HC Deb 02 December 1919 vol 122 cc288-90

Paragraph (f) of Sub-section (3) is hereby repealed and in lieu thereof the following shall be substituted: Subject to the provisions of this Act as to permissible uses of small holdings, any holding which is not agricultural or pastoral in its character or partly agricultural and partly pastoral.—[Major M. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Major M. WOOD

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

I move this new Clause with the object of rectifying an interpretation given by the Court of Session of a phrase in the Act of 1911. The words in Section. 26 of that Act were wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral." The Court took the view, with regard to the words residue pastoral," that they excluded land being used for any other purpose except agricultural or pastoral use. It excluded the most industrial class a all, those who had a, subsidiary occupation. I am sure that was not the intention of the Act, and I believe the Government will say that that is so, and will accordingly meet us on the point.

Mr. JAMES BROWN

I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. CLYDE

I am afraid we cannot accept this proposal. I would ask the hon. Member to consider very seriously whether these words could possibly be productive of any result other than confusion? As the scheme of the Small Landholders Act stands, it is a scheme applicable to agricultural occupancy. It is true that agriculture is the same thing for that purpose as a pasture, but it does not apply to industrial property to house property. The hon. member is quite right when he says there have been cases in which the Courts have been asked to determine in particular circumstances this question, "is this an agricultural or a pastoral holding or is it something else?" There are cases where a holding is of a very mixed character, where, in point of fact, it is partly industrial and nut agricultural or pastoral at ail, and in those cases the Courts have had to decide on the facts of each case, whether they might fairly say, taken on the whole, "You may keep tins as agricultural holding," or, on the other hand, "You must use it as an industrial holding." I do not know whether those decisions may have commended themselves or not, but they were decisions made on the facts of each particular case. Observe what this will do. This would say that a holding which can come under the Act is a holding which is riot agricultural or pastoral in character or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, in other words, an industrial holding or a piece of house property. That would turn the whole scheme upside down. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman meant that, but that is what the words mean, and these words we could not possibly accept. I do not see how the kind of problem the Courts have had to consider in the cases which he has in his mind can be avoided. You are always getting, in actual life, mixed cases where it is difficult to say that anything fairly falls in one category or another, and you have to present them for decision, if people cannot agree. It would be no remedy for that state of affairs to say you were going to bring in property, whether agricultural or not. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment. It will not serve his purpose.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.