I beg to move, "that this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Lloyd George—[Laughter]—I am very sorry that, owing to a message which I have just received from the right hon. Gentleman in respect of one of these Amendments, I was led to speak of him. Perhaps it will be convenient if I am allowed to make a general statement upon these Amendments for the information of the House, so that we can get a better view generally of the position as it stands. The first Amendment on the Paper relates to the omission by the House of Lords of the whole of Part I. Part I consisted of three main provisions, with two supplementary Clauses. The first main provision was that proposing the establishment of the large-scale farms in Clause 1; the second was the proposal for the establishment of demonstration farms for special purposes in Clause 2; and the third Clause was one whereby we should be able to take land which needed reconditioning and recondition it or, in the case of badly neglected land, to take it, if necessary, by compulsion. The other two Clauses in Part I were just business Clauses relating to those that had gone before. Those five Clauses constituted the first part of the Bill, and I am proposing in the first Motion on the Order Paper that we should disagree with the Lords Amendment and reinsert Part I, and then I should propose some Amendments on certain of the Clauses which constituted Part I.

If I can confine my attention at the moment to this group of Clauses, the first proposal—that for the establishment of the large-scale farm under a corporation—was the one that was discussed at greatest length in the House of Lords, and the discussion was, to my mind at all events, very largely apart from the main purpose of the proposal. If hon. Members will refresh their minds as to what took place there, they will see that a large part of the objection which was raised to the Clause in the House of Lords was based upon my own personal record that I was alleged to have been a very extravagant person—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Lloyd George?"]—quite erroneously, and it was felt that I might commit the country to all kinds of impossible proposals. The whole of that must have been either prejudiced, or expressed by people who had not carefully studied the Clause, because, as a matter of fact, it is not proposed that the Minister should run these farms at all.

It is a proposal that we should set up a business corporation of the most expert men we can find and that we should ask them to do this invaluable work. Therefore, the whole of the criticism of the Clause, so far as the record of the present Minister is concerned, was entirely beside the point. It will be no more an opportunity to the present Minister than it would be to say that the Minister of Transport should operate the Electricity Act. I am convinced that this most valuable proposal should be a part of the assistance which the State aims at giving agricultural development. The whole criticism in regard to the denudation of the country is also beside the point, because it has been proved beyond dispute in many cases that modern enterprise and modern methods do not in fact mean less labour but much more labour on the land. They mean a greater number of head of stock and much more work done in connection with them.

The next Clause was dealt with very summarily and was rejected almost without discussion. It has emerged that there was some considerable misunderstanding in regard to the demonstration farms, and I believe that the Amendment that I have put on the Order Paper will suffice to dispel that misunderstanding. The proposal is, that we should associate with export persons, farmers and others, in establishing demonstration farms, fruit farms, dairy farms, chicken farms and so on, where we shall make available by demonstration the conduct of up-to-date and proved successful methods to agriculturists generally, on an economic basis. These farms were not intended to be teaching institutions, but to multiply the examples in the country where, by demonstration, the proved methods of up-to-date farming were found to be successful. The size of the demonstration farms was never intended to be large, but there is a case in our mind, in Wales, where it is very important that the Bangor Institute should be able to carry on a very promising scheme on grass lands. Therefore, I am defining the acreage. The Amendments which I have put down are intended to help limit the demonstration farms to 250 acres, or to an annual value not exceeding £250. Of course, in the case of grass lands and hillside experiments the value per acre is smaller.

Clause 3, which deals with reconditioning and reclamation, was not rejected by the other House on its merits. It was rejected because it was tied up with Clauses 1 and 2 and because it was thought that if it were left in the Bill and the others were rejected, House of Commons privilege would be involved and therefore the whole of Part I would automatically be reinstated. I am advised, from such advice as I can obtain, that that was a misapprehension. However, we will put that on one side and deal with the cases on their merits. It is manifest that there is an urgent need for the power that is embodied in Clause 3 for the reconditioning and reclamation of grossly neglected lands. That was admitted in the Committee stage in the other House and the Clause was passed through the Committee stage with various Amendments. Some of the Amendments were manifestly improvements and raised no point of principle. There were, however, two Amendments which clearly would make the Clause inoperative, and which we cannot accept.

If hon. Members will turn to the top of page 5 of the House of Commons Bill, 43, they will see in Sub-section (3) certain proposals as to what is to be done with regard to inspection. That was so altered in the other House that the action would have depended upon the report of the inspector and he would have been the final judge and not the Minister, who is responsible to this House. That, clearly, is quite impossible. It would also mean that the inspector's report might be made a public document. Everybody who is in charge of a department knows that the value of an inspector's report resides very largely in the fact that it is a private document, and that the Minister decides on the merits or demerits of the report. I do not think those considerations were understood. It would make the Clause unworkable, and I propose to ask the House to disagree with it.

The other vital Amendment to Clause 3 was inserted at the bottom of page 6, paragraph (c). Words were there inserted:

"having regard in particular to the costs of the works of maintenance and to the return that may be expected from that expenditure."

This Sub-section relates to arbitration. It is evident when we look at the words inserted that the return expected is a condition which the arbitrator would have to take into account. That would be an instruction to the arbitrator to assess the ultimate return, before he could approve a scheme. That would mean that the worse the neglect, the more difficult it would be to acquire the land. If a place had been so dreadfully neglected—we know one or two cases—that the whole of the fences had been broken down and the whole place had become dilapidated, the more it would cost to put it in order and therefore the more difficult it would be to prove that you were going to get an economic return for your expenditure. In other words, it is quite clear that if we accepted that Amendment it would stultify, or it might easily stultify, the whole operation of the Sub-section in the worst cases. Therefore, we cannot accept those words. It is quite fair to say that in cases that go to arbitration we should not put in any unreasonable charge. We should not spend more in putting the fences and walls in order than we ought fairly to spend. However, that ingredient of the criticism is well founded, and I propose to meet it by inserting words which would make the paragraph read:

"any requirements of the notice would involve unreasonable expense or are otherwise unreasonable."

That is to say, we are not expected to incur unnecessarily extravagant charges for putting things right. Apart from that consideration, the proposals of their Lordships' House were quite unacceptable and would make the Clause unworkable.

Who is to determine what is unreasonable expense in this connection?

That is set out in the proposal of the notice and that is a point on which we could claim arbitration. I am advised that the word "unreasonable" as it now stands would probably take that consideration into account. It always does so in arbitration. The arbitrator in considering whether any demand was unreasonable would naturally look at that class of consideration and determine whether or not it was reasonable. I am advised that that is a consideration that is always taken into account. In order to make it plain, I propose to insert the words which I have mentioned. Clauses 4 and 5 stand.

I come now to the Amendments to Part II of the Bill. They are really destructive of the scheme. The first appears in Clause 6, where their Lordships have inserted an Amendment which gives a county council a power of veto upon our operations. The Clause gives power to the Minister to provide smallholdings for unemployed persons, and a subsequent Clause gives the same power in respect of agricultural workers. These conditions are not altered, but their lordships have attached a condition to the effect that the whole operation of the Clause shall be conditional upon the consent of the county council of the county in which it is proposed to operate. That is a proposal that we cannot possibly accept. Their Lordships' Amendment is to this effect:

"Provided that no holding shall be provided under this section unless the council of the county report to the Minister in writing in respect of each holding that a person possessing in the opinion of the Minister the qualifications mentioned."

I propose to ask the House to disagree with that Amendment. It would make the Bill quite unworkable if this provision was subject to the veto of a county council; and I say that with no disrespect to county councils.

On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and for some information. The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with Part II of the Bill, which is quite separate and distinct from Part I. I should like to ask how far we shall be able to discuss these points?

I take it that the points to which the Minister of Agriculture is now referring are consequential.

No.

I thought I had the assent of the House to make a general statement on the Lords Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "On Part I."] No, a general statement; and I would suggest that it would meet the convenience of the House if I did make that general statement.

All I wish to do is to protect the rights of hon. Members. If the Minister of Agriculture makes a general statement now on the Amendments to Part II, and if anyone else follows, then when we come to the details it is conceivable that we may not be able to discuss them. I want to protect the rights of hon. Members so that when we come to consider the Amendments to Part II we are not met with the objection that they have been discussed on the Minister's general statement.

It is obviously quite right that the rights of hon. Members to discuss each separate Amendment should be safeguarded, but in addition I submit that there ought to be a general statement by the Minister on Part I and on Part II, as Part II is quite distinct from Part I.

I desire to support the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley). Is it not desirable that we should know generally the attitude of the Minister in regard to all the Lords Amendments, that he should give us a picture of the general position of the Government. That, as I understand it, does not preclude any hon. Member when the Question is put on a particular Amendment that we agree or disagree, from making his speech on that particular point.

