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

Those Members who have had the opportunity of considering this matter in Committee will remember that this question, which is raised in Clause 9 of the Bill and concerns the degree of compensation for allotments, was discussed in Committee. We decided to leave the Clause in the Bill on the understanding that, between the Committee and the Report stages, those responsible for the Bill should endeavour to see what was the best means of arriving at as fair a settlement as possible between the different interests. It is a very technical subject, and I do not want to weary the House with information which those who are interested in the subject already possess, but perhaps I may say a few words to try to make the matter fairly clear.

There are two classes of land concerned. There is first, land let in the ordinary way as allotment gardens, and there is, second, unoccupied land which has been taken by local authorities under Section 10 of the Act of 1922. With regard to the first class of land the situation to-day is that the tenancy is terminable in two ways, either by notice to quit—which operates in a period outside the months between April and September, in order to avoid the cropping season—or by re-entry, where such power is given under the contract of tenancy. That distinction of treatment arose out of the report of the departmental committee that sat in 1922. It was a very powerful committee, representing all interests, and heard an immense volume of evidence from all those concerned, and it was agreed there, as part of the bargain, to include the question of compensation.

That was done more or less on these lines, that no compensation should be payable if the tendency were terminated by a notice to quit, for the reason that the notice to quit could not expire within the cropping season, and therefore no great hardship would arise, but that compensation should be payable when the tenancy was terminated by re-entry, which could operate at any time, and might therefore operate within the cropping months. Therefore on the whole no very serious hardship was inflicted in the case of the first class of land to which I have referred and it would be, in my judgment, a considerable breach of a formal bargain, arrived at in 1922, if the House were to upset the compensation provisions which were part and parcel of the arrangement. I think that I am fairly right in saying that the broad basis on which the bargain proceeded was security of tenure or compensation, and the bargain was struck on those lines.

But that is not the whole process I have had occasion to look into these matters rather closely, and I think that the great grievance on the part of the allotment holders, as far as I am able to appreciate it, is that the local authority very often charges them a full rent for the second class of land and—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present —

As I was saying when I was interrupted, I think that there is a real grievance in the fact that local authorities often charge allotment holders a full rent for the land which the local authorities take under the powers of the 1922 Act, and the allotment holders have a tenancy which excludes all right to compensation. There is something to be said from the point of view of the allotment holders. It is in order to try to compromise and meet this grievance that I have put this Clause on the Paper. The effect of the Clause is to enable the tenant who has paid rent in excess of threepence a pole to get the same compensation as a. tenant would receive if his occupation had been determined by notice. In cases where a purely nominal rent has been fixed, not exceeding threepence, the question of compensation will be dependant upon the nature of the contract of tenancy between the local authority and the allotment holder. I need only add that I have had an opportunity of ascertaining the views of those who represent the allotment holders, and, although I should misrepresent them if I said that they were totally satisfied with this Clause, I can with truth say that they appreciate the immense difficulty of upsetting the 1922 bargain, and that on the whole they are prepared to think that this is not an unreasonable compromise.

It is very difficult to understand this Clause, and I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us between whom it is a compromise, what parties have been discussing this matter and how has this decision been reached?

This matter has been discussed with the representatives of the allotment holders, and it has been discussed by them in the light of the full discussions and known difficulties that revealed themselves in the course of the departmental committee's deliberations. My hon. Friend is as fully aware of the difficulties as I am. I can only say that this is the best attempt that can be offered to meet the difficulties arising on both sides, and it meets a real difficulty felt by the allotment holders.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The right hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has two Clauses on the Paper, and I understand that he wishes to move the second?

That is so. I wish to move the Clause relating to the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments.

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

The essence of this Clause is to give local authorities power to acquire land for allotments and definitely to put a limit to the compensation payable for land so acquired. I am confident that it requires an extremely strong case to persuade Parliament to fix the price which should be paid for land acquired by public authorities, but I believe that every hon. Member is obsessed at the present time by the picture of the increasing number of unemployed who are deteriorating in mental, physical and moral capacity as the period of their unemployment lengthens. Something drastic has to be done to save these people, and we on the Labour Benches have been considering for some time whether it might not be possible to get the 1,500,000 unemployed started, at any rate, on, some form of work. The easiest and best way of managing something in this direction seems to us to be to put is many of the unemployed as are willing on to suburban allotments, in order to get them to produce something instead of nothing, and so enable them to retain their manhood by feeling that they are doing some form of useful work. The problem is an ever growing one, and it is time that the House considered whether we ought not to do something drastic in order to provide an opportunity for useful productive work to these men who are involuntarily unemployed. It will be said at once that not one in ten of the unemployed would work an allotment if he had it offered to him. But if it were only one in ten, that would mean that 150,000 men would be employed.

On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it would seem that the discussion he is raising is rather covering the discussion which is likely to arise if you call upon the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) to move a Clause standing in his name. I do not know whether it would be possible to take the two discussions together?

I have no objection.

The other Clause can be moved later. This will not put it out of Order, but we cannot have the same discussion twice.

The Clauses are in two forms, because one deals with the acquisition of land and the other with the question of schemes for providing allotments for the unemployed. The real difficulty is that you cannot get any great scheme of this sort working without powers to acquire land compulsorily at a reasonable price. If you get only one man in 10 of the unemployed willing to work an allotment of a quarter of an acre you will at once increase enormously the production of food, and you will be keeping that man as a self-respecting and self-supporting individual, instead of allowing him to drift indefinitely. I believe that every hon. Member would willingly get into operation a scheme which would keep men fit and help production. But we must realise two things. In the first place it cannot be done unless you can get the land, and, in the second place, no man can, for the first two years at any rate, support himself on an allotment. You have to continue the unemployment benefit for a period of time while the man is working the allotment; you must not cut him off his benefit because he is working for himself on an allotment. We have to regard a certain period of time as necessary for training men to shift over from their present skilled occupation, which is no longer required of them, to their new productive occupations of producing food.

Therefore, the scheme is that there should be offered to the unemployed an opportunity of cultivating an allotment free of rent and rates for two years. On that there may be many points of difference. It is not very material, when you consider that it is to be only £250,000, that they should have the power still to draw their benefit while cultivating the allotments for a period, that they should have security of tenure on the quarter of an acre, and that we should definitely make a big sacrifice in order to get them to work. Steps exactly similar to these have been taken in other countries.

Is all this in the Clause?

We are discussing the two Clauses together. This Clause deals with the compulsory acquisition of land, and the Clause to be moved later will deal with the provision of allotments for the unemployed. I was for many years in South Africa, where they were faced with a somewhat similar problem on a much smaller scale. There were in South Africa people known as "poor whites"—landless whites—who were becoming a very serious problem. President Kruger, to meet this difficulty, allotted to all these whites what he called burgher erven in the suburbs of the various South African towns. Anybody who has been in South Africa will know that all round the towns you have burgher erven which are issued freely to the poor whites in order that they may have somewhere to camp and something to cultivate, and in that way for a time the problem in South Africa was solved. There have been other experiments in the same direction on the Continent since the War, where they have been faced with exceptional unemployment during the post-war slump, and I think we ought to see to it that something of the same kind is done here. I believe every hon. Member of the House is worried day and night by the question of unemployment. That concern is not confined in the least to this side of the House. The situation is growing steadily worse, and it is no use waiting, like Mr. Micawber, for something to turn up. We have to put schemes forward and see what can be done.

I believe every hon. Member realises that it is up to us now to see whether we cannot get some scheme for getting the men who are now unemployed on to useful productive work. One of the greatest difficulties of this problem is the number of schemes brought forward for useless work. That is one of the pitfalls which we have to avoid. It is when we come to the agricultural question, and in particular to this allotment question that we must discover the true solution of the difficulties from which we are suffering. The other day I read that the town council of Canterbury had discovered a solution of the unemployment problem. It appears they have a municipal farm and also unemployed. Instead of putting tractors on to the farm they put on the unemployed to dig it up with spades. That, of course, is no solution of the difficulty. If it were, we might just as well ask the town council of Canterbury to solve it for every one of us by putting on all the unemployed to dig up the farm with tooth-picks, and thus provide work for everybody. That does not mean any increase in production. What we have to find is a scheme which involves increased production. At the present time there are 1,250,000 allotment holders in this country and if we could double that number we should solve the unemployed problem. We ask the House to make a start in the right direction by giving a welcome to a scheme which holds out some hope of alleviating the position, and of restoring and maintaining the manhood of those men who have been one, two or three years out of work.

There is to-day a growing realisation that the coal trade and the iron and steel trade in this country are not likely ever to get back to their pre-War position. The production of substitutes for coal as a means of providing power and the fact that the nations of the East, as well as of Europe, are now able to turn out with almost the same skill as our own workers those complicated machines and fabrics which are necessities of civilisation make it less likely that we can ever get back to the pre-War position in those trades. It may be that 500,000 men skilled men in this country will have to be shifted over to a new form of production. It is time we envisaged this problem, and I put forward this scheme to the House to-day as an attempt, by people who want to solve the problem but who have not unfortunately the machinery of government to assist them in working it out, to deal with the problem here and now and on practical lines.

I beg to support the New Clause, for two reasons. First, if this Clause is embodied in the Bill it will be of material assistance in encouraging those men who have already taken up allotments and are working them, but who are discouraged by the excessive rents, and the uncertainty of tenure. It will also have the effect of encouraging a large number of men who may not be very keen on allotments just now, but who would be likely to take up allotments if access were made easier and the rent were not so high. It is well known that where land is obtained, particularly in the neighbourhood of big towns, to meet the demand for allotments, the price paid for the land or the rent paid by the local authority is so high as to be a deterrent to the extension of the allotment system. This Clause would limit the liability for the annual rent to £2 10s. to £3 per acre per annum. It lays down the principle that land which has a rate-able value not exceeding £2 per acre may be compulsorily acquired at not more than 30 years' purchase, which would limit the annual liability for rent charged to the figure I have mentioned. It is well known that a large number of allotments are rented at £4, £4 10s., and £5 per acre, which is so high as to be a deterrent. There is another reason in favour of this New Clause to which the Mover has alluded. It is that in view of the persistence of unemployment, local authorities and the State should do something substantial in offering easy facilities and every encouragement to men who have been out of work year after year, to become cultivators of land. It may be argued that that proposition is an uneconomic one and that, if you got the power under this Clause to acquire land compulsorily on the terms laid down in the Clause, it would be no use, on the ground that you possibly would not be able to produce from the land anything like sufficient to give satisfaction.

What are the well-known facts of the case with regard to the present system of applying labour to land? If we take the present system of agriculture, what we know is that, approximately, for every man employed upon the land today, there is at least £1 per week on the average, going in rent out of the produce of the land. Take any farm you will, in any average agricultural county, and you will find, as I have found by long examination of individual cases, that it works out in rent alone at about £l per week per man. There are the wages of the workpeople and other things, but I think we may say, with more or less certainty, that, under the existing system, for every man employed upon land, there is a return per annum of about £140, as the result of one man's application to agriculture. Under this proposal the local authority is to get a return of about £3 per annum, that is, the return on 30 years' purchase; and surely, between £3 and, say, the £100 that one man might, by persistent labour, produce from the land, there is an ample and adequate margin, far better, at any rate, than a man remaining idle and drawing from the State his £40 or £50 a year for doing nothing.

Surely it is common sense to say that, if you have an opportunity to provide facilities for these men to work and to make £40 worth of stuff, it is better than for them to take that amount from the State for doing nothing. I submit that there are great possibilities in this scheme. One does not suggest that by it the unemployment problem will be solved, but surely the situation is sufficiently desperate to make us try every possible means of solving it. For seven months the Government have had this matter before them. They are not in a minority in this House, but have a great majority on their side, and for seven months everyone has professed that, if a remedy can be found, it ought to be applied. Well, here is one method whereby something might be done, of a positive character, providing useful work and not demoralising men, work which might lead ultimately to these men becoming sufficiently adapted to agriculture to go forward to small holdings. I would like to remind the House of what took place in the Committee the other day.

Will the hon. Member give his authority for these calculations?

