HC Deb 18 March 1932 vol 263 cc631-42

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 18, line 14, after the word "bankruptcy," to insert the words: or committee or receiver.

In line 15, after the word "bankrupt," to insert the words: or been found to be a lunatic or otherwise incapable of managing his affairs.

In line 16, after the word "bankruptcy," to insert the words: or before he was found to be a lunatic or otherwise incapable of managing his affairs.

In line 17, after the word "trustee," to insert the words: or committee or receiver.

In line 18, after the word "trustee," to insert the words: or committee or receiver."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Before I call upon the hon. and Learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to move his first, Amendment to Clause 12, I should like to ask him if I am right in assuming that that Amendment and the next four Amendments standing in his name are really one Amendment?

Sir S. CRIPPS

Yes, Sir. I beg to move, in page 18, line 14, after the word "bankruptcy," to insert the words: or committee or receiver. After the rather devastating effect on the right hon. Gentleman of the last Division, no doubt he will accept these Amendments without making us go into the Lobby. The right hon. Gentleman, in this Clause of his Bill, seems to have contemplated that the result of the Bill would be to make the farmer bankrupt. We believe that it is more likely to have the effect of making the farmer mad, and, therefore, we think it is really more important to cover the point of the committee of the lunatic than that of the trustee in bankruptcy. The right hon. Gentleman has put in a very proper provision here to deal with cases in which the deficiency payments go to a trustee in bankruptcy where bankruptcy intervenes between the date of sowing and the claiming of the deficiency payment. We think there should be a similar provision to enable cases to be dealt with where, unfortunately, whether because of this Measure or for some other reason, the farmer becomes a lunatic, or where a receiver is appointed of the farm for any other reason—an equitable receiver or otherwise. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared, either by these words or some others, to cover these two cases, which I think he will agree ought to be covered.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I confess that my nerve has not been shaken by the result of the last Division. I have gone very carefully into the points raised by the hon, and Learned Gentleman, and I agree that the principle of his Amendments should be met. There are a number of circumstances in which the relationship of a person to a registered grower may be that of a trustee, and I propose, on Report, to bring forward an Amendment which will cover all such cases comprehensively.

Sir S. CRIPPS

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

I beg to move, in page 18, line 22, after the word "thereon," to insert the words: or under a distraint. I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who has to be absent from the House to-day on national business. There is a further Amendment which is consequential upon it—in line 24, after the word "charge," to insert the words "or levy the distress." We have put down these Amendments because we have some little doubt as to whether a charge and a distraint mean the same thing, and I believe that their effect would be to carry out the intention of the Clause.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I propose to accept these Amendments. Under the Bill as it is drafted, if the landlord of a person who has sold wheat levies a distress for rent, neither he nor the registered grower would get the deficiency payment, and there seems to be no case for saying that the grower should be deprived of the benefit of the deficiency payment because he is not able to pay his rent and the landlord, consequently, has distrained.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 24, after the word "charge," insert the words:

"or levy the distress."—[Brigadier-General Brown.]

Brigadier-General BROWN

I beg to move, in page 18, line 26, after the word "shall," to insert the words: in the absence of any agreement to the contrary in the charge. 1.0 p.m.

