person causing damage to crops growing on an allotment cultivated as a garden), shall extend to damage to allotments cultivated as gardens, or any crops or fences or buildings thereon, and accordingly that Sub-section shall have effect as if after the words 'allotment cultivated as a garden' there were inserted the words 'allotments cultivated as gardens, or any crops or fences or buildings thereon.' "

I would accept that revision.

I would point out that a new Clause cannot be moved without notice, and that unless these changes were introduced as Amendments to the Clause on the Paper, I could not put them to the House.

Would I be in order to move them as Amendments to the new Clause?

I would suggest that before the word "buildings," the word "temporary" be inserted. It was never intended that permanent buildings should be erected on the allotments. If the word "buildings" stands without the qualifying word "temporary" there will be an inducement to allotment holders to put up permanent buildings.

Their huts are permanent to them.

I could effect my purpose by moving three Amendments to the new Clause now before the House.

I think the word "temporary" ought to be inserted in the Clause. Surely you are not going to have all buildings included.

I strongly object to the last speaker's suggested limitation. I wish he would get out of his mind the idea that allotments are temporary, and that the buildings on them are temporary. A good many of us hope to see permanent allotments and permanent buildings. As the Clause is drafted it includes both permanent and temporary buildings.

I think I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest in regard to temporary buildings. The only buildings of which we know, which are not of the ordinary nature, for sheds, tools, etc., are where a considerable piece of land is held by societies, and where they put up in the centre a building which can hardly be called a temporary building, but is a real storehouse for manures and seeds and that sort of thing. Surely there ought to be a penalty for wilfully damaging a building of that kind by breaking glass and so forth. There is the question whether "allotment cultivated as a garden" fits in with the framework of the Bill. We have two definitions in the Bill. One is a watertight definition of an allotment garden, with an area of 40 rods in extent, and another the definition of an allotment as an area of anything up to two acres in extent. The question is whether "allotment cultivated as a garden" will be taken to refer to allotment gardens, which cannot exceed 40 rods, or will cover an allotment.

There is no doubt that the expression will cover all allotments, but, I will see that that matter is dealt with in another place. It is a question only of drafting.

On behalf of some 4,000 allotment holders whom I represent in the city of Gloucester, holding some 240 acres between them, I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture for this Clause. I put down an Amendment in Committee dealing with this matter, and the Minister then promised that he would carry out the wishes of those who were anxious to see this provision made, and I have very much pleasure in thanking him for meeting us in this way.

On the question of the buildings on these allotments, it will be found as a matter of fact that there are some in existence which are of a permanent character.

I wish to reinforce the appeal made from the Benches opposite that there should be a more exact definition in connection with this Clause. I see great danger in the fact that we have three categories of allotments—first, the allotment pure and simple; second, the allotment garden up to 40 rods in extent as defined in the Bill; and now a third, the allotment cultivated as a garden. It is quite certain that any Court construing these provisions will put different interpretations on the three definitions, and it is asking for trouble if we leave the Bill in its present indeterminate state in this respect.

I have already mentioned this matter in reply to a previous Question put to me, and have promised that it shall be dealt with.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause is, briefly, to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance funds at their disposal on loan to societies formed on a co-operative basis to assist these societies to buy their allotments. The main point about allotments is that nothing short of real security of tenure is of any permanent value. I acknowledge that the Minister has done much and is trying to do more, but the only thing which gives real security is ownership and it is of enormous benefit when the allotment holder really owns a certain amount of land, which cannot be taken away from him. We know that at present the powers of the State are very limited and the difficulty is to combine the desire which we all feel, that the allotment holders should be assisted to purchase their land with the known restrictions which are put upon the advancing of money. The principle of enabling the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend money for this purpose was strongly urged in the report of the Allotments Committee which everybody wishes to carry out if they can, but at present, when the matter is brought to the notice of the Minister, he says what is quite true and what we must accept as true, namely that the Treasury has not got the money. For the purposes of this Debate it might be said that if the Coalition Government remains in office, that uncomfortable position should speedily be removed and the country restored to a position of greater solvency.

The point I wish to snake, however, is this, although the allotment holders—and in this matter I speak for both the organisations in the country—are perfectly willing to accept the fact that the Public Works Loan Commissioners cannot possibly now make any loans for the purpose because the Treasury will not allow the money to be advanced, yet unless we put some provision of this sort into the Bill it is very doubtful, even when better days come, whether they will be able to advance the money for this purpose. We want to be in a position of certainty so that we will not require to introduce another Bill enabling this to be done when the country's finances have become easier. The allotment holders all over the country are perfectly willing to accept the present position that no money can be advanced, if they are assured that when money can be advanced, they in common with other people will have a chance of getting some of it. I know of many instances where allotment scieties and associations wish to buy land and are willing to pay a quarter of the purchase price, and where the bank is willing to advance another quarter, and where, if a public body were willing to advance on anything like reasonable terms, the other half, or in certain circumstances only a third, the thing would go through. We acknowledge that cannot be done now, but some provision should be inserted to enable advances to be made for this purpose when the Treasury embargo is taken off. I think that aspect of the matter is rather a new point. It was not fully brought out in Committee. I have done my best to make it quite clear that the allotment organisations do not expect anything to be done at present during this stringency, but that they want to take powers against the time when things may be a little easier.

I desire to support this Clause very strongly indeed. It was originally put down in Committee at the instance of the National Union of Allotment Holders, and it is regarded by allotment holders up and down the country as of the greatest possible importance to them. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in contesting the Clause in Committee, put forward the difficulties with the Treasury, but I desire to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has just said. The other point taken by the Minister was that the Public Works Loan Commissioners were doubtful of their security, but the answer to that is that if they are doubtful of the security they will not advance the money. I do not think the House would anticipate further legislation on this subject, at any rate for some two or three years. Things may get better; adequate security may be supplied, and therefore I beg my right hon. Friend to accept this Clause. It is far better to follow the principle that the allotment holders have put forward, not to ask for subsidies, but that they may be enabled to finance their holdings themselves, and I hope the Clause will therefore be accepted.

I very much regret that I cannot possibly accept this Clause, for the reasons which I gave in Committee. I should very much like to see something of this sort done, but it is a financial matter. I have approached the Treasury and the Public Works Loan Commissioners on the subject, and their answer is that, even if the Clause be inserted in the Bill, there is not the slightest chance of any Money being made available for this purpose. They suggest that the security, in their opinion, in most cases would not be sufficient, and they point out that even in the ease of housing under some of the public utility societies there have been losses. What would be the effect of putting this Clause in here? It would simply raise expectations all over the country that would not be fulfilled, and I think that is the very worst thing we could do. Of course, in two years' time, if financial conditions have greatly changed, there will be nothing whatever to prevent my hon. Friends bringing in a short Bill of one Clause to enable this to be done, but to put it into the Bill now, when we know the money cannot be made available, would be a great mistake, and, much as I regret it, I must ask the House to reject the Clause.

The answer we have heard from the Minister is not only unsatisfactory, but it is not fair. My right hon. Friend admits that there may be some virtue in the Clause, but says we can get over the difficulty by bringing in a One-Clause Bill.

Later on.

Yes, later on, but no one knows better than he does that any Member of the House can get up, and say, "I object," and that that is the end of the One-Clause Bill. Obviously his party would do it, and we should also, if the circumstances arose. It is somewhat astonishing to hear the argument that the security would not be satisfactory, because one would assume from that that if this Clause were accepted, the Commissioners would be compelled to loan the money. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not only not true, but absurd. He knows very well that the loaning of money for the existing security is determined by them, and by them alone. They are the sole judges of the situation; they can accept or reject as they like, and to assume that if this Clause were put in the Bill it would compel them to invest money regardless of security, is to suggest something that is contrary to experience and to practice. In regard to the argument that putting the Clause in might raise false expectations, that is not the object. If at the present moment there were plenty of money, and the Commissioners were in a position to advance money for this purpose, I venture to say that Members in all parts of the House would support it, because there is at least general agreement that if there be one class of people who ought to be encouraged it is the allotment holders. There is general agreement that, from a health point of view, they ought to be encouraged. It makes the very best type of citizen, and the pride which these people take in their gardens ought to be sufficient inducement for us to give them an opportunity of owning their land. It is frankly admitted that there is no money now, but, pessimistic as my right hon. Friend may be, he will not suggest that some day that position may not be improved.

If I may interrupt my right hon. Friend, I did not realise when I was speaking that there was another way of meeting the point, but I am reminded that the Public Works Loans Bill is brought in every year, and that there is nothing to prevent an Amendment to that Bill being brought forward at any time, without the necessity of introducing a separate Bill.

If there be any substance in that argument, it is that the right hon. Gentleman believes it is a good thing, but that he does not want it in this Bill. There can be no other substance in that additional argument. He says there is another way by which we can do this If these ways are open, it is obvious that he thinks it is a good thing, but we are dealing at the moment with an Allotments Bill, and surely, instead of bringing in fresh legislation or Amendments to other Bills, if it be generally recognised that this would be a good thing, and that allotments ought to be encouraged and developed, and even if we frankly admit that there is no money at the moment but that to put in the Clause here will save the necessity of introducing another Bill, then let us put it in now, and then, when circumstances change, effect can be given to it. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is not only not conclusive, but I submit that he ought to reconsider the matter and accept an Amendment in which he believes on principle.

I think we are all agreed that it is very desirable to give every possible facility to these allotment holders. The Clause gives sufficient power to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to accept or refuse applications from allotment holders, and in the second line it says that the Commissioners "may, out of funds at their disposal, advance" money. If they have no money at their disposal, then they will not be able to advance any, and even if they have, it is not obligatory upon them to advance it.