I, myself, have examined the ratebooks of more than 300 agricultural parishes in this country. I have examined the returns as to the size of farms, the rateable value, and the gross rental, and I have ascertained the number of men working on the respective farms, and, taking those farms everywhere, I have found an average of 25s. per man per annum going in rent to the owner. I say, therefore, it is approximately something like £1 per man.

What allowance did you make for charges?

I know that charges have to be met, but I am speaking of the product. The rent has to be met out of the cultivation of the land, and I know that out of the £140 I have mentioned the wages of the labourer and the rent of the owner have to be paid and charges met, but the produce is there, and it all has to come out of the produce, obviously. Under this proposal you would get land in use at an annual charge of £3, giving a man the chance to work on the land, and surely he can make a good deal more than an annual charge of £3. Whatever he makes over that £3 is a clear gain to the community.

Does the hon. Member mean that a man getting an allotment holding and working on it would be exempt from drawing the dole?

That is a matter for consideration, but surely in the course of a year or a short time his returns would either obviate the need of a dole or diminish the amount. We are paying the dole now, and the men are being demoralised and not working, but under this scheme they would have a chance to work. I was going to refer, when I was interrupted, to the testimony of an hon. Member of this House in Committee on this Bill, as to an actual experience which he had in his constituency only a short time ago when a man applied to him for assistance to take over a small holding. In questioning the applicant the hon. Member said: "Where did you acquire your experience so as to take on this small holding?" The man replied: "I was employed as under-gardener at So and So's, and gradually I gained experience and saved money, and now I want a small holding." What is to prevent, with all the unemployment we have to-day, many of these men, whose ancestors were born in rural districts and trained to agriculture, gradually gaining that habit of working on the land instead of being idle in the towns? For these reasons, I hope the Minister will see his way to include the Clause in the Bill.

The debate so far has travelled a long way from this Clause, and I am not quite certain whether we are discussing a Clause or whether we have embarked on a general debate on the unemployment question. To listen to the very interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who moved the Clause, and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), who supported it, I could not help thinking that in many ways their speeches would be more applicable to the debate on unemployment, which I understand we are to have on Monday, as a constructive suggestion for dealing with this on a large scale. As such, I feel they will merit the very careful consideration of every hon. Member present to-day, but I do think the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that, on a Bill of this character, a Private Member's Bill, I cannot accept an Amendment of such a very far reaching character. It is a matter which, obviously, wants very careful investigation. It wants to be looked into as a possible solution of the unemployment problem, by people who have far better access to information and are much better acquainted with the problem than I am. Further, it cuts into principles of law which have existed in this country for a great many years. For these reasons, although I think we ought to consider the whole question of land in this country with a view, possibly, to getting more people working on it. I do feel this is a change of greater magnitude than I can accept at this moment. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I say I cannot accept this Clause.

I beg to support this Clause, and for the very reasons which prevent the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down from supporting it. I cannot quite understand how an hon. Member of this House, representing a rural constituency, can possibly object to bringing into a discussion upon allotments the extraordinary industrial and economic situation in which the country finds itself. It is perfectly true that, possibly, some of the matters raised this morning would be more applicable to the discussion which is to take place in this House on Monday, but you cannot possibly divorce the unemployment problem from the problem that has been raised in the House this morning. You cannot discuss this thing in water-tight compartments. When we are aware that this country paid £96,000,000 more for imported foodstuffs in 1924 than in 1922. That is to say, in two years our charges for imported foodstuffs have risen almost £100,000,000, and you cannot possibly discuss the questions raised in this Allotment Bill without paying attention to the larger economic changes which are taking place in this country to-day. I, personally, do not agree that we should pay 30 years' or any number of years' purchase for portions of land in this country. I, personally, would favour giving powers to the local authorities to seize, without a penny of compensation, all land that is not being cultivated at this moment. My view is that the land is a national heritage, that any individual who calls himself an owner of land, who does not choose to put that land to use—

May I ask whether this is in order on this Clause?

It certainly will not be in order to embark upon a general disquisition on the respective rights of the individual and the State with regard to land. I gather that the hon. Member was referring only to this in parenthesis, and I was wondering how long I ought to allow the parenthesis to last.

I shall, I hope, bring my parenthesis very speedily to a close. I was merely expressing the view that in regard to certain kinds of land, I should not vote for the payment of compensation on 30 years or any number of years purchase, but that land which was not being used should be taken over by the local authorities without any compensation whatsoever, and such of the unemployed in the neighbourhood as were willing to cultivate that land for the benefit of themselves and their families should be given, not a quarter of an acre, but up to an acre of land, and given every encouragement and facility to cultivate it for the benefit of themselves and their families, and when they had any surplus to dispose of, whether it be honey, vegetables, eggs, or anything else, they should be compelled to sell that surplus produce to the community at a rate to be fixed in advance. [ Laughter. ] One hon. Mem- ber is amused at that. He thinks that is not economical, but what is the present system?

I am afraid this is another parenthesis. I must ask the hon. Member to come back to the Clause.

I thought I was sticking very closely to the question of the purposes for which, under this Bill, land should be taken over by the community.

I understand the hon. Member was proposing a system of State distribution, on which a very long debate might ensue.

I think you will agree that I made only one brief passing reference to the question of distribution. But the point I desire to make is that it is essential in the interests of the nation that this land should be put to social use. It is a lunatic asylum system to be spending money on importing foodstuffs which we could raise at home, and when we have one and a quarter million unemployed, and some part of the unemployed is willing to cultivate foodstuffs for themselves and their families. The unemployed workman would have an increased purchasing power, he would be able to buy other goods, such as boots, furniture and so on, and it would stop the process which is going on of taking the people from the rural districts and herding them in the cities, and I think it would be an economic proposal in terms of cash. It is said that it would add somewhat to the expenditure of the nation. It would, but, on the other hand, you would decrease your health expenditure and increase production of wealth in this country. You would make a better social use of the land, and, in face of the fact that we are losing our markets abroad, markets we require to hold if we are to be able to pay for the foodstuffs we import, I suggest it is of the highest national importance that every inch of cultivable land in this country should no longer be used or misused for sport, but should be offered freely, and without charge, to such of the unemployed as are willing to cultivate it, so that this nation may be, in a small part at least, delivered from the perils which face it.

I do hope we shall have some reply from the Govern- ment before we vote on this Clause. It is a most important question. If we could get any hope from the Government that they would consider this as at least a possible method of dealing with this serious unemployed question, we would not press this to a Division. I have some sympathy with the view of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that this is rather a wide extension, but I do think that we are entitled to have the views of the Government on this question, which has been put before the Government, I may say, in Committee as well as here to-day. I should like to know whether the Government are yet prepared to face the problem of taking drastic action so as to get the idle man and the idle land together. That is the real problem with which we are faced. We are seeking in this Amendment, an Amendment which you, Sir, will observe, is a compromise between the two sections of the Labour party itself, to provide a bridge whereby, without confiscation, we can get some system of providing land for the people who want it. We are entitled to ask the Government whether they will in the near future envisage some system to enable local authorities to acquire land compulsorily for such an urgent matter as allotments, somewhat simpler, quicker and on a cheaper basis than under the Land Clauses Act, 1844, by which all the other systems of the compulsory acquisition are controlled. This Amendment proposes that we should use the new valuation with which the Minister of Health is associated as a basis of calculating the purchase price of land to be acquired compulsorily. If there is progress on these lines we will not press this Amendment, but we will be grateful to the Government which has applied its mind to see what can be done for the unemployed. Unless the Government can hold out some hope that this Amendment will obtain careful and sympathetic consideration, I am afraid we shall have to press it.

12.0 N.

I am sure the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will not attribute any discourtesy to me nor will the hon. Member who moved the Amendment which has been so ably put, because I did not rise to reply on the Debate. They will recognise that there is an hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill who, per- haps, could have dealt with this point better than myself. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and those who have supported him have advanced their case to the House not, perhaps, without some measure of misunderstanding. I welcome the statement that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made in his opening speech, that he recognises to the full that preoccupation with the dominant problem of unemployment is not a monopoly of any one party in this House, but is equally felt in its gravity in all parts of the House. I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman—if he needs assurance—that if by this method that has been suggested, or by any other method, anyone can suggest to the Government a real and tangible way of contributing to the solution of this problem, that the Government would not be deterred from exploring that solution by the fact that in some of its implications it might be held to be uneconomic Having said so much, I want to make two other observations. I have said that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in bringing forward this Amendment to the House, is perhaps under some misunderstanding. He appeared to speak as if he thought—no doubt he is much too familiar with the facts really to think so—that there were no compulsory powers that could be put into operation.

I did not mean that. There are certain compulsory powers, but in every case the compensation to be paid gets in the way of the possibility of putting the powers into operation.

I am coming to that. I am glad to have it made clear that there are compulsory powers under which allotments can be obtained. When there is a dispute on the question of price it goes to arbitration. It might well be thought by some that the arbitrator awards too high a price. Therefore, the remedy for that, it is suggested, is to apply a form which is not unfamiliar—to use the basis of the rateable value as a calculation of the sale value. That may or may not be a good plan. I do not wish to enter into that controversy at the moment, beyond saying this: that whether or not the right hon. gentleman's plan is good or bad, it will require a lot of argument to convince the House, or to convince me, that it is a sound principle, to take the rateable basis designed for one purpose and one principle and apply it to another basis and another principle—that a rateable system that is designed on a basis of the natural letting value should be put to a wholly different purpose.

Now I come to say, if I may, a word or two about the real case advanced, as regards unemployment. I do not propose to trespass on ground that will in all probability be covered in the debate on Monday, but, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) said, you cannot keep these matters in watertight compartments. Naturally they overlap one another a little. I have, I suppose, been thinking of nothing so much for one last six months as to what contribution I could assist land and agriculture to make to the problem of unemployment. How, in other words, as the hon. Member for Dundee so well said, can you substitute a drift to the country from the towns for a drift to the towns from the country? That is not really so easy a problem as hon. Members opposite often seem to think. As I have listened to the various speeches on these matters, I am left with the conviction that really the method of argument of hon. Members in debate is very simple. Their method often amounts to this—they visualise all the benefits they would like to see, all the happy results they would like to see accomplished; by an easy jump of reasoning they assume those will all follow from a particular course of action. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme made what seemed to me a perfectly astounding statement. He said that at the present moment there are about 1,250,000 allotment holders—something like that number—and that if we could double the number of allotment holders we should solve the unemployed problem. Does he really think that? Does he think that a Yorkshire miner who has been accustomed to draw his £4, £5 or £6 a week? [HON. MEMBERS: "Less than that"]—sometimes more and sometimes less. I am not going to enter into a controversy about that, but I know a great many Yorkshire miners, they are good friends of mine, who draw that.

I am afraid the question of the wages of Yorkshire miners is another parenthesis.

I am sorry, Sir, if I was temporarily led away from the path of rectitude, but I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to reconsider that statement, because the suggestion that the industrial unemployed would find an adequate substitute in the cultivation of allotments for the wages of employment, and that by that means we could solve the problem of unemployment, is a proposition which cannot, I think, seriously be maintained.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember the snowball effect of employment. If a man is working and producing something he is not only satisfying his own wants, but every new man who is got into employment is piling up more employment for other people.

I was just coming to the snowball argument used by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). I do not wish to adopt a critical attitude, but it is important to examine these things. Imagine 1,000,000 people being put on to allotments of a few poles each—if it could be done—and growing their potatoes, their onions, their tomatoes and so on. They would be very lucky if they managed to keep themselves in food by their allotments—very lucky; and how is that going automatically to stimulate their demand for all the industrial products of their fellow-workers all over the country?

This is rather important. Surely if an unemployed man producing, shall we say, £40 worth of food on his quarter-acre adds to his purchasing power, if he adds £40 to his purchasing power, he is going to buy more boots, crockery and furniture?

That is most true; all I am venturing to challenge is the statement that the mere fact that a man gets about three poles of land on which he is able to work is going automatically to place him in as nearly as good a position as if he were in regular industrial employment. I do deprecate these over- statements of the case, and therefore it is my duty to say that while this and every other possible solution that may have the slightest favourable reaction upon the unemployment problem will have, as it always has had, the most favourable consideration of the Government. I should be less than frank with the House if I allowed them to think that I associated myself with the idea that if we put a million people on to allotments we could solve the unemployment problem. I frankly do not believe that; and for those reasons I am bound to associate myself with my hon. and gallant Friend behind me who, whilst sharing my sympathy, was yet bound to point out that this matter did not fall within the natural compass of a Bill designed to improve the machinery for the creation of allotments throughout the country. For those reasons I cannot, any more than can my hon. and gallant Friend, see my way to accept this new Clause.

