it; 



ROTAI. roMMI>M"S <>\ AGRICULTURE. 



14 Oeloktr, 1919.] 



MK. JAMIK GAHUNBK. 



you got your development of agricultural machinery 

 ami your other factor* ooming in. 



13.020. So that tho I'nino Minister, who reieniK 

 lated that the only industry that showed an increased 

 production was agriculture, was not quite accurate 

 according to your itatenient - Nut if you Height the 



You havo to take into consideration tin- 

 fact that although quite a large number of our m. n 

 went away, there wan a very great influx of outside 

 labour into agriculture and it very much greater area 

 broken up. If you take it on the overhead average, 

 then I Kay your production wa greatly increased. 

 ( ndoubu-d'ly that is the case. But if you weight the 

 evidence, it does not bear out your suggestion. 



13.021. Dr. Douglas: You have told us that the 

 equipment of farm* in Scotland generally is very 

 inefficient ifI think that in the majority of case* 

 the permanent equipment is more or less inefficient. 



13.022. That is not a new state of matters I think. 

 although it has been aggravated by war conditions- 

 That is so. 



13.023. Do you think that is due to the fact that in 

 cost of such improvements did not really secure an 

 adequate rate of interest that it was not a good 

 investment? Primarily in the main. \e*. 



13.024. You told us, and on very good grounds, that 

 greater security of tenure is desirable that is to say, 

 greater security as regards the expenditure made by 

 farmers in the cultivation of their land? Yes. 



13.025. How far has your Union considered whether 

 this state of matters could be met by amendments of 

 the Agricultural Holdings Act? We have discussed 

 that very frequently, and I may say we have arrived 

 at the conclusion that both of these Acts were well- 

 meant and honest endeavours to give the tenant what 

 vou say is his due, but we are of opinion that by not 

 including security of tenure is the real reason why 

 these Agricultural Holdings Acts have become in- 

 effective in that they have failed to secure the tenant 

 in his holding. 



13.096. There is a clause designed for that purpose, 

 is there notP Yes. 



13.097. Bht it does not have ite effect ? It has not 

 had the effect it was intended to have. 



13.098. Are there any other defects also in these 

 Acts that make them inadequate for example, the 

 cost of arbitration is very excessive, i- it not? The 

 cost of arbitration is one deterrent against the farmers 

 or the landlords exercising their rights. 



13.029. Generally speaking the Acts do require 

 amendment? They do in two particular respects. 

 Referring to your previous question the main objec- 

 tion in the view of our members to the Act is that 

 it does not compensate the farmer who does really 

 put his brain* and capital into the land. It does not 

 compensate him in anything like an adequate measure 

 for continuous good farming over a period of years 

 what wo understand in Scotland by cumulative fer- 

 tility. 



13.030. So that whether there is security of tenure 

 or not the Agricultural Holdings Acts would need 

 amendment? Decidedly. 



13.031. You do not consider that adequate security 

 can be given by any amendment of these Acts? Wo 

 have discussed that, and that is our view. Until you 

 incorporate security of tenure any Act that you may 

 paw will nevnr become effective in its operation. It 



.TV fine point, anil if the. Chairman would allow 

 go into it a little it is tin- turning point of the 

 whole question of tin- Agricultural Holdings A 



l:t".'i2. l'li,iii.n<in: (Vrtainly? On the f:i4-e of it 

 it does bear out tin- view that if a man * 

 farm and expend* hi- capital upon improving the laid 

 and getting it into pood order and hooping it in goixl 

 order up to the day ho leaves. If it were possible t.>i 

 him to get all his return it would have a great effect. 

 There is no reason why he should want any i 

 but in practice in the working out of the Agricultural 

 Holding* Act in the pant it has been found that the 

 Act doen not give tho really good tenant anything 

 approar-hing to what in really hi*. 