I speak as a Public Works Loan Commissioner, and I wish to say that we think this Clause is inadvisable. It is true that we have no money now, but at any time we may have this money, and it would be holding out false hopes if the Commissioners let it be understood that they would consider this as a proper security for public funds to be advanced by them. We do not think so, and we had better say so at once. Secondly, as regards this security, we feel that if this land be left on our hands eventually, it will be an even worse security for the Commissioners to dispose of than land on which houses have been built, on which we have already advanced money. Our experience is that land having been built on appears to us to offer insuperable difficulties in the future, but in the case of land not built on, we think still more trouble will ensue, and a great deal of public money will unfortunately be irrecoverable. Further, in reference to these allotments, it is our belief that the money, or sufficient money, will be provided, or can be provided, by the local authorities, and it is quite possible that local authorities and these associations might be competing if this Clause were carried. I think that any differences would be unfortunate. Therefore, as one of the Commissioners, I wish to point out that I think it would be better if this Amendment were not pressed.

May I say that, largely speaking, the land that will be taken for allotments will not be building but agricultural land. Much of it is valueless, and what gives it value is purely the work put into it by the allotment holders. It will not be a wasting security but an increasing security. I have seen land practically barren taken by people who have put three or four years hard work into it, and at the end they have been compelled to give up the land. We want, by means of this Bill, to enable people, who have put in years of work, to purchase their allotments, and so have security of tenure. Otherwise the amount of compensation given to these people is utterly futile. That will not compensate them in any way for the work they have done, and other people will reap the benefit of their hard work. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter and accept the Amendment.

I hope the Minister of Agriculture will resist this Clause. It contains, I think, two or three very real dangers. We are asked by this Clause to advance public money to private individuals to make a private purchase. If an allotment holder acquires for allotments, land which is potential building land, then he is to earn an increment at somebody else's expense. There is this further objection. There will be for the next few years a very heavy burden on local authorities, and every penny we can raise in any direction ought to go to the relief of those local burdens. There ought to be in this House a very serious objection to granting money to private individuals or groups of private individuals. If the local authority acquired the land, and let it to local occupiers, that could be arguable, but, in the present economic pressure, to advance money to private individuals, would be a very bad practice, and I hope it will not be followed.

I wish to add my voice to the many voices raised in appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who is a, Commissioner, is entitled to due weight, but he has only told us that he, as a Commissioner, would not agree to the lending of the money for the purpose intended in this Clause. That may be the opinion of the Commissioners to-day, but not for all time. There may come a time when the Commissioners may have a different opinion from that expressed by my hon. Friend, and surely the House has no right to tie down the Commissioners in the future? After all, as the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) has pointed out, it is only an enabling Clause. The Commissioners may lend money if they think fit, and if money be available. Therefore, if at some future time money be available, and if, in the opinion of the Commissioners at that time, this be a suitable investment, why should be tie the Commissioners down not to grant the money? I think the Minister has scarcely given sufficient consideration to the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend opposite, that, after all, the allotment holders do not expect any immediate benefit from this if adopted. Surely that statement, coming from such a source, is entitled to a little more consideration than has been given it? I would ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter, and, if possible, lend a more favourable ear to the arguments put for ward. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite goes to a division, I shall certainly vote with him, and I shall do so, having in my mind the supreme importance of giving all the aid we possibly can to allotment holders, who are, all over the country, as I know, attaching very great importance to getting as much as possible out of this Bill. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say that at some future time you can pass a one-Clause Bill. He knows very well that, unless you have Government support for a Bill in this House, there is not much chance of carrying it. Therefore, now is the time, and not some future time, when, if hon. Members opposite brought forward a one-Clause Bill, it might be objected to by one Member. That is no prospect at all. Why not deal with the matter now in a comprehensive way, and in such a way as to provide for all emergencies?

The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Simm) said he would have supported this Clause if it had been to give the money to a public authority, but he could not see his way to support it, because it sought to give money to a collection of private in individuals. Personally, that is just the reason why I should support this Amendment. I would very much prefer to support an individualistic effort in a co-operative form than give money to local authorities, which is a form of State Socialism, and never works so well as private individuals co-operating together. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite takes this to a division, I shall certainly support him. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), like Saul amongst the prophets. I heard him, amid the cheers of the Labour Party, frankly giving up Land Nationalisation —throwing over what I had always considered to be one of the planks of the Labour party, and pressing a Tory Minister to advance public money in order that private individuals might be made landowners. I think, if this Friday afternoon be spent in no other way, it has been most profitably spent by making it perfectly clear that the Labour Party have thrown over land nationalisation, and are out to create a series of Tory freeholders who will support a Unionist Government in the future.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude upon this Clause, for one reason, in order to encourage the Labour Party in their new departure. I listened very carefully to the arguments used by the Minister against this new Clause. Really the only argument which he used was that this might raise expectations which could not be satisfied. The question as to the adequacy of the security he did not raise, because he realised that the Clause is permissive. All those who have spoken on behalf of the allotment holders have asked for the Clause, and, surely, if it was likely to raise expectations which could not be satisfied and lead to the disappointment of the allotment holders they would not be pressing for the Clause, I hope the right hon. gentleman will re-consider his attitude in this matter.

As an allotment holder I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill will accept this new Clause. I do not know a more appropriate time than the present for the introduction of this Bill, and this Clause into it. To-morrow, at least in the County of Durham, there will be a large number of allotment shows, which are a manifestation of the great advantage of allotments to the individual and to the community. The apprehension of these allotment holders as to the insecurity of their allotments and their tenure is well known. During the period of the war, and since the effect of the allotments on the individual and their families has been very advantageous. During the War the allotment holders performed a very valuable work for the community, producing food, and thus economising resources at a time when economy was really essential. I know, as one who has endeavour to do some work in speeding the idea of allotments and gardening in my own country, that they have been of great advantage to those people both from a moral, material, and intellectual standpoint. Anything that would militate against this movement would be very unfortunate. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to give even a greater impetus to these desirable acquisitions to the individual and to the State.

We were rather taunted by the hon. and gallant gentleman the Member for Fylde (Colonel Ashley) that we were partially dropping some of our great principles and adopting an individualistic policy instead of a collective policy or a policy of land nationalisation. We know that the State is composed of individuals and we realise that the better the individual the better the State will be when that day comes when the Minister in Charge of this Department is able to put forward a Bill taking over the whole of the land for the people. We will then have the State strengthened by the experience of those who have had the security of their allotments—

The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the point. He is introducing questions of principle, when the small point is as to whether advances of money are to be allowed to be given to allotment holders by the Public Works Loan Commissioners.

I quite agree, Sir. I was lured away by the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. However, I hope the proposed Clause will be accepted, so that the apprehensions of insecurity on the part of the allotment holders will be taken away. They will then be able to promote a more intensive cultivation and better work will be done.

I should just like to say one word in support of this proposed new Clause. The movement for allotments has been one of the most splendid in this country, and anything we can do that is practicable to help we ought to do. The Public Works Loan Commissioners will not lend the money unless they are satisfied that the security is good. This Clause will not lay any compulsion upon them to lend the money unless they have the funds available, but it does seem to me that this is just one of those movements which the money in the hands of the Commissioners ought to be put into. We have the assurance of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) that allotment holders realise that at the present time money is tight, and that they cannot look for any at the moment. With that assurance I myself cannot see why the Minister of Agriculture could not accept this new Clause. I hope he will.

I would just say one or two words, then I hope we will come to a decision. Listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Major Steel) it might be imagined that the Government and I were not anxious to do everything we could to help allotment holders. This very Bill we are passing shows that we are taking every possible step to do so, and nobody is more anxious to promote the allotment movement than we are. Ever since I have been at the Ministry right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, I think, know that I have taken every administrative act possible to assist allotment holders to remain on the land taken, and generally to promote the movement. I have brought in this Bill largely on my own initiative for the purpose of improving the law as regards allotments. There are, however, some things one can do and some things one cannot do. It is net helpful to press us to do things that really will be calculated, in my opinion, to do more harm than anything else to the movement I quite agree that the time may come and circumstances may be different—having regard to the different position of some of these associations—when it might be possible to allow these loans to be advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to associations. That is impossible now. It is likely to be impossible for a few years to come. The whole question of the character of these associations will have to be

With regard to the suggestion which the Minister of Agriculture has just made, I will guarantee, if this Clause be accepted, that to-morrow a letter can go out from my organisation, representing over 1,000 Associations, pointing out that there is no money for this purpose at the present time, and I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), will be ready to do the same with regard to his organisation. Therefore I do not think the difficulty raised by my right hon. Friend will arise.

With regard to this new Clause, it does not appear to me to be in order. It is superfluous. I understand that it is being moved for the purpose of removing doubts. It is not in order to move an amendment which changes the burden of the rates. It seems to me that the Clause must have that effect, or else be superfluous.

It is, in a sense, superfluous, in this way that it does exactly in the ipsissima verba state what the law is at present. It is interesting, when working in connection with Allotment Societies, to notice how very little the law with regard to rating is understood, and this Amendment is an exact quotation from a very little known Act—I have only one copy of it and I am continually sending it to these Societies—and it seems to me to be legitimate when dealing with an Allotments Bill that the existing law should be set out clearly with regard to rating. I think the Minister of Agriculture ought to give some consideration to this point for the purpose of removing doubts. For these reasons I thought it was legitimate to endeavour to get this new Clause inserted in the Bill.

It seems to me rather difficult to have the same Clause in two Acts of Parliament at the same time.

I suggest that this new Clause is not really necessary. It merely declares what is the existing law, and, as regards removing doubts, my Department will circulate a leaflet making it perfectly clear how these allotment gardens are to be rated for these purposes.

