§ For Sub-sections (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Section seven of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911 (in this Act referred to as the Act of 1911), there shall be substituted the following Sub-sections:
§ (Constitution of Small Holdings.)
§ (8)—(a)Where the Board are satisfied that there is a. demand for small holdings and that suitable land is available for that purpose, it shall be the daty of the Board to prepare a scheme for the constitution of one or more new holdings on such land, to be occupied by new holders upon such terms and conditions not inconsistent with the Landholders Acts as the Board think reasonable:
§ Provided that in considering the relative suitability of land the Board shall include consideration of the probable effect of a scheme upon the burden of rates in the locality concerned.
§ (9) Where the Board intend to prepare such a scheme they shall give notice of their intention to the landlord of any land which is to be comprised therein, and when a landlord has received such notice it shall not be lawful for him, save with the consent of the Board, to let or to enter into any agreement for letting such land or any part thereof until the Board have made an Order confirming the scheme, or have abandoned the same:
332§ Provided that—
- (a) such disability shall not in any case continue fir a longer period than six months from t he date of notice, and
- (b) for any loss sustained by a landlord, tenant, or occ
from the operation of this Sub-section, the Board small pay to him such Compensation as may be agreed or as may be determined, failing agreement, by the Land Court on the application of either party.
§ (10) When tile Board have prepared a scheme under this section they shall intimate the prepared scheme to Lie tenant and occupier of any land compensation therein, and shall give to such landlord, tenant and occupier, an opportunity of considering the scheme and of making representations con[...]ning the same to the Board, and after giving to all persons interested an opportunity of being, heard may, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, make an Order co[...]g the scheme, in whole or in part, and with of without modification, or may abandon the scheme
§ (b) The compensation payable under this Subsection shall not include—
- (i) any allowance on account of the constitution of new holdings being compulsory;
- (ii) any compensation for injury dune to or depreciation in lie se
ing value of the land comprised in the scheme, or of any estate whereof such land forms part, except in so far as tire same arises from injury done to or depreciation in the letting value of the land or estate; or - (iii) any compensation for injury done to the value of such land or estate as a sporting subject in so far as such value arises from the withholding of the land or estate from its full possible use as an agricultural or pastoral subject.
§ (c) For tire purpose of this Sub-section any benefit or relief resulting to a landlord or to any other person in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of new holdings under the scheme open the one hand shall be set against any damage of injury done to him as aforesaid upon the other hand.
§ (e)—(i) Where any compensation has been awarded and the amount thereof determined by the Land Court under this Sub-section, the Board may at any time within two months after such determination, resolve to abandon the scheme and withdraw the Order, paying to any person any expenses reasonably incurred by him in connection with the making of the Order or the claim for compensatin. as such expenses may, failing. agreement, be determined by the Land Court on the application of either party.
§ (ii) Subject to the foregoing provision. every Order made by the Board for the constitution of new holdings shall be recorded in the Landholders Holdings Book, and shall thereupon have effect and 'be enforceable in like manner as an Order of the land Court so recorded.
§ Major M. WOODI beg to move, to leave out the words
Provided that in considering the relative suitability of land the Board shall include consideration of the probable effect of a scheme upon the burden of rates in the locality concerned.333 In view of the ruling we have had we may take it that this proviso is intended to facilitate the settlement of soldiers on the land. But it is difficult to see how it can have that effect. This Amendment was carried in Committee by a narrow majority of two, and it is not surprising that we should challenge the decision of the Committee even on that. ground alone. We know perfectly well that if small holdings are going to be set up in the numbers Which we all hope for we are going to encroach upon the deer forests. The Deer Forests Royal Commission, which reported in 1895, stated that they were then 1,782,785 acres of land within deer forests which were capable of being utilised for small holdings, and all our information goes to show that since 1895 that acreage has very materially increased. We know perfectly well therefore that a great deal of the land which is going to be taken to constitute small holdings must he taken from deer forests. We know, therefore, that the rat cable value in these eases will practically always go down. This question was raised in Committee by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger), who proposed an Amendment to the effect that in considering the suitability of the land due regard shall be had by the Board to the possibility of an increase in the local rates payable by the ratepayers in the district, and so on.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERYou are wasting time.
§ Major WOODThe Secretary for Scotland expressed the opinion that the Amendment in that form—whether the right hon. Baronet intended it or not—would have a crippling effect upon the process of settling smallholders. Then the Lord Advocate proposed an alternative form of words which are the words now in the Clause, and which I propose to strike out. Immediately the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) said, "That is precisely what I want, but it is expressed in much better language."
§ Sir G. YOUNGERHear, hear.
§ Major WOODI agree with the hon. Baronet that the effect of the two Amendments is exactly the same, and I cannot understand what there is in the latter Amendment to make it so innocuous if the first one was so bad that it could not be accepted by the Government. So far as I can see, the blessed word which is supposed to distinguish the second Amend- 334 ment from the first is the word "relative." Over and over again in speeches not only from members of the Government, but from their supporters; we have heard that the question was the consideration of a case or cases where there were two available sites, and the proviso which was accepted was only a direction to the Board of Agriculture that they were to consider in a ease of that kind which scheme of the two would have the less effect on the rates, and take that scheme. If that is the case why should they not have put in that order two eases? What would happen in the case of their being only one particular site available in the district?
§ G. YOUNGERThey would take it, of course.