I would support what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said. It would be for the convenience of the House to get a general review by the Minister of Agriculture on these Amendments, but it would be unfortunate if we took advantage of this technicality and had any long Debate on general principles, although we might be allowed to make a brief reference to what the Minister has said. It would be more convenient to take a Division on Part I and leave the detailed discussion on Part II to the moment when we come to those Amendments.

I think it will meet the general convenience of the House if I give a general review of the position and then hon. Members will be better able to discuss the Amendments because they will be able to see how they are related.

I am entirely in the hands of the House in this matter, and I am quite willing to fall in with their desires, but I must warn hon. Members that if we have what is in the nature of a Second Beading Debate it will take up a great deal of time.

Is the position perfectly clear—namely, that the Minister now makes a general statement and that we then come to consider Part I of the Bill we do not have a general discussion which may be in the nature of a Second Reading Debate. That would give us time to discuss each Amendment. If we have a general discussion now it obviously means that the Amendments themselves will never be discussed.

I think that would be the best course.

I promise the House that I will not repeat myself and take up the time in that way. I am trying to give a general review of the position and what we propose with regard to it. The Lords Amendment to Clause 6 would place in the hands of a county council a power of veto upon the wish of Parliament, and that is quite unacceptable. There are some councils which have done practically nothing in the matter of the provision of smallholdings for some years, and where there are a considerable number of approved applicants. They have no hope of obtaining the holdings that they require. I suggest that it is not right, if Parliament decides that this scheme should be instituted, that it should be subject to any veto by a county council which is clearly unfriendly to the movement. There is a similar Amendment on Clause 10 which gives power to the Minister to act in default of county councils who have not provided sufficient smallholdings for applicants of an approved kind. The House will see that if it is desirable in the national interests that the land should be more intensively cultivated, where it is suitable, it is perfectly evident that we must not exclude from that opportunity those who are accepted as the most suitable applicants. Those who are on the list of a county council as approved applicants are men who have been examined and approved as applicants. They have experience, and in most cases are willing to put all their money into the smallholdings, and it would clearly be inequitable to give unemployed men smallholdings and exclude those who may be the most experienced of all. Therefore I shall ask the House to disagree with their Lordships, whose proposals would make the Bill unworkable and entirely inequitable.

What are the exact terms of the Lords Amendment?

The Amendment to which I refer is that to delete Clause 10, which is the Clause giving us power to provide holdings in areas where the counties are not doing so. I propose to reinstate that Clause. In many parts of the country the Bill would be a worthless instrument without it. There is another important Amendment, and I dare say it will give rise to considerable discussion. There is, perhaps, some misunderstanding about it. I refer to the proviso which was inserted in another place with respect to the acquisition of land. As the thing stands now, if a county council wants to acquire land compulsorily, the order is subject to sanction by the Minister, but, of course, if the Minister acquired land he would be judge and jury in his own case. There is no tribunal provided, and so, whether his compulsory purchase offer is reasonable or not, it clearly would be undesirable that the matter should go to the Courts. We had a great deal of difficulty in finding a satisfactory solution of that problem. It is proposed here that, not with regard to the price, but generally after the local inquiry which will have to be held if there be an objection—an expensive business which we would not lightly undertake—whether an Order should be made or not should be finally subject to Provisional Order procedure in this House.

It is quite clear that it is difficult to maintain that the Minister should be judge and jury in his own case. We have narrowed the ground of objection as carefully as we can, but we feel that it is, perhaps, fair that there should be some machinery of objection when the Minister acquires land. The other Amendments by the House of Lords which raise important questions of principle are two. First, there is the new Clause put in on the Motion of Lord Dynevor, which related to the procedure on compulsory acquisition. It amounts to this: That the Minister might make an Order approving the acquisition by the county council, and then there would be an appeal to the law courts. Clearly that is impossible. If the Minister, by means of a Provisional Order Bill, makes an order for compulsory acquisition, it is clearly out of the question that there should be an appeal to a law court. I do not think that that issue was really apparent when the Amendment was made. As a matter of fact, the machinery of the 1908 Act has worked quite smoothly for 22 years. As far as I know there has never been any case where an Amendment of this kind has been required.

The other important group of Lords Amendments, apart from those which are merely consequential on the earlier ones to which I have referred, are the Amendments which limited the extent of smallholdings. As regards the financial limitations put in by the other House, apart from the question of the privilege of this House, the Amendments are quite unacceptable, and therefore I shall move that we object to them. There is one form of limitation which was discussed and which I propose as a compromise to ask the House to agree to, and that is the limitation of the smallholdings scheme to a term of years, after which Parliament shall have an opportunity of reviewing it. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable proposal. If the scheme does not make good after sufficient time it ought not to go on. If we accepted a limitation of that kind, of course the Act would be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act if Parliament so wished. In the Amendment inserted in another place, the Duration of Powers Clause, it will be seen that the period of four years is mentioned.

I propose to accept that Amendment but with a very important difference. I propose that the time for the duration of the Act shall be 10 years. We shall do our level best in the 10 years, and at the end of the 10 years the Act would come up automatically for the review of Parliament. The Amendment puts in a limit of four years. With great respect that is quite unreasonable. It will take a considerable time, even with the best will in the world, to get the scheme started. Without any difficulty it will take a year or two to get the machinery into full swing. There are problems such as compulsory acquisition under the Provisional Order procedure. We do know as a matter of fact that we shall be able to acquire a very large amount of land by voluntary purchase without any hindrance, and I do not think that the compulsory Order procedure will be required much. We have had the offer of very large amounts of land, a good deal of which is not very useful. It is a habit of landowners to offer to Government Departments the worst bits of land. We have examined very carefully suitable areas of land which are in the market or could be in the market without any question of compulsory purchase arising at all, and it is evident that there is a considerable amount of land obtainable at quite moderate prices. But the period of four years is quite out of the question. Suppose that it takes a couple of years to get the machinery into full working order. There must be time, allowing for the difference between one season and another, to get a goodly number of men planted out. For all these reasons, I consider that a period of four years is not long enough. I think that the term ought to be ten years and I hope that the House will support me in that proposal. The other Amendments are practically all consequential upon those which I have mentioned. I have tried to give the House a review of the position as it stands and I conclude by moving that we disagree with their Lordships in the first Amendment to leave out Part I.

The right hon. Gentleman has opened this Debate with a review of differences with another place which opens up a very wide issue for discussion. It was convenient no doubt that we should have had that general outline but I hope that we shall confine ourselves in the speeches which we are now going to make, to Part I of the Bill. I think that to do so will suit the general convenience because hon. Members opposite want the Bill and I am sure they do not wish to discuss these points twice over, whereas hon. Members in other parts of the House who do not want the Bill, in many cases want to keep engagements in the country. It will probably meet with the views of most hon. Members, therefore, if the Debate for the present is focussed on the first of the Lords Amendments so that we may get a division on that, the most important issue involved.

The right hon. Gentleman made very much the sort of case which we all expected from him. The only thing in his speech to cause us any surprise was the extraordinary burst of unconscious cerebration at the beginning. Never before have we had quite so frank a confession that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is the dictator of our Parliamentary system to-day, that the Government must work to his orders, that they are now definitely his creatures and that the right hon. Gentleman is not only the author of the Government's existence but is responsible for its miserable and humiliating continuance. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Is this Part I of the Bill?"] Certainly this relates to Part I, which is the most important part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister is, no doubt, taking his orders on Part I. The proposal before us is that we should disagree with the Amendment made in another place to leave out this part of the Bill but the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing to cause any change of view as to the mischief of the proposal in Clause 1. I do not propose to cover again the ground so fully explored in the earlier discussions in this House, but we have, throughout, objected both to the purpose and the method of Clause 1. We believe that large-scale experiments in agriculture, backed by public money, which can ill be afforded in these hard times, are unnecessary, and, that the work could be better done by other agencies. We believe that if the doctrine which is at the back of these experiments namely, that you can substitute machinery for men were proved true, it would be a disastrous conclusion which would add enormously to the urgent problem of rural depopulation and under-employment.

The Lords were in a position to give effect to the objections which we expressed in this House, and, having read their Debates, I am sure that nothing has been said to-day which in any way meets their objections. It may be that on the rest of Part I the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy them as regards certain points. I recognise the concession in the proposal to limit the application of Clause 2 to small areas, or in cases where the areas are larger, to a certain fixed maximum of value, as an effective safeguard against the same work being done under Clause 2 as was originally proposed under Clause 1. Then, the acceptance of a provision to limit the reconditioning of land under Clause 3 to those cases where it is economically sound, which was proposed by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) and was also urged in the House of Lords, will go a long way to prevent any abuse of the powers which the Minister is seeking.

