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

Under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1886, which provide compensation to landholder and cottars respectively for permanent improvements, it is essential that the improvements shall have been executed or paid for by the landholder or cottar, or his predecessors in the same family. The expression "predecessors in the same family" is not defined, but a meaning has been given to it corresponding to the meaning given to "members of the same family" in Section 16 of the 1886 Act, and Section 21 of the 1911 Act, where a member of the same family as the landholder is

"his wife, or any person who, failing nearer heirs, would succeed to him in case of intestacy."

To these persons, Section 13 of the Act of 1919 added the son-in-law, but that Section has no application to the meaning of "predecessors in the same family." This new Clause defines "predecessors in the same family" in a way corresponding to the meaning given to "family" by the Sections already mentioned, and thereby meets a point which was raised by the promoter of the Bill in Committee. Where a landholder is succeeded in a holding by a daughter who is married, her husband, instead of herself, is, it is alleged, registered as the holder; the landlord insisting on this. As the late landholder was not his "predecessor in the same family," the result is that in the event of his renunciation, or being removed from the holding, improvements provided by his father-in-law would not carry compensation. In order that the omission may be remedied, I move the Clause which stands in my name.

I should like to say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that we propose to support the new Clause which has been moved by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

I am afraid that I do not understand the Clause, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman. Does the reference to "predecessors in the same family" relate only to Section 8 of the 1886 Act?

Sections 8 and 9.

Does it not refer to the 1911 Act at all? Does it not refer to Section 2 of the 1911 Act? If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Section 2 of the 1911 Act, Sub-section (1), paragraph 3 (a), he will find a reference there to the predecessor in the same family. If these words "predecessors in the same family" are intended to be applicable to the whole of the Landholders Acts, then, of course, you require to interpret "predecessor in the same family" in Section 2 of the 1911 Act in the same way. I cannot believe for a moment that the point is being made or can be made that the words in this particular Clause do not cover the words used in Section 2 to which I have referred. Throughout these Acts there is reference in some cases to "predecessor in the same family" and in other cases the reference is to "predecessors." I believe the term means the same thing, and, accordingly, I am right in saying that if we put this new Clause into the Bill we shall require to construe the words to which I have just referred in Section 2 of the Act of 1911 as including all the people who are covered by the amending Clause.

I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not here, because this is a very technical point, and I think it is fundamental. If I am right in my view that the term "predecessors in the same family" is the same thing as "predecessor in the same family"—the interpretation Act says that the plural is meant to include the singular and the singular the plural—it is quite clear that the words "predecessor in the same family" under Section 2 of the Act of 1911 would fall under this amended definition. I understand that the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) agrees with me in that view. As the hon. Member for Kincardine is the promoter of the Bill and also a lawyer he will perhaps check me if I am not right in the view that this new Clause must be read into Section 2 of the Act of 1911. If that be so, look at the horrible position in which we are placed, that if we read these words into Section 2 of the Act of 1911 we require to revise the position of all the existing statutory small tenants, because if we are going to widen the definition as proposed by this new Clause we widen the reference to the words in the Act of 1911, which will then read:

"Provided that such tenant from year to year or leaseholder:

(a) shall (unless disqualified under section twenty-six of this Act) be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder within the meaning of this section in every case where it is agreed between the landlord or tenant or leaseholder, or in the event of dispute, proved to the satisfaction of the Land Court, that such tenant or leaseholder or his predecessor in the same family has provided or paid for the whole or the greater part of the buildings, etc."

The question, is, have they provided the greater part of the buildings. It is obvious that if you are going to include all the fathers-in-law and all the husbands and wives, as you are entitled to do under this new Clause, you will require to revise every statutory small tenant that exists at the present time. I think that is quite clear. If you are going to alter and widen the definition, a statutory small tenant can come forward and say: "It is true that I did not provide or pay for the whole or the greater part of the buildings, according to the definition in the Act of 1911, but if you judge by the test of the new Clause, I come under it. Therefore I am a land holder." If that is the intention of the Government, I think it is a very unwise thing to do. I do not think that we should open up the position of men who have perhaps been statutory small tenants for a generation, and give to them now the right to come in upon a different definition and to claim the right to be landholders. Accordingly, we are entitled to some explanation in regard to the second point, or a statement that "predecessors in the same family" is not meant to cover any other case than the two cases referred to by the right hon. Gentleman namely, Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1886. If he says that that is the only intention of the Government, I do not think the new Clause gives effect to that intention.

proceeded to collect the voices, and declared that he thought that the "Ayes" had it.

May we not have an explanation from the Under-Secretary or the Lord Advocate?

On a point of Order. I think you had collected the voices, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, there were no "Noes." I will, however, put the Question again.

I desire to move an Amendment in order to make the Clause sense. As it stands at the present time it seems to be nonsense.

I am afraid that I cannot accept an Amendment now, because I have already proposed the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

I should like an explanation from the Lord Advocate. This Clause is going to make the land laws of Scotland more difficult than they are at the present time.

Why did you not vote against it?

Because it is not for me to make this Bill intelligible. It will become so unintelligible if certain Amendments are made that no one will be able to follow it, and it will be repealed at the first opportunity. The hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) knows the point I am making, and so do the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State. If this new Clause is to be made applicable to the whole of the Landholders Acts, including the Act of 1911, the question is whether this new definition—

On a point of Order. May we know what we are discussing?

The question is that the Clause be added to the Bill.

And I am protesting against this new Clause on the ground that it will make the law unintelligible, and I am inviting the hon. Member for Kincardine or the Government to answer the simple question whether the words "predecessors in the same family" cover the case of "predecessor in the same family." I should have thought they did; and, if they do, then this new definition will apply to Section 2 of the 1911 Act, and the moment you apply it to that Section you change the whole basis which at present distinguishes a landholder from a, statutory small tenant and you will have to reconsider de novo the position of every statutory small tenant in Scotland. I am quite sure that the Government did not intend this to be the result of this new Clause.

It was rather unfortunate that the Second Reading of this Clause was passed without our making some objection; perhaps we were not quick enough. I hope, however, that the Government will see their way to amend it in another place. The Government desire to secure an amendment to two sections in the Crofters' Holdings Act, which entitles compensation to be paid for improvements which have been made by the crofter or his "predecessors in the same family." This new Clause widens the definition of "predecessor." As far as it refers to the sections of the Crofters' Act of 1886 it is not unreasonable, but, as it is framed, it brings in a much wider circle and might raise difficulties with regard to the position of a statutory small tenant; it might give a claim to a man who has no right to be considered as a smallholder. We desire to secure a small amendment to the Act of 1886 and I hope the Secretary of State will say that he will consider an amendment to that effect being inserted in another place which would make the matter quite clear and effect the purpose in view.

I think we must ask for some reply upon a matter of great legal complexity and upon which I do not profess to be able to give an opinion. This new Clause will affect a large number of interests in Scotland, and there is a difference of opinion as to its interpretation, upon which the promoter of the Bill apparently does not think it proper to reply. It is a matter of national importance and might have far reaching effects. If a mistake is made this House is held responsible. The Lord Advocate, who is responsible for carrying out the law, is present and I think we have a right to ask for some reply from him. If there is a defect, as may be the case from what the right hon. and learned Member for Renfrew East (Mr. MacRobert) has said, I hope the Government will see that the question is discussed in another place by those who are thoroughly conversant with the subject and that some change will be made.

We are advised by our legal advisers that we are on the right lines, but if there is any dubiety in the minds of hon. Members opposite, we will examine the question between now and the Bill going to another place. I am quite willing to give that promise.

Those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to attend and listen to the discussion on this most important Clause are entitled to get a legal answer. I want to know why this complicated new Clause should be added to the Bill. There is a tremendous amount of reference in this Bill. It refers to at least three different Acts and to particular sections in some of those Acts. I should like to know the exact bearing of one or two points in this new Clause to the rest of the Bill. How does this new Clause bear on the case of intestacy, which is most important, and upon which I should like to have a legal definition? We have also a new Clause dealing with the position of the department, and we have, had no explanation as to how the department is going to use this Clause in connection with this Bill and in connection with the Act of 1911. I have heard no reason why this particular provision should be inserted. Then what are the limits of compensation under a further new Clause? Are you increasing the limits or otherwise?