§ Major WOODThat is what the ion. Baronet may think, and I do not see how the Board of Agriculture would be bound to take that view of the proviso. Supposing there was only one piece of land in the North of Sutherland, and the Board of Agriculture say that they have to consider the relative suitability of the lamb and they are to include the consideration of the probable effect of the scheme upon the burden of the rates. What are they to do? They are bound to consider it and compare it with schemes in other parts of the country, because that is the only way in which they could give effect to a proviso of this kind. They are bound to consider that when Parliament put the proviso into time Bill they meant it no have sonic real meaning and not to be merely put in for padding. Tire Secretary for Scotland said that it was a harmless Amendment. If it was a harmless Amendment, why should it be put in? We have had enough experience of litigation over the interpretation of Clauses in Acts of Parliament which were inserted as being harmless, and I hope that if all that can be said for tile present proviso is that it is a [...]less proviso that it. will be withdrawn. I under-stand the Government have taken a somewhat different view on this matter from what they took in Committee, and I. am not surprised, as the result of a storm of protest in Scotland. There is no doubt the proviso will have only one effect, and that is that it will prevent land being taken from deer forests and being turned into small holdings. I am quite certain that if in any one case it turned out that consideration of rating prevented land from being turned from deer forests to small holdings for soldier's, there would be a 335 storm of protest which would turn out any Government. With regard to the question of rates, it must not be understood that we who object to this proviso are unmindful of the serious problem which might be created in the Highlands by the taking of land which is of high rateable value and turning it into small holdings, thus decreasing the rateable value. But that is a different problem altogether—a principle which can and ought to be settled in a different way.
Dr. MURRAYI beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) said that we were wasting time. If anybody is responsible for wasting time, it is the hon. Baronet. As an old Parliamentary hand he took advantage of the engaging innocence of the Lord, Advocate in Committee, and got him into such a mess that all this trouble has arisen. The hon. Baronet had what he called a crude Amendment down, and afterwards the Lord Advocate very generously produced a form of Amendment which would give more artistic expression to the hon. Baronet's dream.
Dr. MURRAYYes, I am coming to it. 1n order to prevent the waste of time in future, I appeal to the Lord Advocate to learn a lesson and never again accept an Amendment from the hon. Baronet. I do not know how the hon. Baronet has discovered that the Government will not accept this Amendment. We have no information on the subject. However, as I understand this Amendment will not be accepted, I will say nothing further beyond congratulating the Government and the Lord Advocate upon the return to their first love in this matter, and finally rejecting the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
§ Mr. MUNROThe proviso which was inserted has been a subject of considerable misapprehension, both in Committee and in the House, and the subject of gross misrepresentation outside. The suggestion has been made, and repeated to-night, that the acceptance of this proviso was due to a sort of cabal which had been arranged between the Lord Advocate and the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs. All I can say is that my hon. Friend opposite is under a delusion, and, if it is any interest to him, I can tell him that the Amendment which was eventually accepted was prepared on 336 my instructions in the Scottish Office on that particular morning before the Committee met, with a view to accepting tire Amendment in the particular terms in which it was accepted.
§ Mr. MUNROThe hon. Member said that I described the Amendment as harmless. That is perfectly true, because if it remains in the Bill there will not be one less holding constituted or set up in Scotland. The only question is, Was the Board of Agriculture to consider as between two pieces of land whether in the one instance the rates would be raised? One of the two pieces of land would no doubt be selected and, therefore, the insertion of this proviso would not result in one small holding less being constituted in Scotland. I greatly deplore the senseless, and, I might almost say, the dishonest, agitation which has taken place with regard to this. When in Edinburgh I saw a poster carried about the streets, "Exclusion of deer forests from the Scottish Land Bill." I put it to this House and to my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean), Is that fair or proper criticism? Who suggested that deer forests should be excluded? Certainly I did not. It was the subject of a large meeting in Edinburgh, and I have received a good deal of correspondence about it, to which I have ventured to reply in the public Press. I want to make it perfectly clear that in accepting this Amendment, as I propose to do, I am not in the least yielding to the storm w hid, has raged outside, but I am proposing to show, by acceptance of it, that the storm was utterly without justification and flint it is quite immaterial to the Government or to anyone who agrees with me Whether this Amendment remains in tile Bill or is deleted. It is an utterly immaterial Amendment one way or the other.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI do not think there is any occasion for mutual recriminations with regard to this. I do not know at all what happened in Scotland with regard to the matter. If it has been carried so far as to refer to the exciusion of deer forests, I think it has been unfair. My right hon. Friend thinks it is a harmless Amendment. I thought it was harmful, and to that extent I differ from him. As he thinks it is harmless, if it is withdrawn that is the end of the whole thing. Let us go on to the next business.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERAs I am supposed to be the villain of the piece, I would say that I entirely approve of the action of the Secretary for Scotland. Indeed, in Committee I offered to have the Amendment withdrawn before we voted upon it, if it was thought to have the effect which has been so shamefully misrepresented outside by Mr. Pringle and people of that description. They have been imputing to people motives which no one for a single moment entertained. An agitation on the question of deer forests is very easily raised in Scotland, and they knew that, but if they think they are going to resuscitate the Liberal party in Scotland with that sort of flimsy statement they are greatly mistaken.
Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, at the end of substituted Sub-section (8), to insert
(c) Where the Board are satisfied that there is not available on the land on which the new holdings are to be constituted a supply of water sufficient for the holding, they may include in the scheme provision for taking and conveying from or through any part of the estate whereof such land forms part such supply of water as may be necessary for the new holdings and is not required for the remainder of the estate; and for the purposes of this Section any land from or through which such supply of water is to be taken or conveyed shall be deemed to be are Comprised in the scheme.
§ There was a proposal, with regard to water supply made in Committee upstairs, which I was unable to accept. I assured the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that I would endeavour before the Report stage to find words to give effect to what he had in mind. The result is to be found in the Amendment now moved.
Sir J. HOPEI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "not" ["new holdings and is not required for"], to insert the words "or may reasonably be expected not to be."
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I have no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland will accept these words. Under the Government proposal the right hon. Gentleman not only takes the water but also takes the land over which he carries the water, and that may be a very considerable distance, and in some cases it might constitute a very considerable interference with a property. There ought to be some consideration given for it.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI hope the Secretary for Scotland will not accept these words. 338 The meaning of the Clause is perfectly clear. Perhaps the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to the Amendment will explain to us further what is in his mind with regard to it. The Clause was already considered by two gentlemen who had exceptional experience with regard to these matters. What are the dangers which the hon. Gentleman fears, and which it is to be presumed are to be safeguarded by this Amendment?
Mr. G. MURRAYI wish to support this Amendment, because I think that we ought to have regard to the matter not only from the point of view of small holdings, but also as to housing areas as wed. If we look at the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland there is very little doubt, in my opinion, that he had not in his mind the question of the erection of new houses on the estates to be dealt with. It is impossible to say, whilst housing schemes are in embryo, to know what houses will be required upon the estates. Until we know what is in front of us in connection with houses, I do not think anything should be included in this Bill which would preclude the possibility of making provision for water for houses that may have to be erected.
§ Mr. MUNROI am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as framed. In the first place, I am advised that the words as they stand do not exclude the consideration of reasonable future needs, and furthermore, I am advised that the words proposed are not really quite ample for the purpose for which they are designed. Needs for small holdings are needs which are immediate and ought to be taken into consideration. At the same time, I appreciate what has been said as to future needs of housing, for example. However, I will give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that I will re-examine this matter again before the Bill goes to another place, and consider whether any further words are required to make it quite clear that not only present needs but also the future needs of the locality should be considered in tins matter. I agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) that one must really, in interpreting these words, insert the adverb "reasonably." I am quite willing to consider the matter with a view to remedying any defect, if defect there be, in the wording of the Clause as it stands, though I am advised there is no defect and probably no Amendment may be necessary.
§ Mr. GARDINERMay I ask this question? There is mention about the estate on which the holding is situated. It is quite possible there might be a magnificent water supply on an adjoining estate. Would it be possible to tap that water supply for this purpose or must it be from the estate on Which the holding is situated?
§ Mr. HOGGEI hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be unduly impressed by the argument about the needs of housing schemes on these particular areas. Everybody who knows anything at all about small holdings in Scotland knows that there is not likely to be any huge building development in the neighbourhood of any 'successful small holding schemes. The one thing that is most necessary for the development of holdings is land. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfactory to us, and I hope he will not be induced to make any loophole by which water may be denied to small holdings for the possible future need for some ten or fifteen or twenty years ahead.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYI think the point of my hon. Friend (Mr. Gardiner) as to whether water can be taken from an adjoining estate is a point of substance. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in his Amendment after the word "part" ["land forms part"], he should insert some such words as "which will ensure that water will be available in the event of not being available on the estate on which the small holdings are set up."
§ Mr. MUNROThe question asked is, Whether there is power under this Clause to take a water supply from outside the estate from winch the small holding is carved? I think not, and I think that would lead to great confusion and difficulty. There is nothing in the Bill or in this Clause which would prevent water being secured from outside sources by agreement from a water pipe or an authority of any particular place. There is no power to take by compulsion water which is outside the estate on which the small holding is. I do nut think it is desirable to introduce that power, and I think it would result in confusion. The Clause I submit is watertight in itself.
Sir J. HOPEIn view of what the Secretary for Scotland has said and promised with regard to consideration before the Clause appears in another place, I do not wish to press my Amendment. My 340 right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclcan) asked what I meant. He rcirienlloer that on the question of the Housing Bill it was shown that much of the water which really belonged to Midlothian had been taken by the City of Edinburgh, and he joined with me in trying to get some of the water back front the county of Midlothian. He will recollect that he agreed with me that a Commission ought to be appointed to deal with the very large question of water for housing, and I hope he will continue to press that.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in substituted Sub-section (11, b, ii.), afterthe word "estate" ["land or estate"], to insert the words
Provided that, in the event of the estate (or part thereof) of which the land comprised in any Order made under this section forms part being sold by [...]c auction within lire years after the date of modification of the Order to the landlord, the Board shall pay to the landlord such compensation (if any) for damage or injury done in respect of any depreciation in the selling value of such estate or part thereof in consequence of and directly attributable to the consequence of new holdings under the Order as may be agreed on, or as may be determined, failing aggreement, by the Land Court.The object. of this is to limit the letting value compensation to certain eases. The complaint has been made that compensation has been given when the owner had no intentions of selling, and he went on living en the interest of his compensation while at the same time enjoying probably a rather larger rent. I want, if possible, to make it a condition that, where the estate is actually realised within rive years—probably three years would be enough—and the loss is actually realised, there should in that case be compensation for the loss in capital value, as under the old Act, and so to that extent to restore the existing system.