There are several later Amendments which are more or less consequential upon this one, and to which I hope I may be allowed to refer. The subject is very complicated, but I cannot see why a person who is entitled to enforce a charge should in every case be precluded from having the right to receive the deficiency payment, even where there is a contract to the contrary, and that is the relevant point. Clause 12 provides that where a registered grower has died or become bank- rupt, and where, by virtue of any charge thereon, wheat grown by a registered grower is sold by a person entitled to enforce the charge, the wheat shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Measure, to have been sold by the registered grower, and the registered grower shall be entitled to receive the deficiency payment. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a man would be in a better position if he were dead or bankrupt than if he had to carry out some of the agreements that may be involved. These agreements are very complicated. The Agricultural Holdings Act may be very seriously interfered with by this exclusion of the man who is entitled to enforce the charge, and there are many other enactments of that sort which may be interfered with. There are also local agreements. For instance, when there is an incoming tenant, the outgoing tenant usually has to leave his wheat in the stack, at any rate until some time after Michaelmas, and the wheat may be sold six months after; but the straw has to be left on the farm whether there is an incoming tenant or not. The deficiency payment in respect of that wheat cannot be assessed until the price is known, perhaps three or four months afterwards, but it will enter into the calculations. In that case, however, the deficiency payment can only go to the registered grower or the trustee, as the Bill at present stands. It seems to me that any agreement which has been made should be kept by the trustee just as it would have had to be kept by the grower himself. In view of the complications that may arise, I think that at least some explanation should be given as to why the person who is entitled to enforce the charge should not have the right to receive the deficiency payment. I have a later Amendment to omit from Sub-section (2) the words: Deficiency payments paid under this Act in respect of any wheat shall be deemed for the purposes of Part II of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, not to form part of the proceeds of the sale of that wheat. I have put down that Amendment because I desire to make an inquiry as to whether this matter has been arranged with the banks. They have certain obligations under Section 6 (1) of the Agricultural Credits Act. Unless that matter has been arranged with the banks it had much better be left out, because it will raise greater obligations.

Earl WINTERTON

I want to ask a question about this very complicated matter. In some parts of England, notably the part from which I come, owing to the very bad times through which agriculture is passing, it has been the habit of some landlords to pay the valuation of an outgoing tenant in order to enable the incoming tenant to come in. I had a case of a most excellent tenant who had not the capital to pay the valuation, and I paid it for him. I have a general lien on his stock in the anticipation that, when he goes out, he will be able to repay me, though I do not intend to press him. I think the matter wants looking into. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to make it difficult for men to take farms or to borrow money under the Agricultural Credits Act or in other ways.

Sir J. GILMOUR

The effect of this and the two following Amendments is to provide that a registered grower who has given a charge upon his wheat may agree that the person entitled to enforce the charge shall also be entitled to receive the deficiency payment instead of the registered grower. It is essential that the Wheat Commission should know to whom it is legally bound to make this deficiency payment in order to discharge its obligations. An agreement as contemplated by the Amendment might be made and the Wheat Commission might know nothing about it and, consequently, might pay the wrong person. There is nothing to prevent a registered grower from agreeing in advance with another party that, when he receives the deficiency payment, he will pay it over to that party. That really answers the question of the Noble Lord.

Earl WINTERTON

Is the right hon. Gentleman assured that that will be valid in law?

Sir J. GILMOUR

Yes, I am advised that that is so. There is nothing to prevent it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment asked me a question about the Agricultural Credits Act. I can assure him that the banks and clearing houses have been consulted and are in agreement with what is being done. It is clear that it is necessary to have this provision and that it will not cause difficulties.

Mr. CONANT

This Amendment is of very much more importance than might appear at first sight, and I hope the Minister will give very careful consideration to see that the registered grower has power to pass on any deficiency payment that may become due at a future date. Sub-section (2), which is not one of the easiest to understand, appears to me to mean that a registered grower whose wheat is sold by some persons who may have a charge upon his asset is himself bound to receive deficiency payments that may become due. I am inclined to think that that Sub-section would preclude a registered grower from assigning that asset to another party. I hope the Minister will assure us once again that that is not so, because I can foresee very great difficulty for a registered grower who is bound to receive the deficiency payment and is not allowed to assign what must be certainly, with the present low price of wheat, one of his most valuable assets.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand will of the Bill".

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

We have now reached one of the most complicated Clauses of the Measure and it is my duty, although it is thought that I have no knowledge of agriculture or of the law, to try to enlighten the Committee a little on it. I do not think this Bill, or this Clause in particular, would have been necessary if all landlords were as generously minded as the Noble Lord who addressed the Committee a few minutes ago.

Earl WINTERTON

I rather regret having mentioned a personal case, but I do not mind admitting that I am receiving interest. It is a purely business transaction.