On a point of Order. The hon. Member seems to be traversing other new Clauses which will come up later.

We are dealing with the first new Clause.

I beg pardon, I have rather transgressed and I apologise for having added more than I should have done. However, I welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) because it will enable the Lord Advocate to give me a clear and precise explanation of the points I have raised. This is a most complicated matter and I think we are entitled to a full explanation.

(Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I am sorry that I did not hear fully the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Renfrew East (Mr. MacRobert) as I was unavoidably detained elsewhere. I am not quite clear as to what is the difficulty. As I read the new Clause no difficulty at all arises. What the new Clause does is to give a definition of the expression "predecessors in the same family," which has hitherto been entirely absent from the Landholders Acts. The reasons why it is necessary to give a definition now are obvious. Shortly they are these: We find that in the absence of a definition holdings are passing out of the hands of families when they ought to remain in the hands of families. This Clause has been moved in order that the matter might be taken quite definitely out of the region of controversy. The Clause says:

"'predecessors in the same family' means in relation to a landholder or a cottar the wife or husband of such landholder or cottar …"

Does anyone object to that? Then it goes on:

"and any person to whom such landholder or cottar or the wife or husband of such landholder or cottar might, failing nearer heirs, have succeeded in case of intestacy."

Who objects to it?

Who are they? What degrees?

the hon. Member cannot expect me to give an exposition of the whole law of intestate succession in the course of a Debate. I am not going to take up the time of the House in doing so. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was, I think, on the Scottish Grand Committee when this matter was discussed.

No.

If the hon. Member is really anxious to know, I shall be very glad outside the House to give him the information. In regard to the other points raised, I understand that the difficulty felt on the benches opposite is this: That if you apply this definition generally throughout the Landholders Acts you may confuse or destroy the existing distinction between the smallholder and the statutory small tenant, and I understand that that argument is based upon the language of Section 2 of the small Landholders (Scotland) Act of 1911.

The only point that I want the Lord Advocate to advise the House upon is whether the words of Section 2 of the 1911 Act, Subsection (1), "predecessor in the same family" is covered by the definition, or whether the Lord Advocate is making a distinction? The word there is "predecessor" but in this new Clause the word is "predecessors."

It is true that in this new Clause we use the expression "predecessors in the same family," and that under the Act referred to the expression is "predecessor in the same family." That expression does not matter in the least now, because it only applies as on 1st April, 1912.

The Lord Advocate has missed the point. The statutory small tenant to-day can come forward and say as from the termination of the lease that he held in 1912, that he paid for the greater part of the building, and if he can prove that he has paid for the greater part of the building, he is a landholder as from that date. Many statutory small tenants will be able to go back to 1912 and say "We were landholders in 1912 as we now find that we do conform to this definition which you put into all the Acts retrospectively."

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

The purpose of this Clause is explained by its title. It deals with the right of compensation for permanent improvements when a landholder has removed from or renounced his holding. Where the improvements have been provided by means of a loan from the Department the right to compensation is up to the amount of the loan transferred to the Department. Where the Department has made a loan for the purpose of providing improvements to a landholder who, without renouncing his holding simply abandons it, the right to compensation for the improvements does not emerge, and the amount of the loan is thus lost. The new Clause is designed to enable the Department, where a landholder to whom they have made a loan abandons his holding, to go to the Land Court for an order removing him.

I would thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement of the new Clause, which I support.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that an order from the Department is required to remove a landholder who has already abandoned the holding. If so, it seems rather strange. I would also like further enlightenment on this point. Is its suggestion that the Department, having made a loan to this landholder, cannot recover against the landlord compensation which would have been due to the landholder, unless they get this order for removal. Do I understand that to be the situation? If that is the situation; if the Department are going to have the right to claim against the landlord for compensation, then what is the position of the landlord as against the landholder in regard to the fact that the landholder has abandoned his holding and left it derelict? Is he not to be entitled to retain from the compensation any damage which he has sustained?

I hope the late Lord Advocate will apply his great gifts of analysis and criticism to some of the material points concerning differences in policy which will arise as we proceed with the consideration of this Bill. Shortly, the point with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is seeking to deal by this proposed New Clause is simply this: Under the Act of 1911 the Department has already power to deal with the landholder who is in breach of the ordinary conditions of repayment of loan, but the Department, so far, has no power to deal with the landholder who merely abandons his holding. The Department by this New Clause seeks the right to secure the compensation which would normally be due and to apply that compensation to the repayment of the loan. It is a perfectly simple and easy proposal, and I should have supposed that on this point, at any rate, we should have secured on behalf of the State, the cordial assent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert).

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

This Clause merely provides a time limit within which claims in respect of damage arising out of schemes for the constitution of new holdings must be intimated. It seems reasonable that such claims should be sent in timeously and not unduly delayed. It must be remembered that when compensation has been fixed, the Department may, if they think it makes the cost excessive, abandon the scheme. If, therefore, there is any delay in making claims for compensation the decision whether to proceed with the scheme or not is also held up. The new Clause deals with the point which is of very great importance as far as the Department is concerned.

The proposed new Clause has the support of my colleagues and myself and, if it should be said that the period of 21 days is too short, I would point out that under the new Clause it is left in the power of the Land Court to extend the time if a satisfactory explanation is made, and that seems to afford sufficient protection.

I should like to ask the Government why they ignore the Nairne Report in this matter. On page 79 of the Nairne Report there is a recommendation that there should be a time limit of 40 days. I think the period proposed in the new Clause is too short, but if a satisfactory period were fixed in the Clause, I would have no objection to it. If, however, I do not get an undertaking that the period will be extended to something in the region of that suggested by the Nairne Committee I shall press my objection to the new Clause. The period of 21 days is too short to allow the landlord time to make his claim and while it is true that the Land Court may, if they deem that the circumstances are reasonable, extend the period, that means that the landlord has to make an application to the court which is objectionable. I think in this matter the Government ought to have followed the suggestion of the Nairne Committee made after the fullest inquiry, and while I do not stand out particularly for the 40 days I submit that the Government ought to make some concession as regards the period.

I should like to support my right hon. Friend in this Clause. I am astonished at the statement made by the late Lord Advocate when he adduced the Nairne Report and asked why its recommendation had not been followed. He surely forgets that that Report was made to the Government of which he himself was a member, and that there is not a single thing in that Report which the late Government, during its long term of office, put into effect.

The date of the Nairne Report is 1928.

There was a year.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the long period of office of the late Government, but the Report was only issued in 1928, and he will also remember that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert) was instrumental in getting added to the Bill various new Clauses based on the Nairne Report. When we started the Bill, we might have thought this important representative Committee on Scottish agriculture had never sat. We were proceeding in a pre-war atmosphere, without any regard to the position of agriculture in Scotland now, and it was my right hon. and learned Friend who made use of that very excellent Report. I do not see why the Secretary of State should not accept the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend and extend the period to 40 days.

The right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) seemed to indicate that the Nairne Committee, because it happened to report to the late Administration and was appointed when I was responsible for the office of Secretary of State, was in some way a biased Committee, which was not capable of—

Not at all. I am in the recollection of the House, and that was not the intention of my short speech at all. My intention was to reply to the statement made by the late Lord Advocate that, as this recommendation was in the Nairne Report, it should have been taken into consideration by the Secretary of State for Scotland. All that I said was that the Nairne Committee was appointed by and reported to the late Government, and that not a single thing in that Report, which is now brought forward as being a sort of Bible on land reform in Scotland, was utilised by the late Government.

Of course, I accept the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but the fact remains that the Nairne Committee was not appointed till 1927 and did not report till 1928. Unfortunately, I was not able myself to attend the Committee proceedings on this Bill, but I observe with some interest that a large number of Clauses which have been added to the Bill, altering it materially since it went into Committee, are recommendations which have come from the Nairne Report. The Nairne Committee was a body consisting of members with wide experience of the working of the Land Court, the Farmers' Union, and the Farm Servants' Union, presided over by a very impartial man. This Committee, having gone into the problem, recommended a period of 40 days instead of the 21 days now proposed.