That makes it clear. We cannot insert a Clause which already exists in another Statute.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause enables a council of a borough or urban district to give reduced tramway fares to allotment holders in cases where they own the tramways. The history of it is simple. It was in the Report of the Allotments Committee, it was in the original Government Bill, it ran the gauntlet of all the stages in another place, it came down here and passed the Second Reading stage quite successfully, and then it came up for consideration in Committee upstairs. There, the Minister did not express himself strongly either way, and, if I remember rightly, he did not vote. He, so to speak, abandoned his child on the doorstep of the Committee Room.

I did vote for it.

I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman did vote for the Clause, but it was defeated by a comparatively small majority. Just before a Clause, which is of great importance to allotment holders, and which makes it mandatory that an Allotments Committee shall be set up in urban districts having over a certain population, was passed. There were some Members of the Committee who thought they had gone rather far in that matter, and, when we came to this Clause, they said: "We have made it obligatory that these authorities shall have their Allotment Committees, and we do not see why we should give them the power of granting these reduced fares." It was rather a piece of reaction that this Clause, after remaining in the Bill so long, was taken out of it. The point is a simple one. Many of these councils of county boroughs are, of course, doing their best to secure allotment land under reasonable conditions for the inhabitants of their areas, but it often happens that a piece of land has to be given up for building or something of that sort, and then it is a matter of difficulty to obtain other land near the centre of the town. The council may do their very best, but may fail, and they may say to the Allotment Association: "We have managed to find land not very highly rented, but it is a good long way out. If we take it, will you do your best to make your members migrate." They do that so that the 800 or 1,000 who are dispossessed in the middle of the town may take up their plots on the outskirts. If they do so and settle on this new land, then, instead of charging 6d, the ordinary return fare, they are content to charge 3d. return fare to persons who can show by producing a ticket that they are members of the Association. It is simply introducing the system of workmen's tickets. It will very much facilitate getting people to continue alloment cultivation and to take up land which otherwise might be too far off for them. It is, of course purely permissive. There is some doubt whether even now municipalities with tramways may not do this without fresh legal powers. At any rate, it was originally in the Bill and was kept in it till a late stage. I hope that it may now be restored. I apologise for what I said as to the indifference of the right hon. Gentleman. He reminds me that he was a keen supporter of the Clause.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press this matter, at any rate to a Division. There is a good deal of difference of opinion among allotment holders as to whether it is right to ask local authorities to make special provision by way of a reduction of fares. It is a very difficult matter of principle, and I personally do not believe in it. I may say that yesterday, when a similar Clause came up in reference to the Scottish Bill, the representatives of the allotment holders did not press the Clause, and it was rejected by 23 votes to 1. I have had an opportunity this morning of discussing it with several representative allotment holders, and they feel that there is some difficulty in urging the matter forward. They do not want their case to be unduly prejudiced by a demand which they think they cannot sustain on a question of principle, and it is only right that I should inform the House that there is considerable division of opinion among allotment holders generally about pressing this matter.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his statement. I know that there is a good deal of difference of opinion among allotment holders with regard to this Clause. It was recommended by the Departmental Committee and was put into the Bill. Afterwards, we were informed that it was perfectly unnecessary, because without any Clause any local authority owning tramways could give reduced fares. I repeat that statement here, so that it may be generally known. That being so, there is obviously no necessity for putting in the Clause at all. When it came before the Standing Committee, I voted for it, but I left it to the decision of the Committee, and the Committee threw it out, probably rightly. That being so, I certainly do not think that we should reverse the decision. The Clause is unnecessary, and, as to its desirability, there is a division of opinion among allotment holders and authorities, and in the case of the Scottish Bill, it was thrown out by a large majority.

Do I understand that, as in the last case, this Clause simply repeats the existing law?

I am so informed by the Ministry of Transport.

If that be so, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake, as he undertook with regard to rating, that in the leaflet he will point the fact out to the local authorities. I think that is a fair question.

I think there are very strong objections to this Clause, whether it be the existing law or not. First, it is an encouragement to local authorities to spend money in a surreptitious way, practically putting something on the rates without people knowing it; and, secondly, the very thing which the Mover suggested as an advantage—

I do not think that we need argue this matter any further. I have consulted the Ministry of Transport. There is now no doubt in my mind that this is the existing law, and I cannot countenance repeating ill a new Statute that which is already the law by an old Statute.

May I respectfully submit that it is entirely a new doctrine that this House cannot declare something to be the law, even if it be already the law. There are many Statutes which are purely declaratory in form, the most celebrated being Fox's Libel Act, and I venture to submit that it would be a most dangerous ruling to say that this House must never enact something by way of declaration which is already the law. It may, of course, be a very useless thing to do, and the House may decline to enact a thing which is already the law, but I submit that it cannot be said that it is out of order to put in a Bill a Clause which is declaratory of the law, if there be any doubt—and it is for the House to judge—on the subject.

There is no doubt that the question has arisen. I agree there may have been cases of the kind. But, acting on the Noble Lord's theory, we might have a hundred clauses in a Bill which are merely declaratory. I do not know of any case during the last 100 years where a Clause, has simply reenacted what does not need to be re-enacted.

I am not sure whether the case of Fox's Libel Act comes within the 100 years, but I think I may assert with great confidence there are many instances of clauses declaring the law where the House has been convinced there is reasonable doubt about the matter. Of course it is always open to the Chair, if it be of opinion that an Amendment is put forward for the purpose of delay or frivolously, particularly under the powers now vested in the Chair, to refuse to call such an Amendment. But I would ask you not to lay down your ruling too widely, as it might be quoted later on with serious result.

With very great submission, I would suggest that no ruling be given on the point. A ruling from the Chair that the Amendment is out of order simply because it repeats what is already the, law would be rather dangerous. I therefore suggest that, having ascertained from the various authorities of the House that this is an Amendment which has no real substance and which in view of the information which has reached the Chair, ought not to be put, you might exercise your powers in not selecting it for further discussion by the Chamber.

May I point out there is this difference between this new Clause and the preceding new Clause upon which a ruling was given from the Chair. In the previous new Clause the Clause itself in terms repeated the words of an existing Act of Parliament. That is not so in this case. This is not a Clause which in terms, as I understand it, does repeat an existing enactment, nor is there in previous Acts a similar Clause to this new Clause.

I am not giving a ruling which goes any further than the immediate needs of the case. There may be cases where it is advantageous—especially the case of some old Statute—to repeat the law. But I cannot lay down a hard-and-fast rule. Having already called the Clause, I cannot now exercise my power of selection.

I can withdraw it by leave.

I hope no circular will be sent out. If it be the law as suggested, let the authorities put it in force if they choose, but do not encourage and urge them to spend money in this way—a way which many allotment holders think would be very undesirable.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

I beg to move in Sub-section (1, c), after the word "agriculture" ["not being the use of the land for agriculture"], to insert the words "or sport."

This Clause refers to the power of re-entry on land used for allotment purposes by industrial companies, and the words I suggest would seem to be consequential on the Amendment which we carried in Committee upstairs, and which will be found embodied in Clause 21. We there say that the expression "industrial purposes" shall not include use for agriculture and we added the words "or sport." It seems to me therefore only natural that when we are dealing with these public undertakings of an industrial character we should make it clear also that they may resume their land for any of the public purposes with which they are concerned, but that there should be the slight restriction we have already insisted upon. I really think this is practically consequential on our definition of "industrial purposes," and I move the Amendment accordingly.

I hope my right hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. If he looks at an Amendment which I have further down to this Clause, he will see that the power of re-entry is limited even where there is actual emergency and a company can enter after having given three months' notice to the tenant, or if there is the provision in the contract which enables such re-entry. It is quite inconceivable that a company requiring land would put in the contract words enabling them to resume possession for sporting purposes. Certainly the limitations I have imposed with regard to re-entry are sufficient as they stand.

I think my right hon. Friend has to a large extent met the case, and I therefore will not press my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c), to leave out the word "or" ["or in the case of land let by a local authority"], and to insert instead thereof the words

"but so that, except in a case of emergency, three months' notice in writing of the intended re-entry shall be given to the tenant; or

"(d) re-entry under a power in that behalf contained in or affecting the contract of tenancy."

This is a rather important Amendment, which I undertook to consider when the matter was discussed in the Standing Committee. As the Clause now stands, a statutory company, such as a railway company, can enter land at once, without any notice at all, if they require the land for the statutory purposes for which they acquired it in the first instance. It was suggested that that was giving them a power which went altogether too far. The case put forward for it was that an emergency might happen. A railway company might have let land for allotments on the side of an embankment, a landslip might occur, it might be necessary to resume possession at once in order to carry on the necessary service to the public, and, therefore, anything of the nature of six months' or three months' notice is obviously impossible. I think there is a great deal in that, but I do not think that we ought for that reason to give them a general power to resume in any circumstances which are not of the nature of an emergency. Therefore, I propose to limit this part of the Clause which deals with these statutory companies, so that they only have the power of immediate resumption in cases of emergency. I think that that meets the point which was put before me and pressed very strongly in Committee, and I suggest that it is probably the best way of meeting the situation and at the same time making it quite clear that allotments, important as they are, shall not interfere with the actual carrying on of a public service.

The question I have to put is, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill." The hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) has handed in an Amendment to be proposed when the word "or" has been left out. I think his opportunity will be on the question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

May. I speak in opposition to this Amendment? I hope the House will pause before it passes a far-reaching Amendment of this sort, of which, I must say, the Minister has not given a full description. I must, at the risk of wearying the House, just explain the position in which all public utility companies are under the Bill, and where they will stand if this Amendment is passed. All these companies—dock companies, water companies, lighting companies or railway companies—are allowed to hold land for the purposes of their business. They are not allowed to hold more land than they reasonably want, but they are allowed to hold land in advance of their requirements, so that they have not got to buy hastily and he compelled to pay an extravagant price. They, therefore, may hold certain lands which are necessary for their undertaking, hut which will not be immediately required. Those lands have for a long time past been let as allotments. In fact, I think I can claim for the railway companies that they were the pioneers of the allotment movement. They have never refused to let the land. The land has been let, and the tenants have cultivated it for years past, and they have only been turned out when the land was required for its statutory purpose of the development of the line.