I should like to point out to the House what the effect of passing this Clause would be, from the point of view of a suburban land owner on a very small scale. Those who have accepted the writings of Mr. Henry George, and, accordingly, rotted their brains away, in the manner that those who have accepted those writings do rot their brains away, seem always to shut their eyes—

I am afraid this, again, is another parenthesis. We cannot enter into the writings of Mr. Henry George.

What I was saying is rather in the nature of a periphrasis by way of reference to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said, though coming to it, I admit, by rather a long way round. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues shut their eyes entirely to the effect upon the housing problem which would follow the passing of this particular Clause. Take the case of anyone who purchases land in a suburban area with a view to developing that land and makes the necessary roads and the necessary drains preliminary to building houses. If it were known that the land could be seized compulsorily by the neighbouring local authority, could be confiscated on the basis suggested in this new Clause, nobody but a lunatic would ever dream of developing suburban land for houses in the future. What this Clause does is to introduce exactly the same difficulty as was introduced by the land values taxation and the increment value duties of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the duties which cut off the building of working class houses in suburban areas as if they were cut off with a knife, and were the main cause of the terrible housing crisis through which we have been passing. The effect of this Clause, which would permit the seizing of land, because that is what is suggested, would simply be to put us back where we were after the Lumsden judgment in 1910. Therefore, I do ask hon. Members to consider what they are doing in pressing this ridiculous Clause upon the notice of the

House. They are accentuating the difficulties of the situation, and putting us back where we were before we abolished those ridiculous increment value duties. By abolishing those duties we rendered it possible for a certain number of houses to be built. I do plead with them not to be misled by any of the ridiculous theories that have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and his friends, but really to consider the practical issue, the effect in suburban areas on the housing of the people.

I do not want to enter into debate on that point, but I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. A. Hopkinson) why, holding those views sincerely, as he does, he declines to vote with me in this Division?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes 60; Noes 91.

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

The present arrangements whereby parish councils can acquire land for allotments is provided for under the Allotments Act, 1908, which says: If the council of any parish are of opinion that there is a demand for allotments, and that such allotments cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent, the council shall provide a sufficient number of allotments. In Sub-section (2) of the same Section we have a system provided by which the action of the council is to be initiated, and it lays down that: On a representation in writing by any six registered residents in the parish that the circumstances of the parish are such that it is the duty of the council to take proceedings, the council shall take such representations into consideration. From that it is clear that the parish council is not compelled to take action, but merely to take the matter into consideration. By this Amendment now before the House we are seeking to somewhat strengthen the power of the people in the parish to get the allotments they require. The Allotments Act, 1908, has been largely a dead letter because of two things. In the first place the representation—

After the references which the hon. and gallant Member has made to the Allotments Act, 1908, it seems quite clear to me now that this New Clause makes it absolutely mandatory to purchase or lease land, and therefore there can be no question that it does not impose a charge.

I will address myself to that point. There is no suggestion that there should be any charge on the ratepayers whatsover. The land acquired, whether by purchase or by lease, will be let to the allotment holders at a rent to cover the expenses of the council. In another Clause of the Bill, we are dealing with the question of raising the limit of the penny rate, and it is absolutely unnecessary that there should be any charge on the ratepayers if this New Clause be carried. It will simply mean that the land has to be acquired on lease or purchased compulsorily, and it can only be let to the respective allotment holders at a rent to cover the expenses of the council. Therefore, I submit that neither under the Act of 1908 nor under this New Clause need there necessarily be any charge whatever upon the ratepayers.

The council might have to charge such a rent as it would not be possible for the tenants to pay, and I must maintain the principle that anything which imposes a charge, or might impose a charge, upon the rates cannot be considered on Report.

I think it is rather important that we should be allowed to amend the machinery, which at present does not involve any charge upon the rates, by methods which no more than the present machinery will involve any charge on the rates.

That might perhaps be done in Committee, but I am afraid I must maintain the principle that on Report we cannot admit anything which might possibly involve a charge. The next Clause—( Gross rateable value of land for allotments not to be increased )—in the name of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) would be in order as an Amendment to Clause 10, but it is not in order here.

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

I need not waste any time in moving this Clause, because the Government are accepting it. I thank them for taking into consideration a point of view which was raised in Committee. The object of the Clause is simply that we may have particulars of the price paid for land where it is purchased and the value at which it was assessed for rates.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the making of this return is going to increase and complicate the machinery?

It is rather difficult to satisfy the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) all at once, but I think I can assure my hon. Friend that this is not going to have the complicated effect that it appears. The information here laid down will, I am advised, be quite easy of

inclusion by the local authorities concerned in the reports that they furnish in the ordinary course to the Minister, so as to be available to anybody who wishes to consult the returns. I have not had full opportunity of coming to a final decision on the point, but the words "or an apportioned estimate" may possibly require further consideration and perhaps amendment in another place. That, however, is a minor point, and so far as I can I am willing to meet the wishes of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consult with me on the point?

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

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

In view of the fact that the discussion on a previous Clause included this New Clause, I beg formally to move.

I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 85.

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

This Clause is purely non-contentious, and, therefore, I simply formally move it.

I beg to second the Motion.

The hon. and gallant Member has said that this is a non-contentious Clause, but I think we are entitled to some explanation. The law provides for a notice of 10 days, and the Clause proposes to substitute 21 days. I think the House is entitled to know why it is suggested that the existing law should be altered. I do not know whether it is non-contentious or not, but there is an extension of 11 days. There must be some reason for that, and I think the House is entitled to know it.

I propose to accept this Amendment, and I will explain very shortly the reason why this alteration in the law is being proposed. As the late Solicitor-General has pointed out, the law at present allows 10 days in which to serve a counter-notice where a council has given notice with regard to land Jet for allotments. Under Section 11 of the Act of 1922, that notice in the first instance is served on the council, as the occupying authority, and they in turn have to transmit it to the allotment holder. If a counter-notice is to be served, which means that the matter has to go to arbitration, it is found by experience that 10 days hardly gives sufficient time. The allotment holders have to meet and consider whether it is a good case for arbitration, and the council, in turn, have to serve the counter-notice on the owner. The idea of this Clause is to give a little longer time in which a counter-notice may be served where it is desirable to do so.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "allotment or."

This is a purely drafting Amendment, in order to bring in the definition contained in the next Amendment standing in my name. Hon. Members who were on the Committee will recollect that during the Committee stage we promised to try to introduce a definition of "allotment" which would be more satisfactory than the one in the Bill, and the next Amendment represents what we have arrived at. It is taken partly from the Act of 1922, which states that an allotment is any parcel of land … of not more than two acres in extent … cultivated as a farm or a garden, or partly as a garden, and partly as a farm. On looking into the matter, however, we found that the Act of 1908 laid down a limit of five acres as the maximum that any local authority can acquire for the purpose of allotments, and, as the local authority has already power to acquire up to five acres for this purpose, it seems to us reasonable that the limit of five acres should be put into the Bill. That is the object of these two Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 1, line 9, at the end insert the words or any parcel of land not more than five acres in extent cultivated or intended to be cultivated as a garden or farm, or partly as a garden and partly as a farm."—[ Captain Bourne. ]

The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert Approved society means a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1923, or the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896 to 1924, which by its constitution or otherwise is restricted in relation to the rate of interest on share and loan capital, and the distribution of profits amongst its members, so as to comply with the regulations made in that behalf by the Treasury or a company registered under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1918, which does not trade for profit or whose constitution forbids the issue of-any share or loan capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury— should come by way of Amendment to the governing definition in Sub-section (8) of Clause 2. That is the proper place for it.

On a point of Order. The reason for this Amendment is that the term "approved society" is used elsewhere in the Bill besides in Clause 2, and therefore we think it should be given in the definition Clause.

Sub-section (8) of Clause 2 says that For the purposes of this Act 'approved society' means a society registered"— and so on. If the hon. and gallant Member does not think that the definition given is satisfactory, he can move to amend it by inserting these words there, which I think is the proper place.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end, to insert the words and for fitting such land for use as allotments. It will be noticed that under Subsection (1) of Clause 2 the Commissioners may advance money to these societies for the purchase of land for allotments, and the Amendment which I am seeking to embody in the Bill provides that they shall also be able, on the same terms, to advance money, not merely for the purchase of land for allotments, but for the fitting of such land for allotments. The House knows perfectly well that a great many of these allotments are created out of almost derelict old brick pits and pieces of land whose selling value in its present condition is extremely low, but which have to be made up in order to fit them for allotments. In fact in many cases the expense of fitting them up for allotments far exceeds the purchase price. The security is enhanced by the fitting up of the land for allotments, and we maintain that we are justified in urging that the same facilities that are given under this Clause to these societies to buy land shall be given also for the purpose of fitting the land up. I think it almost more important at present, because we want to use land which at present is under water besides rivers, land which requires almost reclamation. In fact, if we really develop this allotment movement, we shall have to take land which is not required for other purposes in the suburbs of towns. Town-planning schemes of the future will lay down that certain suburban areas are to be used for allotments. It is almost certain that the land selected for allotments in that way will be land which could not be used for building. At least the tendency will be in that direction. Such land in particular requires money spending on it in order to fit it out for allotments, and therefore I think we ought in this Bill to make provision for that form of expenditure, which is as essential and which is covered by the same security that the other Government advances are. The only further argument I can think of to adduce is that the improvements in these lands are permanent improvements to the whole land of the country. We are spending money to-day on reclaiming the Wash in the hope that that may be remunerative to the country as a whole. But every argument that we use in favour of increasing the land of England by adding to it a slice of the Wash is economically sound as applied to the reclaiming of any land inside the country, and when all that we are asking in the Amendment is that the Government should advance a portion of the sum spent voluntarily by an approved society in the reclamation of this land, I think the House will see that we are not asking for very much, and that, if use is made of the powers given in the Bill, there will be a really great advantage to the whole community.

I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite put the fundamental principle underlying the Clause. The object of the Clause is to enable the Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend money to approved societies. They lend it on the security of the land which the approved societies have purchased for allotments. It is not advanced from the Treasury. It is a loan from public money, but a loan by an independent body for a definite purpose. The money has to be repaid, and there are powers for the Public Works Loans Commissioners to re-enter in the event of the interest and principal not being repaid. Fitting land for allotments may be a very sound principle indeed from the point of view of the nation, but in this case you have to look at it through the eyes of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, that is, the eyes of the people who advance the money on mortgage. It is by no means certain that permanent equipment in any way enhances its value for selling purposes. We must remember that in this case we are giving power to advance money on mortgage at a very low rate of interest, and we have no business to put any conditions in the Bill which are likely to affect the security on which that mortgage is based. The laying out of roads useful for allotment purposes and equipment of all sorts may or may not add to the value of the land if it is to come into the market, and we should be very careful before we limit the security in that way.

This Clause does not make it compulsory for the Commissioners to advance the money, but it says they may do so if they are satisfied. There is a class of land which is eminently suitable for allotment purposes provided you fit it for use for allotments. In the neighbourhood of most large industrial towns there is land that has been used for tipping. In many towns during the War that kind of land was developed for allotment purposes and is still being used, and it has been extremely advantageous to allotment holders. But it requires money to fit that land, and within the limitations of the Amendment I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman might very well accede to it.

There is low-lying land which after heavy rain is waterlogged to the extent of thousands of acres, and it is impossible to pump the water out. Under this Amendment hundreds of thousands of pounds might be involved in order that some people might enjoy the use of the land for allotments.

I should like to add one word of appeal to the other side to accept the Amendment. I am not basing it on the rather extreme case which has just been quoted, but in reference to that case, surely any money so spent to prepare such land for the purposes of allotments must necessarily enhance its value if ever it comes to be used for other purposes. The point I want to urge is that there are certain tracts of land in urban areas which can only be made available for allotments, for which there is a great demand, by the expenditure of money to bring them into a condition where allotments can economically be worked, and also there is the other point that there are certain tracts of land in my own knowledge which can only be used for allotments if access is provided to them. I think, for all these reasons, it is an Amendment which the promoters of the Bill might very well accept on its merits.

