MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



11 



14 October, HU9.] 



MR. JAMES GARDNER. 



[Continued. 



Scotland, whatever it might do in England, I agree 

 with the running of a farm as a commercial proposi- 

 tion after it had been established to the satisfaction 

 of the Government in conjunction with manufac- 

 turers' plant to take it up and show that the farmers 

 could get their products stabilised and also show the 

 industrial community what a valuable asset this 

 business might be, i agree with you up to the hilt 

 in that case that the commercial venture ought to 

 be made. 



12.910. Would it not be necessary to have such 

 demonstration farms in various parts of the country:' 

 Yes, I think it would be a wise thing, so long as it 

 was economic. So long as you made it pay, there 

 would be no limit to where you. can go. 



12.911. I felt very great sympathy with what you 

 said just now about security of tenure; but I would 

 like to know your opinion about two "points which 

 seemed to me difficulties. In the first place, do you 

 think that a public body like a Land Court can be 

 trusted to be sufficiently stern to Inefficient farmers, 

 and will such a Court have the courage to evict 

 inefficient farmers? Such a Court as the English 

 Chambers of Agriculture sketched out in their reso- 

 lution which they sent to the Government might have 

 a difficulty; that is to say, local representatives of 

 the landlords and the farmers and a County Court 

 Judge might have some little difficulty, from senti- 

 mental and other reasons, in ejecting a man. You 

 might have difficulties of that kind ; but you woukl 

 not have difficulties of that kind with a Court with 

 a jurisdiction over a larger area. They would be 

 subject to no influences of that kind. There would 

 be no difficulty whatever; and I consider it is a very 

 necessary part of a scheme of that kind that the 

 inefficient farmer, for whatever reason, should 

 generally be laid aside. 



12.912. My second difficulty is this. Is there not a 

 danger that security <>( tenure might tend to stereo- 

 type the size of holdings? Suppose, for example, the 

 development of machinery made a much larger farm 

 than is usual at present, the most economic unit of 

 production in agriculture, would not security of 

 tenure make it more difficult to move from a system 

 of small farms to a system of large farms? I do not 

 see any difficulty myself in that regard. In the better 

 cropping areas I think you must look for the develop- 

 ment of machinery, farming on that more intensive 

 system; but there are many parts of the country. 

 especially in Scotland, where that class of farming 

 can never obtain, and I do not think there is much 

 danger of tliero being difficulty by removing from a 

 .small holding to a larger holding in the scheme. I 

 ;.m satisfied there is none, and that is one of the 

 things you do want in agriculture. You want the 

 smallholder, you want the farm of ordinary size, and 

 vmi want the larger farm. You want steps right up. 



12.913. But do you not also require that there should 

 be great facility, either in combining small farms or 

 splitting up large farms according to developments 

 in agricultural practice, or the requirements of 

 changed market conditions? If your suggestion 

 means, do I agree that large farms in certain cases 

 ought to be taken for breaking up into smaller farms 

 and the process vine versa on the other side, I cer- 

 tainly agree. .All these things would have to be a 

 matter of public policy and public utility. If it 

 uerc found in certain distrVts that the .smaller pro- 

 position might be very succiasful, then there should 

 be a breaking up of the farms that were suitable. 

 On the other hand, if it wore found that by putting 



lam nuinlwr of holdings together it w:i> a. VITV 

 niiifh better economic proposition, then I agree that 

 that .should be done. 



12,911. I ;i in not wanting to surest that a move- 

 "ither In tin- one direction or the other, is at the 

 '""merit desirable; but mipposiiifr change.-, took place 

 which made, alteration in the size of farms a good 

 thing, would th" measure of security of tenure which 

 you arc advocating hamper the facility with which 

 the el '(Jit be earned out? It ought not; 



"abb- MM-inity of tenure to the, tenant 

 would never imply absolute --urity ,,)' t. i ..... 

 that when there arc ,) public utility lie could 



not be moved from that place He would 'bo subject 



to the decision of the Arbitration Board, or any 

 other body that 'might be constituted for the pur- 

 pose. He would have to remove and get compen- 

 sated under an amended Agricultural Holdings Act, 

 or the present Agricultural Holdings Act until it 

 is amended. He would have to get hie compensation 

 and remove. 



12,915. An important thing in your view is that 

 the Arbitration Court, which would deal with thefte 

 questions, should have a large district and be com- 

 posed of experts, and not be subject to local interests 

 of sentiment, and so on? I am very strongly of that 

 opinion. 



12,91t>. With regard to game, do you agree with 

 me that compensation for damage done, however 

 generous, is no real remedy for the trouble? Yes, 

 1 do agree to that. 



12.917. Compensation might save the farmer from 

 financial loss, but it would not make good the loss 

 of foodstuffs to the nation? That is the point. 



12.918. You said just now that you wanted a fair 

 field and, I think you implied, no favour; and you 

 illustrated what you meant by a fair field by speaking 

 of the removal of State interference from agrioul- 

 turaL labour in the matter of hours? Yes. 



12.919. I should follow what you say if the State 

 did not interfere with hours of employment in indus- 

 tries other than agriculture; but when the State 

 regulates the hours and the length of the standard 

 day in other industries, it would be giving agricul- 

 ture rather more than a fair field, would it not, 

 and oven a considerable measure of favour if the 

 State left hours in agriculture quite unregulated? 

 As compared with these other industries, but as com- 

 pared with fair play it would not. My answer to 

 your question is, that if the State interferes with 

 the regulation of the hours of industrial concerns 

 in this country, it may continue for some time; but 

 unless you can get other competing nations to agree 

 to the same number of hours, they have an unfair 

 advantage over you. 



12.920. So that your policy of getting a fair field 

 would involve the removal of the regulation of hours 

 in industries other than agriculture? Yes. 



12.921. Mr. Langford just now raised the question 

 of work during inclement weather. Would you 

 favour an arrangement similar to that which obtains 

 in some quarries in England, that is to say, an 

 arrangement under which the men are sent home 

 and paid half wages for the time when the weather 

 is too bad for work?- -I think the present custom, in 

 Scotland at least, has been the result of long years 

 of experience, and I would be very sorry to see that 

 system substituted by any other by which the male 

 worker, that is the regular worker, was not guaran- 

 teed his wage for the whole time, because we have 

 so much broken weather that the worker would be 

 at a very considerable disadvantage. 



12.922. It would be a considerable disadvantage 

 to him if, his wages remaining what they are, he was 

 only paid half wages instead of whole wages in the bad 

 weather. But if you can afford to pay him tho whole 

 wages for bad weather and good weather, you could 

 presumably afford to pay a higher wage for the time 

 when he was at work if you only had to pay half wages 

 while he was away? That is perfectly true. Theo- 

 retically you are quite correct ; but in working it out 

 in practice, it would be a nuisance in agriculture 

 because farmers would not at the present time, and 

 would not probably in future, care very much to be 

 timekeepers and bookkeepers. Both the men and tho 

 masters prefer simple, direct and clear arrangements 

 that they could understand, without having to sit 

 down and consider them and make out the time at 

 the end of the week, and all that sort of thing. 



12,92.3. May 1 tell you what is really in my mind? 

 What I have noticed in bad weather is, that the men 

 who are kept on the farm just dawdle about inside a 

 barn watching the weather, and that that dawdling 

 about tends to affect the work done, even when the 

 weather is all right, and if there were a more definite 

 distinction between the time of work and the time 

 when the men are turned off because of the weather, 



it might tend to promote more efficiency generally?, 



I cannot say that I agree with you. The men are cer- 

 tainly not working as hard when the weather is wet, 

 but sometimes there is plenty of work inside and other 