§ Mr. H. HOPEI beg to second the Amendment.
We think it is only common fairness that, where the creation of these new holdings depreciates the capital value or an estate, adequate compensation should be paid. I cannot imagine that this land settlement scheme will be a success if fairness is not practised. The Prime Minister stated that it was only right and proper that these men should get small holdings 341 where they so desired. We all desire to assist in that object, and I think the good work will proceed more quickly and smoothly if fair and reasonable compensation is paid where damage is caused. It may be said that if compensation for depreciation is paid nothing more need be done, and in support of that contention the Lindean case is quoted, where the value of a supposed loss in capital value was paid and yet no loss had actually been made by the owner, because he never sold the property. We do not ask for any repetition of the Lindean procedure. We only ask that, where an estate is sold and the loss materialises, that loss should be fairly and squarely met. I think that this is in line with public opinion, which desires to see the scheme carried out in a fair and equitable manner.
§ Mr. CLYDEThis is, of course, in substance, the same new Clause which was proposed in Committee upstairs, and I am afraid that the reasons which led us to refuse to adopt it upstairs still remain. So far as I am concerned, and I think I may say the same for those who are responsible for die Bill, those reasons have been no respect removed. For one thing, as this Amendment stands, if the estate were sold five times in the course of the five years, each time at a slightly diminished value, a claim for compensation would arise five times. I am sure that is not what is intended, and, therefore, I do not want to dwell upon it.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERAre not those legal quibbles?
§ Mr. CLYDEThe hon. Baronet may call it a legal quibble, but it is the legal interpretation to which his Amendment is subject. That shows the difficulty of accepting an Amendment of this kind. But I do not found my objection upon that. What occurs to We as the crucial consideration is that there is to be, according to the Amendment, contingently upon a sale happening, an opportunity of finding out if the selling value of tins estate has depreciated to an extent not taken into account in the original assessment of compensation on the formation of the small holdings. I wonder if the hon. Baronet has made up his mind as to how for instance, would seek to make out a case? I can imagine that he would say, "The estate has sold for less than I expected, and my purchaser, who is well pleased with his bargain, is willing to go into the Witness-box and say he would have given 342 £1,000 more for it if there had been no small holdings." Would any Land Court or any arbiter accept that as evidence of depreciation? I do not think so. I am sure that if I were arbiter I should not; I should smell a rat. I know that it has happened in certain cases, I know that it happens in many eases, a very little indeed, and I am told that in a large number of eases it does not happen at all. If the hon. Baronet puts that argument against rue, I am entitled to retort that neither he nor I nor anybody else is prepared to maintain a state of law which has led to the awards made under this head in the past. if that is so, we have to do something to prevent a repetition of those awards, and for that reason we have untended the arbitration Clause. This is really an attempt to get it back under fair conditions, and if I thought that the fair conditions aimed at were practical, then, as far as I am concerned, I should be very willing to lend an ear to a proposal of this kind; but I do not believe they are practical. On what evidence are you going to convince anyone five years afterwards that the fall in pin is attributable to this and not, to something else? I cannot imagine a more hopeless inquiry.
§ Mr. CLYDENo; I am bound to say I do not thin k that would make any difference. The difficulty about time is, as the hon. Member knows, that it has resulted in speculative assessments of loss on this head which no fair-minded and sensible man could accept. The famous Lindcan case is a case in point. We have got to find some remedy, and for that reason we have altered the basis of compensation, limiting compensation to lose, of selling value in cases where that loss is represented by depreciation of the letting value of the estate itself. Unless something more practicable than this Amendment can be suggested, I am afraid the matter must stand as in the Bill. This idea of trying to review one year after or five years after, is more likely to result in injustice than the system we have felt our-selves bound to propose, and T find it impossible now, as in Committee, to accept this Amendment.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI mach regret the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Amendment or any qualification of it. He knows perfectly well, and everybody else knows, that the moment 343 you establish smallholdings down goes the value at once, at least that is the case with any estates I know of. You had a case the other day where farms were sold close together at twenty-one, twenty-two, and fourteen and a half years' purchase. Everyone knows it. The Land Court knows it. It gave three years' purchase in one ease, and the best proof that there was not too much paid to Mr. Plummer for his loss of capital value is that he is prepared now to hand you back the money if you are prepared to restore the farm to him. No one has spoken more strongly on the depreciation of capital than my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, who proved that the moment small holdings are established the sovereign is reduced to 16s. or 16s. 6d. I say there are any number of tests which could be applied in this matter, arid I regret very much the decision of the Government.
