BRITISH POLITICS

Hokitika Guardian, 22 December 1927, Page 2

BRITISH POLITICS

LAND QUESTION: (Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, Dec. 20: Sir S. Sinclair (Liberal) in the House of Commons, moved for the Liberal Party a resolution deploring the Government’s failure to restore agriculture. He expressed the opinion that Lord Bledisloe was suffering from the paralysing, insidious disease oi complacency. Britain had readied tbe smallest arablearea in its agricultural history, with four tnousand fewer land-workers than half a century ago. Temporary assistance here anil there was useless. Hold comprehensive measures are essential. Sir S. Sinclair, in illustrating his contention, pointed cut that the sug.u beet subsidy was the only branch in the Government’s policy which was pursued with vigour, hut the ten millions sterling that had been devoted to that purpose might, he said, have changed the face of the country if the Government had at the same time devoted five millions to land settlement, two millions to scientific research. and three millions to advances from to settlers. To get the best results from the land, he said; it was necessary to have small holdings. There were ten thousand unsatisfied applicants for land in Scotland, and there wore sixteen thousand applicants in England. Nevertheless, the Government had slowed down on the small holdings. They were not fulfilling their pledges to the ex-servicemen, and they were flouting tbe recommendations of their own tribunal. At present. tbe greatest difficulty in agriculture was the shortage of capital. -More capital was needed for tbe adaptation of land, and for drainage and reclamation. ’ . . y u . Thus. Davies (Conservative) moved an amendment, which stated that, recognising that the depression existing was not immovable, the Government should take action on sound economic principles. Major C. AY. Al. Price (Con.) seconded the amendment. He said that the Liberal Party’s recommendations amounted to the nationalisation of In ml *

Bt. Hon. Mr Huxton (Labour) said that the Labour Party strongly supported the Liberal Party’s motion, lie expressed the opinion that the farmer would he happier under State ownership.

Air Wayhnul said that the farmer’s real trouble was that Britain was the world’s dumping ground, and the only remedy was not, available at present, namely, protection. Bt. Hon. -W. Guinness (Government) replying, said the Opposition’s propoi sitions were unpractical. He did not agree with what he termed the misleading generalisation that there was, on a large scale, waste and under-cul-tivation in Britain. Their agricultural wages and yields compared favourably with those of other countries. 'He was not prepared to argue on the efficiency of tanlf protection. Ihe Liberals proposed to sweep away the landlords. Labour’s estimate of the cost ot land nationalisation was £740,000,000. Ihc Government, he said, believed that the root of the trouble was a fall in prices, which was beyond control. Mr Lloyd George said that he was in favour of the State assiting agriculture. It was impossible to extricate agriculture from its present position without a State grant. He regretted that Mr Baldwin had not called a conference of all the parties to cousidci the problems of agriculture. . There should be financial assistance for Hie farmers for drainage, and to secure cheaper transport for agriculture. Further, agriculture would have to he emancipated from the middlemen. Mr Lloyd George was subjected to considerable Conservative interruption, recalling his attacks upon the landlords. when lie called the rural landlords rapacious. The Liberal motion was defeated by 258 votes to 107.

In reply to a question, Mr Winston Churchill (Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the cost of pensions for all workers aged sixty, in order to enable their removal from industry, would he serious. On the basis ol .Vis weekly.' it would cost £350,000,000 foi the first year, rising to £Gflo,ooo.ooo in 1960. He did not favour setting up a committee of inquiry into a scheme for such pension.