I should like to support the reasons put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend in charge of the Bill for not finding himself able to accept the Amendment. This question of advances of public money to approved societies hinges entirely on the question of security. They have to be repaid and the only tangible security you can get is repayment out of the proceeds of the land that is acquired. Who is to say how much it is going to cost to fit out these derelict lands for the purpose of allotments, and who is to say you are going to get a return of that if ever you have to enforce your security? I sympathise very much with what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, but I think we shall be striking a heavy blow at the security and stability of the finance of approved societies if we encourage them to advance moneys in fitting out derelict lands for allotments when it is impossible for us to see how much they have to spend and exactly how far they will be able to go.

I wonder if the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill is really wise in resisting this Amendment. It is true that, supposing it was inserted in the Bill, an approved society, without any survey of their plan, without any reasonable exploration of the business possibilities of the extra capital they propose to sink, without exercising precaution and availing themselves of ordinary business safeguards, ruin would stare them in the face, and instead of increasing the security they would be decreasing the security. Surely no approved society would pursue such a policy as that. We must assume that the persons to whom the money is to be lent will have the ordinary business capacity to understand their job. If the promoter of the Bill will give us that assumption, surely this Amendment could be accepted. It has been said that there are lands in Somerset that are subject to floods. Supposing this land which is subject to floods is taken for allotments and it remains subject to floods, what security have the Public Works Loans Commissioners that their original capital will be secure? They have the security which is given in Sub-section (2) that they can make a charge upon other lands belonging to the same company.

This is derelict land because it is subject to floods. If it were not subject to floods it would be agricultural land.

That land will either be bought for allotments or it will not. If it is absolutely derelict it will not be bought, assuming the business capacity of those who survey it. Assuming that they have business capacity, if that land can be drained by the expenditure of capital, the capital which may be sunk in it will be profitable industrial capital. Surely a scheme like that would enormously increase the possibility of providing allotments. It will increase the value. I do not know this particular land, but I know of land outside towns here and elsewhere, and I know, particularly, certain land outside a Scottish town which, quite easily, could be purchased at its present value, and industrial capital could well be put into it under this Amendment. It could be drained and improved in various ways by the enrichment of the soil, etc., but that cannot be done at the present time, because loans cannot be obtained for that purpose. Roads could be built. I have listened to the Debate quite impartially, and I do submit to the promoter of the Bill that if he would assume the business capacity of the approved societies, this is a well-safe-guarded proposal. If it can be worked carefully it would substantially increase the efficiency of the Bill for the provision of allotments.

The objection to the Amendment is on the question of cost. I think that objection is met by the opening words of the Clause: Subject to such conditions and during such period as the Treasury may prescribe, and up to an aggregate amount approved by the Treasury— I do not suppose that if the reclamation of any of this derelict land was to be of such a high cost they would approve it. This provision in the Clause gives the safeguards asked for by hon. Members opposite. Land of this description reclaimed for allotments in urban districts would be most valuable. As one who has had some experience in the provision of allotments, I know that one of the things we have had to contend with has been, not to get agricultural land fit for allotments, but the fact that such land would take the men such a long way out of the town that it is useless for the purpose. I know of derelict land which has not been built upon and is not likely to be built upon, and if that land could be made fit for allotments under the provisions of this Amendment it would overcome the objection of the allotment holders, because it would be within reasonable distance of the men who will cultivate it. There is another point of view, perhaps of less importance, and that is that this derelict land is generally an eyesore to the neighbourhood. In addition to providing allotments within a reasonable distance, it would be adding to the amenities of the neighbourhood if this derelict land were used for allotment purposes. Seeing that the first four lines of the Clause give adequate provision and security against the fears which hon. Members opposite express, I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

1.0 P.M.

As one who has had experience for several years as vice-chairman of a very important allotments committee connected with the town I represent, I support the Amendment. For once in my political career I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I agree that there is sufficient safeguard against any extravagant scheme, inasmuch as power rests with the Commissioners. I will give a case in point. We purchased a large area of land to lay out for allotments. It was necessary to erect a fence, and that fence cost a considerable sum of money. As the Corporation Allotments Committee, we had to borrow the money for purchasing the land and for putting up the fence. The cost was proportioned out and a rent was charged that would cover interest and sinking fund on the total cost. If we do not agree to this Amendment, the approved societies will not be in as favourable a position as the corporations are at the present time. These approved societies ought to have the privilege of being able to spend money in preparing land for use for allotments, as well as borrowing money for the purchase of land. To purchase land without being able to make it suitable for cultivation is useless. With the safeguards that we have, the promoter of the Bill ought to accept the Amendment.

I have listened to the Debate with, I hope, a mind not less impartial than the mind of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am not much disposed to be afraid in this case of extravagance, and I am not reluctant to make the assumption of ordinary business capacity in the minds of those whose function it will be to deal with this enterprise; but I cannot help thinking that there has been some tendency on the part of those who have spoken to overlook what we propose to provide—I shall move to alter the wording slightly—in Sub-section (4). We there propose to give power to the Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend two-thirds of the value of the land. I do not think that there is any suggestion to empower them to lend more than that. If they lend up to two-thirds of the value of the land it is possible for the allotments society to utilise that money for any purpose which they like, and if it is convenient for them to utilise a certain proportion of that money for the preparation of the land I know of nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing so and it may be a very desirable thing to do. But neither by this Amendment nor by any other suggestion, unless I am wrong in my interpretation, is it proposed to increase the amount of money which the Public Works Loans Commissioners are authorised to lend.

Am I right in reading the last words of Sub-section (1)— money required for the purpose of purchasing land to be used as allotments as qualifying Sub-section (4),

I hesitate to speak about that, but I think that I am right in the view which I have expressed. Perhaps I could relieve the right hon. Gentleman if I advise my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to undertake to look further into this point, and, if the Government felt able to support him in the matter, to agree to an Amendment in another place. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that, on the whole, the disposition on the part of the Government has been to meet all reasonable points.

I am very much obliged for the suggestion, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will accede to it.

I will certainly accede to it if we can find a form of words to meet the point.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Before the Amendment be withdrawn—

If the hon. and learned Member proceeds to debate the Amendment, it cannot be withdrawn.

I object to it being withdrawn, because I wish the Minister to take into consideration this particular point of view. Everybody in this House desires to facilitate the provision of allotments. One of the biggest facilities is the advance of money. In my opinion the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman will impede the advance of money. The advance in this case depends entirely on the decision of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. They can advance up to two-thirds of the purchase price. Therefore the amount of the loan is to be ascertained before the land is purchased. That is an ordinary everyday occurrence. The land is valued by the regular valuer, and the money is lent. It is now suggested that they are to be entitled to make an advance of money for fitting the land as allotments. How is that amount to be arrived at? Is it to be arrived at after the money is spent? How can the Commissioners advance money on a mere promise to spend it? If it is to be advanced after the money is spent that means another valuation, another inspection and additional cost. I submit that so far from facilitating the advance of money for allotments this Amendment would very much impede it.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the word "security", and to insert instead thereof the word "property".

The word "security" may be limited in its application to stocks and shares and that was never intended. For instance, other land might be given as security.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 2, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "and with", and to insert instead thereof the words "by a notice stating the proposal for sale and if."

This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised in Committee and discussed at some length. It was suggested that the approved societies might agree to sell land acquired under this Clause at a meeting without telling the proposal to all the members, and it is therefore now proposed that the notice convening the meeting shall state that it is proposed to sell the land. In that case the notice shall be sent to every member of the society, and it is up to individual members who do not wish the land to be sold to attend. But we feel that they should have fair warning if there is any proposal on the part of the executive to sell.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

When this matter wa3 discussed in Committee we felt two things. We felt, first of all, that the consent of the Minister should not be necessary. We felt also that a better method would be to have a second meeting after due notice, as in the case of friendly societies, so that the thing could be finally determined. There would be a perfect safeguard in that case, whereas there is no safeguard in the mere giving of prior notice. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member who is the promoter of this Bill has considered those points. I hope that he will enlarge the safeguards in the way suggested, and then we shall not have the eternal applications and representations to the Minister which mean only more expense and more delay.

This matter and the suggestion were discussed very carefully with the representatives of the allotment holders, and they preferred the form of safeguard which has been moved.

I cannot think that it will cause any extra work for the Minister. This will be done by the local commissioner, who will be in the district and will be dealing with these matters.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after the word "Minister," to insert the words "is obtained."

The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the consent of the Minister is obtained.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Why is the consent of the Minister necessary? It is a purely local concern, affecting the locality and its own money.

Amendment agreed to.

On a point of Order. I wish to know whether the moving of the next Amendment by the Minister will rule out my Amendment, which comes later, whereby I seek to limit the amount of money which can be loaned?

The Minister's Amendment is in order, and the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment will have to be moved as an Amendment to the Minister's Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (4), and to insert instead thereof the words (4) The Commissioners shall not under this Section advance a sum in excess of two-thirds of the value as ascertained to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, of the land proposed to be acquired or make any advance to a society except where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commis- sioners that an amount equal to one-third of the value of the land to be purchased has been provided from other sources in the manner approved by the Commissioners and has been, or will be, expended in part payment of the purchase price of the land to be mortgaged to the Commissioners. This is simply a drafting Amendment. There is no alteration of principle. The new Sub-section proposed is that which the Parliamentary draftsman considered the best.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the word "one-third", and to insert instead thereof the word "one-half."

My Amendment means that the powers of the Public Works Loans Commissioners will be limited to the lending of 50 per cent. of the money for the land acquired. We are the watchdogs of the public purse. Land is a very uncertain valuation. Its value goes up and down, and we have to be very careful in lending money on it. I know it will be said that private individuals, such as those who will cultivate this land as allotments, will not be able to provide the purchase money. But people who get land for allotments acquire the money from approved and other societies. Therefore, that argument does not apply in this case. In Committee the Minister moved an Amendment limiting the loan on the land to 50 per cent. It is apparent that he has changed his mind since then, and I do not see why he should have done so. We do not want money lost and we stand to lose in such a case as this. Those who are to take the land—they are members of a society—should show their belief in the land by being prepared to subscribe up to 50 per cent. of the value. I do not see why the Exchequer should take any risk. All I am asking is that those who take the land should take 50 per cent. of the risk involved, which is certainly fair and reasonable.

There is no risk.

That is a matter of opinion. I consider that there is a risk. Land goes up and down in value. If you try to borrow money on land, nine times out of 10 you will find that your bank is not prepared to lend you more than 50 per cent. of the value. Here we have money that is to be loaned upon the land for a period of 35 years, which is a long period, and a great deal might happen during that time. In moving his Amendment in Committee the Minister said, "It was a prudent course to take." We have had some wonderful figures given by an hon. Member opposite to-day as to the amount which a man was bound to take from allotments. I have found on going through allotments that often the allotment holders have said that they had the greatest difficulty in making even a bare living, on account of the heavy importations from Holland and Continental countries of the things that they were producing. That shows the uncertainty in the matter. When a private company advances money, it is very careful to ascertain the value of the land, and it has better security for it than a Government Department in lending the money.

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Before we depart from the sound principles which should govern the making of advances of public money, we should have some more information showing in what manner adherence to those principles will militate against the money being applied by the approved societies for the acquisition of allotments. The House should be shown in what way the observance of those principles is calculated to interfere to any serious extent with the acquisition of allotments by approved societies.