I think it would be a great pity from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view if he took up an intransigeant attitude over Clause 1. After all, this Clause of the Bill stands quite apart from the rest and I never could understand why he included it in the same Bill as other provisions, such as those about smallholdings. The main support for this Bill outside, has been on the ground that it is going to do something to help to deal with unemployment. We on this side have never been convinced by those suggestions. We do not believe that smallholdings, normally, provide a suitable way of dealing with unemployment, nor do we believe that there would be the general demand in the country which has been suggested in certain quarters. But this Bill is the first attempt of the Government to carry out their pledge to cure unemployment. The Lords are willing to let them try this experiment and I think it would be a thousand pities, in the right hon. Gentleman's own interests, if by insistence on the objectionable portions of Part I he destroyed Part II of the Bill which he might otherwise get. We oppose the reinstatement of Clause 1—[HON. MEMBERS: "Part I"] Part I, and especially Clause 1. Clause 1 is the more important part of the Bill. We shall come, of course, to the other Clauses.

What about Clause 3?

I have said in reference to Clause 3 that the provision that the reconditioning must be economic would go a long way to meet what was urged in another place. I cannot tell whether it will satisfy all the objections which have been raised, but I think we all feel that there are eases, in which land has been grossly neglected, where there should be powers to compel an owner to take action and provided that there are safeguards to prevent any oppressive use of such powers, I, for one, would be glad to see Clause 3 reinstated. My impression on reading the Lords Debates was that they did not object to Clause 3 in principle but they felt that there was a danger of the question of privilege being raised, and in that way the re-insertion of the whole of Part I being carried, if they left in a portion of Clause 3. As a matter of procedure I think they felt that the only safe course was to take out Part I altogether including Clause 3.

The Motion is that we should disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, which refers to the whole of Part I, and that is why I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not draw a distinction—because there was one drawn in the House of Lords—between Clauses 1 and 3; but this particular Motion would sweep away Clause 3 as well.

It is a very important point, and it would really be more convenient if this important point could be kept separate and if the right hon. Gentleman could amend his Motion so as to deal with Clause 1. That would save a free discussion of the subsequent concession which he proposes to make on Clauses 2 and 3, with some of which we are inclined to agree. I think it would be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to limit the first Motion to the reinsertion of Clause 1. We feel very strongly about Clause 1. Since we debated the Bill in the House of Commons, the opposition to it has increased throughout the country, especially on the part of those technical associations which represent the various interests in the land. We oppose it because we believe that if the experiments were successful in any degree, effect could only be given to them by a wide system of State agriculture and land nationalisation. We do not believe that these experiments will be successful, but that they will be a waste of public money, and for all these reasons we strongly object to the proposed disagreement with the Lords' action in cutting out Clause 1.

I think it is very unfortunate that we should now be dividing on a Motion which raises several issues, on the bulk of which we are in complete agreement. I do not know if there is any objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman even to Clause 2, subject to the Amendment which the Minister proposes to introduce to limit the size of the demonstration farms. The real objection, as I understand it, is to Clause 1. I am not saying a word on the merits, but on Clause 2 there is an Amendment introduced by the Minister which very considerably limits the size of the demonstration farms. With that limit in, no one with experience of these demonstration farms can doubt their utility. The real apprehension is that under the guise of a demonstration farm you would have what the right hon. Gentleman described as a great nationalising experiment, but you could not possibly—

I think I ought to inform the House that, although the Motion before the House now is, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," the said Amendment being to leave out Part I, it would have been possible to have divided up this Motion, and I might have put the question: "That this House doth disagree with so much of the Lords Amendment as deals with Clause 1."

Might I suggest to those responsible for leading the Opposition that they should agree to such a course, because the Motion at present is in a very sweeping form. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the Government's Motion."] If you were to cut out demonstration farms limited to 300 acres, and also to cut out all the experiments in reconditioning land—that is not socialistic. It is the sort of thing that is happening in Italy now, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well. Signor Mussolini is doing that to a very considerable extent and is actually reconditioning very large tracts of land, but that is quite a different point from that raised on Clause 1. I do not know whether it will be possible that we should first of all limit our discussion to the form suggested by Mr. Speaker.

As far as I am concerned, I have to take the Amendment in the form in which it reaches us from the other House, but I am quite agreeable that my Motion should be limited to so much of that Amendment as concerns Clause 1.

Then I understand that if it were put in that form we could deal with Clauses 2 and 3 separately, and that it does not mean that we would agree or disagree with the Lords' Amendment in regard to Clauses 2 and 3 without consideration?

Those Clauses could be dealt with in the same way.

I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion and then to move it in the form suggested by you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not propose to detain the House long, in view of the revised form in which the Motion has been put. At the same time I hope the House will agree to support the Minister in regard to Clause 1. It is true that this experimental farming in Clause 1 may be regarded by some of us as something in the nature of an experiment in Socialism, but I must confess that, having regard to the fact that the present administration is a Socialist Administration, it is really astonishing how few experiments of this sort they have brought before the House.

I should not consider that it was a good enough reason to reject it on the ground that it is a State operation Or an operation financed by the State, because there is at present in agriculture a fact which I think is in the minds of every Member of this House—we were discussing it only a few days ago—the fact that, in regard particularly to cereal farming, the industry is in such a condition that we have been informed already in this House that it can hardly carry on with any possibility of success at all. If that is so, there is quite a good reason why at least we should carry out an experiment as to whether with a large-scale method of farming, it is possible in this country to carry out cereal farming with economic and practical success. In the main the other portions of farming are not altogether in a bad way, but it is a fact, which we had before us in the discussion only the other day, that as regards wheat farming it is impossible at present for the individual farmer, farming under present conditions, to grow wheat at a commercial profit.

In these circumstances, it seems to me that there is very good reason why we should at least give an opportunity to the Government to carry out an experiment in this matter. [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman behind me interjects "And to lose money." That is a thing which, after all, nobody knows until your experiment has been carried out. It would be a very delightful thing for capita—land there are a good many Members on this side who know it—if, before they invested their money in any enterprise, they were perfectly sure that they were going to get a return on their capital. There are a great many people who realise that whenever they invest money, they run a risk of losing it. It is nothing against the idea of an experiment to say that there is even a likelihood of their losing money. From a national point of view, it is desirable that we should ascertain whether this type of farming can or cannot be made a success in this country, and, without expressing any personal opinion as to how far an experiment of this sort would prove successful, I say that the House would be well advised to give the Government an opportunity of making this experiment, and finding out whether it will be successful or not. For these reasons, I hope that the House will refuse the Lords Amendment.

I am very glad that the Minister is sticking to his guns on this part of the Bill. From the time it was introduced I have regarded it as a most important and vital step in the reconstruction of the agricultural industry and, in supporting the reintroduction of Clause 1, I would like to refer to one or two of the objections which have been urged in the House and country to this part of the Bill. One of the objections we heard most frequently in Committee was that the operation of this Clause would inevitably lead to the displacement of a large amount of labour by the introduction of machinery and up-to-date cultivation. I would like, most respectfully, to controvert that statement. The object of the Clause is to ascertain whether it is not possible, by using large machinery, and by altering the economic lay-out of farms, not only to continue in cultivation much of the light land of the eastern counties, which we are told is mainly suitable for cereal growing, but also what, I think, is equally important, whether it is not possible to get again under the plough many thousands of acres in those countries which have been allowed to go down to poor grass.

There have been tremendous changes, almost a revolution, in the methods of production of wheat in the various countries of the world. We have seen the supercession of the hand-reaper by the horse-drawn reaper, and lately we have seen the introduction of another machine which is going to revolutionise wheat production in the world, namely, the combined harvester thresher. It is folly for those who want to see this great industry of agriculture put upon a sound, economic footing to overlook these tremendous changes in methods of cultivation taking place throughout the world. There have been some agriculturists sufficiently enterprising themselves to have tried these methods. There is a very valuable experiment being carried out in Norfolk—I am referring now more particularly to wheat production. In the first place, they have had to alter the conformation of the fields, they have used the latest machinery, and, although, of course, they have not reaped the harvest yet, they have progressed so far with that side of the cultivation as to be able to state definitely that, by using these methods and this machinery, they have reduced the cost of cultivation by at least two-thirds. It was stated in an article in a journal well known to hon. Members, the "Farmer and Stock Breeder", about two months ago, that they were able to plough their land at a cost of 6s. 8d. an acre. Similarly, they have reduced other costs of cultivation, and they are, I think, proving that that is going to be the line of development if wheat growing in this country is to be maintained.