Amendment negatived.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move, in substituted Sub-section (11, b, iii), to leave out the words
such land or estate as a sporting subject in so far as such value arises from the withholding of the land or estate from its full possible use as an agricultural or pastoral subject,and to insert instead thereof the wordsthe sporting rights over such land or estate in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the land or estate were put to the full possible use for which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants.This Clause has been put down to meet criticism upstairs with regard to the words in the original Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire rather objected to the word "withholding," which appeared in the original Clause of the Bill, and I agreed with him that I had no particular admiration for that word. We accordingly considered the Clause during the interval, and it is thought that the proposed wording of this Amendment sets out more clearly the element of the value of sporting rights to be excluded from compensation. I should add, with reference to a question put upstairs, namely, whether golf courses were included in the Clause as drawn, that I think it is perfectly plain that under this Clause which I am proposing to substitute, golf courses are not intended to be included.Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
344 Question- proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Dr. MURRAYI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words
in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the land or estate were put to the full possible use for Which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants.The Amendment is in order to make clear as to whether compensation shall be paid for the sporting rights as distinct from the agricultural rights. The new Clause, to my mind, is not much clearer than the old. It would take a lawyer to interpretate it, for it is very involved. If it means that the compensation is only to be given for the agricultural and pastoral value, then why put in these words at all? I am quite sure that if any compensation is to be given for the sporting rights of deer forests which might be prejudicially affected by small holdings near them, it will certainly entail a diminution or, at any rate, retard the progressive development of small holdings in the Highlands of Scotland. I have sympathy with the landlord in losing the value of his sporting rights, but I think we must look upon the sporting rights of deer forests as artificially created, and they ought not to be the subject of compensation when, in the interests of the community, that land is required for small holdings. The landlord is quite entitled to get his sporting rent so long as it is in the interest of the State, but when it comes to establishing small holdings, and the State has to pay compensation, think it is unjust to expect tile State to pay for any sporting rights whatsoever.
Dr. MURRAYOf course, when the rent goes clown, down go the rates, so that the interruption of my hon. Friend does not apply. I say that if the sporting rights are allowed for in the compensation, you will not have any small holdings created in the neighbourhood of deer forests, and that would be a great calamity, because I believe that in many parts of the Highlands you cannot create economic small holdings. There has to be some other industry connected with them in order to make them pay—for instance, forestry. The smallholder would be working in the forest helping to plant trees. We think afforestation can most usefully be done in the neighbourhood of deer 345 forests. A number of hon. Members present appear to think that deer forests are covered with trees. As a matter of fact there are no trees in deer forests. I think that the position of the Government in proposing to compensate sporting rights in these matters is not a sound one.
§ Major M. WOODI beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I should like to put to the Government a point which I put in Committee, and which I do riot think was answered. This Amendment proposes to give compensation for sporting rights only, where those sporting rights exist over and above the full possible use of the land for agricultural or pastoral purposes. But you may take the land and use it for small holdings, and these sporting rights still remain; therefore there is nothing to compensate! What has the Secretary for Scotland to say to that point? If what I say be correct, why put in this Amendment? What is the fullest possible use to which the land can be put for small holdings? Will this Amendment enable a landlord, say, who has a large farm taken over and turned into small holdings to claim for compensation on the score that the sporting value of the large farm is larger than after the farm was divided into small holdings? If so, this appears to me to be most objectionable. The real and chief objection to the Clause in its original form, the word "withholding," has been withdrawn, and I acknowledge that, and that the official Amendment is a distinct advance on the original Clause.
§ Mr. MUNROI must say my hon. and gallant Friend—and he will forgive me for saying so—is very ungrateful. I spent a good deal of time, in conjunction with my advisers, in endeavouring to meet his point, which was that the word "withholding" was objectionable in the Clause. My reward for meeting him is that instead of accepting the result of my labours he moves the rejection of the Clause.
§ Major WOODThat is only one point.
§ Mr. MUNROThe effect of the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend has seconded would be entirely to eliminate compensation for loss of sporting value from the Bill, which limits the compensation to what I ventured upstairs to term "legitimate sporting rights." To eliminate all claim for compensation for loss of sporting value would, in my humble judgment, be neither fair nor just, and I 346 certainly would not countenance such a course. Accordingly my hon. and gallant Friend will not be surprised when I say that I cannot possibly accept the Amendment which has been moved. My hon. and gallant Friend asked what will happen if the sporting rights remain unaffected? Well, nothing would be paid, and my hon. and gallant Friend would be satisfied.
§ Major WOODThey always remain.
§ Major WOODThat would not prevent claims.
§ Major WOODIt would not prevent claims being made for compensation, and consequent litigation. We want to stop litigation. We know from past experience that Clauses of this kind, dealing with compensation, always give rise to an enormous amount of litigation.
§ Mr. MUNROThere was a time when that argument would not have affected me very much, but I am rather at one with my hon. and gallant Friend now in a desire to stop litigation, for the time being. But I really think he has exaggerated the danger. However that may be, I am certain I shall not convince my hon. and gallant Friend. Nevertheless, on the, broad ground which I have ventured to indicate —namely, that this Amendment, if accepted, would exclude all compensation for loss of sporting rights—I am afraid, speaking for the Government, that I could not possibly accept it.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe difficulty with one is that the form of words chosen by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to meet the objections raised upstairs is, Who is to be the judge of the full possible use to which a deer forest could have been put by agricultural and pastoral tenants, supposing that; either part or a whole was taken for the purpose of small holdings?