It may appear to many hon. Members that this is a very small matter, but, as one who has in his time been responsible for estate management and knowing the difficulties, particularly in the Highland areas, in dealing with these problems, I am bound to say that I think the Department would be wise to accept the period suggested by the Nairne Committee. I therefore hope the Government may, after consideration, see that it would be of advantage to do so. The real desire is to avoid unnecessary friction, but under the Clause as drafted there would be a requirement on the landlord, if he were dissatisfied, to go to the Land Court, which would then be involved in the onerous and in some ways expensive procedure of having probably to go into the whole problem and investigate matters in order to be quite certain that they were correct. I should have thought, from the point of view of the promoter of the Bill, that it would have been his desire to see that the machinery was made as simple as possible.

I need not remind my right hon. Friend of the importance to the Department of no undue delay taking place in the fixing of compensation, so that the Department may know whether a scheme is to be a costly scheme or otherwise. If there is undue delay, they cannot make up their minds whether or not it is possible to go on with a particular scheme. But I do not want to push that argument to an undue extent, and if hon. and right hon. Members opposite feel that 21 days is too little, I am quite willing to reconsider the period between now and the Bill reaching another place.

Could not the Amendment be put in now? We would not take any objection to it being subsequently taken out if found necessary. We have had agreement by the Government that they will insert a certain period in another place, and I suggest that it would be much more in keeping with the dignity of this House to do it here rather than in another place. We all know that there is a certain prejudice in certain quarters against Amendments made in Bills coming from another place, and we might find that the mere fact that this Amendment had been made in another place, prejudiced hon. Members here against it. Therefore, if the Secretary of State is willing to leave out 21 days and to insert 40 instead, it should be done now, and if it were desirable subsequently, it could be amended in another place. When we have a chance of getting the Bill printed in its new form and sent to the other place with the Amendments in it, it would be to the advantage of procedure and to the consideration of the Bill in another place that the intentions of the Government should be signalised here, rather than in another place, where the Government are not so strongly represented by eminent Scotsmen as they are in this House. May I move the Amendment now?

The hon. and gallant Member cannot move it at this stage.

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not wish to go beyond the stage at which I left the matter. I can assure him that the matter will receive our consideration. Whether we will extend the period as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert) is another matter, but we have said that we will give it our due consideration, and I think the House would be well advised to leave the matter there.

I think that I am prepared to accept what the right hon. Gentleman said—

On a point of Order. Is it in order for a Mover to speak twice on the Report stage?

I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking a question.

In any event, I was not the Mover of anything. Probably, I am technically out of order in speaking again, but I wanted to ask whether it would not be the fact that delay would be caused if a landlord had to go to the Court and ask whether he was justified in going beyond the period of 21 days? It might take months to decide that, and, therefore, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a longer period should be given in the Clause.

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

Section 14 of the Act of 1886 is now quite unnecessary. It is superseded by the provisions contained in the Acts of 1911 and 1919.

My colleagues and I support this Clause. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the provision in the Act of 1886 is now unnecessary, owing to the fact that there are additional powers in the 1911 Act.

I do not quite follow this Clause. Under Section 14 of the Act of 1886, where a tenant has had part of his holding taken away from him, he is entitled to a deduction from rent. I rather gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said that that provision, which in itself is very reasonable, is not now necessary because there is some provision made in the 1911 Act and the 1919 Act for compensation. That may be so, but that is a different thing. The compensation is a lump sum. That may not compensate the tenant for the loss of a great part of his land or leasehold. Supposing he gets a half of his acreage taken away from him, he might prefer to pay only half, or less than half, of his rent than to formulate a claim for compensation. I do not see the necessity for this Clause. I do not see why the right should not be given to that tenant to get his rent diminished as far as the landlord is concerned. Then the tenant in that particular case would not have suffered any damage, and probably would not be entitled to any compensation; but, on the other hand, the landlord then might have a greater amount of damage, and might get compensation for that damage.

This Clause proposes to alter what, I think, is a very reasonable provision in the Act of 1886, to allow the tenant, where part of his leasehold is taken from him, to say, "I want a reduction of rent. I do not want to make any claim for compensation, or anything of that kind." If the landlord has any claim, he can make it in the proper court. Why should the tenant be forced to make a claim and instruct counsel to get compensation? It is much simpler for him to say, "You have taken away so many acres, and I want a reduction of my rent." From the point of view of the tenant, this is not an improvement. It may not affect the landlord at all, but this Clause, which will have the effect of limiting the remedy of the tenant to a claim for damages or compensation, is not one that should be passed. He should be allowed to retain the right which was given to him under the Act of 1886, and, in particular, Section 14 of that Act, and be entitled to say, "I do not wish for compensation, but I do wish that my rent shall be reduced to an amount corresponding to the acreage that has been taken away." Consequently, I do not think that this Clause is an improvement on the Landholders Act at all.

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

This Clause raises a very important matter, and I must apologise for proposing a Clause like this in form, because it says:

"The sub-section which is by section nine of the Act of nineteen hundred and nineteen directed to be substituted for sub-section (10) of section seven of the Act of nineteen hundred and eleven shall be amended by adding the following proviso":—

All that long introduction is necessary, and is caused by the fact that we are getting completely at sea with regard to landholders law in Scotland. We are getting so many amending Acts, that, really, we shall have the greatest difficulty in finding out where we are, and, in particular, I am quite certain that landholders and statutory small tenants will not be able to know what their position is under all the various Acts which have been passed. I think that the reading of these introductory words shows that the position of landholding law in Scotland is in a very bad way, because no person, so far, has taken the trouble to consolidate those Acts. If the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott), who has great knowledge of these matters, wanted to be a benefactor to all landholders and statutory tenants in Scotland—I do not say it would be altogether a friendly act towards his own fraternity, because those Acts, owing to their unintelligibility, give work to many of his profession—he would have turned his attention to this matter. That, however, is not a particularly good reason for thinking that the law should be in the condition in which it is. Accordingly, it would have been desirable to have had a consolidating Act dealing with the Landholders Acts in Scotland, just as we have had an Agricultural Holdings Act consolidating all the Agricultural Holdings Acts in Scotland.

I am sure that this particular Clause will receive the strong support of hon. Members below the Gangway, because it received the strong support of the Liberal party in the Committee upstairs. They thought that the principle which I tried to enunciate upstairs was sound, namely, that no person should be a judge in his own case. At present in the case, for example, of a scheme which is under the Department, the Department who have taken over the land have to pay compensation. That compensation will be determined in large part by the amount of the rent which will be payable by the landholder who is brought into the holding under the scheme. If the rent to be payable by the landholder is very small, the compensation payable to the landlord will be correspondingly great, and accordingly, it is to the interest of the Department, who have to pay the compensation, that they should increase the rent. That is the temptation, and it is no point to say that they will resist the temptation and that the Department will always act fairly. That does not meet my objection. I submit that it is not right to put a Department in the position of being judge in their own case. It is not fair to the Department to put them in the position of having to fix rent, when the fixing of the amount of the rent will decide the amount of compensation to be paid by them.

This question was raised on another Clause upstairs, and I moved, in that particular Clause, that the amount of rent to be paid by the landholder should not be fixed by the Department, but by the Land Court, an independent body. The reason for that Amendment was that both the landlord and the tenant had objection to the amount of rent being fixed by the Department. It works out in this way. Suppose that a rent is fixed at a very high figure to begin with; the compensation is therefore small. The landholder has to pay that big rent for seven years. At the end of the seven years, he can go to the Land Court, which will probably fix a fair rent which may be 20 per cent., 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. less than the rent which was fixed by the Department. The result will be beneficial to the landholder, but he has been paying for the previous seven years a rent much too large. If the rent is reduced at the end of the seven years, that of course will not act against the landholder for the future, but it is grossly unfair to the landlord, because he has, been paid his compensation upon the footing that the rental was, say £50, whereas the Land Court, seven years afterwards say that it should have been only £25. The result is that the Department have got off by paying far less compensation than they ought to have paid.