Paragraph (c) enables these companies to re-enter their land if it is required by the corporation or company for any purpose for which it was acquired or held. That means that they can take back their land at any time when they want it for the business of the company. As far as that goes, the Minister accepts it, but he limits this power of re-entry to a case of emergency. I have looked up the word "emergency" in the dictionaries, but have not got much light on its legal definition. I take it, however, that an emergency imports some crisis, some serious state of affairs as a result of which, if it were not put right, something unpleasant would occur. For instance, the example which the Minister gave is clearly an example of an emergency. It is an emergency where an embankment is falling down, and where, unless you go in and repair it, the next train may be derailed. That is an emergency, and for that purpose, under the Minister's Amendment, the company would have power to re-enter. There are, however, a great many cases in which business reasons and reasons of public policy would compel a company to re-enter upon land let for allotments, but which could not be described as cases of emergency. I will give two examples of that. Suppose that a railway company is making an extension. All the plans have been settled for some time beforehand, and the extension is started. Then suppose that, half-way through the extension, the engineer of the line finds that he has calculated his land requirements too narrowly, and that if a small three-cornered field could he included in a station or a siding, it would improve the extension. I do not think that that is an emergency. Nothing very dreadful would happen if it were not included, but it would be a very serious business drawback, and might make the extension less valuable than it would have been. I think that in such a case the Courts would say that, although it was urgent, it was not an emergency.

As my second instance I will quote one which actually happened. A dock company received a call from American oil importers, who said to the dock company that, if they would put up tank storage, oil that was then ready for shipment in the States would be sent to them in preference to another port, but that, unless the tank storage could be put up at once, the order would go to some different docks. The oil company had all the plates and other material ready for putting up this tank storage, and they said they must get possession of the land at once in order to start the work. In that case I think they wanted possession in a week, and the work was actually started within that time. You could not call that an emergency. Nothing very terrible would have happened, but the business would have gone elsewhere, and it would have been a very bad thing for that town if, for the sake of one or two allotments, all hat trade had gone to some different port. I submit, therefore, that the word "emergency" is too narrow a word.

Then I have a further objection. As soon as a word of this sort is inserted, the question of the legal interpretation is brought in. Suppose that the word is "emergency" or "urgency," and suppose that the engineer of the line wants an allotment back for an extension and goes in and takes possession, or tries to take possession. The holder may say, "No, I do not admit that this is an emergency or urgency. You are a trespasser; get out! I mean to fight the case in the Courts," and he can do so if he wishes. He is there. You have to get him out by ejectment, and he can fight and take it from Court to Court. I do not think the House wants public enterprises to be held up in this way. I have always been a strong supporter of the allotment movement, and railway companies were the friends of allotment holders long before some of their political friends existed. There was a time when almost the only allotments you saw were the little bits alongside the line and on top of the embankments. All this new extension of the allotment, movement was started by the railway companies. But their primary business is not to provide allotments. They have a great public service to perform and I hope the House will not hamper them, because it would he a grave disaster to them and it would not help the allotment holders. Look at the position. I suppose the engineers of our lines are about the most able business men in the whole kingdom. They look ahead and see which of the lands of the company Neill be required for new developments. They know them and want to get possession of them almost at once. If they have to calculate on three months before they can get possession, are they not bound to say to the company surveyor, "I think you must give notice here and there; I may want that land"? I do not think it is a good thing for anyone. It is not a good thing for the company and it is not a good thing for the allotment holder, and yet if you pass some Clause of this sort you will put the company in that position. I am going to move to leave out "in a case of emergency," and to insert "where the case is, in the opinion of the corporation or company, a case of urgency." I have tried to meet the Minister as far as I can, and I think the House will agree that I have gone a long way. All these statutory companies have been allowed to hold their land for the purpose of their business, and they have been excluded from all the numerous Acts which involve the acquisition of land and I think that is a very fair compromise. It limits the power of re-entry to a case of urgency—that means ordinary business urgency—and I submit that that is as far as great corporations should be asked to go.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment., to leave out the words "in a case of emergency" and to insert instead thereof the words "where the case is, in the opinion of the corporation or company, a case of urgency."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope the House will not accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. He complained that the Minister did not tell the complete story in relation to this matter, and I think a similar complaint can be made in reference to him. When the Bill was first introduced into another place, there was no distinction whatever between land owned privately and land held by a railway or dock company. The friends of the railway and dock companies came in mass formation in the other place and the Minister there was compelled to say that he did not see his way successfully to resist a very important distinction so far as allotment holders were concerned, namely, that if land is privately owned three or six months' notice, as the case may be, has to be given, but if it happens to belong to a railway or dock company, no such notice has to be given—as Lord Salisbury said, a very objectionable alteration in principle altogether. My hon. and gallant Friend has put forward two cases, one where there is going to be an extension of a railway company. Later on he said what far-sighted engineers there were in connection with railway companies. A far-sighted engineer would be able to give three months to the allotment holders and give them adequate time to get rid of their allotments. He then referred to the case of some American oil company who wanted to get hold of some land, and if they got it quickly they could enter into a contract immediately if the allotment holders were removed. If a firm is going to get a big order of this kind, does my hon. and gallant Friend think for a moment that the allotment holders would prove unreasonable? I do not think the dozen or twenty allotment holders would withstand the offer my hon. and gallant Friend might be able to make to them. Now he suggests that it is the company itself which is to determine when an emergency arises. I do not think he can be putting that forward seriously. A railway or dock company ought to be put in exactly the same position—I take the view of Lord Salisbury—as an owner of private land. As a master of fact, these well-advised dock and railway companies can far better look ahead than the owner of private land. For all these reasons I hope the House will support the Minister who, I think, has met the case the railway companies have put forward by saying that in a case of an emergency the land must be immediately given up. I think my hon. and gallant. Friend has got all that he can reasonably require.

I am very anxious that this matter should be made perfectly plain. I do not want to do any injustice to railway or other companies. Certainly I do not want to interfere with any public service. The point is simply this. I cannot see why public companies should have the right to dispossess allotment holders without notice, when no one else has, unless an emergency arises, in which case it is necessary to remove the allotment holders in order to carry on the service. In that case, I agree, in the public interest there must be a power of immediate resumption. When the matter came before as before it was argued almost entirely on a case of emergency—a landslip, an embankment tumbling down and the necessity of repairing it at once. The allotment holders could not stand in the way in such a case as that, and the allotment must terminate at once, with compensation. Other cases put forward do not meet the point. My hon. Friend in Committee put forward the case of the necessity for doing work on a railway siding for such a thing as a Royal show. That is a case in regard to which notice would be given months before or perhaps years before, and there is no reason why a railway company should not have acted like anybody else and have given either six months' notice, without compensation, or three months' notice with compensation.

I do not want to interrupt, but I want to clear up what is a misunderstanding. I gave that case as an example of what might occur if you went to the Courts. I said that it was not simply a case of three or five months that you might be held up, but that when an action at law was started a wrong-headed allotment holder might hold you up for a year or more. Anyone who has had experience of the law will know that.

Then we come back to the Amendment of this Clause. The Clause, if it is amended as I suggest, win provide that in cases of emergency the railway company may resume at once, on paying compensation. That is not a case of any allotment holder being able to hold up the company for a year or even for a day or for an hour. All that would happen would be that the company would say, "This is an emergency" for such a thing as a railway accident or the fall of an embankment, and they could enter upon the allotment and proceed to do their work. It is true that the allotment holder afterwards might go to the court to get an injunction against them.

indicated dissent.

That is the intention of the Amendment, and I am advised that that would be the effect. Therefore I suggest that I have provided for any emergency that may arise. In other respects a railway company or a dock company, or whatever company it might be, should be in the same position as a private owner. If the private owner wants the land urgently he has to come under the provisions of this Bill. If he wants it for building he can give three months' notice and pay compensation. Where is the hardship on the railway company doing that? If a private owner does not want his land urgently he can give six months' notice without compensation. I cannot accept the word "urgency." I cannot conceive what the word urgency means that is not covered by the word "emergency." If the urgency is due to an emergency it is covered; if it is not due to an emergency then the company ought to have exercised reasonable foresight and have given the proper notice. The proposal I have made meets the case; it is a fair proposal, and I hope the House will adopt it.

I oppose the Amendment to the Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for Durham will withdraw his Amendment. We are anxious to get this Bill through as speedily as possible, and the hon. Member can hardly hope to get greater concessions than he has already obtained. He has fought the battle of the companies very strongly, and the Committee gave very considerable latitude to him. I think we have gone far enough. The railway companies cannot be regarded as sacrosanct, and as something entirely different from any other section of the community. I know quite well from my own experience how railway companies in some instances have acted when they have the power to stop public works and other matters, and I am very much opposed to giving them any greater powers. As to the fears that the hon. Members expressed with regard to emergency with regard to the falling of an embankment, I cannot conceive an embankment falling down or even slipping where allotments are concerned. So far as any other slips are concerned, I do not think the average allotment holder will be affected in the slightest degree. I give credit to the railway companies for having been very good in regard to allotments, but I ask the hon. Member not to place the allotment holders on the railways in a worse position than they are at present, and not to make them more subservient to the companies than the other allotment holders are to the ordinary owner.