It may be asked, What is the need for the State to get powers under this Bill to carry out these experiments? The answer, I think, is this: You may find one or two individuals who possess the necessary capital, who have sufficient enterprise and courage to undertake this work on a comparatively small scale, but I do not think it is fair to ask individuals to carry out something the result of which may be beneficial to the whole agricultural community in that part of the country. Their resources are, naturally, bound to be limited in extent, and I think that it is the duty of the State, with all its resources, to come to the assistance of the industry to prove whether it is not possible, as I said just now, to keep land in cultivation and bring back much of it that has been allowed to become derelict. I sincerely hope that we shall stick very firmly to this important part of the Bill, and that we shall give a real opportunity to try out this policy.

There is another aspect of this Clause which, I think, has been overlooked. It has always been assumed that the only objective has been cereal cultivation. I want to suggest that equally valuable and beneficial results may be obtained by applying large-scale methods of production to other agricultural products. For instance, it would be an exceedingly valuable and useful object lesson if we could have a very large dairy farm, a farm, say, where there are at least something in the neighbourhood of 2,000 cows kept, and specialise in the production of milk, having the milk bottled on the farm, as is being done on a small scale in some parts of this country and in other countries. I believe the result of that experiment would provide very useful and valuable lessons to those who are engaged in this important branch of the agricultural industry. Then, as the Lord Privy Seal told us in Committee, experiments are being carried out in large-scale poultry farming, and I would like to remind our friends on the opposite side of the House that there is a vast difference between what is called large-scale production with a minimum of labour, and what I call large-scale intensified farming, where you can employ a much larger number of people than under the present methods, the result being increased yields, the production of a larger amount of food and much more labour being kept upon the land.

I regard this part of the Bill as extremely vital. It has been characterised as containing an element of Socialism; for the Corporation will acquire land, which will then become nationalised. I am in favour of nationalising not only small parcels of agricultural land, but the whole of agricultural land and at the earliest possible opportunity. I make no secret about it. That is an essential and integral part of the Labour party's agricultural policy, but we have the greatest trouble in getting a small bit nationalised, and I do not know what will happen if we try in this Parliament to nationalise the lot. We have always maintained that we cannot assist the agricultural industry as we might desire as a community as long as agricultural land is privately held and controlled, for the simple reason that if anything is done to assist the industry financially, inevitably the advantage goes into the pockets of the landowners.

I could give hon. Members opposite some definite and concrete cases in my own experience where that has resulted. [An HON. MEMBER "You have land lords on your own side."] If so, they are sincere in advocating the control of their land. It is not a question of what individuals are or what they possess, but what they believe in and what they are prepared to work for in the House of Commons. This part of the Measure appeals to me all the stronger because it contains in it an element of Socialism, that is, the nationalisation of the land. I strongly believe that if this great industry is to be run for the benefit of the community on real economic and sound lines, we shall have to treat it as a great social service. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject this Amendment of the Lords and stand firm for the re-introduction of Clause 1.

In his interesting speech, the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass) talked about the desirability of the State coming in to carry out new methods of wheat cultivation. We have those new methods at work in my own county and in other parts of England. He also said that he would like to see the State deal with large dairy farms. We have large dairy farms on the very same system that the hon. Member contemplates. He says, too, that he would like to see a large poultry experiment. We have large poultry farms developing on those lines.

What are you crying about then?

I am not crying; I am pointing out that the surest way to waste money is to bring in the State to do things which the farmers are doing themselves. They are initiating these new methods, and there is no better way of convincing a farmer or farm labourer of the success of a system than to let him see it under conditions which he understands, and not under conditions imported from Whitehall.

I am strongly in favour of some of the Clauses in Part I of the Bill, especially that which gives the Minister additional power for the acquisition of land, because by that means we shall get possession of large tracts of land for the purpose of developing and cultivating it. It is interesting to see such a large number of Members present to take part in the discussion of this Bill. That augurs well for the future of agriculture. We all want to see an additional interest taken in our national industry for it is the real foundation of our national life, and any legislation which tends to its development and its improvement, for better cultivation and the keeping of the rural population in the country districts, is to be commended. I feel sure that we shall have a large measure of support for any legislation which will have those objects in view.

I am surprised that there should be any opposition to Part I of the Bill, because we often hear the argument that land is not worth owning. Part I opens out a large market for the sale of land. Surely it will be to the benefit of those who own the land to have a market opened out for them, so that they can sell a commodity which they say is not worth owning and which they want to get rid of because of the heavy taxation which is entailed by ownership. This Bill gives the owners of land a splendid opportunity of getting rid of this heavy responsibility. The large central farming which is one of the objects of Part I of the Bill will enable a greater cultivation of land to take place. We know that during recent years a large acreage of land has gone out of cultivation. It was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that 900,000 acres have gone out of cultivation since 1924–25. I believe that he is under the mark. Part I of this Bill will provide the opportunity for bringing that 900,000 acres back into cultivation. It is said that this is not an unemployment Measure, but surely if we can bring 900,000 acres into cultivation, a lot of men will be brought back to the land. One of the main objects of this part of the Bill, therefore, is to bring lost land back into cultivation and to restore a large proportion of the rural population to the land.

With regard to demonstration farms, the most intelligent of agriculturists will acknowledge that he knows very little yet about the agricultural industry, and that we are in our infancy with regard to what we know about the cultivation of the soil. These demonstration farms will enable us to gain more knowledge of the cultivation of crops, of disease and so on. New varieties of cereals, potatoes or grasses do not suit all parts of the country. Yeoman wheat will grow fairly well in the eastern counties and the south of England, but we cannot grow it in the north, where we find that Benefactor wheat grows best. I have experimented with Yeoman wheat, and it was an utter failure. The demonstration farms will show the ordinary cultivator which is the best variety of wheat for him to grow, or what sort of grasses he should put down for hay or first year's seed, and what are the best varieties of swedes and globe mangels and so forth which are best for his district.

The hon. Member is dealing with Clause 2, and not Clause 1.

I am dealing with certain points in Part I of the Bill.

On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss Clause 2, which deals with experimental farms? Clause 1 deals with large-scale farms.

I was trying to make out to which Clause the hon. Member was referring.

I was trying to show the advantage of large-scale farming in the growing of the different varieties of cereals, potatoes, swedes and so on. I trust that the House will pass into law this provision, which will be for the benefit of agriculture on a large scale.

I congratulate the Minister on sticking to Part I of this Bill. While I have been in the House I have been interested to hear the testimonials given to the ordinary farmer as regards large-scale farming. We have been told that Clause 1 is unnecessary because farmers are already undertaking large-scale farming. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) has told us of large-scale poultry farming and large scale arable farms, and said that really there is nothing to be discovered by any experimental large-scale farms. That is a strange doctrine for hon. Members opposite to put before the House. The other day a Vote of Censure was moved upon the Government for their failure to bring forward a sound policy for agriculture. We now have before the House a Bill, which I do not regard as a Socialist Bill, but rather as an experimental Bill, in which every method for improving agriculture in this country is to be tried out. One part of the Bill deals with smallholdings, this part deals with large-scale experimental farms, and other parts of the Bill deal with other aspects of the problem. If it is impossible, as some of our opponents allege, to make large-scale farming pay without the adoption of other methods which they advocate—but which we are precluded from discussing on this Amendment—why should they shrink from the opportunity which these experimental farms will provide of proving their case?

The argument we are alleged to put up from these benches, though I never heard any one use it myself, is that the farmers of the country cannot make farming pay because they are incompetent or, if they are not incompetent, are too heavily burdened by rent. In reply to that our opponents say that no matter how well farms are equipped, no matter how up-to-date the machinery may be, or how scientific may be the methods of cultivation employed, it is quite impossible to make farming on a large scale pay in competition with foreign, countries which may have a more fertile soil and enjoy cheap labour. If we are sceptical on that point, why should our opponents object to proving their case? If these large-scale experimental farms are set up, and are successful from the farming point of view—as they ought to be, with all the resources of the State behind them—but yet turn out to be unsuccessful commercially, then hon. Members opposite will have proved their case. If, on the contrary, it is proved that the farms can be run successfully, that the products can be turned out cheaply enough to hold their own in the markets of this country, particularly when we have the assistance of the Marketing Bill, then, clearly, these farms will not only justify people who hold Socialist views, but will benefit all the farmers, who will have been taught by the State how to run their farms successfully, how to get the greatest return from the land with the least expenditure of energy, and how to sell their produce successfully.

This Bill, and in particular this Clause, gives agriculture a greater opportunity than ever it has had before. One of the countries with which we are in competition is Denmark. I understand that the soil of Denmark is much poorer than the soil of this country. Its natural productivity per acre is Very much less than ours, but the Danish farmer has two advantages—

Hon. Members must not discuss the whole problem of agriculture in this country as compared with other countries, but must confine themselves to this Amendment.