It is not right to put the Department in that difficult position, and I proposed in Committee, with regard to the particular Clause that was being discussed, that the fixing of the rents should be taken out of the hands of the Department, who are interested parties, and should be placed in the hands of the Land Court. Members of the Liberal party who spoke supported the view which I pressed, but they said, with regard to that particular Clause, that they were not prepared to vote with me, because it would leave the anomaly that, with regard to the schemes which are being brought in by the Department, the amount of rent would be fixed by the Department. Towards the end of the sitting upstairs, I moved a new Clause similar to the one which I am now proposing that we should reform the whole law on the subject. I did that in order that the party below the Gangway could not say, "We agree with you in principle, but we cannot vote with you because you have not gone far enough." So, to make the matter completely right, I have an Amendment later on to alter the particular Clause which deals with the fixing of rent, so that the amount of rent shall not be fixed by the Department, but by the Land Court.

We have in this proposed new Clause introduced a provision which will enact that the Land Court shall fix the amount of rent in all the schemes promoted by the Department. When this matter first came up, the Under-Secretary said that the Government did not regard it as of very serious moment, and he pointed out that there was no evidence that the rents had been fixed unduly high. Then he made what was quite a good point that the Nairne Report found that there was no evidence that the Department had been acting wrongly in the matter, and that they had not been acting unfairly. That is not the point at all, however; it is a question of principle. Is it right to allow the Department to decide the amount of rent, when they are an interested Department? I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and others supported strongly the principle for which I now contend, namely, that an interested party should not be the judge in this matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke in favour of the principle, and I am sure, if he were here to-day, that he would again support it.

In Sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act of 1919 it is provided that in every scheme proposed by the Board they must set forth the rent of each new holding. I have no objection to that. Then certain rights are given to parties who object to the particular scheme, especially to the rents, but the appeal with respect to rent is to the Department. In this new Clause I seek to allow the parties interested who are aggrieved by the decision of the Department with regard to rent to appeal to the Land Court whether the person aggrieved be the landholder or the landlord. Although in one sense the landlord will not object to receiving a bigger rent, yet he will object to receive a bigger rent which is not the true rent, because he will get less compensation, and when the Land Court deals with it hereafter it will be put back to what is the true economic rent.

In Committee the Lord Advocate criticised the phraseology of the Clause I then proposed and there was some justification for that, because that clause provided that if either the landlord or the landholder were dissatisfied with the rent shown in the scheme, he might, within 21 days from the date when he was notified of the confirmation of the scheme, appeal to the Land Court to fix the amount of the rent. The Lord Advocate said there was no duty to notify the landholder of the confirmation of the scheme. That is partly true. Unless the landholder happened to be one of the tenants he would not have notification in the sense of the proposal here. But the landlord will have the notification, so that the Clause is absolutely correct with regard to him, and if there is a landholder who in fact does receive a notice, it will apply to him too. In this particular case, although I do not say it is always the case, the interest of the landlord is exactly in line with the interest of the tenant; both have the same interest in fixing a rent which is not too high, because a rent which was too high would hit the landlord with regard to compensation. The landlord and the landholder have an identical interest to trying to secure a fair rent, and, accordingly, even though the landholder were not in the position to appeal to the Land Court the landlord would be in a position to appeal against the rent being so high, and naturally the landholder would not object to that.

2.0. p.m.

There need be no difficulty about the wording once we are agreed about the principle. I am not standing upon the particular words of this Clause. It may be that instead of saying the appeal shall be made within 21 days from the date when he was notified of the confirmation of the scheme it would be better to say "within 21 days after the entry of the landholder into the holding." In Committee, however, the Lord Advocate said this suggestion was really more absurd than the first. He said the suggestion was that we should allow the scheme to be altered after the entry of the landholder. Why not? If the rent fixed is not a fair rent, why should it not be altered? Landholders Acts have provided for the same thing; after a certain period of years a landholder can have his rent revised. If it can be revised at the end of seven years, why should he not be allowed to ask for it to be revised within 14 or 21 days of his entry into the holding? It may be that the particular principle may require to be expressed in better words than I have used, but if the Government agree to the principle, as hon. Members below the Gangway agree to it, why should not the skilled draftsman of the Government draft a Clause which would give effect to the principle of leaving it to the Land Court to decide? The point will be made that in past times, at least under the Act of 1911, the Land Court did decide these matters, but that by the Act of 1919 the duty was transferred from the Land Court to the Department. We now have had experience of both methods, and it is my submission that the change made under the 1919 Act was no improvement. I do not know what Government was in power in 1919, but I think it was the Coalition Government. However, that does not matter. If we now know what is the correct procedure to adopt let us follow it, and I have no hesitation in submitting that the proper course is to allow the rent to be fixed by this independent body, the Land Court.

The Land Court has been in existence in Scotland for a considerable time, at least since 1886, although in its earlier years it was known under a different name. It is a Court which has given every satisfaction to the agricultural community. Judging from what an hon. Member below the Gangway said, the Department of Agriculture has not always been so successful. However, I am not familiar with the grievances the agricultural community may have against either the Board of Agriculture, as it was in the past, or the present Department of Agriculture, and I do not base my argument on the view that the Department have not done their duty in the past or will not do it in the future. I am sure they will do their duty. My point is this: though a judge who is interested in a matter may give quite a good decision and a fair decision—indeed, may go to the opposite extremes in order to avoid any suspicion that it is not a fair decision—it is not a fair thing to ask any man to be a judge in a matter in which he is interested; and that is the position of the Department in regard to the fixing of these rents. Therefore, I submit that the Clause I am proposing is necessary, and will improve the Bill, and I hope the hon. Members below the gangway will support the principle as they supported it in Committee. If they do that I am sure the Government will not stand out against what is considered to be sound in principle by the two Oppositions and the majority, I am sure, of those on the other side of the House.

Under the original procedure, when a smallholding scheme was brought forward under the Act of 1911, it was provided that the Board should apply to the Land Court to make an order, and that procedure gave the parties the right to appear before the Land Court. That was the old procedure, and the Land Court thereafter determined what was considered to be a fair rent under the Act of 1911. In 1919, it was thought necessary that that procedure should be short-circuited and the 1911 Act was amended. This question is dealt with on page 40 of the Nairne Report in which they point out that

"the main effect of this Amendment was to give the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, acting with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, the power of constituting compulsory schemes for small holdings on privately-owned estates, without the necessity of applying to the Land Court for an order giving effect to the scheme."

It is quite true that one of the Amendments made by the Act of 1919 gave power to the Board of Agriculture to act on their own, and that was regarded as a measure which would expedite land settlement schemes. The procedure has gone on those lines ever since that date, the result being that it has put the Department of Agriculture in the position of being judge in its own cause. The Department of Agriculture fixes the compensation, and also fixes the rent, and, if they fix a high rent, it is obvious that the compensation will be lower. I do not suggest that the procedure is not fair and accurate, but it is the principle which we are contesting, and it is not right that they should have power to fix the rent without the landlord having a, right of appeal to the Land Court. No doubt the Under-Secretary will refer to the passage on page 41 of the Nairne Report which says:

"In connection with this matter the alternative suggestion was made that the 1911 Act procedure should be restored to the extent of reimposing on the Land Court the duty of fixing the first fair rent of each new holding constituted by the Board of Agriculture under a compulsory scheme. In support of this proposal it was suggested that, under the present system by which these rents are fixed by the Board, there is a natural temptation to that Department to fix the fair rents as high as possible with the object of keeping as low as possible the amount which might be claimed by a landlord under the head of compensation for loss sustained by him in consequence of the constitution of the new holdings on his land. The possibility was suggested of these rents being reduced by the Land Court and application being made to them by the holders for revision of the rents at the end of seven years from the date of settlement of the holders. If this were to happen the landlord would suffer a further loss for, which he would not be entitled to claim compensation. No evidence was given before us which would indicate that the Board were, in actual fact, fixing the fair rents in such cases at too high a figure."

