Land Nationalisation

Andrew MacLaren

[The transcript of a statement delivered in the U.K.
House of Commons, 14 December 1938]

I know the hon. Member did, and I thought that day, "My dear old friend is progressing." But today the hon. Member has gone back. I am just opening in this way, because I think it is well, now that we are all rather on the move for the defence of the nation, that we should remind the people of the nation how much in fact they are the owners of the nation.

On the question of whether we should have nationalisation of the land or private ownership of the land, there should be a simple test, and that is: under what system do we derive the most from the land? If there is anything that is terrifying to any serious student in our time, it is to observe that in almost every country in the world, except, strangely enough, the dictatorship countries, there is a tendency for the human population to leave the land. There is also another tendency. It is that people do not look upon the land as the basis and hope of human society, but as the medium through which they can acquire vast fortunes, irrespective of the condition in which they leave the land when they have finished with it. You see this in Australia and in the United States. These vast countries are being destroyed by the ruthless misuse of this great gift of God; and then people leave it, and pass on to destroy some other virgin land.

This land question is more than a mere political question. It is at the bottom of human existence. Nay, more than that, without an attachment to the land civilisation is doomed. We in England could not think of a Shakespeare without thinking in terms of an attachment to the land of England. We could not think of Robert Burns without thinking in terms of the same attachment to the land of Scotland. The uprooting of people from the land means a spiritual loss to civilisation, and where people are driven from the country into this artificial civilisation of the towns it is a false existence. We hear on all sides of the decay of the family, but we observe that on this as upon other basic problems affecting the future of society our discussions are vague and superficial. Listening to Debates in this House one begins to wonder if fundamental thinking is an art of the past. The lives we live show the same thing. The art of the hand is going out; the device of the machine is taking its place. That is a danger to this or any other country.

It is of the greatest importance that we in this House at least should turn our attention to this question, not merely the matter of who owns the land or who does not - although that is very important - but what is the effect of our misuse of the land on our people in general; what is the spiritual effect of this constant divorcement of our people from the land? Surely there is not a landowner in this House who will not agree with me that this fair country called Great Britain, one of the fairest gems on the face of the earth from the point of view of land, is not being used to the extent that it ought to be used. It is not breeding, as it should, as fine a race as you will find in any other part of the world. There is no landowner in this House but admits that. Then why is it? It is too late in the day to deal with the historical analysis behind all this; I will say only that one cannot turn over the pages of the history of our country without feeling shocked and shamed at the developments which have led to the present position in regard to landowning in this country. The history of this country is sullied by the very sad way in which the average countryman in this country has been treated - as a serf, sometimes worse - and the land, not merely in the hands of laymen but in the hands of Churchmen, has been used not so much as a basis for life, for spiritual development, but as a means of extorting fortunes and livings out of the poor. It is time to turn away from this. England is not worth our calling upon one man to defend it if it is still to be a country where 2,000,000 or more are to form a hard core of unemployment in a land which in natural elements is rich beyond the dreams of men.

The Motion we are discussing to-day, if I may say so quite frankly, gives me very great doubt. We are dealing with three types of land: agricultural land, what my right hon. Friend would call quasi-urban land around towns, and urban land. I have never at any time - and I say this to my right hon. Friend with due respect and regard for the years of effort he has put into this work - in my analysis of this problem been able to differentiate between agricultural land and urban land. It simply cannot be done. I have been in that technical fight far too long. When does agricultural land begin and urban land end? It cannot be defined. Probably, if it could, in a rough-and-ready way we might, in order to expedite the passage of the land from private ownership to the ownership of the State, say, "We will compromise; leave this to agriculture, pay a fair price for that, and proceed to deal with urban land." But I want to say this in fairness to the landowner. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said - I know it is true - there are many men owning land in this country who are not making a fortune out of it - far from it - but have a sentimental attachment to the land. Suppose you have such a landowner as that throwing out his energy, preserving his estate, looking after his labourers, seeing that his house is in good condition; he is subject to purchase at an arbitration price.

Take the land in the urban area. It is not going to be subject, under this Motion, to purchase at all; it is going to be subject to a squeezing process of rating and taxation. If you are going to deal with landlords in the main you had better deal with them by the same process. We cannot define the area of agricultural land; it cannot be done. It is becoming ever more difficult in view of modern developments, such as the vast expenditure of public money on new bridges, new roads, great public developments, passing right up and down the country. It is very difficult to know where agricultural land value begins and urban land value ends. My right hon. Friend said himself that the quasi-urban land was indeed the most serious part of his problem. Of course it is. When you begin to segregate land in this way according to its functions you inevitably come into difficulties of the kind he had in mind when you propose transferring it to State ownership. It is better to look upon land quite irrespective of the uses to which it is put and ascertain the site value of the land, whether it is used for urban or agricultural purposes or any other purposes. Once and for all, that settles the question of definition.

Ascertain the rental value or what the landowner would expect to receive from year to year for the rental of the land, free from all improvements, and proceed to deal with it by way of taxation and rating. If you are going to rate and tax the urban landowner, it would clarify the situation to extend the practice beyond the boundary of what is called agricultural land. In ascertaining the site value or the rental value of the land you are ascertaining only the value attaching to that land by virtue of the presence of the demand of the community round about it. It would be a sad day - and I say this with a certain amount of regret - for the Labour and Socialist movement of Great Britain to go back on the old demand that it made in its more virile youth, that the social value attaching to land should go back to the community who made it and that no compensation should ever be asked by or paid to any landowner for the value which he personally never made. I would warn the House, because on this matter I am very definite and determined, and will fight, if need be, against any attempt to raise public funds to pay for a value which is created by the community and at the same time call upon the community to pay for the value which it has created. It is immoral, it is not honest, it is not frank.

From the benches opposite we have heard of proposals that the land should be divided into more smallholdings. I agree. Nothing would please me better than to see the land of this country being used by having men living on it, even if they were only growing their own food and living their own lives on their own holdings, if you like, in co-operation with others, as is done in Denmark. Nothing would give hon. Members on this side of the House greater pleasure than to witness that prospect, but who is it that is stopping us from getting the land? Who is hindering us? Look at the prices which are asked for land when it is wanted for smallholdings. What happens? As soon as any corporation makes a move to get land outside, or contiguous to, a city for smallholdings, it is called upon to pay extortionate prices; even whether it is for smallholdings or for any other form of agricultural development. Once the landowner - and I do not blame him because the situation is such that it encourages him to act in such a way - knows that there is going to be a national move to develop smallholdings, or any agricultural development, naturally he is waiting there. He does not raise the price of his land. He does not do it automatically, it is done for him the moment the national movement is set on foot.