§ Mr. HOGGEThe Land Court is a variable body. Five years ago it pleased a great many Radicals in this House and displeased the Conservatives. Now it pleases a great many Conservatives and 347 does not please Radicals. After all, the Land Court is a variable body. Its policy is largely determined by its chairman, and there might be from time to time very different assessment of the values to which these particular estates can be put.. If it were necessary—I do not think it is at the present time, particularly in view of the way we have been met on the Bill—to enter into a long disquisition on this particular topic, I think it would be quite easy to prove that the people who are to be put on the small holdings in Scotland, particularly in the deer-forest areas, do not owe anybody anything. The history of the depopulation in these particular counties in Scotland, and of the clearances on deer forests, the driving out of those who lived and laboured there, is a long and painful theme, which I do not want to enlarge upon now. But I think a case could be made out for setting on one side all this possibility and of going into the Land Court with these particular points. We know the famous Lindean case practically held up legislation on land in Scotland, on both sides, fur a large number of years. Neither Tories nor Liberals in this House, who are Scottish Members, want any Lindean decision in connection with deer forests in Scotland. We do not want another set of decisions of that kind that will hinder us putting people on the land and will mean coming to this House for amending Bills. Unclean carries curious memories with it for Scottish Members. That is why I think there is some merit in the Amendment. The. Mover and the Seconder both come from those parts of Scotland which are the best examples or are within the areas of the best examples of what this means. I think my right hon. and learned Friend opposite agrees there is no particular value in suggesting legislation. He himself has expressed his personal view that meanwhile, while he is Secretary for Scotand, all litigation would stop.
§ Mr. HOGGEI understood my right hon. and learned Friend to express the hope that in the meantime litigation would stop. I was fearful that the moment might arrive when the hon. Baronet the -Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), disagreeing with his policy, would hand him back his coupon and release him
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
§ Sir KEITH FRASERI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "the full possible use for which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants," and to insert instead thereof the words, "its reasonabie use as agricultural or pastoral subject."
We have to treat subject not only as an agricultural and pastoral subject but also as a spurting. subject. I have in mind a Highland estate in nest. Ross, where there are a considerable number of small farms and a deer forest. and ground that should legitimately be legitimately be under deer. The landlord of that estate has put it to the fullest possible use, not only as an win as an agricultural and pastoral but also as a sporting subject. teas, [...]vied sheep fencing for many [...]es at considerable expense along the hid sine at heights from 1,000 to 1,500 feet above the sea level, making use of the ground below for agricultural and pastoral purposes, using the ground above for deer. Generally speaking that high ground is not much used for grazing and agricultural purposes, and it is very steep and rocky. In donne parts there is a good deal of heather at hags and moss, arid the burns are very, steep and dangerous, especially stormy and misty weather, when the barns are in spate. The agricultural value of that land for grazing purposes would not pay the interest on the money invested in erecting the sheep fencing, but it is a very valuable asset not only to the rateable value of the estate, but to everybody connected with it because it bring, in revenue as deer ground and it gives employment to a large number of people diretly and indirectly, and besides that it bings in money to the district.
Those who drew up this Bill have been studying this subject as though there was no population on these estates, and as if they were dealing With estates entirely under deer, but as a matter of fact there is a population of crofters and sheep farmers on some or these estates. If anything materialises from this Bill, which I doubt, and you succeed in putting people on these estates in the High- lands and get a population on the land now under you will have to act on the Which I have indicated. You will have to make use of the land below a certain level for agricultural and pastoral purposes, and the 349 ground natural to the stag you must leave for stalking. Then you will be able to get the full rateable value out of the highland properties, and you will have more land than you want for agricultural and pastoral purposes. In order to carry out this principle of dividing the stalking subject from the grazing subject, you must have fences. If you had not those fences, you would have the sheep wandering all over the high and you would destroy the estate as an agricultural, pastoral, and sporting estate; you would simply make the estate an agricultural and pastoral subject with an occasional stag on the hills, and nothing would be gained by it. It is perfectly impossible to define what is legitimate sheep ground and what is ground which should be given up to deer. You cannot pick and choose; you cannot say "I will have this hill for sheep and that hill for deer." You must act on a general line of country and run your fence along a level of, say, 1,000 to 1,500 feet up and have the land below that level for agricultural purposes. It is the only possible way to carry out this proposition. When a Jandowner has spent money and put his estate to the full possible use as an agricultural, pastoral, and sporting subject, he should be given compensation if his arrangements are disturbed as if he had made reasonable use of his estate as an. agricultural and pastoral subject.
Colonel L. WARDI beg to second the Amendment.
I do so making the full apologies which are customary when a Member who has neither a Scottish name nor represents a Scottish constituency ventures to intervene in a Scottish Debate. I consider the only way to make the best use of many estates in Scotland is to put them to a reasonable use as a pastoral and sporting subject. By those meals and those means Only does the owner or the country obtain the full maximum value of the land. In these days of almost universal poverty this is a national rather than a parochial subject. It is the duty of every landowner in the country to put his land to that use which will produce most for the benefit of the community at large. and I maintain, in regard to many Highland estates, that can only be done by utilising all the possibilities of these estates and by combining the agricultural, the pastoral, and the sporting. Look at this from a really national point of view.. What we have to decide is 350 how that land can he put to the best possible use, first, as a means of producing food, and, secondly, as a means of bringing money into tie country. I maintain that owners who have been reasonable and have combined these three things have done that to a greater extent than anybody else and are entitled to reasonable compensation for all those three amenities.
Take the food question first. The greater part of the deer ground in Scotland is situated 1,500 feet or more above sea level, and agricultural land over 1,200 feet above sea level is very little good for agricultural purposes. it may be possible to conduct agricultural pursuits in some favoured districts up to a 1,000 feet, but beyond that it can only reasonably be used for grazing and for deer. But these may be combined to a reasonable extent without serious injury, either to the one or the other. The high ground in Scotland will carry a large head of sheep, but only from May until October, and during the winter months the sheep have to he taken to the low ground, and the number of head the land can carry depends entirely on the amount of accommodation and of food also during the winter months available on the low ground. But during the summer months there is more food on the hilltops than the sheep require, and it is sound economy to utilise that additional food for deer, especially as the deer succeed in living on the hills during time winter—I do not know how. They are most economical animals to keep on these high barren exposed lands. If there is too much food on the hilltops it is wasted, and I maintain the deer should be allowed to consume it. It is of advantage to the food supply of the country, which is increased by exactly the number of deer shot. It may be said this is not meat for the working classes, but the wealthier people eat venison instead of mutt en, and the result is that there is so much more mutton sent into the towns for distribution among the working classes.