It is not right that the Board should have that power without a right of appeal being given to the landlords to go before an impartial tribunal like the Land Court. For this reason, it is proposed in the new Clause that we are discussing that the landlord or the landholder, if he is dissatisfied with the rent which has been fixed,

"May, within 21 days from the date when he was notified of the confirmation of the scheme, appeal to the Land Court to fix the amount of the rent."

That seems to us to be a provision which is fair and right, because the Land Court is a highly skilled body consisting of lawyers and others fully qualified to decide these matters. The procedure under the Act of 1911 gave the parties the right to come before the Land Court with regard to questions of rent. I do not think it is any answer to this argument to say that up to now no dissatisfaction has been expressed with the rents which have been fixed. We do not think it is right that a body like the Board of Agriculture, which fixes the amount of compensation, should be the party to fix the rent without any appeal to some impartial authority. I think the new Clause is one which is founded on equity and ought to be supported.

The Government have considered the New Clause which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed and they have come to the conclusion that it should be resisted upon two grounds. The first ground is that in the view of the Government, it is a retrograde step, because it would go back to the procedure under the Act of 1911 which was altered by the Act of 1919. The second ground upon which the Government think that this Amendment ought not to be accepted is that it is utterly unintelligible, for a reason which I will state in a moment. Under the Act of 1911, when an order for the constitution of a holding was made the procedure under Section 7, Sub-section (10) was that before making such an order the Land Court should give all the parties having an interest in the land an opportunity of being heard.

The substance of the Clause, to put it shortly, is to go back to that procedure, but, when you come to the Land Settlement Act of 1919, you find that, after eight years' experience of working under the Act of 1911, it was deemed advisable to alter the procedure, and the alteration was embodied in Section 9 of the Act of 1919. That explains the rather curious way in which the proposed new Clause runs, referring to the Sub-section which is by Section 9 of the Act of 1919 directed to be substituted for Sub-section 10 of Section 7 of the Act of 1911. It is quite plain that, under the 1911 Act, it was the Land Court. Then, in the Act of 1919, that Section was blotted out by Section 9. The matter dealt with is the same, namely, the constitution of new holdings, and Section 9 of the Act of 1919, provides that:

"When the Board have prepared a scheme under this Section, they shall intimate the prepared scheme to the landlord, tenant and occupier of any land comprised therein, and shall give to such landlord, tenant and occupier an opportunity of considering the scheme and of making representations concerning the same to the Board, and after giving to all persons interested an opportunity of being heard, may with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland make an order confirming the scheme in whole or in part and with or without modification, or may abandon the scheme."

The policy embodied in Section 9 of the Act of 1919 was not the policy of the present Government, at all. In 1919 there was a Coalition Government in power—[Interruption]—and that provision was substituted for the provision in the Act of 1911, because it was found that, if these things were left to the working of the Land Court, the machinery for the constitution of small holdings was clogged, and there were almost interminable appeals; and the view of Parliament in 1919 was undoubtedly that it was very much better that that matter should be left to the Board, as it then was, or to the Department, as it is now, which would exercise its functions as a department in a judicial spirit. It is no doubt true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that theoretically the Department may have an interest in fixing a rent high, so as to keep compensation low; but the important thing is that the Nairne Committee, after very full inquiry, cannot point to a single instance in which the Board or the Department has abused the statutory powers entrusted to it under the Act. Therefore, I do not think that the House should concern itself at all with mere theoretical and academic objections which have no relation to the practical realities of the situation as these have been ascertained during so many years of the working of the Act. This proposal is really a reversion to a discarded procedure, and I hope that the House will not consent to that for a moment.

Then the Clause as proposed is really unintelligible. The proviso reads as follows:

"Provided that, if either the landlord or the landholder is dissatisfied with the rent shown in the scheme, he may within twenty-one days from the date when he was notified of the confirmation of the scheme appeal to the Land Court to fix the amount of the rent."

That is unintelligible for this reason, that, at the date when the scheme is framed, and at the date when the confirmation is made by the Department, the landholder is not there; he is not in existence. How, then, can the landholder make representations when there is no landholder there? The position is that the landholder receives no notification of the confirmation of the scheme, because he does not exist. It is only after the scheme is framed and the procedure carried through and the confirmation made that you get a landholder at all, when negotiations take place and he agrees to come into the holding at a specific rent before he is accepted as a landholder. I submit, therefore, that the Clause would never do as it stands, because it assumes the existence of a person who does not exist at the time. Apart from that, I ask the House to reject the Clause upon the broad ground that to go back to the Act of 1911 would be to clog the whole machinery applicable to the constitution of new holdings, by setting up opportunities for appeal to the Land Court and so on, which would inevitably involve delay, and delay is the one thing that the Government are anxious to avoid in this vitally important matter.

I observe that in Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) took the line very strongly that the Land Court is the right authority to fix the rent in the case of new holdings, as well as in the case which was under consideration. The Lord Advocate has spoken about the practical working of this method of dealing with the problem. May I say, in regard to that, that I have had during the last four and a-half years the responsibility of dealing to some extent with the practical side of these problems? I am quite aware that, obviously, the Department of Agriculture would desire, in the great majority of cases, to have a free hand to settle these problems, and that there is a certain dislike on the part of any Department administering a problem of this kind to see itself subjected to another body, even though it be a body of such high repute and standing as the Land Court. But if I have to descend to the problem of dealing practically with this matter, all that I can say to the House is that I found evidence that there would be considerable anxiety, to put it no higher, on the part not only of the landlords but of the holders who were going to have adjudication upon these matters, if it were left entirely to the Department of Agriculture, and if there were no appeal whatever to another tribunal—if the only appeal were to the original Department which had fixed the rent.

This is not a question of such small importance as it might seem to be. After all, the Department of Agriculture is, in the main, occupied with administrative duties. It is quite true that there are attached to the Department certain individuals in charge of districts, and that the Department must rely upon their advice or call into consultation with them certain gentlemen appointed as assessors upon whose judgment it would rely. Upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State lies the responsibility of accepting or rejecting the decision the Department has made. It is absurd to suppose that he can, except in the abstract, make any decision that is worth anything on a problem of this kind. On the contrary, the Land Court is the body that has been entrusted by Parliament with the specific duties. It has attached to it those who are knowledgeable in this matter and it is their daily task to decide them. When I had such a case of great difficulty in a portion of the Highlands where a new scheme was being settled, where it was brought to my attention that there was this anxiety, I overruled the then Board and submitted the problem to the Land Court. The result was eminently satisfactory.

In our efforts to deal with this problem, we are not taking away from the Department the initial right to fix what in their judgment is a fair and a proper rent. All of us who have been entrusted from time to time with carrying out the dictation of this House in making land settlements have been faced with the obvious reluctance of certain people to see schemes carried out because of their fear that they are not going to be fairly treated. My view is that that can be obviated and overcome by making use of machinery which through the course of years, whatever suspicion may have been entertained of it in the first instance, has gained the confidence of everyone as to its impartiality and its ability to carry out these duties. On the broad principle there can be no doubt that there ought to be an appeal, and on the practical side I can conceive of nobody that is more likely to be correct and proper in its decisions than the Land Court, and I do not believe that whoever holds the office of Secretary of State, or whoever is head of the Department of Agriculture, could question for a moment the proper method of dealing with this problem. I hope that, if the Government cannot even now accept this suggestion, they will be prepared to do so at a later stage.

I attach the very greatest importance to this Clause, and I should like to add this consideration to my right hon. Friend's arguments. I do not pretend that I am a friend of the system of starting schemes for small holdings on land owned by private landowners rather than upon land bought and owned by the Department, but we have to assume that schemes will be started in the future, as in the past, on land of which private owners remain the proprietors. That being so, it appears to me to be of very great importance that the final fixing of the rent and the final settlement as between the owner of the land and the smallholders who are going to be settled on it by the Board of Agriculture, should be done by some outside body and not by the Department, so that it should not be the judge in its own cause. So long as this method of land settlement continues, I attach very great importance to the relations betwen private landowners and the Department being as good as possible. Unquestionably you finally get rid of what has been an element of suspicion on the part of private landowners when they know that the rents will be fixed by an outside body, and that a judicial tribunal.