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to include not only statutory companies but other companies, such as shipbuilding companies or dock companies and dry dock companies. Suppose I am the owner of a shipbuilding yard, with a berth 400 ft. long, and I get an offer of a ship 500 ft. long, and I desire to extend my works and to extend the yard. That is a serious position. The shipbuilding company may lose the orders unless they can extend quickly. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to include other companies as well as the statutory companies. I have mentioned a concrete case that is likely to happen in the future owing to the extension of the length of ships. Many shipbuilders are hampered owing to the length of their berths and are refusing orders which they would have got if they had had quick means of extending their berths.

I hold no brief for the railway companies, but I feel that I must support my hon. Friend's Amendment. At least his Amendment deserves to be answered on the grounds on which it is put forward, and neither the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Sir K. Wood) nor the Minister has attempted to answer the point. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West, appeals to the authority of Lord Salisbury, and another hon. Member asked why the statutory companies should be put in a different category from private individuals. The hon. Member for Newcastle, Central (Sir G. Renwick), also raises that point. They are in a different position, because they are not allowed to hold land except for certain purposes. Under the law they are only allowed to hold land for certain purposes, and you are here telling them that for the purpose for which they hold the land they must not resume possession. It is said that injunctions can be applied for, but what is the good of applying for an injunction after the thing has happened? An injunction is to restrain an action before it has happened.

You can get a mandatory injunction.

It is also said that they can always buy out the allotment holder. That is an extraordinary argument. Is it really a sufficient argument against diminishing property rights to say, "It is true they are diminishing your rights, but you can always buy them out"?

I beg to move, in Subsection (2, a), to leave out the words "twenty-ninth day of September," and to insert instead thereof the words "fifteenth day of November."

We have decided under Clause I that normally notice to quit shall expire on or before the 6th day of April or on or after the 29th day of September. As the Bill now stands, if the notice expires during the winter months between those days no compensation shall be given for the growing crops. That means that if notice is given, say, at Easter to terminate at the end of September and it does so terminate, the allotment holder makes such arrangements as he can with regard to the growing crops at that time. But my right hon. Friend intends to move on this Clause an Amendment which meets the case to a limited degree, by a new Sub-section which says that if the tenancy terminates on the 29th of September or any date from then on to the 11th of October, there shall in future be a fortnight's grace given to the allotment holder during which he shall have a chance of removing his crops from the ground. I do not think it unreasonable that the tenancy should terminate at Michaelmas, which is a customary and convenient date, and therefore I have not moved to prolong that in Clause 1. But it is one thing to say that compensation should be paid and another thing merely to say that there should bean extension of a fortnight for the purpose of removing the crop. If the present proposal stands, allotment holders in the North of England at any rate will be deprived of any real chance of putting in their main crop of potatoes with any prospect of getting a crop at the ordinary time of year, towards the end of October, when the main crop of potatoes is usually lifted. My right hon. Friend's Amendment gives a chance of removing the crop up to the 13th of October, but no later, and does not give compensation for the value of the crop.

The value of allotment cultivation is not really in the additional food supplies that it provides. It is in the additional interest that it gives to the lives of the allotment holders. No one who has not come into close contact with it knows the interest that the allotment holder feels, not only in getting a large amount of food off his allotment, but in getting a considerable variety of stuff and having a rotation of crops and using his land as long as he can through the winter, and not only having early spring greens like peas and beans, but also going in for winter greens such as leeks and parsnips. But his great stand-by is his main crop of potatoes; it is hard lines on the allotment holder to get notice that his plot should be given up in October and then to feel that he will get no compensation for anything, and that his only chance is to get out of the land such value as is provided by his crops, not later than 13th October. That is not unreasonable. It would cover practically the whole of the potato season.

I hope that my right, hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. This matter was discussed at considerable length in Committee.

In Committee that is just what was not done. It was held that as we had made a certain decision with regard to the date in Clause 1, we could not bring up the matter of compensation. Now I am bringing up the questions wholly in regard to compensation.

I do not want to quarrel with my right hon. Friend about his recollection of what took place in Committee. I rather think my right hon. Friend was not present at the Committee. In my opinion this matter was discussed in Committee more than once. I made a certain suggestion which I understood was generally supported by the friends of the allotment movement. It was that whatever date was taken, whether it was Michaelmas or the old Michaelmas, which is 11th October, I should give the allotment holders an additional fortnight to gather in their crops. That was accepted as a fair solution of the question. In all cases where old Michaelmas was used it would give them up to 25th October.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. I am a resident in the North of England and I know its climate. In numberless cases potatoes grown there are not fit for lifting until November. I have cultivated a garden for years and have long taken an active interest in this question. We do not object to having notice given to terminate tenancy, but we think we ought to have time to get off the land the crops which we have grown. If crops are lifted too early they are not ready for storing for winter use. That applies especially to the North-East coast.

I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will stick to his decision, and resist the Amendment. I do not see why, because in certain districts in the North of England potatoes are rather later than in the rest of England, the rest of England should be put to inconvenience and the whole scheme of the Bill be upset. The North of England should join up with Scotland in this respect, and get the more favourable conditions which, no doubt, Scotland will get. The compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman for the Government is a sensible compromise.

In Committee, the representatives of the allotment holders, so far as we could express their views, concluded that the Minister had met them fairly. They would like another week, if the Minister could give it to them, but in fairness to him I must say that what was arranged in Committee was regarded as a compromise which we all accepted.

I am very anxious to get this Bill, and to get it as easily and with as little unnecessary discussion as possible. I am willing to substitute three weeks for the fortnight which is to be proposed later in an Amendment in my name.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (8), to insert a new Sub-section—

"(9) if the tenancy of the tenant is terminated on the twenty-ninth day of September or the eleventh day of October, or at any date between those days, either by notice to quit given by the landlord or by the termination of the tenancy of the landlord, the tenant whose tenancy is so terminated shall be entitled at any time within twenty-one days after the termination of the tenancy to remove any crops growing on the land."

This Amendment provides additional time in which the allotment holders can gather in their crops.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (9), to insert the words

"Except in the case of land let by a council where the tenancy has been terminated on account of the laud being required for building, when the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, shall be substituted for the date of the passing of this Act."

This Bill gives to allotment holders in towns certain penalties, which begin to accrue after the date of the passing of this Bill. The object of the Amendment is to anticipate those benefits in the interests of a certain class of tenants. To some extent its effect is retrospective. I know the objections to retrospective legislation. This Bill will pass within the next few days and then the provisions with regard to compensation will come into force. I want to substitute the first clay of January for what will probably be something like 31st July or 1st August, in order that certain tenants who have been disturbed and have had their tenancy terminated during the period between 1st January and whatever the date may be, should get the benefit of this Bill. Cases have been reported to me from Newcastle on-Tyne where allotment holders, who hold their allotments from the. Corporation of that city, have had their tenancies terminated because the land is required for building. It would appear that the passage of this Measure will produce this effect—that certain allotment holders during the coming year will have their tenancies terminated, and will get the benefits of this Measure, while other allotment holders, upon whom notices to quit will have been served, before the date of the passing of this Measure, will not receive those benefits. That is a condition of affairs which it would be desirable to avoid.

I have limited the Amendment so that it will only apply to those tenants who hold land from councils. I felt there would be grave objection to an Amendment which would extend this benefit to tenants holding land from private individuals, and tenancies made under the law as it formerly stood and under which landlords would suffer in a way they ought not to suffer, by retrospective action. Therefore the benefits of the Amendment are limited to those tenants in towns who hold land from councils, and it is further limited to those whose tenancies are being terminated because the land is required for building. I am endeavouring to show that the Minister may safely accept the Amendment without landing himself into any position which he does not desire to be in, and therefore I am emphaising, its limitations. The benefits secured under the, Amendment would only apply to a very limited section of tenants and there cannot be great ground for objection. I do not suggest that any anticipatory action has been taken in any of the cities or that tenancies are being terminated before the date of the passing of this Measure in order to prevent the tenants getting compensation, but there is some feeling that that has been done, and the effect of my Amendment will be to remove that feeling, and to prevent the possibility of any such advantage being taken of the tenant.

I think my hon. and gallant Friend is overlooking the fact that in the case of tenancies terminated before this Measure comes into operation there is already compensation. These particular tenants will get compensation under the existing law, which as a matter of fact might be rather more than they would get under this Measure. The only effect of the Amendment will be to worsen their position.

I am obliged to the Minister for his statement. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I have no more desire than he has to worsen the position of these tenants. There is no doubt, however, that the situation as explained by him is not understood, and that a number of tenants whose tenancies are to be terminated before the Bill becomes an Act, or on whom notices have been served, believe they will be in a worse position than the tenants receiving the benefit of this Measure. On the statement of the Minister I have no desire, to press the matter.

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

I do so, not because I really want Clause 3 to be omitted, but in order to raise an important point upon Clause 3. Several times in Committee we were assured that it was not the intention or the purpose of this Bill to worsen the position of the allotment holders, as distinct from the allotment garden holders, with regard to compensation under the Agriculture Act of 1920. I raised the point once or twice, and was told it had already been dealt with by Amendments previously put in, but when one now looks at Clause 3 it is extraordinarily difficult to see how compensation under Section 10 of the Agriculture Act is really secured to the allotment holder. I suppose it must he somewhere in Clause 3, but the only words I can find are the early words, which state that—

"A claim for compensation for any matter or thing for which a claim for compensation can be made under this Section, may be made either under those Acts or under this Section but not under both."

I suggest that no claim for disturbance may be made under this Section. The fact that the words, "under this Section," are inserted confines it to claims under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of the Clause, and I think these words expressly bar claims for compensation for disturbance. It is possible that the matter may be put right by a purely drafting Amendment in another place, as, for example, leaving out the words, "under this Section," in Subsection (5), so that it would read as follows:

"A claim for compensation for any matter or thing for which a claim for compensation can be made, may be made either under those Acts or under this Section."