Then book at the matter from the point of view of the amount of money these forests bring into the country. Only two classes of people in this country in these days are well enough off to he able to rent deer boxes—the War profiteers and the rich American, and when the Committee dealing with increases of war wealth have done their work there will only be one class—the rich Americans. I ask the House to consider what an enormous advantage it is to this country, in 351 its present poverty-stricken state, to have that money brought here. To my knowledge, moors and forests were letting for last season at prices from £3,000 toA£4000 for three months. Rich Americans were willing to pay that amount of money. Consider the advantage that has been to this country.
Dr. MURRAYIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman in favour of paying State compensation equal to what these rich Americans are paying for the deer forests?
Colonel WARDI am coming to that point presently. When an estate for shooting is let for, say, £3,000. it means that £3,000 in good golden dollars is brought to this country. What do we do with those dollars? We send them back to America to buy food. For that £3,000 in good golden dollars we can buy something like 750 quarters of wheat delivered to the mill at Liverpool, which is a bread ration for 1,500 or 2,000 people for a year. In other words, for the privilege of climbing about the beastly Scottish hills, letting off his rifle—perhaps he is a bad shot—getting soaked to the skin every day, ruining several suits of best clothes and wearing out several pairs of expensive Edinburgh brogues, the rich American sends to this country food sufficient to keep nearly 2,000 people alive for the whole year. Therefore, I maintain that the man who organises his estate to bring this advantage to the country deserves, if not full compensation, certainly reasonable compensation. We must not forget in these times, when the exchange is going against us, that the sporting rights of this country form one of our invisible exports which it is to our interest to conserve.
§ Mr. MUNROI am sure the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel L. Ward) has no reason to apologise for intervening in a Scottish Debate, for his knowledge of the subject which he has discussed seems to be very extensive. I hope that on the next occasion he addresses the Scottish Members, whether in the House or in Committee, he will not think it necessary to use such strong adjectives about the Scottish hills. The Mover of the Amendment made an interesting speech and also a pessimistic one. I do not share in his pessimism. He doubted whether this Bill would do any good. I do not share that doubt. I have a profound belief in the Rill, and I believe it will do a great deal of 352 good. Perhaps I may now be allowed to return to the precise Amendment which the House has to consider. If hon. Members will be good enough to look at the Order Paper they will see that the subject we are discussing is whether the words, "the full possible use for which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants," should be displaced in order to insert the words "its reasonable use as an agricultural or pastoral subject." That is the whole topic of discussion. I put it to the House, with some confidence, that there is no substantial difference between the Amendment I have proposed and the Amendment to the Amendment which has been proposed and seconded by my hon. and gallant Friends. It is the commercial value which is pointed to by my Amendment. Can, that be otherwise than a reasonable use? I should have thought the two phrases were really interchangeable.
§ Sir K. FRASERHigh ground and heather ground is not of much value as a pastoral subject. If you are going to put an estate to its full possible use as an agricultural and pastoral and sporting subject, you must eliminate the high ground as a pastoral subject; otherwise you are doing away with the sporting value entirely. The Amendment reads, "the full possible use to Which it could be let to agricultural and pastoral tenants." There is very little value in the high ground for grazing purposes.
§ Mr. MUNROI quite appreciate that. If the words had beers "full possible use as an agricultural or pastoral subject," I could understand the criticism, but when the criterion is what it could be let for, whether the ground is high or low—
§ Mr. MUNROI have submitted my view. I am advised, and I think the advice is competent, that there is no substantial difference between my Clause and the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend has moved. I am afraid I cannot accept it.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI cannot quite agree with my right hon. Friend. I think there is some difference. We are not comparing anything which is an actual fact, but the estimated value of such rights if the land or estate were put to the full possible use for which it could be let. "Full possible" appears to me to introduce 353 something which may be unreasonable— possible but unreasonable—and there is a difference between the two proposals.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONNot altogether, because this takes the place of the words "full possible." When you are only estimating the value and then add the words "full possible," it is quite conceivable that you may do a thing that is possible but unreasonable. Therefore, I suggest that if the Amendment really contains within it all that my right hon. Friend desires to be contained he had better accept the Amendment instead of his own words.
§ Mr. HOGGEI hope my right hon. Friend will not take that advice, but will stick to his own words. I do not like them, but I like them very much better than these. Using the word "reasonable" means the introduction of all sorts of discussions, whereas "full possible" is a maximum which everyone can know. "Reasonable" is a question of degree.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
Proposed words there inserted in the, Bill.