I have done my best to support, as I think it deserves support, the policy of the old Board, now the Department of Agriculture. It is notorious that there has been a certain amount of suspicion, and I think in many cases a, certain amount of quite unjustifiable criticism, of both the Board and the Department, but I feel most strongly that the statesmanlike course is to remove these grounds of suspicion and, if this method of land settlement is going to continue, it is our duty to see that we get rid of whatever impediments, hindrances and grounds of suspicion there are, and this is by far the greatest. Further, it cannot as a general principle be regarded as sound that one of the parties to the matter should be the final fixer of the rents.

I think the adoption of this Amendment would reduce the suspicion between private landowners and the Department, but there is another ground of suspicion with regard to the Department of Agriculture in its capacity as the administrative party that carries out land settlement. Land settlement in Scotland is not done by the county councils, as here, but by the Department of Agriculture alone. It is also of great importance that the Department should have the confidence of the smallholders themselves. There has been a great deal of suspicion, in most cases unjustifiable, between smallholders and the Department. You will remove that suspicion, or reduce it to a, minimum, if the final rent which the smallholder has to pay is not fixed by the Department which settles it but by an outside body altogether. The present system gives the smallholder quite a justifiable excuse for feeling suspicion, and it is of great importance that that suspicion should be reduced to a minimum.

The third ground of suspicion at present existing between smallholders and the Department is the question of the rent, and financial questions generally. I am satisfied that, if the final rent is fixed by an outside body, that suspicion will be brought to an end. This is one of those vital practical matters which you must keep in view if land settlement is going to be a success. If you have suspicion between the holders and the Department, it is going to be interfered with at every stage. I should regret extremely if the Secretary of State were to persist in his present view of not accepting the Amendment. Surely on these facts, support should come from the promoters of the Bill, for it was the Liberal party which created Land Courts. [Interruption.] And a lot of other things.

Good things too.

Among those good things are Land Courts. It is a curious paradox, having brought Land Courts into existence and having supported the principle in the days of unpopularity, that now the Land Court has at last gained general approval and confidence in Scotland as the appropriate legal tribunal for carrying out this independent legal work, they turn their backs upon it and disown the child which, in the face of much opposition, they brought into legislative existence. I urge the promoter of the Bill to think twice before he casts, by implication, this aspersion upon Land Courts. The Department of Agriculture, in the matter of land, should not be the final judge, and for that reason, above all others, I support the Amendment.

Surely the promoter of the Bill will make some reply on this Debate, in view of the eloquent speeches which were made on the question upstairs. The discussion upstairs was led by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who not only supported this general view, but who, I remember well, fell into an acute controversy with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who observed in the dialect which he knows so well, "If ye dinna' want tae be shot, dinna' gang amang the craws." The promoter of the Bill ought certainly to indicate whether he is going to support the attitude of the hon. Baronet, who was leading his party on that occasion, or whether he is going to abandon his party? If he is going to abandon them, what is his reason for so doing? I understand that there are other points later on in the Bill in regard to which he is willing to abandon the position he took up on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Let us have an explanation of this change of heart now? Is the party below the Gangway abandoning the proposal which the hon. Member then supported, that the Land Court should be brought into operation, and that the Department should not be judge in its own Court? Those of us who supported that view then brought forward certain arguments, and the Lord Advocate said that if the new Clause were accepted, the compensation to the landlord could not be settled until after the scheme was in operation, and that would mean that the Department could not exercise its existing right to abandon a scheme where the compensation awarded makes it undesirable to proceed. That seems to bring up certain points as to why the Department desires to be judge in its own court. It rather strengthens our argument than otherwise. A judge who can withdraw from an action or decide it in his own favour, if there is any danger of the jury giving a verdict in the other direction, is a very awkward judge with whom to deal. Surely the justice of the case commended itself to hon. Members below the Gangway on the Committee stage. The arguments for it have been traversed on the Report stage, and we are entitled to ask why they have changed their view and whether it is not possible to ask for some support from the promoters of the Bill. At an earlier stage, I fell out of order for trying to lead on my own Bill, and I Should be sorry if the example which I set should lead the promoter of the Bill into complete silence.

I think the House is entitled to have an answer from the promoter of the Bill as to his position. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that there was a defect in the Clause. He stated that the landlord did not exist apparently. He was indulging in a wide stretch of imagination almost verging on inaccuracy on that occasion. We desire to try and get this Bill through at the earliest possible moment, but I think we are entitled to an explanation why the promoters are against this Clause which seeks to remove some of the gravest injustices and to clarify the Bill and, which will, on the whole, be of great advantage.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.

Hon. Members who remember the Bill when it was introduced on Second reading will not recognise this Clause. As originally introduced it proposed to make all statutory small tenants, landholders. holders. In Committee the Government put forward an alternative to the effect that every statutory small tenant shall have the option to become a landholder if he chooses. They have given an option on one side. That is not fair, but nevertheless, that is the proposal of the Government. They were satisfied that it was not right to make every small tenant a landholder, knowing that many of them would be unwilling to become landholders, and, accordingly, they have sought a compromise, which is to give an option to a statutory small tenant to become a landholder if he chooses. The Clause as originally drafted gave a statutory small tenant the right, once and for all, to exercise this option, but the Government have now gone much further. They are apparently prepared by Amendment to meet the Liberal party and provide that every statutory small tenant for all time and at any time shall have the right to exercise this option. That was the suggestion made in Committee by the Liberal party but it did not receive any support from the Government at that time. Now apparently it is to receive their support.

We on this side are entirely in favour of small holdings, but we take a different view as to the means of effecting that result. There is no evidence at all before the House that statutory small tenants wish to become landholders. The Clause, as drafted now, has received no support. No statutory small tenant has asked any party or the Government to make them all landholders compulsorily; they have never asked the Government to give them this option. I wonder if statutory small tenants know exactly their rights under various Acts. I have often referred to the number of landholding Acts and pointed out the desirability of a Consolidation Act, because no person, not even a lawyer, can understand these various Acts unless he is prepared to spend weeks on weeks in perusing them. Do statutory small tenants realise that the proposal of the Liberal party is that they shall have imposed upon them the burden of the maintenance and upkeep of buildings upon their holdings? If that point was put by hon. Members below the Gangway to any meeting of small tenants I am sure that no statutory small tenant would say that he desired to take upon himself the burden of the maintenance and upkeep of farm buildings for which at the present time the landlord is responsible.

In particular, they would not have desired that change if they had also been told that if the landlord did not equip the holding properly and maintain the buildings and permanent improvements properly, the statutory small tenant had the right to go to the landlord and ask to become a landholder. That has been forgotten. There is no hardship at all upon the statutory small tenant at the present moment. I remember that the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) on one occasion suggested that what was taking place with the statutory small tenants was that they had provided many buildings and permanent improvements and were not entitled to get compensation for them because they did not belong to them. That is not according to the facts. The statutory small tenants in Scotland have not spent money, in the Lowland country in particular, in equipping the farms and making permanent improvement. They leave that to the landlord, knowing full well that it is the landlord's duty to do so. Accordingly the suggestion that at the present time the statutory small tenants are labouring under any hardship is not correct. The proof of that is that there are no complaints made by tenants.

Although I represent a county constituency I have never received a single letter from any of my constituents with regard to this Bill—certainly no suggestion by any statutory small tenants that they are desirous of becoming landholders. There is absolutely no demand for it, as far as I know. I have never been asked a question in all my Parliamentary life about this so-called grievance of the Statutory small tenant. There is really no hardship at all at the present time upon any of these Statutory small tenants. I reminded the House on a previous occasion that Statutory small tenants as well as agricultural tenants have certain rights conferred on them by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923. Under that Act they are entitled to take away any buildings or permanent improvements that they make. At any rate they can prevent the landlord from getting them. Some of the things would not be of much value if taken away. They are mostly sensible landlords in Scotland, and no sensible landlord would ever allow the buildings which were of value to him and his holdings to go away without making a reasonable offer for them. Accordingly, that point also fails.