It is perfectly true that the Minister of Agriculture, in Committee on this Bill, moved an Amendment similar to that which is now moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West-bury (Captain Shaw), but I think the Members of the Committee will recollect that on that occasion appeals were made to my right hon. Friend from many quarters to withdraw the Amendment. I observe that on the conclusion of the argument in Committee on this point, he said that he would withdraw it, with a view to considering the matter in the interval and that he did not wish to place himself in opposition to what seemed a very widespread feeling in the Committee. Since that time my right hon. Friend has given further consideration to the matter and has had several consultations upon it, and in all the circumstances has come to the conclusion that there is no need for him to move the Amendment now proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend and that the House should not adopt it. I think everyone will agree that the Minister has a considerable desire to help the allotment societies—as we all have in the House—and if this Amendment to the Amendment were carried it would greatly hamper the work of the allotment societies. I agree we must be prudent in these matters, and it is quite right that this view should be put forward. We do not want to be led by sentimental reasons away from prudent courses, but I think it will be agreed that in these cases the margin of one-third will be quite sufficient. Having regard to the advice which the Minister now tenders to the House, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.

I oppose the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I am surprised that the Mover, who represents an agricultural constituency, should bring it forward as, very likely, he was an ardent supporter of the Agricultural Credits Act of 1923, and of its improvement in 1924; and there Parliament was willing to lend to agriculturists, not one-half but three-quarters of any moneys required for the provision of equipment or for marketing purposes, or for various organisations which are useful and helpful in agriculture. If it is fair to lend three-quarters to a big farmer for those purposes, particularly when many farmers have had little or no faith in co-operative institutions, it seems to me we should extend the same treatment to the average allotment holder who is a comparatively poor person, and who desires his allotment firstly for the production of vegetables, and secondly as a means of healthy recreation. The Amendment to the Amendment would have a retarding influence upon a movement which is good from every point of view. The question of prudence does not enter into the matter, and if the Mover of the Amendment to the Amendment further considers the consequences of a limiting proposal of this kind, he will see that it would half-kill this Bill which has taken up so much time. From the point of view of equity as between the allotment holders and the great agriculturists, he should withdraw his proposal, and show himself to be, definitely and sincerely, a supporter of agriculture in both its larger and its smaller aspects.

I entirely agree with the last speaker, and I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw.

I wish to make an appeal to those who have referred to sound principles of banking to consider that what is sound in banking, as between the joint stock company and the private individual, may not be sound as between the Government and the people of a country. I would ask leave to refer to what has happened in Australia, where the Government have gone far beyond what we call soundness in these matters and have not lost money by so doing. The Agricultural Bank of Western Australia, which was a young concern, advanced money for such purposes as this on a very large scale, and went up to the very hilt. Up to the date of the War that Agricultural Bank had made no losses. I further appeal to those who are connected with land, as I am, and who think of broad principles, as I do, to consider that, in order to have the Conservative working men of the country with us, and in order to increase our supporters in the country, we ought to go as far as is safe in taking the wind out of the Socialists' sails by doing this on our own account, instead of leaving it to them to do it on their own account.

I do not consider the remark made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) at all relevant to the question, because I hold that allotments are in a more precarious position than farms, but as the sense of the House seems to be against the Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill,

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "or copyhold."

As the House will remember, the Law of Property Act abolishes copyhold, at any rate as from January next—I understand that is the date—and therefore this Amendment becomes necessary.

I beg to second the Amendment.

While appreciating the desire of the hon. and gallant Member to relieve this Bill of unnecessary language, I hope he will not press this Amendment. It is quite true that the revolutionary proposals which have been made by the Conservative party to destroy the law of property may some day fructify, but it is very uncertain whether or not we shall actually abolish copyhold. It may or may not be considered to be a good and democratic tenure, but the point is that the Acts to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers have been postponed for another year, and it is by no means certain that at the end of that year they will become operative. They have now been postponed about five times, and it would be much safer, until we know for certain that copyhold tenure is going to be destroyed, to allow the Bill to remain as it is. I think his earlier thoughts in that respect are better than his later ones. If copyhold goes in this Bill and does not go in the law of property, you will have reduced the area over which security can be taken, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend) opposite really proposed his Amendment on the assumption, which I believe to be erroneous, that necessarily copyhold will disappear, which is by no means certain.

After the very learned and interesting speech of the late Solicitor-General, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. As he says, I did move it under the impression that copyhold was actually going to disappear from our legal system as from the beginning of next year, but when an hon. and learned Member of his distinction expresses doubt on that point, I do not think we ought to remove it from this Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of COLONEL WEDGWOOD:

In page 2, line 36, to leave out the words "or charge."

I would move this Amendment, but I understand that the point is met completely by the Amendment next on the Paper, and, therefore, I do not propose to move it.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, after the first word "or", to insert the word "other."

In Committee some doubt was expressed whether the words "or charge" would not include charges such as tithe rent-charge, which would obviously be undesirable, and we gave a promise in Committee to look into the matter from a purely drafting point of view. We have now put down the word "other," because I believe that, as interpreted by the Courts, where you have the word "mortgage" followed by the words "or other charge," the words "or other" are limited and mean a charge of the same class or description as a mortgage.

I beg to second the Amendment, which quite meets my point.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the word "any," and to insert instead thereof the word "the."

This is purely drafting, and it makes the sentence clear.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

In regard to the next Amendment—in page 2, line 38, to leave out Sub-section (8), it is suggested that an earlier Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), should be adopted at that place, but I rather understand that it would not fit in there.

I think it would be better not to move this Amendment. The only result of doing so would be a very small verbal alteration, and I think it would be better to leave it as it stands.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, to leave out the words "of the submission to him."

Under a recent Act the legal necessity of submitting schemes to the Minister of Health no longer exists, and, therefore, these words are unnecessary.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 4, lines 28 and 29, to leave out the words "of such Sub-section."

I am advised that these words are unnecessary, and that they make the Clause more complicated. It would be simpler and clearer and easier to understand if the words were omitted, and they have no effect whatever on the operative part of the Clause.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, to leave out the words "six months'," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year's."

Clause 6, which substitutes this new paragraph ( b ) for the old paragraph ( b ), is an improvement upon the original law, and my Amendment seeks to make it a still greater improvement in the same direction. Under the original Act of 1922, Section 10, the local authority have the power to acquire certain lands temporarily, and in Sub-section (3), the right of occupation by the council may be terminated by the owner of the land. The council can take land temporarily for allotments, and then the owner can take it back by giving not less than six months' notice in writing, and, under paragraph ( b ), by not less than two months' notice in writing in cases where the land is required for any purpose other than the use of the land for agriculture. In this Bill we are altering that, and making it three months' notice in writing given by the owner in the case where the land is required for any purpose other than agriculture, sport, or recreation, and by not less than six months' notice where the land is required for use for sport or recreation? My Amendment seeks to extend the period from six months to one year in the latter case.

In Committee, I moved an Amendment making it five years, the object being to make it impossible to take land back from agriculture for sport or recreation, but it was pointed out on the Committee that sport or recreation might include a bowling green or a lawn tennis court, and that it might be in the interests of the public that the owner should get the land back for those purposes. I had hoped that there would be devised, before the Report stage, some Amendment which would make it quite clear that the words "sport or recreation" were confined to that form of public sport where there was a genuine demand for such conveniences, but, as the Clause stands at present, it simply gives the landlord power to take land back from allotments for any form of private sport or recreation, and I submit that if we are going to give the landlord that right we ought to give at least one year's notice, in order that the allotment holder may clear up his crops and may be able to get some value back for the manure and preparation he has put into the land. It will be noticed that later on the Government are moving to delete the Clause dealing with compensation for these allotments, and I suppose that will go through. That makes it all the more necessary that there should be a reasonable notice given, and I think we are not asking for too much when we say that there should be a year's notice, even if the land is wanted for a tennis court or a bowling green. I am not at all certain that even the finest recreation in the form of tennis and bowling could not be carried on in this country without interfering with the allotment gardens.

The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that when the Bill was in Committee this matter was under consideration, and while passing through the Committee the period of notice to be given to a council by an owner who desired to resume possession of the land other than for agriculture was raised from two months to three months. It was also decided that, where land was required for sport, such notice should not be two or three months, but six months. The House will remember that, during the early discussion we had on the question of compensation, I moved a new Clause, which was accepted by the House, to meet the real hardship of compensation that I thought arose under existing legislation. The right hon. Gentleman, it is quite true, has brought down his demand from six years to 12 months, but I think, on the whole, it is not unreasonable to ask him to be satisfied with the concession he obtained in Committee, namely, six months. I do not think it is really always quite so simple, as the right hon. Gentleman thinks, exactly to place in comparison the relative weight we ought to attach to the argument for allotments on the one hand, and for sport on the other hand. We desire, if we can, to make suitable provision, and hold the right balance for both, and there is room for both. In this case, we have given the balance in favour of allotments by doubling the notice required for purposes of sport and recreation, and I do not think the House would be well advised to go further.

In Committee, I did undertake to make an attempt to see whether it was possible to devise words to limit this power of resumption to what was described in a not very precise definition in Committee as communal sport. I have fulfilled that undertaking as far as I was able, and given consideration to that point. But it will be admitted by all hon. Members, that if it were possible to devise a form of words to limit this power of resumption where land was required for sport, or as a bowling club, or something of that kind, it would be, obviously, possible for a committee of private individuals, who wished to drive a coach-and-horses through such words, to form such an association or club. Therefore, it is not worth doing, because it is not administratively or legally enforceable, if it were desirable to do it. Therefore, on balance, I hope the House will be prepared to leave the matter as it left the Committee, where it was fully debated, and in a shape which, I think, represents a fair compromise between these two competing claims.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on Clause 9, which has to be taken in connection with the Amendment under review. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is to move to delete Clause 9, which abolishes any possibility there may be of securing compensation for removal. I want to submit a typical case, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks this notice would be fair notice in the circumstances. It is understood, of course, that a successful allotment holder; if he is going to get the greatest success from his gardening and horticultural knowledge, must have a cold-frame or a very small greenhouse. In case he has made all these necessary preparations—and I know the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to commend him for having done so—is it fair to give this very peremptory notice, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to delete the only Clause that gives any chance at all of securing compensation for loss of land and loss of opportunities? If the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House his intention with regard to compensation, we shall then know whether we ought to press our Amendment or not, because, although I am a big supporter of all outdoor recreation, particularly bowls, I do think 12 months, even for that purpose, is little enough notice to give an allotment holder, if you are going to destroy any possible chance there might be of securing compensation.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there were any intention in his mind, when the question of the period of notice was discussed in Committee, that Clause 9 should be deleted entirely, and, if this knowledge had been in the mind of the Committee at the time, whether he thinks it would have been as easy to have got the compromise of six months? I submit that the deletion of Clause 9 entirely alters the value of the six or three months' notice, as the case may be. In these circumstances, there ought to be a longer time given than six months. Anybody who has had anything to do with cultivating an allotment, as well as talking about it, knows that three or six months is a very short notice to give. There is a tremendous amount of labour put into allotments of this description, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain whether any compensation is to be given to those people who, presumably, are to be called Upon to deliver up their allotment at six months' notice.

With regard to the question as to whether it was in the mind of the Committee, when this matter was under discussion, that Clause 9 would be deleted, a notice to delete Clause 9 was certainly on the Paper, if my recollection serves me rightly, at the time this question of notice was considered by the Committee.

It was never moved.

I did not happen to be present at the Committee when that stage in the proceedings was reached, but I have refreshed my mind with regard to it, and I rather think it was moved, and then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) subsequently agreed to let the Clause stand in the Bill for further consideration on Report.

I think the Motion was moved by myself, and there was considerable discussion. Ultimately, it was decided by the casting vote of the Chairman.

No doubt my hon. Friend behind me is right in what he has stated. Perhaps the hon. Members opposite who have just spoken had not the opportunity of hearing the statement that I made in moving the first new Clause on the Bill dealing with compensation. They will, perhaps, excuse me repeating what I then said, but they will make a great mistake if they conclude from what I said and from that Motion that compensation is left as it was before. Indeed, I have gone considerably further than the law stands at present, and have been able, I think, to effect a compromise dealing with what I think is a most difficult point of compensation, but which is of very substantial importance to allotment holders. Therefore I hope that no hon. Member will run away with the idea, when we come to Clause 9, that I am making worse the position with regard to compensation for allotment holders. I am afraid I have no more to add to what I said just now, that in my own opinion this is a reasonable balance of things.