§ Mr. W. SHAWI beg to move, at the end of substituted Sub-section (11, b, iii.), to insert the words
Provided that if a landlord shall have expended money on the erection or improvement et a lodge and outbuildings for sporting purposes on the land comprised in the scheme, or any estate of which such land forms part, or on a road of access, or a water supply to such lode or outbuildings, or on roads for sporting purposes on such land or estate, the compensation payable to such landlord shall include compensation for depreciation (if any) in the letting value attributable to such expenditure where such depreciation arises in consequence of and is directly attributable to the constitution of and holdings under the scheme.Deer forests have not all been established on the system suggested by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). There was a time, from about 1580 to 1900, when letting was very difficult. Tenants were not obtainable for the grazing, and it was essential, in the interests of the landlord, that he should utilise his capital invested in the land by new methods. At that time many lodges were built, and improvements were made in equipping the -estates as deer forests and sporting estab- 354 lishments. It cannot be denied that, if small holdings are established on these deer forests, a different class of tenant will be introduced, who might not have any use for much of the equipment which has been provided, so that there will be a loss, and it is only reasonable and just that compensation should be paid in that respect. I dare say the Lord Advocate will ask, as he did previously, "How are you going to make out the claim?" I should not endeavour to make out a claim myself; I should employ an astute lawyer like the Lord Advocate.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to second the Amendment. I am not certain whether a proportion, at all events, of the compensation suggested is not already included in the Bill. There is a Clause dealing with loss of capital value, and I am not sure that that would not cover sporting value, but it is desirable that we should know exactly how the matter stands. It is certainly reasonable that some compensation should be paid in such cases as my hon. Friend has mentioned. It is monstrous that a whole forest, probably a natural forest, which has been equipped at great expense, should be destroyed.
§ Mr. CLYDEI remember that, when the Bill was in Committee, I tried to make as clear as I possibly could what the general effect of the compensation Clause was. May I repeat what I said upstairs so far as to explain that, whereas under Subsection (11, a), full compensation is given for every kind of damage which a landlord can suffer and has suffered as a direct result of the constitution of small holdings, sub-head (b), under its three headings, excludes certain items of possible claim, but, except in so far as those three items exclude claims for compensation, full compensation is provided in this Bill, as in the Act of 1911, for everything that the landlord suffers. That is the general principle. When we came to details I tried to make it quite clear upstairs that if an estate contained on its surface a residence which had a letting value—either a mansion house or some other house. I remember the phrase—and if the letting value of that house is diminished or interfered with by the constitution of small holdings in its immediate neighbourhood or by the destruction of the little bit of sporting value of the rights that were included in it, then the diminished letting value of the residence would constitute a good ground 355 of compensation, and it still is, Accordingly, if there is on a particular estate a mansion house, or perhaps what may have been an old cheap farm house which is now a lodge, let with a grouse moor or a deer forest, and if the letting value of that house, which the owner has built or bought, is diminished, then there is compensation in this Bill and there always was. In the valuation roll, wherever there is a grouse moor or a deer forest and there is some place to live in for the tenant, the entry is "lodge so many hundred pounds, shootings, or deer forest and shootings so many hundred pounds." Wherever there is a case of that kind, and the proprietor can show that the house which he has put up or bought with the estate is rendered useless or has its letting value diminished, then there is compensation under the Bill, and he will get it not only for the house but also, of course, for those appurtenances mentioned here, like water supply. How far he would get it for access is certainly a question of circumstances. One earn imagine a road or access to other premises as well. Therefore, I cannot say that, wherever there is a road that leads to a house or residence used as a lodge, there would be compensation; but I can say with regard to the Amendment which is proposed that the bulk of what the hon. Members have in mind is covered, covered in this sense, that as regards any capital expenditure that has been made by a proprietor on his estate, for the purpose of equipping it with a residence and those things that are necessary to make a residence useful and accessible, the Bill does not exclude any claim for compensation if—always if—the letting value of that house or residence has been interfered with by the creation of small holdings. A very large part if not the whole of the substance of what the hon. Members have in mind was always provided by this Bill, and is now provided in this respect that the Amendment already made by my hon. Friend leaves that matter exactly where it was.
§ Mr. SHAWIn view of what the Lord Advocate has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move, at the end of substituted Sub-section (11, b, iii.), to insert the words 356
(iv) any allowance on account of the tenure of the new holder or holders under this Act or on account of loss or limitation of control over the land taken for a new holding or holdings and over the new holder or holders or on account of the substitution of a number of new holders for a single tenant.This is adding a fourth compensation to deal with what we know familiarly as the Lindean case.
§ Major M. WOODI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. MUNROI hope my hon. Friend will accept the assurance I offered upstairs that having regard to the previous provisions in this Bill, the Amendment is unnecessary. Of course the Lindean case was decided before this Bill was on its way to the Statute Book. Compensation has already been limited to the injury done to or depreciation in the selling value of land or estate. With that limitation this Amendment is unnecessary.
§ Mr. HOGGEI should like an assurance that there is no possibility of a claim for compensation on the ground that the owner of the land loses control over the lives of the smallholders put on his estate.
§ Sir G, YOUNGERI beg to move, in substituted Sub-section (11, c), after the word "relief" ["any benefit or relief resulting to"], to insert the words
enhancing the letting value of the land comprised in the scheme or of any estate of which such land forms part.
§ Mr. H. HOPEI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. MUNROAccording to my recollection, I promised in Committee upstairs that I would endeavour to find words before Report to meet a criticism which I thought was well founded. I think the words of the Amendment are appropriate to meet the point. I think they bring the betterment Clause into line with the "worsement" Clause.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In substituted Sub-section (11, b, ii.), after the word "Book" ["Landholders' Holdings Book, and shall"], insert the words "as if it were an order of the Land Court.—[Mr Munro.]