The other point was that if you give these statutory small tenants, particularly in the South of Scotland, power to become landholders, they are then to be liable for the maintenance and upkeep of their buildings, although they are not owners of them in any sense. Take the case of the crofting counties. Although technically, in a legal sense, certain buildings were the property of the landlord, nevertheless, they were not provided by the landlord, and that was the reason for the Crofting Acts. The position in the Highlands was that the crofter, or the predecessors in his family, had provided certain buildings and permanent improvements on the croft and although technically these were the property of the landlord, nevertheless, he had not paid for them, and, in that particular case, the crofter did become a landholder and he really was maintaining and upkeeping that for which, at the end of the period he would be entitled to receive compensation. Although, technically, he was not the owner, he had a very real interest in seeing that the property was properly maintained.

What is the position regarding the statutory small tenant? He has not provided the greater part of the buildings and permanent improvements. Indeed in the South of Scotland he practically provides none of them. But you are going to make him a landholder if he chooses, and then you are going to hand over to him the maintenance and upkeep of property which is really the landlord's. The landlord having paid for it is the real owner as well as the technical owner. You are going to hand that property over to the landholder. [An HON. MEMBER "If he wants it!"] There may be some who do want it, though we think there will not be very many. Then look at the result. That statutory small tenant is going to be charged with the whole cost of the maintenance and upkeep of the permanent building and improvements, and he has no interest in that upkeep, because he is not in any sense the proprietor, nor is he going to be paid compensation for it. Thus his position differs entirely from the position of the landholder.

In other words, you are going to give statutory small tenants the right to become landholders, although as a matter of fact they are quite distinct classes. In Scotland at present, landholders are a distinct class. One can understand why this should be the case, because they have paid for most of the buildings on their own holdings and at the end of the period they are entitled to full compensation from the landlord when they vacate the holdings. That is very different from the position of the statutory small tenant who, in nearly all cases, has provided no part of the buildings or the permanent improvements and who will be in this position, that although he has no interest in the property his duty is to maintain it. It is quite true that if he fails to maintain the buildings and improvements properly there may be at the end of the period a question of compensation to the landlord. That compensation is fixed under the Act and is, limited, and indeed whether the landlord will get compensation or not is another matter, but I am not going into that now.

The point I am making at present is that you are going to have a kind of dual ownership with regard to the property and the permanent improvements. You are going to ask a man who has no interest in doings so to maintain and upkeep certain property and improvements, while at the same time the proprietor has no right to interfere. It is not his business to say that he wants this or that done to the property and the statutory small tenant who becomes a landholder can prevent him doing anything. Therefore, you are going to get this extraordinarily anomalous result. Reference has been made more than once to the Nairne Report. The Nairne Committee was a very representative body, and one of its members was a Socialist. It says, in paragraph 62 of its Report:

"Careful consideration of all the circumstances set forth in the foregoing paragraphs has led us to the conclusion that the creation by the State of small holdings should be discontinued on privately-owned estates in the Lowlands and in other districts in Scotland where conditions are akin to those of the Lowlands."

Then it goes on:

"We are of opinion that the experiment initiated by the Act of 1911 of extending crofting tenure to the Lowlands has not been a success. From the point of view both of landlords and of tenants the system of settlement has proved, when applied to Lowland conditions, to contain defects, the results of which become more apparent as times goes on."

I think the Farm Workers' Union representative signed that Report.

Is it not true that we took exception to the composition of that Committee when it was formed?

I did not know that that was so. I should have thought the Committee was a representative Committee, but if the position is put that it was not, I must say I should have thought that if the Secretary of the Union of Farm Workers in Scotland was not representative of the farm workers, I do not know who you could have got.

The present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, myself, and others took exception to the Committee, particularly because the gentleman to whom the right hon. and learned Member has referred as being highly esteemed is not an enthusiast for the idea of small holdings.

I see. The hon. Member would have desired that the Committee should have contained only those who took his own view. I should have thought that to exclude this gentleman because he had strong views on—

We protested against that Committee, and I would not have intervened if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not said that it would be a Committee of which we would approve, because there was a Socialist on it.

I do not know the gentleman personally, nor do I know his views, but he must have some views, and the fact that he has views in favour of views which I hold surely should not be used as a point against him. On our side of the House anyhow, it seems to be in his favour that he has taken such a sensible view, and the fact, if it be a fact that he has indicated the same views previously is no reason why they should be urged against him, if they were honestly held by a man who ought to know more of what is necessary for the agricultural workers in Scotland than any other person. I should have thought he would be a person whose opinion would have been of great weight. I am not personally familiar with any of the Members of the Nairne Committee, nor did I know that the hon. Member opposite had objected to the composition of the Committee, but no doubt some of my hon. Friends may be able to deal with that point.

The point I am making is that this Committee, which heard evidence and made full inquiries, came to the deliberate conclusion that this system is not a success in the Lowlands of Scotland, and that is what we, on this side, anticipated. Landholding is not suitable to holdings in the south in the same way as it is in the north. My submission is that the original Clause was admittedly bad, and I am very glad that the Government took the same view as we did on this matter, that the original Clause forcing every statutory small tenant to become a landholder, would not do. I think that the Government deserve some credit for resisting that demand from the Liberal party. It was quite out of harmony with the desire of the people of Scotland. A compromise has been tried, but I am not at all sure that compromises are always good things. I think that they have come forward with a half-hearted compromise, and it is no doubt true that that halfhearted compromise in the Bill is going to be extended a little towards the Liberal views. I do not know why, but that is so.

Why not?

I say that the Government's first thoughts were better than the latter. Clause 2 in the original Bill was absolutely bad. It has disappeared, and we have now got something that the promoters of the Bill did not ask for and resisted at the time; but no doubt they are quite prepared to take it now from the Government. I am surprised that they departed from their original position, that every statutory tenant should become a small landholder. I am not in the least surprised that they are prepared to accept the Clause as proposed by the Government, and, no doubt, they will accept all the Amendments that the Government have proposed to the Clause.

In conclusion, I would say that, despite what the Lord Advocate said with regard to a previous Clause, I am not at all sure that the first Clause brought forward by the Government this morning, and which has been added to the Bill, has not altered the whole position of the law with regard to statutory small tenants and landholders, and that that question will have to be solved in the Law Courts sooner or later, because it seems to me that the statutory small tenant, as fixed by the Act of 1911, has been quite transformed by the Clause which has been inserted in the Bill. Therefore, on the whole matter, I move the rejection of this Clause, which is not the original proposal in the Bill but a kind of compromise thrown to the Liberal party, and, being a compromise, I am surprised at their taking it. The compromise is nearly as bad as the Clause in the original Bill, but both seem to me to be bad.

I would like the House to resist the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) made a personal reference to me on my return to the House, but I could have wished that he and his Friends had celebrated that event in a different way. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had the advantage of me on the Order Paper to-day. He had his Milk Bill first on the Paper, and, having been successful with some difficulty—the difficulty having arisen entirely among his own friends—in securing the passage of his Measure, he proceeds on his own account, and by inciting his Friends, to spend the rest of the short hours that we have this afternoon in doing his utmost to destroy our Bill, which is conceived and designed to confer real and lasting benefit upon a large class of landholders in Scotland. The Tory party have never ceased from the day when this Bill was introduced from calling it a mischievous Measure. The virulent opposition which the Tory party have given to the Bill right through the Committee stage, and which they have consistently shown in the Debate to-day, is the best compliment that the Bill could have got.

The proposed new Clause which they submitted is the best illustration of that. By it they seek to turn back the hands of the clock and to go back to a procedure which was discarded some 11 years ago. That is the true type of reactionary Tory proposal. The late Lord Advocate spent 25 minutes in supporting a proposal to delete one Clause of the Bill, and supported it by a rigmarole—for it is no other—of mis-statements of law and misstatements of facts in Scotland—[Interruption.]