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment. It would certainly be much more satisfactory in the interests of the allotment holders that they should have 12 months instead of six; it would enable them to obtain for themselves some of the residuals in the land to which they are undoubtedly entitled. Whatever may have been said as to sport and recreation,

I beg to move, in page 5, line 1, after the word "Fisheries," to

I think that in this particular case the allotment holders have the balance in favour of them, and I am sorry, therefore that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words ' six months ' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 68.

insert the words "after consultation with the Minister of Health."

Clause 7 deals with the subsequent sale for other purposes of land purchased for allotments, and inasmuch as the Ministry of Health is directly responsible for the conduct of that business with local authorities, it seems reasonable that the Minister of Health should have the opportunity of consultation with the Minister of Agriculture on these administrative matters.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, to leave out the word "impracticable," and to insert instead thereof the words "not reasonably practicable."

Hon. Members will realise that it is very hard to say what is impracticable, and, indeed, there are very few limits within which by some means or other a thing could not be held to be practicable. I think the words "not reasonably practicable" would be better.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, at the end, to insert the words and where such consent is obtained the sanction of the county council under Section thirty-two of The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, shall not be required. This is really almost a consequential Amendment following upon the insertion of the Amendment necessitating consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. By virtue of Section 32 of the Act of 1908 a local authority can only sell the land provided they have obtained the sanction of the county council. We have just provided that they can only sell the land provided they obtain the sanction of the Minister of Agriculture after consultation with the Minister of Health, and in those circumstances it seems unnecessary to impose upon them the necessity of obtaining a third sanction from the county council.

I do not want to oppose this Amendment, but I would like to ask the Minister to bear in mind on future occasions whether it is necessary to obtain the consent of Whitehall in these purely local matters. Surely it is a matter to be left in the hands of the local bodies, who know the circumstances, rather than to bring in the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture. We really know how to manage our own affairs in our own localities up to a certain point.

I believe that all these Amendments to this Clause are made on the suggestion of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and on their behalf I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for having adopted those suggestions.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

We have now come to something which is rather more likely to excite a little difference of opinion. Clause 8 deals with cases where land has been let by an owner for allotment gardens and where that owner has, under the terms of the tenancy, a right to re-enter on the land on account of its being required for building purposes, or roads, or other matters of that kind.

Is that voluntarily, or are there any compulsory powers?

I think it is all voluntarily, but I would rather not be taken as speaking finally on that point. The Act of 1922 provided that three months' notice of intended re-entry must be given, and under Section 11 it was provided that where land was let to a local authority or to an association, and it is not satisfied that the resumption of possession was required in good faith, the question as to whether or not it was required in good faith should be determined by arbitration. As was only to be expected, it has not been altogether easy for local authorities or associations to establish the want of good faith in cases to which the Section refers. I think one grievance of allotment holders is not that the notice has not been given in good faith, but that where notice has been given in good faith the land has not been, in fact, immediately used for building and the allotment holders have seen it idle after they have ceased to be allowed to occupy it. Most of the difficulty, however, arises from what those who considered this matter upstairs had, and indeed all of us have, constantly before our minds, and that is the clash between the housing interests and the allotment interests.

In order to facilitate building and to make as easy as possible housing de- velopment, it is essential that land to be used for this purpose should be offered with vacant possession. I imagine it is comparatively seldom that an owner himself builds on the land. He makes the roads and sewers, and then offers the land for sale to somebody who wishes to develop it—occasionally using small pieces to build for himself—and it is not his fault if purchasers who are prepared to build do not at once come along in sufficient numbers and begin building operations. A good deal of information has been supplied to me that, where one building area is under allotments and another building area is in hand (that is to say, where vacant possession can be offered), and both are advertised for sale for building, that building will always begin on the land which can be offered with vacant possession. That is an almost inevitable result. Therefore, hon. Members must have regard to the importance of vacant possession when they are trying to balance the claims of allotments and building. If we seek in the interests of the allotment movement to make the conditions too onerous for the development of houses, I think there is a real danger that we shall end by defeating the very object that we set out to serve. In that case we shall end by making it difficult for allotments to be established because those with land suitable for allotments will be very shy about letting it under these circumstances. Under the Bill it is proposed that three months' notice shall not be given unless a certificate is obtained from the local authority that the building plans have been approved, and, in the second place, a like certificate has been obtained that the building materials will be available and the work commenced as soon as the notice expires. There is a hiatus in the proposal, because it is by no means in all cases that the building plans have to be approved in this way. As a rule, the trouble and expense of preparing plans is very great and the approval of them often takes a considerable amount of time. For these reasons I cannot but think that we should be wise to delete this Clause, and it is in that sense that I advise the House. I have had the opportunity of discussing this Clause with representatives of the allotment holders, and I think they themselves would say that they were fully alive to the difficulties to which I have drawn attention. They would state their grievance, as they see it, under which they suffer, and I think they will also recognise our difficulties in this matter. I think they would also admit that neither they nor we have been successful up to the present in devising a solution which would stand criticism and challenge, and which would meet the two points of view I have set forth.

I have been able to meet the point of view of the allotment holders in one respect. It is a point upon which they laid considerable stress, and that is in regard to the period of 10 days. It was laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 11 that the council may send a counter-notice demanding arbitration on the question of bona fides, and their contention was that this period was too short, and it was in relation to that that an Amendment was moved earlier in this Debate. That period has now been extended to 21 days, and I think that will meet the difficulty which the allotment holders feel in that respect. I am afraid that neither they nor I have succeeded in providing means of obviating the difficulties which have arisen in regard to this Clause which would tend to prevent housing development, and therefore, indirectly, it would delay the provision of allotments which we seek to increase. For these reasons I feel bound to move the deletion of this Clause.

I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will not expect us to allow this Clause to go without a struggle. In the first place, I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means when he talks about the allotment holders wanting this thing and that. I understand that there is unanimity amongst allotment holders, and they all want Clause 8 as it stands.

We have received a considerable number of communications from interested persons. This Clause has arisen, in the first place, in this Bill because it was felt that the present law was inadequate to protect the allotment holders. What is the present position? It is that under the Act of 1922, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, the tenancy of the land is not to be made terminable unless it is required on account of the land being wanted for building purposes.

Those are the only words in the Act of 1922, that is "on account of the land being required for building." The land-owner at the present time has simply to state that the land is required for building and then he comes under this provision. I know that on many occasions landlords have served allotment holders with notices saying that the land was required for building. They have themselves afterwards re-occupied the land, and nothing has been done with the land for months, and building has not been proceeded with. It may be said that the landlord acted in good faith in giving the notice, and intended to build upon it, and subsequently found that he could not do so, but we say that it is necessary to protect the allotment holder against notices of intention to build when, in fact, no building results.

They have a right to arbitration

It was felt that Section 8 of the Act of 1922 was not sufficient and that deals with the right of arbitration and good faith. It is quite possible that the landlord may give notice in good faith that he intends to build, and he may see a building arising on the land in the same way that Sir Christopher Wren saw St. Paul's Cathedral long before it was placed on its present site. The landlord may intend to build but the allotment holder is concerned to see that if he gives up the land it is for some immediate need, and that building is going to take place upon it within a reasonable time. It is very annoying when an allotment holder has been turned out to see the land he occupied simply lying idle. I have received a letter from an allotment holder in the North of England who says he was served with a notice last April to give up possession under the Act of 1922 and up to date there has been no sign of any building, and that land which might have been growing crops has become a nursery for weeds.

I think the provision about giving notice should not apply to any land unless the landlord has first obtained from the local authority a certificate that the plans have been approved, and that the landlord has satisfied the local authority that building materials were available, and that the work would be proceeded with immediately on the termination of the notice. I could have understood the Minister of Agriculture saying that this Clause was too wide, and he might have asked us to cut it down a little bit. He is not, however, doing that, for the right hon. Gentleman is simply asking us to cut out the whole of this Clause, and he is substituting nothing in its place only Section 11 of the old Act. We do not want to be unreasonable. The right hon. Gentleman might have argued that this Clause went too far, and he might have made some proposal for altering it, but we insist upon having some protection for the allotment holder in regard to notices of this kind under which the land is required for building, and was really to be taken for that purpose. Then we would have discussed the matter, and it would have been capable of adjustment. If we had insisted on this Clause then, as I understand it, landlords who have in view the possibility of building will not let this class of land for allotments at all. That could all have been met by an adjustment and a compromise on this particular Clause. The Bill was introduced with this Clause, and it passed through Committee in its present form, and it is a very great tax on the desire of all of us to get this Bill through as a reasonable compromise to ask us to take away all the protection that the land will actually be used for building. I will summarise the matter in this way. We want to know, where a notice is served on the allotment holder, that the land is required for building, that within a reasonable period there will really be a building put upon it, and, until that satisfaction is given to us, we on this side of the House will oppose the withdrawal of this protection to the allotment holders, and will do everything that we can to see that the Clause stands or that some modified form takes its place.

I do not think that the Minister has made out a good case for the withdrawal of the Clause. There is another phase to the matter to which I would like to draw attention. It is rather unreasonable procedure on the part of any Government or Minister, when a Bill has been through Committee, and has been thrashed out in detail, that we should have two Clauses taken out altogether, and another Clause substituted for a third. I wonder what the promoters of the Bill think about it. They had these things put in when the Bill was originally drafted, and presumably they were in favour of them. These questions have been fought out in Committee, and now the Minister comes along and coolly proposes that two Clauses should be omitted altogether and that another should be substituted for a third Clause. I do not know what negotiations may have taken place, but it appears to me a rather curious and dangerous method of procedure if our Committee work is going to be treated in this manner.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he really thinks that the terms included in this Clause are honest. After all, have not the terms in the Clause been drafted on the evidence, the accumulated evidence, of what has occurred in past years, even when building materials were not so difficult to obtain as at present. We know from evidence that has accumulated that people have acquired land that has been in cultivation as allotments, and that it has remained derelict for years without any buildings being put upon it. With that evidence in our minds, is it too much to ask that the landowner should submit evidence, when he wants this land back, that he is really going to build upon it. Is it too much to ask at the present time, when the question of the supply of building materials is so serious, that he should submit this evidence that he really wants the land for this purpose, and that the allotment holders should be satisfied that the land that they are asked to give up is going to be used for a purpose which may prove to be better than the purpose for which it is now used. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has not put any great evidence before the Committee to warrant us giving up this Clause. The Committee evidently thought that it was a good Clause and ought to go through, and I submit that the Minister of Agriculture ought to put more and better evidence before us before he can ask the House to give up the Clause.

I am in full agreement with the case of the Minister in moving that this Clause be deleted from the Bill. It is a thoroughly bad Clause, and it is one which in the long run will react upon the allotment holders. Already in the city of Leicester one company owning 20 acres of building land, which, at low rents, they kindly allowed allotment holders to use, have given notice to between 450 and 500 allotment holders that they must quit the allotments in view of the fact that Clause 8 is included in the Bill. The whole trouble about building land being used for allotments is a relic of war-time allotments. We shall shortly, if this Bill be passed, be out of our difficulties all together about acquiring land and keeping it for allotment purposes, and I suggest to those who are opposing the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman that they are really thrashing a dead horse. We shall not have many of these allotments that are rented in the near future. Corporation allotment committees are buying land and keeping it specially for allotments. That is the better way, both for the allotment holders and everybody else. This Bill gives power to allotment holders' associations to borrow money to purchase land, and there can be no fear of anybody coming along and saying that they want the land for building purposes. If you leave this Clause in, it will be a blot on the Bill, and in the long run will react on the allotment holders.

