HL Deb 28 July 1931 vol 81 cc1254-7

Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.— (Earl De La Warr.)

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, perhaps it would not be inconvenient, if the noble Earl does not dissent, if I say a few words on the general position that we are taking up in respect to this Bill. This will save time later on, when we come to the discussion of Amendments in detail. I am the more inclined to suggest this course because some of your Lordships may have seen in the Press statements as to the conversations which are alleged to have taken place between the Minister and myself as to the conclusions which it was alleged had been reached. I should like to tell your Lordships that it is quite accurate to say that I have had some conversation with the Minister of Agriculture. Some time ago he communicated with me in order to let me know something as to some of the matters to which the Government attach importance in this Bill and to see to what extent there was a real difference of opinion between the Party to which I belong and the Government. But I was very careful to explain to the Minister that in seeing him I was doing so merely because I was responsible in this House to the Conservative Party for some of the Amendments that had been moved; that I did not purport in any way to represent your Lordships' House and could not of course in any way bind your Lordships' House; and that your Lordships must take your own decision as to any matters that were brought up here from the Commons. I think it is important that I should state this, because an impression might otherwise have been raised that I was arrogating to myself an authority which I certainly do not possess.

As a result of the discussion which the Minister had with myself, certain rather substantial concessions have been made which have been embodied in the decisions of the other House last Friday. In the second Clause—I am dealing with them as they came from the Commons—a clause which dealt with the demonstration farm, the Minister has inserted Amendments which very much limit the size of these farms and make it quite clear that he cannot, under colour of acting under Clause 2, do any of the things which he was proposing to do under Clause 1. In Clause 3, which deals with the reclamation of land by agreement and with the compulsory acquisition of land where it has been seriously neglected, the Minister has inserted in another place provisions as to the work being economical, to which your Lordships attached considerable importance when the matter was discussed, and the Amendment was inserted, in Committee. In addition to that, though not in the form which we originally proposed, the Minister has inserted among the matters which the arbitrators can take into account and which can be raised as an objection before the arbitrators by any landowner on whom notice is served, the fact that the work required to be done involves an unreasonable expense. I think those are all matters to which this House attaches considerable importance, and in regard to which our point of view has been accepted.

In Part II of the Bill your Lordships will remember that exception was taken, especially, I think, by my noble friend Lord Dynevor, to the provisions which in effect made the Minister judge in his own case when he had made an order for the taking of land. You will remember that a proviso was inserted with regard both to small holdings and to allotments, and the Minister accepted both those proposals of my noble friend. In addition to that we pressed for a limitation of the time during which the Act was to remain in operation, and the Minister has met us to the extent of accepting the time limit, though he has asked for ten years and we originally suggested four. I think that the concessions which have been made are important, and that it is right I should say so at the earliest opportunity, but at the same time I am sorry to have to say that I do not think the Minister has gone quite far enough in another place in meeting the points of view expressed here. It is for that reason that I have ventured to put down four matters on which I am going to ask your Lordships to insist upon further steps being taken in the direction in which this House urged the Ministry when the Bill was first before us.

The first and most important is the deletion of Clause 1. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 1 is a clause which deals with the experimental large-scale farms. I am not at this stage—obviously it would be inconvenient and out of order—going to develop the merits of the case, but this clause is one to which we attach great importance and to which we have great objection, and I am proposing to ask your Lordships to insist upon this clause being deleted. Then there are three other matters. In Clause 6, which deals with the acquisition of small holdings, this House had inserted a provision which gave county councils a veto on the Minister exercising powers in any particular locality. The Minister has thought that that unduly hampered him in his actions. At the same time I have felt that it would be all to the good if at any rate the county councils were associated in a consultative capacity, and therefore I have put down a proviso making it necessary for the Minister to consult the county council, although that does not go quite so far as we originally proposed.

Then, with regard to the duration of the Act, we had originally inserted a time-limit of four years. The Minister has put in ten years. Quite frankly, I think that perhaps four years is a little short. Obviously it will take a very considerable time before these small holdings are put into operation, and one wants to give a reasonable opportunity to see how they work, but I do not think that we want to give more than what is a reasonable opportunity before the matter is reviewed by Parliament. I shall, therefore, ask your Lordships to say that seven years is quite long enough.

The last is a matter which particularly affects Scotland. I hope I am not stating the matter improperly, because I know that we have amongst your Lordships a number of noble Lords who are experts in this matter, but as I understand the difficulty the Bill proposes that the Ministry should have power compulsorily to use for smallholding purposes lands which do not belong to them, but which they merely take on lease. It was said that that was a very unreasonable provision, because it enabled the Ministry to take land on lease, erect buildings on it, and perhaps destroy its value for purposes for which it was originally intended and then hand it back to the landowner, with no compensation. The answer was that that was the existing law, but I doubt if that is a sufficient answer, and I am proposing as an Amendment that the Ministry shall only use land which does not belong to them with the consent of the real owner. I think that that meets the point which my friends from Scotland made. I thank your Lordships for the indulgence you have given me, in allowing me to make my statement at this stage, but I thought it would shorten matters when we come to consider the Amendments in detail.

On Question, Motion agreed to.