My argument was designed to show that these large-scale experimental farms, if they served no other purpose, would provide the farming community with the best scientific knowledge. Our farmers in this country are at a disadvantage as compared with other countries in not having such information at their disposal, and I was calling attention to a country where State assistance is forthcoming and showing that as a result of that assistance their farmers were enabled to compete in the markets of the world. I am precluded from discussing alternative proposals on this Amendment, but I would only say that no one who has given even a superficial attention to the agricultural problem here can believe that our agriculture can be restored by the other proposals alone. Without successful large-scale farming, a great deal of our land will go derelict whatever other proposals are put forward. Therefore, we welcome this experiment, and it ought to be welcomed just as much on the opposite side. These questions must be determined not merely by argument but by facts. When a scientist wants to be quite sure about his facts he makes an experiment. This is an experiment. It is an experiment on a large scale, though not large in proportion to the interests involved and to the size of the country, and I hope the Minister will stand firm.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 4, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:

"land or to take land on lease by agreement and to".

This Amendment seems to me rather to represent a departure from Socialist principles, for, after all, it is a principle of the Socialist party that the State should own the land, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having departed from one of the most stupid principles of his party. He is now laying it down that he will lease a certain amount of this land, and we shall thereby save a certain amount of the taxpayers' money, because the Minister will not be compelled to buy land in every single case. It is quite bad enough to imagine the present Ministry, or any Ministry, for that matter, leasing land for these purposes, but it is better than that they should buy it, and for that reason I congratulate the Minister on this occasion on having come a little nearer to common sense. We quite realise the difficulty that he has had with his own people in securing this rather sensible Amendment to his Bill. I do not know whether other people in my party will accept the Amendment or not, but, personally, I think that there is something in it. On the other hand, I do not think for a minute that it makes the Clause as a whole appreciably better. These minor Amendments cannot possibly effect anything very much in the long run. I see the Minister is scowling at me more or less, and apparently he does not want discussion on these points. He took a needlessly long time in his opening remarks and I fail to see why he should object to a person like myself getting up and saying a few words.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 4, line 18, after the word "farms," to insert the words:

"conducted on an economic basis".

This Amendment is designed to show the intention of the proposal that demonstration farms shall be a commercial proposition.

When this Amendment was first proposed, the Government said that they did not know what it meant. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has now taken a more reasonable attitude, but I do not know that this concession will make the Clause acceptable. It is still a very dangerous proposal, but, as far as they go, these are improvements, and for that reason we shall not divide against them.

I should like to repeat what my right hon. Friend has said. My recollection is that, when the point was raised in Committee, the Minister's objection to these words was that they were perfectly meaningless and could not be enforced. We all welcome the pious opinion that these farms will be run on an economic basis, but I should like him to tell us what is going to be the effect. Does it mean that, the moment they cease to pay, the Minister will no longer have power to run them or at what point will he cease to have that power? He knows that these words have no real effect. I view with very great disquiet the idea of starting these demonstration farms. They will mean a very unnecessary expenditure at a time when expenditure ought not to be encouraged. All over the country demonstration farms are being instituted and conducted by county councils, universities, and other bodies. I believe we have enough demonstration where it is wanted. Government demonstration is not likely to be nearly as good as we are having now. If we were sure that a better form of demonstration would be brought into effect, there would be something to be said for it, but I do not see any chance of improvement on the very large opportunities of demonstration that we have in so many counties. I look on the proposal with considerable disfavour, and I do not see any safeguard that it will be made more effective or more economical. These words are perfectly meaningless. They are put in to satisfy legitimate anxiety, but they are perfectly useless and are of no value at all.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be afraid of experimenting with cereal farming in these demonstration farms. If they can find some means of making it pay at present prices, farmers will be glad, but, when so many other demonstration farms and farmers all over the country are experimenting and are failing to pay, I do not see how the Government are going to do it. The only way they can do it is to double the production of wheat per acre. If demonstration farms, having very rich soil, can do that, I take off my hat to them, but, unless they double the production per acre, I do not see that these demonstration farms are going to be of much use.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox) that these words are quite meaningless and afford no more safeguard for the conduct of these demonstration farms than if they were left out. It is obvious what will happen. The Minister will come to Parliament for a Supplementary Estimate, and, with the majority behind him, he will get it passed. He will simply say that, owing to bad weather, unfortunate circumstances, world prices, or some other combination of adverse elements, he has not been able to make these demonstration farms pay, but next year everything in the garden will be lovely. The words to me are quite meaningless, because they do not in any way tie him down as to what sort of land he will purchase or how he will carry on these operations. Obviously, the whole Clause is quite unnecessary. Many local authorities have done, and are doing, this work very well indeed. In my own county we have a demonstration farm of 200 acres, and we are teaching all the young people who care to come how to carry on farming. It is ridiculous to spend public money in duplicating efforts in order that certain election promises may be said to have been carried out, and it is a waste of the taxpayers' money in order to prevent the legitimate work of the county councils being carried out.

I do not at all agree with my hon. Friends in front who consider that these words are meaningless and of no value. They are intended and they will act as a check on the Minister, because, before he starts any of these demonstration farms, he will have to consider whether he is going to lose money or not. He will find that in nearly every case he is certain to lose money, and, therefore, he will not start the farm. I hope he will give us a little further explanation as to what action he proposes to take under these words and what he means by them. Under a following Sub-section, an annual report has to be rendered to Parliament showing a profit and loss account. Does that mean that each year we shall know whether a profit or a loss has been made, and if a loss is made, does that mean that the moment the account is rendered the farm will be closed down or that it will carry on, still making a loss? If it is to be closed down, these words may have some effect. If they mean that the farms are to carry on making a loss, they will have no effect. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say he means that, if a loss is made, the farm will be automatically closed down.

I welcome the addition of these words to the Clause, and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that they really are a great improvement. A demonstration farm is not like an experimental farm or a research station. You cannot expect research to be conducted on a purely economical basis, and it is unreasonable to think so. But when you come to a demonstration farm, it is of the utmost importance, if demonstration is going to have any value at all to practical farmers, that the whole plan upon which the demonstration farm is based should be an economic one. Otherwise, the demonstration will be of extraordinarily small practical value to anybody. The right hon. Gentleman has been very well advised in introducing these words, and I hope that they will be accepted.

Can the Minister give us a little enlightenment as to what he means by the Amendment? He must have given the matter a good deal of thought, because the insertion of these words was very much against the opinion of the Government at an earlier stage. What is going to happen when the accounts show a loss? No doubt it will be reported by the Public Accounts Committee. They are charged with the duty of drawing attention to cases where expenditure is going on without statutory sanction, and if it is specifically laid down in the Bill that these farms are only to be run on an economic basis, clearly it will be ultra vires for the Minister after receiving a report upon them to carry on in spite of the prohibition. He must have considered this point. What is in his mind? How is he going to finance these farms? Are they going to be given a certain amount of capital and to be expected to run on their own fat, and when that fat is exhausted, will they be scrapped? Is it his intention to carry this out, and if so, what procedure has he in mind for putting into effect what really, if applied will be a very valuable check and safeguard.

In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, all that I have to say is that if the Opposition do not want these words, I do not want them. It is to meet the wishes of their friends that they are put in. The hon. and gallant Member on the back benches opposite stated fairly that the general purpose of the words was to show that these demonstration farms were to be conducted on an economic basis. On an ordinary experimental or research station where overhead charges would include perhaps high salaries to professors and so on, such charges could not very well be charged against the farm. But it is essential that these farms should be run on a commercial basis. That is why the words are being put in. If the Opposition do not want them, I do not want them. I have only put them in as a result of very long and careful discussion with Members of the other House who said that they wanted them to be put in, and I gathered that with these Amendments the Clause would be regarded as acceptable. That is why I move them in. The purpose is to make clear that the Minister should have power to purchase the land for the purpose of utilising it as demonstration farms conducted on an economic basis. This is to define the purpose for which you are taking the land and to make it clear. It does not mean that in any particular year if you are a few pounds down one year and a few pounds up another year, that during the particular year you are down you are to stop.

I take the same line as hon. Friends behind me on this Amendment, and I believe that the Bill will be better with these words inserted. I do not in any way take objection to the words as they stand, but I honestly think they are not going to make very much difference. The only comment I make is that we do not really know yet who is going to make the valuation and who is to audit the accounts. We cannot really tell where the demonstration is going to be. This is a concession although it does not go very far.

It is a pity that the Minister took the line that he did not particularly want the words put in, because that really gave his case away. The whole object of the Minister's Bill, as he has laid it down on previous occasions, is that the demonstration farms should be on a sound basis. That is really his strong point. But in the speech he made a minute ago, he rather weakened his position on the point. However, on the whole the Bill will be better with the insertion of these words, and therefore I hope that our leaders on the Front Bench will allow them to go in.