I think the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench in favour of the retention of this Clause, has allowed his mind to be absorbed with the case of existing allotment holders, and has not looked forward to the very much bigger question of the provision of allotments for the future. Of course, there have been bad cases—no one denies that—but I submit, in the interests of the allotment movement of the future, that what is really necessary is that it should be as easy as possible to obtain allotments on as convenient a site as is available; in other words, as near as possible to the edge of the town or village where the allotment holders live. There are a great many cases of growing towns and villages where it is far more convenient for present, and would be for future, allotment holders that they should have for a time allotments on land close to the buildings, which would gradually be shut out as the town or village expands, rather than that they should immediately be compelled to go beyond what I may call the building probabilities to look for their allotments. I am sure, if this Clause reaches the Statute Book in anything like its present form, that it would mean that no one owning land, whether a private person or an incorporated company, which would be likely within reasonable time to be required for building, would allow it temporarily to be used for allotments. The allotment movement would suffer. Therefore, I think that other means of remedying admitted evils which have cropped up in some cases should be sought, rather than a Clause of this kind. I think anyone who has had personal experience of building schemes will know that it would be extremely difficult, even with the best will in the world, to get the plane passed, to make the contracts for the provision of all building materials, and matters of that kind, before possession of the site could be obtained, before even notice could be given to obtain possession. To begin with, it is usually impossible in any scheme, even a small one, to get the detailed plans for buildings drawn until long after the general lay-out—roads, sewers and so on—has been dealt with, and I believe it would make many schemes quite impracticable if owners of land were frightened by a Clause of this kind applicable to allotment grounds. The people who would suffer would be the allotment holders of the future, and I believe it is really in their interests that this Clause should come out.

I have been rather astonished at the readiness with which most of those on this side of the House have accepted the excuses which have been constantly made against allotment holders having the right to continue their occupation, and the pleas which have constantly been made that owners should be allowed to eject allotment holders. We could all understand the arguments which have been put forward in favour of the deletion of this Clause if the existing allotment holders had on the Statute Book the right to call upon the local authority to provide equivalent accommodation if existing allotments had to be surrendered. So far, however, as I have been able to discover, there is nothing in this Bill that is going to make it obli- gatory upon local authorities to provide alternative land where the owners of land succeed in regaining possession. I should like to urge that the Minister should not only retain this Clause in the Bill, but should also provide the further facility of making it obligatory upon the public authority in all cases to offer to existing allotment holders equivalent accommodation if they are to be disturbed.

It has been argued by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), as well as by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, that, if this Clause remain in the Bill, the existence of the powers under it will be a detriment to the extension of the allotment system, on the ground that owners who may have in contemplation the use of their land for building purposes will not be willing voluntarily to offer their land if they be subject to the limitations of this Clause. That may be true, but, surely, it is the fact that more and more the question of providing allotments is becoming a public duty—a duty for public authorities—and that, more and more, people have the right, and, indeed, the country has the right, to expect that local authorities will use the powers which are conferred upon them, irrespectively of any free-will arrangements which may be come to by private owners, to provide the land which allotment holders require. The arguments which have been used in favour of the deletion of this Clause do not at all meet a definite existing grievance which obtains in every town in this country where land has been taken away from allotment holders on the ground that it is required for building purposes, and, as has been said, it has not been used. That state of things has gone on for two or three years, and allotment holders have not only had the grievance of being ejected from their holdings, but no other land is available for them. Surely, there is something to be said for allotment holders who have been dealt with in that way, and, even though it may be said that the owner of building land has a right to resume reasonable possession of his land provided that it is definitely required, surely there is something to be said for allotment holders who have put their labour into the land having the right to alternative accommodation if the land is taken away from them.

I want to say one or two words on what appears to me to be a very important point of principle which is raised by this discussion. As far as I have had experience of allotment holders and their grievances and fears, the fear of dispossession is one of their chief grievances, and the fear of dispossession is one of the things which retards the development of allotments most. The speeches we have heard against the retention of this Clause have been made with a view to facilitating, or rather, not preventing, building development, and everyone, of course, recognises that building development is a local and national need just as allotments are. I am perfectly sure that everyone on this side of the House will be only too glad to see both those needs fully catered for, and I would urge the promoters of the

Bill, and the Minister himself, if they insist on the deletion of this Clause, to see whether something cannot be put into the Bill which will provide an allotment holder who is ejected owing to some building scheme with the certainty, or, at any rate, tolerable certainty, that he will be accommodated on other land. I can from practical experience assure the right hon. Gentleman and those who are promoting the Bill—and, after all, the purpose of this Bill is the promotion of allotments— that one of the real grievances from which allotment holders suffer is the fact that they are dispossessed, often without really adequate reason and without any public service being served by their dispossession.

Question put, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 110.

I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.

This is consequential upon the New Clause I moved this morning in replacement of Clause 9. I think it is the fairest compromise I can suggest, in view of the failure to reach agreement. It affords the best compensation we can to allotment holders.

I think, on the whole, we might be prepared to accept this compromise. I am moved towards accepting it by the fact that it will, to a certain extent, stabilise the idea that 3d. per pole is a legitimate rate to ask allotment holders. Threepence a pole is the equivalent of £2 an acre. That is a good enough rent for any land. It is with this in view that I think it would be wise to accept the Amendment. I hope the development of allotments under this Clause will be of considerable benefit to the community.

Amendment agreed to.

The Amendments which stand in my name are all of a drafting nature. Assuming that all the Amendments be accepted, the Clause will then read: Where after the date of this Act coming into operation land which is not used for allotments commences to be so used, the gross value, or the gross estimated rental at which the land is assessed immediately before such user shall not be increased during the first three years of such user, and where the land so used was immediately before such user included with other land in one assessment, the gross value or gross etimated rental of the land included in that assessment shall for the purposes of this Section be apportioned according to acreage as between the land used for allotments and the other land. >This will give a clearer definition of what is meant than the original Clause 10.

Before the hon. Member moves his first Amendment, may I, on a point of Order, ask whether this Amendment will not deprive us of the opportunity of moving the Amendment which the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has handed in, carrying out the undertaking given to him earlier in to-day's Debate, when we did not move it as a New Clause?

I wish to save that Amendment, and I think it can be done if the hon. Member for Cirencester (Sir T. Davies) move his first three Amendments. As I was to follow the hon. Member's Amendment, it will read whether those words be left in or not.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, to leave out the word "From" and to insert instead thereof the words "where after".

I beg to second the Amendment.

3.0 P.M.

I am prepared to accept all the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cirencester (Sir T. Davies). They are purely drafting Amendments, and do not alter the effect of the Clause which was inserted in Committee, but will tend to make it clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 23, after the word "operation", insert the words land which is not used for allotments commences to be so used.

In page 5, line 24, leave out from the word "gross" to the word "shall", in line 25, and insert instead thereof the words value, or the gross estimated rental at which the land is assessed immediately before such user."—[ Sir T. Davies. ]

I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out the words "during the first three years of such user".

If any argument were needed to persuade the House of the necessity of this Amendment it was given by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Sir T. Davies) when he moved his very limiting Clause in Committee. He then told the Committee that the most irritating thing affecting allotment holders and small holders is the fact that immediately they enter upon a plot of land and begin to improve it and produce food and to do the thing that the whole nation is asking for, then comes along the Assessment Committee to impose other burdens upon the allotment holders, because they have improved the land and made it worth while. If it be the object of the Bill and the idea of the promoter to develop the allotment undertakings in this country, then this Amendment ought to be accepted. It is true that an improvement has been made upon the original Bill to the effect that no increase in the assessment can be made on the allotments for the first three years, but it is true to say that in the first three years when the man is turning over the rough he is working very hard and he scarcely begins to reap benefit from his efforts until the end of the first three years.

The principle of taxing an individual because he has effected improvements upon the land is wrong and ought not to be tolerated either by the promoter of the Bill or by Members of this House. When land has been taken over and human effort is put into it by individuals in trying to become food producers, and in occupying their time usefully, then encouragement and not discouragement should be shown to them. Temperance reformers and social reformers and others are all pleading for an extension of allotment work, and if we are sincere in our desire to develop allotments and small holdings we ought not to impose burdens upon people who are producing more food; whether it happens to be in a small sense or a large sense makes little difference, because the food produced is helping towards supplying our individual needs. I urge the promoter of the Bill not to be content with this limiting Clause merely preventing the imposition of an increased burden during the first three years.

The man who performs the manual work and makes the land produce food renders a real service to the State and he ought not to be further taxed on that account. For that reason, the limiting Clause of three years ought to be extended indefinitely. If the man puts a glasshouse or any kind of building on his allotment to make it more useful, or if he improves it in any other way, he ought not to be subject to having further taxation imposed upon him. The hon. Member might very well accept this Amendment and give real encouragement to allotment holders, instead of discouraging them by taxing the improvements they have made upon the land.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

I regret very much that I cannot accede to the request of the hon. Member, because this Amendment goes a great deal further than he suggests. There is a great deal to be said, and much has been done by the legislature, for the principles of relieving the burdens on land, and it can be argued with a good deal of force that improvements on land which increase its efficiency for producing food, and buildings which are erected to enable more food to be grown and the land to be worked better, should not be rated. But I do not see that we can deal with what is a substantial alteration of the fundamental rating laws of this country by an amendment to this Bill. It is outside the scope of the Bill. It cuts right at the whole of the existing rural rating system in England. I cannot be expected to accept an amendment which deals with such a big principle in a Bill like this The real place for the Amendment is the Rating and Valuation Bill.

I support the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member has told us that the real place for the adoption of this principle in the rating practice of this country is the Rating and Valuation Bill. I may tell the House that some of us have attempted to do that in Committee on the Rating and Valuation Bill, and there we have been told that that is not the place to do it. I suggest that the principle, which, I quite agree, cuts at the root of what are accepted principles of rating in this country, is an important one. But the Bill itself, with its three years' limit, already adopts the principle. What we are asking hon. Members to do is to have the courage of their convictions in this matter and to extend the relief which is given for three years. Those who have at heart the desire to increase the number of allotments, to enable allotments to contribute to the food supply of the country, and improve the economic position of the people who hold the allotments, should vote for this Amendment. I hope that hon. Members in the Division Lobby will show that they are in earnest by voting for the Amendment.

I support the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member says that this is a question which ought to be dealt with in the Rating and Valuation Bill. I do not think, if I may say so with respect, that we could get very far along the revolutionary line proposed of changing the whole rating system under a mere machinery Bill. But the promoters of this Bill will appreciate what we claim here. They are promoting this Bill with a view to the development of small holdings in this country, but the reason why small holdings have not developed in this country is partly because of the penalising system of rating. I will give the House an illustration of what takes place. The Sleaford (Lincolnshire) Assessment Committee, on appeal from the Blankney Hunt, reduced the assessment of fox coverts of Lord Londesborough's estate from over £1 an acre to 5s. an acre. Compare that with the experience related by Mr. E. O. Ford-ham, of Cambridgeshire. The Cambridgeshire County Council acquired, at Soham, a farm of 660 acres, and it was leased to 27 smallholders. The land had been assessed for rates at £150 gross. The smallholders improved the land, and now it is assessed at £580. Those are bald facts relating to the rating system as now established.

The promoter of the Bill virtually admits the facts. He says that it is well that, if we are to develop small holdings, we should encourage the smallholder to put up his improvements, and we should do everything to help him to equip his improvements on the holding. Therefore, I appeal for some concession to be made here, if the promoters are genuinely seeking to develop the small holdings of this country. It is quite unnecessary in this House end at this time of day, in view of the unemployment and the necessity of trying to absorb men who are becoming demoralised by being compelled to walk the streets, to appeal to the promoters to consider the advisability of releasing the improvements and giving allotment holders every encouragement to go on developing their equipments rather than, as at present, penalising them for every improvement. Under the, present law, in the case of fox coverts, as I have shown, assessments are reduced, but when you turn land into small holdings the assessments are increased,

These cases were in different counties.

Surely hon. Members are not going to make the plea that the two assessments mentioned were in different counties. They were cases arising out of the operation of the law as it is now established. The law of England to-day with regard to rating is—do not use the land of England, no rates; use the land of England, heavy rates. We ask that the promoters of the Bill, in view of the present iniquitous system, will exempt a smallholder entirely from any penalty on his improvements, and will encourage him to make the best of his holding. You have already said that money will be advanced to help the smallholder, and you have taken the precaution that a certain security shall be there to cover the loan. What better security could we give the smallholder than that he should be encouraged rather than discouraged to develop to the full the land that he cultivates? I hope that what I am saying will have some weight. Sometimes, when one gets up in the House and makes an appeal, one wonders really whether it is only a matter of making a speech and walking out of the House again, having converted no one. I appeal to the promoters of the Bill, apart from partisan feeling altogether. I know the feeling of many hon. Members opposite. I have spoken to them individually on this matter, and they have admitted to me that the present rating system is a hindrance to the development of small holdings in this country. Surely we can set aside mere political feelings and make this necessary concession.