Mr. DAVIES

I was thinking of applying for the next vacant farm on the Noble Lord's land. This is a rather complicated Clause, and I was very pleased to see that the Minister was more amenable on it than he has been on any preceding Clause. I do not know whether the fact that he is nervously awaiting the result of the election that is just coming out has affected his mind at all, but we shall see. As one who has had a little contact with agriculture, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind one fact which I think ought to be mentioned. It is assumed on all occasions that the wheat crop will always be an asset. I think I remember wheat crops becoming liabilities after a very heavy period of rain, and, consequently, it is hardly good enough to allow the Clause to pass without some more information about it. I am very delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the reasonable Amendment put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, who is not only conversant with the law but is intimate with agricultural problems as well. I think we have been able to show on this side that we know as much about agriculture as any hon. Member opposite, if not more in some, respects.

There is, after all, something in the Clause which is not absolutely clear. The right hon. Gentleman has promised before Report to look into the case of a farmer becoming bankrupt or becoming a lunatic. In fact, he might become a Member of Parliament, which is regarded as worse still. We are passing a Bill which provides sums of money to farmers through the Flour Millers' Corporation. I have always understood that no person in the House was entitled to vote upon any financial provision if he himself was to secure any advantage from the money so paid. I do not know whether I shall be treading on very delicate ground in asking the right hon. Gentleman the following question. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is giving me the attention which I think I deserve. Is it possible in any conceivable circumstances that Members of the House of Commons will be able to draw part of the subsidy personally? We have passed Acts of Parliament in the past, and it has always been assumed that no Member of Parliament can vote on any issue in the House of Commons in which he will be financially interested later on. I do not know how many farmers are in the Government, and I do not know how much land they may own or how many bailiffs they may employ.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is raising the question of per- sonal interest in a Vote on the part of Members of the House of Commons which, wherever else it may arise, does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. DAVIES

I was only trying to find out the way I was to travel, and, having ascertained exactly my limitations in that connection, I will come back to the kernel of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has never given any explanation of these words. Perhaps he will give me his attention for a moment or two, as I see that he is reading his brief for the reply. I wish Ministers would not keep quite as strictly to their briefs as they are doing in the present Government. The present Government are notorious for this sort of thing. I have not very much reason to complain of the use of briefs on this Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman has really given a masterful exposition of a very complicated problem, but he has only done so on certain occasions by reading his brief. Will he be good enough to follow me? Sub-section (3) of the Clause says: Where in pursuance of any custom or agreement. Before we part with the Clause, the Committee ought to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what customs are observed in the agricultural industry of this country. Customs in England vary from those in Wales. I do not know whether there are any customs at all in Scotland. We are entitled to know what is meant by the word "custom" in this connection. Is it right to put it in this way? A farmer may have sold his wheat and have removed to another farm before the crop can be reaped. Suppose that there was a verbal agreement as to the disposition of the wheat and the deficiency payment of the wheat, is that a custom which may vary between one county or another, or between Wales, England and Scotland respectively? Are we going to say in the Bill that those customs have the force of law? I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), if he had been present and had heard what I said, would think that I had been training for the Bar, but I wish to point out that unfortunately in the countryside there are some customs based almost upon superstition, and especially in Scotland, I am told. Are we to say, therefore, that customs which are centuries old are to be regarded as customs for the purposes of enforcing the law? That is a very important point, and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman, after referring to his brief again, will be able to enlighten the Committee upon the subject.