I am waiting to hear proof of the hon. Gentleman's statement.

I am going to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman proof. I say that he has given a rigmarole of mis-statements of fact and law, and I strongly advise my Friends on the opposite Benches, to whom most of his remarks were addressed, that they should accept with great reserve any statements that he has made. For example, with regard to the Clause what he wishes to have deleted from the Bill, he has entirely misrepresented the position of the statutory small tenants. I happen to know a great deal more about them than he does. I am not surprised to hear that he has received no complaints from statutory small tenants in his constituency. They know better than to go to him. They would get very short shrift. I have been in close personal touch not with one statutory small tenant but with hundreds of statutory small tenants, and not for one year but for the last 20 years, and when I give the right hon. Gentleman my personal assurance that I know that the reform sought in this Bill is demanded by statutory small tenants, I ask him to accept that assurance as having a little weight. If statutory small tenants do not wish for this reform, why have there been no protests from them since the Bill was introduced? It has been in the public eye and in the public prints for a long time. On the contrary, there have been expressions of approval of the Measure. [Interruption.] I have received many; naturally they would not go to my right hon. Friend.

But I wish to go into the merits of this Clause. The statutory small tenancy was first introduced in another place. When the Bill of 1911 was introduced by the Liberal party there was only one—and there was intended to be only one—class of smallholders, and they were all to be landholders. It was from the House of Lords that the statutory small tenancy emanated—a purely arbitrary creation, inserted for one purpose only, and that was that the landlords of Scotland might be able to appropriate to themselves the permanent improvements made by landholders who were in the unfortunate position of not being able to prove to the satisfaction of the Land Court that the value of their improvements exceeded one-half of the total improvements on the holdings. A man who had created permanent improvements to the value of £249 19s. 11d. on his holding would get not a penny of compensation for them from his landlord, whereas a man who was able to prove that he had expended £250 0s. 1d. on permanent improvement was entitled to full compensation. What my right hon. Friend, speaking on behalf of the landlords of Scotland, as I know he does, wants to do, is to retain this iniquitous right of landowners to appropriate to themselves permanent improvements to which they have not a shadow of legal title. The object of this Clause is to entitle statutory small tenants to receive compensation for any permanent improvements which they have put on their holdings. There is no injustice to the right hon. Gentleman's friends. It is not proposed to take a single penny of the value of permanent improvements from the landowners. Whatever improvements have been made by the tenant the tenant will get; whatever improvements have been made by the landlord the landlord will retain. Could anything be more just than that?

The right hon. Gentleman has taunted me with being willing to accept in this Clause less than I had proposed in my original Bill. I see nothing dishonourable in that, nor is there so much difference between the Government's proposal and the one in the original Bill. Some representations were made to the Scottish Office by certain statutory tenants who said they did not want to become landholders. I make my right hon. Friend a present of that information. Accordingly, the Government thought it would be better to make the proposal optional, as they have done. May I remind the House of the exact position. Under my proposal in the original Bill it would not have been necessary or compulsory upon any statutory small tenant to come forward and claim to be a landholder. The position to-day under this Clause is that the tenant must send a notice to his landlord that he means to claim compensation and that is the only difference. I for one shall advise my colleagues to accept this Clause.

There are such a large number of Amendments on the Paper that it does not require much foresight to see that this Bill will not pass to-day, and the reason for that is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert) and his friends have been reiterating their arguments in order to kill time. That is not a particularly creditable performance. In the past, the whole struggle in regard to this kind of legislation has been to obtain security of tenure for the smallholder, and that has been the principal object of the various Bills which have been introduced. The entire struggle in Scotland has been one against landlordism, and an attempt on behalf of the small land user to obtain for him security of tenure.

Hon. Members, speaking from the Opposition side of the House, have stated, in discussing this particular point, that no well-disposed landowner would ever allow a small tenant to give up his tenancy without treating him fairly, and the landowner would never think of appropriating a tenant's improvements without showing some consideration for that tenant. That may be true, but I think hon. Members opposite will readily admit that that is not obligatory on the landowner, and that he is not legally bound to advance any compensation to the tenant at all. If he does pay any compensation under the present law, it is purely a matter of his good nature. I am not myself wildly enthusiastic about this Measure, but, at any rate, it is a step in the right direction, and it gives statutory power to the tenant to claim compensation for his improvements.

I am not going to say that all the land owners of to-day are like the landowners we read about in history, but I think it is always safer, and is a good Scottish attitude, to see that Acts of Parliament give to the tenant full power to exact from the landowner the value of any improvements that he has effected. I desire to emphasize what I said at the beginning about the attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, not only to-day, but all through the Committee stage, and I think it would be well that the country should appreciate chat has happened. Weeks have been spent on the Committee stage of this Bill. Public money has been spent on publishing the Reports, and valuable time has been spent. I am quite prepared to admit that in the original drafting of the Bill much was left that might have been better done, but, after all this time and money has been spent in getting the Bill to this point, we have this factious blocking of the Bill to-day. I am hoping that there is a time not coming when the nation will discredit this House, but I cannot watch what is going on in this House from time to time—[Interruption.] There is laughter when serious propositions are put before the House, but there are people outside who will begin to ask whether this is a serious Chamber of administration or a collection of buffoons. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can go on laughing.

Why is this stupid blocking of a Bill taking place? My right hon. and learned Friend opposite knows perfectly well that, if the question went to the vote now, he would be defeated. It may be what is called Parliamentary tactics, but I hope that Scottish Members of the House will take back the message on Monday that this Bill has met its fate to-day at the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, and that the Scottish smallholders will now be left where they were, in the hands of benign and beneficent governments of landowners. Let me say to my hon. Friends who are supporting this Bill that I am sorry that they are not going to get the Bill to-day, but I wish that they would be more Radical. [Interruption.] My recollection of these fights in Scotland is that in the old days a different attitude was adopted towards these matters from that which is being adopted now. People did not hope to circumvent the powers of superior landowners by devious methods of this kind; they had a very blunt and direct method of dealing with the whole matter. Let me emphasise something that was said in this House years ago, when the 1909 Bill was fought in this Chamber, by an illustrious Lord Advocate. He said then that it would be far better if the user of the land were allowed to use all the money he had, all the capital he had, by putting it into his land to develop it, rather than using it to buy out the landowner in order that he might have the right to become a landowner in turn himself.

I can see that there is straining at the leash on the other side, that the army of blockers are preparing to continue their blocking. This Bill will meet with a desperate fate. It will be another example of the difficulty of passing through this House any Measure of alleviation and giving back the land to the honest user of it. I am not commending any Act of Parliament which is going to impose on any landlord an army of smallholders who will become a nuisance on the estate, but to-day we are witnessing the difficulty of opening up the land of the country to the uses—[A laugh.] I cannot understand that insane laughter. It seems to be the hon. Member's only contribution. He is newly here, and is asserting himself, not by making any serious contribution to the Debate, but by a stupid and inane guffaw. I hope that that will be recorded in his constituency when he goes there to-morrow. We are witnessing to-day the effect of trying to open up the use of the land with security of tenure, at a time when unemployment is overshadowing the country and we want to do something to settle people on the land, to give men the opportunity of getting off the streets of the cities and back to the usage of the land.

If I were sitting on the Tory Benches, I could vote for this Bill with absolute equanimity. There is nothing to challenge the vested interests of the landowner. It is so innocent, but yet you are maintaining this blocking method to kill it. I hope the Government will adopt it before long and put it through the House. Let us hope also that in the near future another Bill will be introduced, more drastic, which has little regard to the vested interests of historic landlords and every regard for the man who is prepared to use the land rather than continue to be the parasite of society. I hope they will bring in a Bill which will open up the land of Scotland to the people who will use it and will despoil those who have had historic rights over it for so long.

I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member's closing remarks. There is nothing more desirable and necessary than opening up the land to people who will cultivate it, but if he had read and studied the Bill—