I believe every Member of the House will agree that the work which we want to see encouraged more than anything else in this country is allotment gardening. It is a form of production for which there is the greatest public demand, and everything that lies in the power of this House ought to be done to encourage it. We see in this Bill divers efforts made to improve that form of production, the chief of which efforts, in my opinion, is the proposal of Clause 10. Clause 10 as it stands, in my opinion, does more to encourage allotments than any other Clause in the Bill. Is it too much to ask hon. Members, therefore, to extend the principle of Clause 10? We all know that it is ridiculous to penalise the man who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before. Cannot we prevent that being done? The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) is as anxious for this change as I am, but he says in effect, "This is all I can get from this Government. To make the proposed change would be going too far; we can get three years, but we cannot get more." The best way of bringing pressure to bear on the Government is for every Member who knows that the principle of this Amendment is right to put aside party and vote with us in the Lobby, not for the Opposition, but for an absolutely sound principle.

This proposal may involve a big change m the rating system in this country, but we are bound to make some sacrifice to encourage allotments. The provision of allotments may not be the sole solution of the unemployment problem, but it will go a long way towards helping to meet the present situation. Are we asking very much, when we ask that Members who have accepted the principle of three years during which rates shall not be increased should extend it further? In 1907 Parliament passed an Act which automatically made this provision for Scottish smallholders. Apparently Scotland can bring greater pressure to bear on the Government than the general agricultural interest of this country, and in Scotland smallholders can improve their properties without the rates being raised against them. When it is said that this is a revolutionary change, let us remember that in the present year this Government has introduced a Bill to do, in reference to certain sections of machinery, exactly what we ask should be done for allotment holders. Hon. Members know that to encourage allotments is even more important than to encourage the particular forms of manufacture which use that machinery. I ask hon. Members to think well and to think twice before they vote against us on a principle of this kind simply because they are told that it is a revolutionary change. We cannot get this Amendment into the Rating and Valuation Bill. This is an Allotment Bill, and its scope is wide enough to include Clause 10, and to include the proposed extension of Clause 10.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 74.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, at the end, to insert the words and where the land so used was immediately before such user included with other land in one assessment, the gross value or gross estimated rental of the land included in that assessment shall for the purposes of this Section be apportioned according to acreage as between the land used for allotments and the other land.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, to leave out the words "situated in the area of a local authority," and to insert instead thereof the words "provided by the council of a borough or urban district."

In many cases, an urban district prefers allotments outside its own local government area strictly speaking, and, because the allotments committee and the council have to look after those allotmens, it is desirable that this Amendment should be made.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out the word "five' and to insert instead thereof the word "three."

I am simply asking that the number of allotments in any urban area requiring a local authority to set up an allotments committee shall be altered from 500 to 300. I have had an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, who explained that there were already 203 urban authorities with allotment committees, and the total number of authorities that would come under the Clause as it stands would be 211, so that it would add eight to the number of local authorities that would have allotment committees. I understand the Minister is willing to accept 400 instead of 500, and I shall, therefore, subsequently ask leave to move to insert "four hundred" instead of "three hundred."

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 36, leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "four."—[ Colonel Wedgwood. ]

In page 5, lines 36 and 37, leave out the words and are obtained under this or any other Act.

In page 5, line 38, leave out the word "any", and insert instead thereof the word "the."—[ Captain Bourne. ]

I beg to move, in page 5, line 40, to leave out Sub-section (2).

In Section 24 of the Act of 1922 power is given to a council, either borough or urban, that they "shall" establish an allotment committee, which may be an existing committee of the council, or a sub-committee of an existing committee. This Amendment turns on the right to preserve the sub-committee of an existing committee. This power is one which is considered very desirable by the local committees and enables them to deal with allotments far more effectively than they could if they had to appoint a new committee or if the sub-committee had to report to a central committee. The effect of the present Act is that the sub-committee so appointed shall be the allotment committee, and that is a position which it is very much desired to preserve. This matter came before Committee upstairs, and on it the Chairman gave, a easting vote.

I beg to second the Amendment.

We propose to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to insert the words (2) This Act shall extend to Northern Ireland. In all probability this Bill would extend to Northern Ireland, whether that was so stated or not, but, for the sake of clearness, I beg to move this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

It may be of some interest to the House if I explain the purpose of this Bill. It is to improve the programmes of broadcasting companies, though that is not very visible on the surface of the Bill. At the present moment it is inadvisable for any first-rate artist to perform for the broadcast, for this reason, that the performance as broadcast can be taken down by a gramophone receiver and a gramophone negative can be made. The performer has no protection against this toeing done, and that illicit gramophone negative can be used to produce records which can be sold. That sale has the effect of breaking contracts between artists and the various gramophone companies, and in order to save their contracts it is impossible for most of them to have their performances broadcast. I have introduced this Bill in order to make it possible to improve broadcast programmes. I hope broadcasting companies will take notice of this possibility, and that broadcast programmes will be improved in consequence. I do not know that I have any right to delay the House any longer on this matter, but I thought Members would like to have the situation explained. The possibilities of broadcasting music of the finest quality are very great. Up to the present we have had very little experience of the finest music being scattered broadcast over the country. Amongst the multitudes of people who listen to the broadcast performances there probably exists, in embryo, a very high possibility of musical taste which could be cultivated, to the great advantage of the country, if the quality of broadcast programmes be improved. I will not detain the House longer, but thank hon. Members for thus far supporting me, and I trust the Third Reading may pass.

While I do not oppose this Bill, I cannot conscientiously let it pass without saying that I think the principle upon which it proceeds is thoroughly bad, because to meet a case which might have been met by an Amendment of the Copyright Act, a criminal liability is being imposed and enacted by this Measure. The tendency in modern legislation to try and cure every possible defect in the law by sending more and more people to prison, and increasing the jurisdiction of the police, is not the right way of dealing with this matter. I think if some of us who are interested in matters of this kind had been consulted, we should have advised that the object of this Bill could have been obtained by a simple Amendment of the Copyright Act, and nobody need have been sent to prison at all. I protest against this method of fining people, and sending them to prison if they fail to pay, simply because a person makes a record that interferes with somebody else's copyright.

You might as well make every possible breach of the Copyright Act a criminal offence. Here you have the promoters of this Bill, after having thought out the matter, finding an evil, and I do not deny that it is an evil, but which they could have remedied by amending the civil law, but instead of doing that they decide to make this a crime, and provide for sending another person to prison. This sort of legislation, which is designed to meet every evil that exists by procedure of this kind, is thoroughly bad, and for these reasons I object to the Bill. I realise, however, that there is an evil to be dealt with, and if this Bill is defeated there will be no other method of dealing with it. I hope, however, that the promoters of this Measure will recognise in future that we have a civil law quite adequate to deal with matters of this kind.

I am amazed at the statement which has just been made by my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench. He has just told us that this is a Bill the tendency of which will be to still further fill our prisons. If that he so, I sincerely hope that we are going to divide against a Measure of that kind. I have no reason to doubt the statement which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend, that the purpose of this Bill could have been secured by an amendment of the Copyright Act, instead of promoting legislation which will tend to make more criminals, make more difficult the administration of the law, and not help to deal with the object of this Measure in the way in which it could have been dealt with. Under these circumstances I think we ought to divide against the passing of this Bill.

I do not wish to enter into an argument with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Slesser) upon a legal point. All I need to say is that this Bill seems to me to give protection where it is needed, and where there is great danger of infringing the copyright law. It may be true that this is the wrong way to accomplish the object of the Bill, but it is a danger which has been produced by the remarkable development in the uses of wireless telegraphy during recent years. As a rule these great changes come about by gradual stages, and the law is able to keep pace with them. But frequently we have new discoveries, and the development of some new set of circumstances which open out an uncharted sea. This is such a case. My hon. Friend who is promoting the Bill has described what may happen, and what in fact, as I understand him, is actually happening. It is already the fact that people in their homes are able to take fairly clear and accurate records. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why should not they?"] I do not object to it. I understand that they are able to do it, and the hon. Member described to us the hardship to our great artistes of having their performances so reproduced. We cannot imagine what development might lead us to in the reproducing of music in our homes, heralded by that terrific announcement "London calling." Some of it is delightful and uplifting, and one can readily understand the attraction of reproducing beautiful music well performed if one is able to do so in one's own home without buying it, and possibly with the idea of trading the result of that reproduction. I entirely agree that this operation should not go unchecked, but in my view there is an aspect of the matter which is important and with which my hon. Friend has not dealt, but which makes it increasingly desirable that this kind of thing should not go unregulated. We have reason to believe—I have heard it rumoured—that the day is not far distant when an eager public may be listening to the proceedings of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Heaven help us!"] I entirely agree, but we have been told that it may be possible to broadcast the proceedings of this House. As I have said, much of this broadcasting is delightful and inspiring.

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this Bill refers to dramatic and musical performances.

I do not think, Sir, that you would call me to order even for saying that some of the results that might be listened to by the public could be anything but dramatic. I can imagine one of the masterly speeches to which we have been listening lately on the subject of Free Trade from the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn)—

We could easily switch those off.

—perfectly phrased with all his vigour and fervour; and I think it would be a national disaster—

On a point of Order. May I ask what Free Trade has to do with this Bill?

The question was as to whether the performances in this House could be described as musical or dramatic, and I think I must give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.

I will not weary the House by dwelling further upon the point. But one aspect of the question is that there would be a national danger of the vision of the country being obscured by a perpetuation of some of the proceedings in this House. The view of the Government is that this Bill is a good Bill. I support it and give it my blessing.

I hope that my hon. Friends behind me will not divide against this Bill, even though there be a technical objection to it on the part of my hon. and learned Friend the late Solicitor-General. What does the Bill do? It says that if a performer has given a performance, no one shall have the right to take that performance and use it for his own profit.

May he use it in his own house? That is all we want to know.

Yes, the Bill definitely provides that it shall be a defence if the taker of a record proves that that record has not been taken for the purpose of trade. May I read the proviso? It says: Provided that it shall be a defence to any proceedings in respect of an alleged offence under the foregoing paragraph ( a ) if the defendant proves that the record in respect of which the offence is alleged was not made for purposes of trade. Therefore, a man has a perfect right to take a record of a performance for his own use if he so desire, but what the Bill prevents is that a man should take a record of a performance, and begin to sell it. Is that right, or is it not? Surely, a singer is entitled to payment for the performance he gives, and the gramophone companies pay artists for their performances in a reasonable way. The artist is paid for his or her work, and the gramophone company are able to sell the record for which they pay. This is to prevent a gramophone company or any other person from using the performance of the artist without any payment. There may be technical legal objections, but what are the penalties provided? Suppose that someone takes a record of a performance, and begins to sell it without paying the performer, is it unreasonable that that person should be liable to a fine not exceeding 40 shillings for each record? It seems to me absolutely unreasonable to complain about the principle of the Bill. Even under the Copyright Act there are, if I am not mistaken, penalties for offences.

It is a matter of civil action—of injunction and damages.

There may be a great difference, but I fail to see it.

It is the difference between being in the dock and sitting comfortably in a civil Law Court.

I say that the man who takes the voice of a performer, and uses it for his own profit without paying for it, ought to stand in the dock. That is the difference between myself and my hon. and learned Friend. I believe the artist has a right to be paid for his or her services, and I believe the person who sells those services without payment ought to be punished. And because I believe in the workman having the fruits of his labour and being paid for it, and because I believe this Bill will prevent anyone selling the artist's services without the artist's consent, I am going to vote for the Bill.

I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The performer who performs for his livelihood is entitled to payment for his performance, and it is utterly wrong for some unauthorised person, without his consent, to steal the benefit of his performance. That is the principle of the Bill. I really fail to see the objection taken by the late Solicitor-General. I fail to find in the Bill any penalty entailing imprisonment. All the penalties set out are fines, and no more. No doubt failure to pay that fine would entail imprisonment, but the fines are very moderate. The criticism of the penalties is that they are too light for the nature of the offence. After all, this is only a technical difficulty. There are good legal minds in another place who will consider the matter, and if there be anything in it no doubt we shall see the Bill again, and have an opportunity of making a correction. I am going to support the Bill.