I should like to know also where the landlord comes in in this connection. The noble lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is a man I respect very much, and I think that he will play the game on all occasions in any transactions that he may carry out on his own estate. In the case of a farmer who is totally incapable of carrying on his business on the farm, who is at the end of his tether and unable to pay his rent, has the landlord a title to any of the money paid under the Bill, supposing the farmer is in arrears of rent? Has the landlord a right to come in and, in the end, secure the whole of the swag? I am fortified in my doubt upon the subject, because, strange as it may seem, at the end of the Clause the landlord comes in, as is usually the case. Sub-section (4) of the Clause says: Where by law or custom the outgoing occupier of any land is entitled to receive compensation from his landlord or from the incoming occupier in respect of wheat growing or grown on the land, the amount of the deficiency payments, if any, which may become payable in respect of that wheat to the landlord or incoming occupier shall be taken into account in the assessment of the compensation so payable. This is a rather important point. I feel sure that every Member of the House of Commons to whichever party he may belong, if he believes in the proposal contained in the Bill must believe, if it is going to give any advantage at all, that the advantage should not accrue in the ultimate to the landlord. It ought to accrue to the man who sows the wheat and reaps it and works the fields and not to the person who simply owns the estate and lets out the farm to the farmer. I have raised one or two rather important points, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give us an explanation. The points I have tried to make are these. What have the department in mind when they talk of "any custom," and will any of these payments accrue to the landlord instead of to the farmer, who is responsible for sowing and reaping the wheat? I am opposed to the Bill entirely and I advise my hon. Friends to vote against this Clause because of the very important fact which I mentioned at the beginning. I think that I am entitled to say that the Government, in the main, are backed up by the agricultural interests of this country. There are Members of the Government whose hands are down deep in agriculture. In my view, the Bill is nothing more or less than a landlord's Bill. The farmer is nothing but a decimal point in the whole transaction. The farmer we were told from the Government bench last evening will not matter very much at all.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is now making a speech more suitable to the Third Reading.

Mr. DAVIES

I will keep those comments for the proper occasion. I will sit down simply by saying that I am very anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should make the position clear to us today. If a farmer has sown wheat and then goes to another farm, and another farmer comes upon the land he has vacated and reaps the crop, we are entitled to know whether, if the farmer who leaves is in debt for rent, the landlord has any claim to the money which the State is providing under the Act? I do not know very much about the technicalities of agriculture, but I hope that I have been able to enlighten the Committee upon one or two very intricate points in this very complicated Measure.

Brigadier-General BROWN

I should like to call the attention of my right hon. Friend to Sub-section (3), which says: Where in pursuance of any custom or agreement the outgoing occupier of any farm leaves on the farm wheat harvested by him, then, in relation to any sale of that wheat within six months after he has ceased to be the occupier of the farm, the wheat shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be of his growing and not of the incoming occupier's growing. I think that after the words "incoming occupier's," we ought to insert the words "or landlord." Something of that kind is required to safeguard the position. The words "or landlords" should come in there unless of course, the incoming occupier includes the landlord. If that is the case, there will be no necessity to insert the words "or landlords."

Sir J. GILMOUR

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has asked a number of questions. He wishes to know what is meant by the reference to custom. Custom varies in different districts, and it is in order that those customs shall be taken into account and that we shall not alter or override unnecessarily local customs that this provision has been put in. There are a variety of different arrangements. Some people are farming under very definite leases, while other people are not. It is because of those varying arrangements that we have put in the provision. The hon. Member also said that the National Government represents agriculture, hut he seemed to assume that we were mainly concerned with the interests of the landlord. That is not so. The whole province of agriculture is linked not only with the landlords, but with the tenants and the farm labourers, and it is because we are trying to do something for the common purpose that this Bill has been introduced.

The hon. Member wanted to know whether the landlord is going to get away with the swag. He will not get away with anything except that which is legally proper. There is nothing in the Bill that will interfere with the rights of any of the tenants in regard to this matter. The tenant is fully protected. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) suggested that the word "landlord" ought to be added. I understand that that is unnecessary. It is quite clear that the circumstances of each case will be taken into account and that it will be the occupier, the man who is actually carrying on the farm, who will be dealt with. I am very anxious to listen to any point raised in Debate from either side of the House, and every point will be taken into careful consideration. On this point, however, I am advised that 'it is unnecessary to insert the word suggested.

CLAUSE 13 (Provisions as to existing contracts) ordered to stand part of the Bill.