The matter may be put right in that way, but as I read Sub-section (5) now, there is no certainty that the ordinary claim for disturbance under Section 10 of the Agriculture Act is really secured to the tenant. I am moving this Amendment in order to save time, because if I get an assurance that the matter is really covered, or that it will be covered, I need not move the Amendment which I have later on the Paper, giving the tenant the express right of claiming compensation for disturbance.

I am given to understand that Sub-section (5), which was inserted by me in Committee, entirely meets the point put by my right hon. Friend. It leaves the law exactly as it is—that is to say, in the case of an allotment of over 40 poles or under 2 acres, the right to claim compensation for disturbance remains exactly as it was before. I think it is unnecessary to raise the point here, but I promise my right hon. Friend that I will have the matter again carefully considered with the draftsman before the Bill finally comes from another place, although I do not think it will be necessary to make any alteration.

I do not think anybody reading the Sub-section at the present time, would come to that conclusion, and I think it must be altered, but I will accept my right hon. Friend's assurance.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words "of such urban district is."

I wish to allow borough councils with a population of less than 10,000 to take advantage of this Clause, and I have an Amendment on the Paper to enable them also to take advantage of Clause 14. There are some councils in the country, very ancient ones, with small populations, and I want them included. There is one particularly that I have in mind which has a great number of allotments and yet does not at present come under the scope of Clauses 13 and 14.

I beg to second the Amendment.

In Committee upstairs, I will not say an agreement, but a general arrangement was conic to—very much against my will, as a matter of fact—that certain modifications should be made in Clause 14 and that it should be accepted as a reasonable compromise. The boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants were to have their allotment committees with their co-opted members, but the proportions of those members were to be considerably restricted. If I could be assured that there is not going to be any attempt to weaken Clause 14 on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths), I would counsel the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) not to press her Amendment to put in these small boroughs—that is, as I say, unless there is going to be a serious attempt, in spite of the general understanding come to, to weaken Clause 14 by making it optional.

I do not think I can accept the Amendment, because, whether or not these powers should be exercised, they depend really on population. This is to a large extent an urban Bill, and where you have a very small town which is really rural in character, you do not want to have the same provisions as you would have in an urban council district, which is really of far more urban character, with a large population, than a small borough. Therefore, I think it would be very undesirable to make the distinction as between borough and urban councils; the proper distinction should be a population distinction. There are no fewer than 105 boroughs with under 10,000 inhabitants in this country. On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) I do not know whether or not the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth is going to move his Amendments to make Clause 14 optional, but, as far as the Government are concerned, we intend to stand by the arrangement made in the Standing Committee.

It is not my intention to move my Amendments, but only to ask the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement, so that we shall be clear as to what was arranged in Committee upstairs. My objection is to having Committees interfering with municipal bodies. This is the thin end of the wedge, and if it be applied generally, we shall have Committees formed, like the Geddes Committee, with the right of coming into this House and telling us what we ought to do, and I think it is a dangerous practice. I should much prefer to see Clause 14 taken out altogether. My own Council of Wandsworth Borough feel very strongly on it, and have asked me to press my Amendments, but I am not doing so, as I have already informed them, because I understand they were met in Committee, and I think it would help matters if the right hon. Gentleman would make a brief statement as to the way in which they were met.

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "use" ["rent for such use"], to insert the words

"provided that such rents shall not exceed by more than fifteen per cent. the rents or annuities paid by the council on account of the allotments."

This is a very important matter. To some extent we were met in Committee with regard to the amount to be charged to the allotment holders for rent, in that we were given the wording that land let by a Council under the Allotments Acts for allotments should be "let at the full fair rent," instead of some other words which were rather stronger, but it is undoubtedly the practice of many municipalities to take land for a certain rent and to let it to allotment holders at double that rent and, in fact, to make for the municipality out of the allotment holders a very considerable profit on the transaction. That, I think, is a mistake from the general point of view of the social and industrial life of the community. My experience goes to show that the possession of allotments on reasonable terms is of enormous benefit to a community, and avoids a very great deal of discontent and difficulty, especially in times of industrial depression and unemployment. Therefore, provided that the municipalities can reasonably cover all their expenses in administering their allotments, they ought not to make a profit rental out of them. The matter is an old one. It is a matter of controversy, and in order that the question may be raised again, and stand on record, I beg to move the Amendment, and will shorten what I otherwise would have said, and go to a Division.

I cannot accept this Amendment, and, in view of the alterations made in Committee, I really do not think it is in any way necessary or fair to the local authorities. In this Clause we are dealing with the rental of allotments in a new fashion altogether. As regards the rental to be charged, it is to be the "full fair rent" of what the land is worth as an allotment, and that is cut off entirely from the consideration of what was the cost of the acquisition of the land and the equipment of it. In the first part of the Clause we are dealing merely with the question of what considerations the local authority is to take into account when it proposes an allotment scheme, and we are not dealing with the rents to be charged at all. That comes in in Sub-section (3), but, as regards the considerations which an allotment authority has to take into account, it has got to make up its mind that when it charges a full fair rent, it will not make a loss, and it is allowed to make certain deductions from its expenditure which are set out in Sub-section (2, a, b, c).

Sub-section (2) does not refer to rents at all. As my right hon. Friend explained, these things have only to be taken into consideration in (a), (b) and (c) with regard to whether land shall be acquired or not, but once a decision has been come to to acquire it, they will be covered in the rent, if the rent is to be, as it is under the Bill a full fair rent, so that all these charges in the great majority of cases will be covered.

I am afraid we cannot go beyond what we have already put in—the cost in relation to acquisition on the analogy of the smallholdings. We have put in expenses incurred in making roads, and sinking fund charges in respect of loans.

But it has no effect on rent.

At all events, I do not see my way to go further in that direction. I think our proposals are eminently fair to the allotment holder, and I do not think this proposal would be fair to the allotment authorities.

Does my right hon. Friend, who has moved this Amendment, really want to increase allotments in the country? If he does, surely this Amendment is the very way to stop them. It seems to me that all through the Debate, he has been trying to discourage allotments, and this Amendment is distinctly trying to discourage local authorities from putting this Bill into force. If the local authority make a profit, which I hope they will—though I do not think they will—then surely it is a great encouragement to them to extend the allotments. If they make a loss, it will prevent them from going in for allotments more largely. Surely if we want to extend allotments, we ought to encourage local authorities, and this Amendment is a restrictive Amendment in every way.

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "association" ("apply to an association"), to insert the words

"holding land from a council and providing it for allotments in like manner as it applies to a council and to an association."

This is a little bit complicated. In the first part of Clause 17, a council providing land for allotments is allowed to go to the rating authority and say, "Will you please rate us as if we were the occupiers, without regard to the rent which we charge our tenants?" The Committee has just decided that that rent may continue to be, as it now is, a very heavy rental. At any rate, it is some little relief that the council may say to a rating authority, "We would like to be the body rated on the rent that we pay to the owner, rather than on the rent that is paid to us by our tenants." So far so good. Then, in Subsection (2), the Bill goes on to say that an allotment association may also go to the raring authority and ask to be rated themselves, instead of being rated on the value of the land to the tenants as reflected in the rents they pay. When I moved this in Commmittee, my right hon. Friend making, I think, art acute criticism, said "What is there to make certain that the rating authorities will regard the allotment association as a safe tenant to pay the rates, and what security, therefore, is there that the rates will be paid by them?" Therefore, he was not willing to go as far as I wished to go in Committee when I moved that any association might have the same power as the local authority itself has of going to a rating authority, and asking that the rate should be imposed upon them, and not upon their tenants. To meet his objection, I now narrow it, and only propose to give the power to associations which hold land from a council, and are accepted by the council as being fitting tenants so far as the payment of rent is concerned, and, therefore, as persons of solidity and standing. I ask that in those cases, where associations hold land from a council, that fact may be taken as a sufficient indication that if they are regarded as sufficiently stable bodies to pay their rent, they will also be regarded as sufficiently stable bodies to pay their rates, and to give, as my Amendment proposes, these particular associations holding land from a council the right to go to a rating authority and to say. "We wish to be rated as a body holding land, rather than on the value which our individual tenants obtain from the land."

The argument in favour of this, of course, is that, although the tenants pay rents for their holdings, more is actually included as a matter of convenience in those rents than actually the value of the occupation of the land. The rents are calculated to include the annual subscription to the allotment society, and are calculated to leave a little surplus to provide a nucleus, say, for the prizes at the allotment show, and also to produce perhaps a few pounds which may be given to the secretary as a honorarium for his services. It is rather hard that in these cases the rates should be assessed on the total rents paid by the tenants, which are often, as I say, not purely rent for the land. I think I have tried to meet the point of my right hon. Friend in regard to the possibility of his feeling it inadvisable to make this concession to associations because of their possible instability by confining it only to associations which are accepted as good tenants so far as their rents are concerned, and, therefore might be expected also to be good tenants so far as their rates are concerned.