I sincerely hope that these words will be included. Personally, I am against demonstration farms, and the insertion of these words is the only justification for the continuation of demonstration farms. It will provide a very great opportunity for agriculturists to criticise the farms carried on by those who are criticising the farmers at the present time. They will have a great opportunity, when demands are made for something to be done to help agriculture in its depressed condition, for saying, "Your argument is that we should do certain things. Do them yourselves on your own demonstration farms and show us whether they are practical or not." That would be of very great advantage to agriculture. They would in future be able to give a practical demonstration.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 4, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that no farm conducted under the powers conferred by this section shall exceed two hundred and fifty acres in extent unless the annual value thereof was at the date of the acquisition of the land by the Minister assessed for the purposes of income tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, at an amount which did not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds."

This Amendment is to carry out an undertaking which I gave, and will define the size and type of farm.

I have no objection to the words which the Minister proposes to move in, as I think they are a very great improvement of the Bill. My only criticism is that they do not go far enough. The Minister declares that the object of the Amendment is to limit the demonstration farms to be provided under Clause 2 to small farms. I am very anxious that the words should really have that effect, and I should like to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, some words which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept, which would make it quite certain that the intention which he has explained will be given effect to and cannot be exceeded by him or some subsequent Minister of Agriculture who may be even more ambitious, if possible, than the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to add, at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the words

"and that not more than ten farms are established under this Section, and that each farm shall be conducted as a separate farm."

I wish to limit the number of these experimental farms to some reasonable number. I am not wedded to the number of ten, but it appears to me that ten would be adequate. My only doubt is whether that number is not excessive. The right hon. Gentleman might want one farm in the eastern counties, one in the sheep districts of Yorkshire, and for meat he might want a grazing farm. The number of farms required is strictly limited and there is no reason why it should be exceeded, unless the right hon. Gentleman desires to pursue the absurd megalomania from which we tried to wean him last year, without much success. We want to make sure that he does not have ten farms all together, so that practically they would be one farm, because that would be something very much like a large scale farm. I am convinced that any attempt to introduce prairie farming into this country at the present time would be a gross waste of money. The words which I propose would secure two things, (1) that these experiments shall be conducted on a reasonable scale, and (2) that they shall be experiments in small farms and cannot by any ingenuity be used to establish a large scale farm.

I understood the Noble Lord to say that he did not object to the words of the Minister's Amendment. I think it would be best to insert those words, and then the Noble Lord could move his Amendment.

I am agreeable to that course.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:

"and that not more than ten farms are established under this Section, and that each farm shall be conducted as a separate farm."

The attitude of the Noble Lord fills one with increasing wonderment. He tells us that he is anxious for the improvement of agriculture, and yet he wants to crib, cabin and confine something specified in the Bill with that object in view. Why cannot we assume that I or any other Minister of Agriculture—perhaps it is too wide an assumption in regard to myself—will act with commonsense in such a matter. The people who are in charge of our agricultural colleges, surely, can be trusted to act with discretion. It is not an extraordinary assumption that we shall not want to go careering all over the country setting up demonstration farms. Of course, we shall not, and no one knows that better than the Noble Lord. We have a thoroughly sound proposal put up by experienced people like there are in the county of the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley). Is it suggested that because he has a successful demonstration farm in his part of the country he will want to prevent the establishment of other farms.

It is a matter for the local authority and not for the State.

The right hon. and gallant Member is wrong. They are not all under the local authorities. In some cases the local authority is not running the institution. One very good case is put before us by the University of Cambridge. When they want a demonstration farm for certain purposes I am certain that it will be a thoroughly successful enterprise. I cannot see why we should limit this matter to the local authorities. If the State wants to encourage demonstration farms, the State ought to be allowed to do it. I cannot say the actual number of farms that will be established, but fifteen has been suggested. I do not think it is fair to put in such a limitation as has been suggested by the noble lord. It is the first time it has been suggested. I hope the noble lord will not press the Amendment. He knows that neither I nor anybody else will go roaming about the country establishing these farms unless they are really needed.

I am interested in this problem because I assume that the same kind of system will apply in Scotland.

Yes.

One is anxious to know from the Minister responsible exactly how they propose to proceed. In my country, which differs agriculturally to some extent from this country, we have established three distinct demonstration farms, one dealing in the north with feeding and breeding, another in the eastern area dealing with animal diseases and breeding problems, and another in the south-west dealing with milk. On the big, broad principle these three institutions, linked up as they are with the universities and with the agricultural colleges, cover all the main industries in connection with agricultural research. The only addition which might conceivably be usefully made would be a very moderate extension to some other farm carrying out the results of the researches at those three institutions, so that we might be brought more closely into contact with practical farming in certain areas and that the farmers interested could get the results more readily. Already in Scotland we have, in the main, divided up the various problems and linked them with such things as stock breeding stations, seed testing stations, etc., so that the research work and demonstration covers practically everything. These are hard times when economy must be observed, and while I am most anxious to see a development of the work in connection with research problems and the bringing of the practical results more closely into contact with the working farmer, I am a little anxious to know exactly what expenditure is visualised and how far it is proposed to extend. The Minister says that in England he is already considering some fifteen centres. So far as Scotland is concerned we do not know what is intended, but I should have thought that as we have this research work already established in Scotland it was inopportune to extend it widely.

I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for the Pollok Division (Sir J. Gilmour) and I agree that in Scotland we have done a great deal in an experimental direction. We have farms in connection with our Colleges, experimental farms, not demonstration farms, but it has been felt by the governing bodies of our agricultural colleges, especially the West of Scotland Agricultural College, that they really do require demonstration farms in order to try out their experiments on economic lines. It is highly desirable, after you have spent a great deal of money in agricultural research, to find out the economic results, and that can only be done by demonstration farms. It is highly desirable that there should be demonstration farms for various types of agriculture. This is not the time to cramp expenditure, if it is wise expenditure, in agricultural research and the economic development of the industry. We shall never get agriculture in this country on a satisfactory basis until we organise on up to date lines, and I can see no better way of carrying down the principles of agricultural education to the agricultural workers and the farmers than by having demonstration farms, which are accessible, worked on economic lines.

I hope the Noble Lord will not press the Amendment. If he does, Scotland will be deprived of some of these demonstration farms, and we should regret if the interests of Scotland were neglected in that manner. The demonstration farms that are already in existence are concerned chiefly with scientific research, which we want to extend into the practical and economic realm.

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) has moved his Amendment in this form. The first part of it deals with a limitation of the number of demonstration farms, and the second deals with them as separate entities. As to the first part, I do not think it is of much importance as we have already, by the last Amendment, limited them to being economic, that is a considerable difference to the position as it was in the Committee. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, it is important that there should be research. Unless these demonstration farms are continued as separate entities they will have no real demonstration value at all. You may have a farm which has a dairy side and an arable side. One may fail and the other may not. As long as they are on one farm it is not serious, but, if you are going to have two separate farms and they are to be looked upon as one accounting item, they lose their entire value as demonstration farms. No demonstration has any value unless it has an economic value. The Minister of Agriculture in his reply referred only to the first part of the Amendment, that is to say, to the restriction on the number, with which I agree; but on the second part he did not reply at all. I hope he may accept it.

The Amendment limits the number of demonstration farms to be set up under the Bill, and it is most surprising that the right hon. Member for the Pollok Division (Sir J. Gilmour) should support it. It has already been pointed out that we have three experimental farms in Scotland, but none of them are under the control of a local authority. They may have representatives on the Board, and indeed they have, but no local authority in Scotland as yet has any demonstration farm. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the times that I approached him on behalf of the county council for a demonstration farm. They were prepared to find a sum of £5,000 from the rates, and as the convener of that committee I was empowered to go on with the work. But there were no funds at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. I understood that he was quite sympathetic to the proposal, because we had not, and have not yet, any demonstration farm in Scotland under the control of any local authority. No one would attempt to decry the splendid work done by experimental farms, but they do not help us to give effect to the research work which is carried on. It would be regrettable if we were to limit the number of demonstration farms to 10, particularly in view of the fact that agriculture is passing through hard times at the moment. That seems to me to be always the argument against something new. If agriculture was in a good way I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would say "Why have demonstration farms, they are altogether unnecessary, because agriculture is in a good way." I submit to the House that the very fact that agriculture is in a bad way is the appropriate time to have demonstration farms, and not to limit the power of the Minister or the Secretary of State so far as their provision is concerned.

I desire to support the Amendment. So far no mention has been made of what is to me the most valuable form of demonstration, and that is a demonstration on the farmer's own land. It is cheaper and teaches farmers far better than a demonstration farm. Take the case of the new variety of sugar beet which has proved itself to be a valuable stock. There is no great point in trying it out on a demonstration farm. You should try it out on selected farms all over your area. You then get a demonstration to which all the farmers can come, and which is really valuable because you find the seed which suits the whole of the county or district. I have had a lot of experience of this sort of thing, and I have found farmers only too willing to take up these demonstrations. That may not be so in Scotland, but it is so in England. I would much sooner see the Minister extend that method of demonstration than adopt the one he proposes.