13.O33. ]>r. l><n,,,l,,: Kven if you had security of 

 me an you propose, that would 

 still do nothing to mitigate the hardship of tht h 

 who voluntarily relinquishes l.in holding? T under- 

 stand by that question you mean that the Agricultural 



Moldings Act requires amendment still to compensate 

 thai man. 



l.M. (134. I suggest to you th.it .security ..f tenure 

 would do nothing to remove tho grievance which 

 exists in respect to the heirs of a farmer who du or a 

 lanner himself who retires from his holding either to 

 go to another farm m through old ago or-from any 

 other cause?- It doea nothing to help him in those 

 directions |X'rhaps. but it does nothing to injure him. 



I :<.<*%. If security of tenure became universal and 

 did lead to general encouragement of expenditure and 

 the tuning up of cultivation, would the farmer who 

 leaves his farm of his own accord or the hen.- of the 

 fanner who dies not have a gric. n greater 



than they now have, because there would be more 

 at issue? They would have made improvements en- 

 couraged by security of tenure, and the value .if 

 these improvements would be lo-t to them ju.*t a* they 

 arn now lost under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 

 but their grievance would be aggravated because there 

 would be more lost if more had been spent in improv- 

 ing the land? Perhaps your reasoning would bo right 

 if you had not the Agricultural Holdings Acts 

 amended in addition as they ought to be. 



13,030. If the Agricultural Holdings Ai -t< are u 

 able of amendment' -which is what you -uggest so 

 as to give adequate compensation for imp' 

 then the tenant who leaves his farm or the In -i 

 the tenant who dies suffer greater injury in conse- 

 quence of the greater expenditure the tenant 1ms been 

 induced to make? I rather fail to see that. 



13.037. I am nob going to argue the point; I put it 

 to you for your consideration. He will h 



more money upon his farm if the security of his tenure 

 has been achieved? Ho will certainly have spent more 

 money upon it, but in the scheme we propose the 

 Arbitration Court in the absence of agreement will 

 determine what is his and what is tho landlord's. I 

 fail to see how he can be prejudiced or how the claims 

 of his executors would be prejudiced in any way 

 whatever. 



13.038. Because of the imperfections of the Agri- 

 cultural Holdings Act unless it is capable of amend- 

 ment? It is capable of amendment. If you add 

 security of tenure to it you can mako it effective. 



13.039. If it were capable of adequate amend- 

 ment would that not reduce the case for a large 

 change in the terms of land tenure? I fail just to 

 gnusp what you mean. 



13.040. If it did secure to the farmer a full return 

 for all that he had spent would that not meet his 

 case? As I said at first, if it were possible that ho 

 could get everything that ho was entitled to on the 

 dav ho left his farm he would be no worse off than 

 urban tenant*: he could not be said to be unfairly- 

 dealt with. But I said that in practice in the work- 

 ing out of this problem in regard to agriculture 

 the weakness will be discovered. 



13.041. You said, and truly, that the situation has 

 been aggravated and indeed substantially altered by 

 the recent sales of land? That is so. 



Ki.ul'J. Kven in the case of leaseholds ? Yes. 



13.043. You think that that has gone far to alter 

 the traditional relations between landlord and tenant - 



Yes. 



13.044. Which mitigated tl.e .strictly economic point 

 of view between them ? - Formerly it did. 



13.045. Therefore any further tendency to sell land 

 would rather tend to increase that state of matters. 

 If further sales of land take place more people will 

 bo brought under the same conditions, and, there- 

 fore, that state of things will bo further aggravated? 

 Yes, that follows. 



13.046. You have put forward a scheme for a tri- 

 bunal to fix rent by arbitration. Does your Union 

 hold any view a.* to the basis on which rents should 

 be valued ' J We have not considered that particular 

 point. 



13.047. You have not considered, for example, 

 whether the cost of production the return on the 



.il laid out would be an element in tho case? 

 I think T rather suggested in my sketching out of that 

 scheme that that was one of the reasons for the whole- 

 time employment of tho men constituting the Court. 

 who must be thoroughly qualified to deal with these 

 point*, which are highly contentious and very difficult 

 to arrive at a finding upon. 