The Clause enables the council that provides allotments to assess the association instead of assessing the individual, and I think we will all agree that that matter is of some importance. It further provides that where an association provides allotments the association should be rated as a whole, if it desires, instead of rating the individual member. I think it is only right that the rating authority should have discretion to say whether they think the association asking for this arrangement is a body that they can trust and rely upon to pay the rates. Now my right hon. Friend wishes to make an exception from that discretion of the rating authority in cases where the association holds land from a council. Where the association is one holding land from the council which is the rating authority, obviously the council can do what it likes. Most rating authorities will prefer to deal with one body rather than a number of individuals. I do not consider the

I beg to move to leave out the words

"The powers conferred upon the Ministry of Agriculture by Sub-section (a)"

and to insert instead thereof the words

"If it appears to the Minister, in relation to the London County Council or the council of any county borough or Metropolitan borough, after holding a local inquiry at which the council, or such other persons as the person holding the inquiry, may, in his discretion, think fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard, that the council have failed to satisfy to the extent to which it is reasonably practicable, having regard to the provisions of the Allotments Acts, the demand for allotment gardens to he provided by the council the Minister may, by order, transfer to the Small Holdings Commissioners all or any of the powers of the council relating to the provision of allotment gardens, and the provisions."

This is an Amendment which I accepted in Committee, subject to the possibility that it might have to be redrafted. This has been done, and I move it now in a new form.

It appears to me, as the representative of a part of the country where there are many large towns, that this is a most unheard-of and outrageous attack upon the local authorities of this country. What is the use of having a London County Council and great municipalities like Liverpool and Manchester, if the Minister of Agriculture may, if certain things happen which in his opinion ought not to happen, then he may send down an inspector to hold an inquiry at which the local authority will not be allowed even to appear if the inspector thinks that they should not appear. Is it contended that the Corporation of Liverpool and the London County Council are not fit to deal with the question of allotments in their own area? The London County Council represents over 6,000,000 of people, and it is elected on a democratic basis, and are they not to be allowed to function an Act which is one of quite secondary importance. That a department in Whitehall should be allowed to override such bodies is a most extraordinary thing.

Had I not risen on this occasion, this Amendment would have gone through without a word of protest. [HON.] MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am glad to hear that that is the case. On this matter I think I am voicing the opinion of the majority of the electors when I say that such drastic power ought not to be given to officials at Whitehall. Why should local authorities have their local autonomy taken away from them? Local authorities are getting very tired of this perpetual direction from Whitehall, and of having grave responsibilities put upon them which they do not want. When something is done which does not please the Minister in London, an inspector may be sent clown to tell the local authority what they are to do and not to do, and in this case they cannot even appear at the inquiry if the inspector does not wish them to appear.

What is the object of this Amendment? Surely if the London County Council and other great municipalities are not able to decide what allotments and facilities are needed; and what should be the proper amount of land to be provided for the inhabitants the sooner you do away with local government altogether, and run these affairs entirely from Whitehall, the better. What is the use of having corporations with mayors and aldermen? What is the use of having such a magnificent building as the County Hall on the other side of the river, on which £4,000,000 has been spent; what is the use of having a Lord Mayor if these things are to be settled at Whitehall? This proposal seems to be centralisation run mad. There has been a tendency for some time in what I may call the general government of the country towards decentralisation. We have now Home Rule in two parts of Ireland, and we have demands for the same thing from Wales and Scotland, and the whole tendency is in the direcion of decentralisation. That may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but at any rate it seems to commend itself to the great majority of Members of this House.

Are we now to go in exactly the opposite direction, and month by month and year by year whittle away the authority of our local governing bodies. You cannot have it both ways. One or the other must be wrong, and I am perfectly sure that in this case we shall be absolutely wrong if we do anything to fetter the discretion of these big boroughs and big county authorities. Cannot we trust such bodies as the London County Council and the Corporations of Manchester, Liverpool, and Bristol to do the right thing by their own people? If we are going to send to these places an inspector to poke his finger into local affairs, and listen to every petty local complaint made out of spite, then I think we shall be doing a great injustice to municipal life in this country which, after all, has served the country very well indeed, and has been on the whole remarkably free from corruption, and which we should do everything in our power to promote.

My hon. and gallant Friend has really discovered a mare's nest. He says that we are introducing in this Clause some new destructive principle.

It is old, but it is destructive.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend kindly allow me to proceed? The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that we are introducing some destructive principle which has never been applied to local government before. He has entirely misrepresented what it is proposed to do. What are the facts? Ever since 1907, when the Allotments Acts were extended—and the next year they were consolidated—this power of default has been exercised in one case, and in one case only, and that was where a local authority—and we trust them, and trust them rightly in nearly every single case—had entirely failed to provide allotments so far as was practicable. That is all that is provided by this Clause. It is not interfering with the way in which they do it; and it is not whether they do it in the way the Ministry like. If my hon. and gallant Friend will only read the Clause, he will see that the words are

"has failed to satisfy to the extent which is reasonably practicable the demand for allotments."

That has been the law with regard to every county council, every urban district council, and every borough council which is not a county borough. But for some unexplained reason—I believe it was an oversight—these powers of default, which are used only in the last instance where there has been a complete failure to carry out the law, were not given in the case of the London County Council and of the county boroughs. We have therefore this extraordinary anomalous position, that a great county council like that of the West Riding of Yorkshire or the Lancashire County Council can be defaulted, if necessary—they have not been, and I do not think that they are ever likely to be—and a borough in either of those counties, with a much smaller population, like Bolton, cannot be defaulted. I am the very last person to wish to interfere with local government. On the contrary, I recognise that in the matter of allotments, and most other things, these great authorities do their work magnificently, but there must always reside in the central authority the power to act in those cases where a local authority lamentably fails, and there have been some such cases. It is quite inconsistent—and it is an inconsistency which we never could explain—that we should have these powers of default in the ease of the great county councils and not in the case of county boroughs. It is merely to remove this inconsistency that this Clause was moved in Committee, and that I propose to amend it and put into proper phraseology this afternoon. The Clause went through in Committee without hardly any discussion. It was apparent to everybody that if the powers of default existed at all you could not defend this omission. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that I am not introducing any new principle. We do not want, and we do not intend, to interfere, except where there is a complete failure to carry out the intention of Parliament.

I wish to join in the protest against the principle which is expressed in Clause 19 and extended by this Amendment. I venture to think that my right hon. Friend is wrong in saying that the London County Council was omitted from the earlier Statute by oversight. I suggest that it was deliberately omitted, because it was then recognized—as it ought to be recognised now—that no need existed for giving this power to a Minister of State over and above the power possessed by that great elected authority. I have some little experience, though not much, in connection with this matter, as I was the first chairman—I think the only chairman—of the Allotments and Small Holdings Committee of the London County Council, and it surely is known to everybody that every inch of land within the London County area which can be used for allotments is already used. During the war we had to go so far as to plough up the public parks in order to find some few plots of land for allotment purposes. I regard this insertion of the London County Council as nothing less than an insult to a popularly-elected body, quite as well capable of managing this small affair as any Minister of State, and I object altogether to the patronising terms of the Clause. There shall be an inquiry, and then the person holding the inquiry may, "if he thinks fit, permit the London County Council" to come and be heard. Was ever language more insulting than that? I should have said that if an inquiry be necessary the London County Council has an inherent right of coming to state their case, and should not merely be "permitted" by some official appointed by the Minister to hold the inquiry.

The London County Council claim that they have done everything that is possible in the direction of providing allotments. No Ministry can do more than has already been done. Earlier statutes regarded it as quite unnecessary to give this power of default, because there can be no default in the London County Council, and I regard it as a great insult to the authority like that of London to put this power in the hands of the Minister. Of course, if the Commissioners act in default, the cost of that action falls upon the rates, and, in effect, the Commissioners become a rating authority over the heads of the elected rating members. That is altogether wrong in principle. It confers upon the Ministry, acting through a Commissioner, the power to impose a rate, and in principle I regard that as bad. We shall never get our best men and women to take part in municipal life if they realise that first by one Act and then by another their decision may be overridden by a Commissioner appointed by a Ministry. The only way of really developing municipal life in this country is to endow the popularly-elected Members with full powers and to trust them to obey the wishes of the electors.

I know very well the trouble we had over the small holdings which is referred to in Clause 19. The London County Council was made the authority for small holdings in the London county area. We searched within 150 miles of London and scoured the country to try to satisfy the Ministry that we could not establish any small holdings. In the end, when we discovered one and submitted it to them they said that it was no good and could never be made to pay, and we were straightaway absolved from any further action. I should be sorry to estimate the expense to which London was put by all those investigations. The land valuer, the architect, and nearly every department of the outside work of the council were brought into operation to satisfy the whim of the Ministry of Agriculture, who somehow or other seemed to think that somewhere or another within the County of London, covered as it is with houses, we could find space for small holdings. I believe every corner of land which has not been claimed by the builder is already being worked by allotment holders, and, therefore, I protest against the acceptance of this principle which I believe is subversive of the best interests of municipal government. It is most undesirable and should not be attempted by the Minister unless he has a clear and urgent case before him. No such case exists in regard to the County of London, and I think it is very unwise on his part, therefore, to press this argument. I hope the House will not grant the right hon. Gentleman these powers.

I am sorry I cannot put my objections in the very forcible language used by a previous speaker. I subscribe to every word my hon. Friend said, and if Parliamentary forms permitted it, I would try to express my views even more forcibly, so strongly do I feel in connection with this matter. All this only tends to weaken, if not to destroy, the principles and mainsprings of successful municipal government. The country in years to come will have to depend far more than now on successful municipal administration. The enlarged duties imposed on municipal authorities call for the services of the very best men and women the country can produce, and self-respecting men and women will not consent to serve if their decisions, supported by the electorate, are afterwards to be upset by a Commissioner appointed by the Ministry. The whole principle of free, democratic municipal government is here set against the action of bureaucracy. I believe that the people of the country would rather trust to the free and elected organisation of the municipal authority than place their affairs in the hands of a Minister of State who may appoint a Commissioner endowed with such powers as are expressed in this Amendment. If my right hon. Friend feels that he must adhere to this proposal, which I conceive to be most foolish, I would at any rate ask him to make it clear that the great county councils, whether in London or elsewhere, shall not be subject to the humiliation of having to secure the permission of a Commissioner to exercise their inherent right to appear when an inquiry is to be held.