I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the second part of the Amendment and that he will keep the accounts of the demonstration farm completely separate. If there are two farms, one arable and one dairying, the accounts of the two might be kept together and so show a profit; the profits made by the one could be used to cover up the losses of the other.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 4, line 34, after the word "satisfactorily", to insert the words "and economically".

This is a point which was raised by the Opposition. I propose to accept the Amendment which was inserted in the other place to say that it is desirable to enable a piece of land to be economically used for agricultural purposes. In both these cases I accept these Amendments as setting out the intentions of the proposers.

The Minister will remember that this question was raised by a right hon. Friend below me and by myself and several other hon. Members in Standing Committee, where it was the subject of protracted discussion. The one thing for which we contended on Clause 3 was that the expenditure should be economical, that public money should not be poured out in reclaiming land when the total expenditure would be far greater than the fee simple of the land would be worth after the conclusion of the operation. The Minister now has pretty well admitted our principle, and I congratulate him on having done so; but it would have saved a great deal of time in Committee and now if the Minister had realised that our arguments were really sound, and if he had given way.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend. There were one or two instances in Committee when we could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman could not see our point of view. However, there is joy over one sinner that repenteth, if he repents at long last. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his repentance. We accept his proposal with gladness. We hope and trust that this Amendment will prevent public money being wasted, and will result in its being used on land which can be put to economical use.

Once again the Minister has seen the folly of his ways, although it is only a little thing that he has done here. I should be glad to have the Minister's attention. I am not sure that the addition of these two words to the Bill adds very much to the value of the Bill. The Minister has been very careful both here and on a previous Amendment not to say precisely what he means by "and economically". What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by these words? Does he mean borrowing money at 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent. for reconditioning these farms? Reconditioning will probably involve enormous expenditure, and the actual return on the farms may be only about 2 per cent. Is that to be considered "economical"? I do not think it is. We ought to define precisely what these words mean. Whatever money the State pays out, there should be a profit on it. If the State advances, say, £5,000, to readjust the position of a farm, the State should get full interest on the money. In addition to the interest there should be added to the account every single item of administrative cost, such as help from the officials of the Ministry. I am putting these points as patiently as I can, and for the second time I ask for the attention of the Minister.

I am trying to find the points raised by the hon. Member, and he is most discourteous.

The last thing I wish is to be discourteous to the Minister. I regret that I am covering the points too quickly. What I have suggested is that the State should get full interest on the money advanced, that there should be provision for sinking fund, and that the account should be debited with the cost of advice given by officials. If that is what is meant by the words "and economically" we have a very much better position in the Bill. I welcome the words of the Minister's Amendment on the assumption that they have a very wide meaning.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 5, line 1, after the word "satisfactorily," to insert the words "and economically."

May I have an answer to the question which I put on the previous Amendment? The Minister indicated that he was going to give a full answer as to what he meant by the words "and economically." He did not answer at the close of my remarks, and, purely as a matter of courtesy, I put it to him that he ought to deal with my point now.

I was looking into the point raised by the hon. Member in order to satisfy myself upon it, but on examining the matter I do not think there is anything in his contention. I quite frankly say that you cannot define, three years in advance, the exact meaning of the term in its relation to this matter. In its general meaning, the term is usually taken to indicate that an undertaking is self-supporting, but we cannot define its application years in advance. We must take it here in its general meaning and do the best we can.

Does the Minister add in, under that meaning, all the money spent by the Government and all the various loans and the cost of the land as well?

I suppose that in the ordinary way these things would be taken into account, but I cannot give any hard-and-fast definition.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 6, line 43, to leave out the word "are," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"would involve unreasonable expense or are otherwise."

This Amendment is intended to meet a criticism which was raised in another place as to the requirements contained in the notice which is to be sent to a person whose land is in a seriously neglected condition. It was urged that steps should be taken to see that extravagant demands were not made in that connection, and that the statements put into the notice would not involve unreasonable expense. In order to make it clear that these are among the considerations which should be reviewed if the matter is referred to arbitration, it is proposed to incorporate these words.

Personally, I am a little uneasy about these words. I can conceive of a farm which had been badly neglected and the buildings on which were seriously dilapidated. The owner, if a notice were served upon him under this provision, might argue that putting the farm into a condition, which would enable the occupier to work it properly, would involve an expenditure comparable to the value of the farm, and on those grounds he might object to the notice. My misgivings would be allayed if the Minister assured me that these words would not prevent the State acquiring this neglected farm at its face value, taking these conditions into account.

I can give the hon. Member that assurance. My objection to the words as inserted in another place was that their effect would have been this—that the more neglected and dilapidated a place was, the more difficult it would have been to deal with it under those requirements. It was on that account that I objected to the words, and personally I would not agree to this Clause or to the Bill at all, if this provision were made unworkable. But I think that this is a fair requirement which is being provided by the Amendment. What it means is that in giving notice to a person that works of maintenance are to be carried out, in order to make the place acceptable, you should not in your requirements ask him to do anything unreasonable. If you notify him that certain pig-sties are to be rebuilt, you should not ask him to spend more on them than would be properly required for that purpose. The Amendment relates to the matters embodied in the notice; it provides that the items in the notice, specifying what should be spent on particular works, shall not in themselves be excessive, and I think that is a perfectly reasonable proposal.

The Minister's statement, I understand, means that you may go to a man and tell him to do so-and-so, but you can only tell him to do what is reasonable. That is something in the way of a concession, but the Minister ought to go a little further. The Minister would have justified his position better if he had worked in his favourite word "economic." It might be quite reasonable to order a man to put up new pig-sties, but it might not be economic for the man to do so; and I suggest that the Minister in this Amendment should follow the precedent of earlier Amendments by including, not only the question of reasonableness, but also the question of the improvements required being economically sound. Nine ties out of ten, these things are run on a reasonable basis, but reason does not always mean good economics.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 8, line 9, after the word "instrument," to insert the words "but after giving reasonable notice in writing to the occupier."

It was represented in another place that when it was proposed to enter upon a piece of land to execute works, reasonable notice should be given and the Amendment effects that purpose.

Is it not nearly always the practice, in regard to notices of this kind, to state the number of days? What is the interpretation of the word "reasonable" in this connection. In various Bills promoted by the Ministry of Transport and other Departments which have involved entry upon and occupation of land, a number of days has been specified as regards notice and I think we are entitled to ask for some further information as to the exact meaning of this proposal. Sometimes 28 days are given, but does this mean that you will give a man such time as will enable him to see whether it is not possible for him to do the work himself?

The point here is that before you do the work the occupier should know that you are coming and that you should give him reasonable notice that you are coming. As to what is reasonable notice, that depends on what you propose to do, and I think we must leave it to be decided upon by the merits of the particular case.

I think there is more in this than the Minister imagines. It is, I agree, for the occupier to know when you propose to commence certain work, and I think the Minister should add to his Amendment some such words as "such notice not to be less than a certain number of days". I should not object to it then, because that would give the occupier the opportunity of making his own arrangements. To the occupier, there might be considerable inconvenience if a man came to do work without having given him at least a week's notice.

I can assure the hon. Member that his proposed Amendment might work hardship, because there might be cases in which extensive work was required and when much more than a week's notice would be necessary.

I said "not less than a week's notice."

I do not think it would help matters very much by putting in a certain number of days. I cannot imagine any notice being given of less than a week, and I think that what I have proposed is a reasonable way of meeting the case.

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

If this Amendment were inserted, it would in effect set up an absolute right of veto in the hands of every county council in the country against the Minister taking action. This matter was debated at considerable length upstairs—and also, I think, on the Report stage—and it was there pointed out that, while some county councils had done excellent work, others had entirely neglected their work in this respect; and it is impossible to thrust an absolute veto into the hands of the county councils. Further, it would make administration extraordinarily difficult, because it would mean that the work done by the Ministry of Agriculture would have to be done over again by the county councils.

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman is rejecting this Amendment of the Lords. It appears to me essential, if the new powers are to be wisely exercised, that the Department should have the advantage of the local authorities' experience. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion made by the Postmaster-General that local authorities would be likely to turn down the proposals of the Ministry. It is quite true that under the Act that we passed in 1926 certain counties have not found it possible to take action, not from any hostility to smallholdings, but because under that Act 75 per cent. of the expense is paid by the State, but the remaining 25 per cent. has to be found by the local authority, and under present financial conditions they have not felt justified in putting these burdens on the ratepayers. If they can get smallholdings provided entirely without expenditure themselves, from all my experience I feel satisfied that they will welcome the opportunity, and I am very much disturbed to find the feeling of jealousy and suspicion on the part of the Ministry of the powers of the local authorities.

There is no question of the local authorities having to examine the individuals proposed to be settled on the land. It is merely that, with their special local knowledge, with all the facilities that they alone possess, through their county land agents and through the great and efficient organisation which in many cases they have built up, to administer smallholdings, they should put that valuable information, advice, and experience at the disposal of the Ministry. I think it very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to accept this Amendment, and I should imagine that as, in another place, they attached great importance to this matter when it was discussed previously, they will very likely find it necessary to stand by it. It is not because of any doubt about the efficiency of the officials of the Ministry. We know that they have done their work admirably, but in this matter of the provision of smallholdings local experience and knowledge count more than anything else; and it is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman has approached this matter in the spirit, as it were, of jealousy to the local autho- rities, and does not recognise in this Amendment an effort to secure the utmost co-operation.

I must say that I think the attitude which the Minister has taken up in this matter throughout the whole of these debates has been quite unforgivable, if I may say so. After all, these local authorities do know their districts and their demands. The Minister gave a long account of some local authority in Hampshire, and made a venomous attack on my right hon. Friend, showing tremendous ignorance of the locality. Because the Minister has taken this absurd line throughout, why should not the House retain this most reasonable Amendment? It lays down that these holdings shall not be set up unless the local authority approves. The only argument the Minister has produced on this subject—and if he is muttering about the word "argument," I will say the only attempt at an argument—is that you may get recalcitrant local authorities I believe that the Minister simply picked out one authority where not much had been done, according to his light. The figure of applicants has nothing to do with it. You have to balance the applicants by the suitability of the locality, and you have to consider how many smallholdings of this type are already there. It is no good setting up in one locality hundreds of thousands of smallholdings and absolutely swamping the market with the stuff they produce. And who can tell better than the local authority itself the number required?

Unless you have under this Bill the closest consultation between the local authority and the Government, you are not going to do something which is of real permanent value to the country. I hold that in all these matters the fact that the locality has to find its percentage is a great check on administrative extravagance. If you are giving local authorities money to spend in this way, you want to give them the responsibility of having to find some of the money; otherwise they will say, "Let us see how much we can get," and they will have no regard to the taxpayers as a whole, which is the most important thing of all. There is a further point, which I do not think has been touched upon, in respect to the words

"may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on that holding."

That is the real thing to which the Minister objects in this case. He does not mind setting up these people, and saying "I have done all this for the unemployed," and make a long story about it. We want to see that before these men are put on the land, they shall have a reasonable chance, under modern conditions, of earning a livelihood. It is the most cruelly deceptive thing you can do to take men from towns and other districts and set them on smallholdings where they have no possible chance of earning a livelihood. I think that this is the most valuable part of the Amendment. The whole of the Amendment is one which any sensible Minister could accept. I see the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting there beaming, as he always does when I am speaking. Surely he will say that I am bringing forward a lot of Scottish common sense, and that he will accept it. He is not one who irritates the House. He has the gift of making things easy. Therefore, why does he not, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, accept this Amendment, which would improve the Bill, and add enormously to his own personal credit. It will not hurt the Minister; he would be quite pleased in the end that this sensible addition had been made to the Bill.

This question of the provision of smallholdings is one which we ought to approach from a nonparty point of view, and we ought to try to visualise the Amendments entirely from the standpoint of whether they will facilitate the work or not. The Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues are always saying to us—they said it in Committee and on Report—"Trust the Minister"; you must imagine that the Minister is a sensible person; you must not assume that he will do foolish things; you must assume that he is actuated by the best of motives. If we are to agree to that appeal, and we largely do, surely the Minister should regard the county councils as reasonable people who would give an unbiased opinion under this particular Amendment, and would not do anything to spoil the Minister's scheme. Whether it is argued that this Amendment should be inserted from a national point of view or not, at any rate, if this Amendment were put in, the county councils would do all they could to facilitate the work of the Minister, because they would have in mind that when they provided smallholdings 25 per cent. of the total cost had to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers.

Many counties with very heavy burdens constantly put upon them are not disinclined to find smallholdings, but are unable to do so because of the cost. Under this, they would say to themselves "We do not know whether this is good from a national point of view, but, at any rate, from the local government point of view, if we pass as many as we can of these plots of land which are being acquired for smallholdings, we shall provide for the local unemployed a means of livelihood and a means of tiding over bad times at no cost to our local ratepayers, but entirely at the cost of the taxpayers." This Amendment must help the Minister in his scheme, and therefore, before we go to a Division on this Question—and I hope that my hon. Friends will go to a Division—I feel very strongly that we ought to have something more from the Chancellor of the Duchy than we have had up to the present. He courteously said that the Amendment could not be accepted, but he gave no reasons, and I think, with the leave of the House, he might give us some reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted. In my opinion, the Amendment would be helpful to the scheme and the Bill, and not be harmful.

As we have now the advantage of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, may I put this one point to him, that really from his point of view this Amendment would do good, because now there is every inducement to the local authority to pass as much land as possible. They will say, "If we pass as much land as possible, we have a Minister simply bursting with money who will provide smallholdings for our unemployed all at the cost of the Exchequer and of the Ministry of Agriculture, and not as to 25 per cent. from the rates." Therefore, perhaps the Minister can deal with the point, which seems to me all in favour of the Bill. I cannot help thinking that the reason why the Minister will not have this Amendment, even though it is obviously to his advantage, is that he cannot disabuse his mind of mistrust of the local authorities. He cannot visualise the local authorities playing the game. I think that they will, apart from their self-interest, for after all, a county council is composed of ordinary human beings, and they are not antagonistic to the Ministry of Agriculture qua the Ministry of Agriculture; they are full of distrust of Whitehall and things being directed from Whitehall. If they are handled in the right way, they are amenable to suggestions, and if the local authorities and the Minister can combine in this matter so that these smallholdings can be provided for the unemployed, it is better than expressing distrust of local authorities which this Motion does, because they will simply say that as they are not trusted by the Minister, they will not provide any more smallholdings under the old Acts, but will leave it to the Ministry, which will be a thousand pities.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has misinterpreted our objection to the Amendment. The reason is not any distrust of the local authorities at all, and there is no suggestion that we are hostile to them. The point is that if Parliament decides to do this, it is not reasonable to put in the Bill something which will give people outside the power to veto what this House does. The Bill provides abundantly for co-operation with the local authorities, and I have not the slightest doubt that we shall co-operate. We are on happy terms with them, and they understand the situation. I will give one or two instances to support our disagreement with the Amendment. There is a county which has provided seven holdings in the last five years, and has 57 approved applicants waiting. Another county which has provided one smallholding in the last five years has 215 waiting approved applicants. A third county has not provided a single holding in the last five years, and they have 63 applicants waiting who have been approved by the council. It is too much to ask me to say that the whole of this should be subject to the approval of a council which clearly objects to the whole thing and does not want smallholdings. This is vital to the Bill, and I would not accept the Amendment under any circumstances whatever.

The answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is to be found in the experience of the county councils themselves. I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to trust some county councils with their records, but anyone who has followed this movement for many years is aware of the fact that the experience of those who seek smallholdings and land settlement in various counties differs profoundly. When I was taking an interest in this subject first, they used to talk about a land hunger, and there was a hunger. It was not a question of hundreds of applicants in an area, but of thousands in some counties. That land hunger has dwindled until it has become just a trickle. If we are to make an experiment to get men on the land, it must be made with the full assurance that there will not be these differences between one area and another according to the outlook of the county councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) said that there was nothing more cruel than to place a man on a holding if you are not sure that he can pay his way. There is something more cruel than that, which is to drive a man out of his native village, when he desires to live on the land, because he cannot rise from the status of a land worker. I am sure that the Minister is right in resisting the Amendment.

There is a great deal in what the Minister said in regard to those counties which have not done their duty, but in many cases they have not been able to do their duty because of financial restrictions. What I am afraid of is that we are losing contact with the county councils. The Minister said there were other plans in the Bill where there was to be close contact with the county councils. The only two cases Which I can find are Clause 10, in which the Minister takes power where the county councils have done nothing, and Clause 13, where he gives the county councils power to create further smallholdings. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to point out where there is in the Bill any satisfactory opportunity of the close cooperation which is so necessary if the objects of the Bill are to be achieved.

If the hon. Member looks at Clause 12, he will see—

"Any smallholdings or allotments provided by the Minister and any land acquired by him … may by arrangement between him and the local authority be either controlled and managed by the authority as agents for the Minister"

etc. It gives complete power in all cases to make arrangements with the county councils to act as our agents.