The arguments used by hon. Members on the other side appear to me to be strangely contradictory. At the moment they are coming forward as the guardians of the liberties of local authorities. A few moments ago they were speaking of the absolute right of the railway companies to deal with allotment holders. I cannot understand how they can argue in the way they do. Reference has been made to large municipal authorities, like Manchester and Liverpool, declining to do their duty towards allotment holders. I do not think for a moment that any large municipal authority would default in this connection. As far as I understand it, the meaning of this Amendment is that in the event of a municipality like Manchester carrying out its duties, as it is doing at the moment, if any municipal authority in the near vicinity declines to do the same thing, then there will be an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture who will have to decide what shall be done in that connection. I believe an Amendment of this kind ought to be included in the Bill, because undoubtedly there are local authorities who are very much afraid of the land hunger which is growing among our people. That land hunger ought to be satisfied, and I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite should argue that the local authorities should have absolute home rule in this matter. They never did have home rule. It may be very awkward sometimes for local authorities to submit to the Ministry of Health or to the Ministry of Agriculture, but surely it is not to be said that every municipal authority is to do as it likes without any power of appeal to the State. There may some day be a change in the Government of this country and then I can imagine there will be on the local authorities landowners and people representing railway companies, who will decline to admit the rights of allotment holders. Then it will be realised that it was well worth while including this provision in this Bill.

I do not think that the latter portion of the last speech was very relevant to the matter which we all have at heart. I rather think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Gray) has put his case against the Minister rather unfairly. There is no question of principle involved in this Amendment. If my hon. Friend will refer to Clause 17 he will see that the principle is there laid down. I understood my hon. Friend's speech was really a protest against the existing law and not so much against the suggestion which is being made in this particular Amendment. Does my hon. Friend really mean to suggest that if a local authority is not doing its duty, there should be no right of appeal? I know it is said that this is a matter entirely for the local people. I do not agree with that. If a local authority in an extreme case is not doing its duty in connection with allotments, there certainly ought to be a right of appeal. My hon. Friend referred to the question of local elections. But are allotment holders to wait, it may be a period of three years, for an election before they can secure a remedy for their grievances? The principle has already been adopted by Parliament and it is not a question of any insult being levelled against the London County Council. I was for many years a member of that county council. Surely it is not to be expected that the London County Council is to be treated differently from every other council in the country?

I have not suggested anything of the sort. All I say is the matter should be left where it is. The London County Council is already exempt.

There need be no anxiety on the part of the London County Council concerning this Clause. As regards the wording, I think that if my hon. Friend looks at that part of the wording of the original Statute which is covered by the word "insult," he will find that it follows almost exactly the wording of the previous Statute. Therefore, there has been no gratuitous insult so far as we are concerned to-day. Inasmuch as the London County Council is doing its duty, as I believe it is, and inasmuch as these words follow the principle which has already been adopted by Parliament, my hon. Friend is putting his case very high indeed. I venture to say, however, that where there is a case in which a county council is not doing its duty, it is not fair to say: "Well, you must rely upon the local election; the thing must wait for three years." I venture to say that an. inquiry by a proper body, at which representatives of all parties can be heard, is necessary in an extreme case. I put it no higher, and I think that this Clause is a justifiable Clause to insert in any Act of Parliament.

I do not want to say anything on the merits, but I think it might shorten the discussion if I point out that we are all rather beating the air. The only effect, if my right hon. Friend's Amendment be negatived, would be that the Clause as unamended would stand. The point has gone by at which it would be possible to move to leave out the Clause, and as in its present form it reads all right, and can be administered all right, we should only get exactly the same thing in another form if the Amendment were withdrawn, unless the Bill were re-committed; and I would not urge the Government to do that even for the purpose of including some of my own Clauses. We are, therefore, discussing a subject which cannot really be decided in any way.

I think that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has just said is quite possibly true, but I think that this is an occasion on which Members, especially on this side, of the House, should make a serious protest. We have already, on this Amendment, made a protest against the exercise of this kind of power by the Government, and what is the reply of the Minister? It is that this is no new thing, that in this particular case it was started in 1907. But where was the Minister in 1907? Was he distinguished by a whole-hearted support for the Measures of the Government then? We are not, and I think that on the whole the people of this country are not, at this moment, prepared to say that that tendency which has been manifest during the last 15 years is a tendency to be encouraged, especially because in the last two or three years these powers which were given to the Government before the War, and have been given during the War for the purposes of the War, have been used during the last two or three years not to force local authorities to economise, but to force them into high expenditure.

Local authorities have realised more and more that they have less and less power of control over their own expenditure, and yet this moment, when the Government says it is going to economise, is the moment when the Minister comes down and proposes a new provision to reinforce this principle; and then he says he is only extending a principle which we all agree has been used during the last few years to promote extravagance on the part, of local authorities. I would ask the Minister to refer to his colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, and ask him whether he is not of that opinion. We all know that local government during the last two years has been a chaos, where the central Government in Whitehall, exposed to all the influences of pressure of various kinds, has gone to the local authorities and has said, "You must spend here and you must spend there." That is what this Clause is going to do. I am afraid that the effect of this Bill will be rather to discourage private individuals from letting their land for allotments. On the whole, the tendency of this Bill is to throw more and more on the local authorities the duty of providing land for allotments, and unless they spend enough money on them, unless they use their administrative staffs more and more to search for such land, the Minister is going to come down and say, "You are not doing your duty; we must take this over and give it to the Small Holdings Commissioners, and we must impose upon you a burden of expenditure which you are not prepared, as the elected representative of your own people, to assume for yourselves."

The only justification that the Minister brings forward is, "Well, this, after all, is only an extension of an old principle." Are we on this side of the House to be put off by that kind of argument, or are we going to stand for what, after all, was the old principle of the Tory party, at any rate, namely, the freedom of local government? The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that he was very much surprised that we can get up and at one and the same time advocate the freedom of railway companies and also the freedom of local authorities. I am sorry. I know that the Labour party has not yet realised that the principle of democracy is freedom all round. Local authorities ought to have just as much freedom—no more and no less—as private persons and railway companies and so on. This is just an instance of the way in which we on this side of the House do stand for the freedom of local government, while hon. Gentlemen on the other side are quite unable to do so because of their are-conceptions on various points. There is no party on the municipal authorities that stands up so much as the Labour party does against the appointment of ad hoc authorities; and then they come down to this House and vote in favour of ad hoc authorities, without seeming in the least to understand that they are contradicting themselves. I wish the Minister all joy of the support—and, I think, the only support—that he is going to get for the principle of this Clause. I wish him joy of the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I sincerely hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will go into the Lobby against the Amendment.

The Noble Lord who has just sat down was—I am sure, not intentionally—exceedingly unfair to me. There is no question whatever of my coming here and asking the House to insert a new Clause. Far from it. If my Noble Friend had known the facts, he would be aware that this was not in the original Bill. It was brought forward in Committee, and I accepted it because it did remove an anomaly. It is not usual, when a Minister accepts a Clause in Committee, to turn round and move its deletion on Report. As I say, I was not myself the author of this Clause, although, as a matter of fact, it was proposed in the Report of the Departmental Committee. Moreover, I discussed this matter with representatives of the County Councils' Association and of the Associa- tion of Municipal Corporations and Urban District Councils. They said that they had no particular objection to the Clause, because it would meet an anomaly. It was largely because I realised that no strong objection had been advanced by those who represented the local authorities that I accepted the Clause in the Standing Committee. I put it to the House that it is rather unreasonable, after all, to object to what is really only a drafting Amendment of the Clause, but if it does not meet with the approval of the House, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, which will, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), leave the Clause exactly as it stands. That is all I can do. We have passed the point at which we can move to leave out the Clause. If it be thought that the wording of the Amendment implies anything of the nature of an insult to the county council, I can assure the House that nothing of the kind was intended, and I am willing to withdraw the Amendment and leave the Clause exactly as it was.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what difference, if any, there would be between the Clause as he proposes it, and the action which will take place under the existing law?

In practice there will be no difference, It simply means that the actual procedure will not be set out. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

No.

I should like to ask why we have been spending the last hour in Debate if this is merely a question of a drafting Amendment which makes no difference. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman move it as a drafting Amendment, in which case there would have been no opposition? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] If he had merely said, "This is a drafting Amendment" we should not have wasted three-quarters of an hour.

That is exactly what I said. On the contrary, my hon. Friends behind objected to the fact that I had not explained it and that is why it was necessary to speak again.

I am extremely glad to hear that that was the case. Now I understand that, although the right hon. Gentleman still believes the Amendment is a right Amendment which would make the Bill read more intelligently and lead to clearer interpretation by the lawyers and the local authorities, because pressure is brought to bear upon him by the true-blooded Noble Lords of the Tory party, he is content to let the Bill go in an imperfect condition, and leave it to the Law Courts to thrash out, at great expense to the public, what the Bill really means. That may be an enormous boon to the local authorities, but I do not think the local authorities, when they come to work the Bill without understanding it, will be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am afraid the real fact of the matter is that he is undergoing that process of martyrdom which he has undergone very frequently in the past, and which he does not like even though he is getting accustomed to it. As a representative of true-blooded Toryism himself, he has been forced on the Committee to accept this Radical Amendment, and he has to stand up in the House and support a Radical Amendment, of which he does not approve for a moment, in the teeth of the reproaches of his brother Tories—a very sad spectacle indeed. At the same time there is no reason why we on this side of the House, who have got our Amendment carried in Committee, should now, as an act of grace to the right hon. Gentleman, consent to allow him to withdraw it in order that the Bill may go through in an imperfect condition. I do not