HC Deb 22 July 1919 vol 118 cc1216-27

  1. (1) Where an order for the compulsory purchase of land has been made, and where necessary confirmed, under the principal Act. Whether such order was made before or after the passing of this Act, the council entitled to purchase the land under the order may, at any time after a notice to treat has been served, and on giving not. less than fourteen days' notice to the owner and occupier of the land, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent or compliance with Sections eighty-four to ninety of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.but subject to the payment of the like compensation and interest thereon as would have been payable if the provisions of those Sections had been complied with.
    • Provided that where a council have so entered on land, the council shall not be entitled to exercise the powers conferred by Sub-section (8) of Section thirty-nine of the principal Act.
  2. (2) Where a council has agreed to purchase and for the purposes of the principal Act, and the land is in the possession of a person having no greater interest therein than as a tenant for a year, or from year to year, then at any 1217 time after such agreement has been made the council may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to the person go in possession, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent, but subject to the payment to the person so in possession of the like compensation, with such interest thereon as aforesaid, as if the council had been authorised to purchase the land compulsorily and such person had, in pursuance of such power, been required to quit possession before the expiration of his term or interest in the land, but without the necessity of compliance with Sections eighty-four to ninety of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1645.
  3. (3) This Section shall with such necessary adaptations as may be prescribed apply in the case of an order authorising the compulsory hiring of land, or of an agreement to hire land.

Amendment made: In Sub-section. (1), leave out the words "the owner," and insert instead thereof the words each owner, lessee."— [Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "land" ["possession of the land without"], to insert the words or such part thereof as is specified in the notice. This Amendment is really an important one. Clause 2 gives to the county council or to the Board the very important power of being able to enter on to land which they have bought compulsorily after fourteen days' notice, and a great deal of feeling has been evinced that this may lead to great hardship. 1 pointed out in Committee that we did not really intend in most cases to enter upon the whole farm, that we did not intend to dispossess the tenant, and so forth, and I have other Amendments lower down which will safeguard that. But what we do want to do, where we require land for allotments or land for small holdings, is to enter quickly on to a small part of the property. For example, if we buy a farm in this month of July, and it has a tenancy which is terminated by yearly notice, we cannot begin our work until Michaelmas next year, and that will be fatal to our land settlement scheme. We want, therefore, the right to enter quickly, but we do not want always to enter on the whole farm. Therefore, I am moving this Amendment to give to the council the right to enter only on such part of the farm as may be specified in the notice.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (1). after the word "compensation" ["of the like compensation and interest "], insert the words. 'for the land of which possession is taken."— [Sir A. Boscawen.]

Major LANE-FOX

I beg to move, in Sub-section (l), after the word ''with" [" had been complied with"]', to insert the words Provided always that no order for compulsory purchase shall be confirmed or possession taken of any land where the occupier of such land has served in any branch of His Majesty's Forces and has now returned, or has expressed his intention of returning, to resume the cultivation of the land. This is intended to avoid the possibility of the land being taken away from the original tenant in favour of another serving soldier. It does seem to me to be fairer that when land is wanted, the land of those who are not soldiers should be taken in preference to that of a man serving his country. The point is a very simple one.

Mr. CAUTLEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I entirely sympathise with the object my hon. and gallant Friend has in view, and I cannot conceive it at all possible that any county council would wish to penalise, so to speak, a returning soldier. After all, what we are trying to do here is to settle soldiers on the land, and it would be most absurd and inconsistent to take away the land of a soldier who has served. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will see that I cannot accept this Amendment, at all events as it stands, for this reason. There are a good many large landowners who have served in the Army, and they may have land in hand.

Major LANE-FOX

It only applies to the occupier.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

If land is in hand, then the owner is the occupier. What would be the result? I am not suggesting that my hon. Friends would do it—they are the last people to do it—but some other landowners, who had served and who had land in hand, might take advantage of this Clause to refuse to allow that land to be acquired for small holdings at all. I am sure that is not a result my hon. and gallant Friend would desire. I do not think there is anything to fear, because we lay down in this Bill that in this land settlement preference must be given to ex-soldiers, and I cannot see how a council can do that if they are going to take away the land of an ex-soldier. Therefore, I do not think there is anything to fear, and, although the principle is a very proper one, the insertion of this Amendment might lead to very undesirable results.

Captain FITZROY

I really do not see why the owner-occupier may not be a very small occupier, who may fee put in a worse position than a tenant farmer, because the owner-occupier may have served as a soldier and be just as much entitled to retain his land as a tenant farmer who has served as a soldier. This Amendment makes it abundantly clear that where the owner-occupier has been a serving soldier he shall not have to make way for another soldier. If the wording of the Amendment is not as good as it might be, other words might be found.

Mr. ACLAND

I should have hoped that this was a case which might be left to the good sense of the county council and others concerned. I know a case in a certain parish where a rather undesirable state of things prevails. It is a big parish, and there are three considerable farms all under the occupation of the same man. He went to the War, and he put bailiffs in to manage all the farms, but it would be very much better to everyone concerned if he would give up one of the farms and content himself with the two others.

Major LANE-FOX

I am sorry the Government have not seen their way to accept the principle of the Amendment, Obviously there is nothing in it that can do any harm to the Bill. However, if the Government insist that it is neither necessary nor advisable, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "to purchase land."

Leave out the words and the land is in the possession of a person having no greater interest therein than as and insert instead thereof the words to purchase land subject to the interest of the person in possession thereof, and that interest is not greater than that of.

After the word "land" ["the land without previous consent"], insert the words or of such part thereof as is specified in the notice.

After the word "compensation" [" possession of the like compensation "], insert the words for the land of which possession is taken."— [Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, to insert, as a new Sub-section, (3) Where a notice of entry under this Section relates to land on which there is a dwelling-house and the length of notice is less than three calendar months, the occupier of the dwelling-house may by notice served on the council within ten days after the service on him of the notice of entry appeal against such notice, and in any such case the appeal shall be determined by an arbitrator under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908 (except that the arbitrator shall, in default of agreement, be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution) and the council shall not be entitled to enter on the land under this Section except on such date and on such conditions as the arbitrator may award. This is a more important Amendment, and deals with the promise I gave in Committee as to this very drastic power of entry that regard should be had to a dwelling-house. It was pointed out that great injustice would result if after only fourteen days' notice a tenant farmer might be turned out, not merely of his land or part of his land, but also of his house. Therefore, we propose this Amendment, so that where the notice is less than three calendar months, he may submit the matter to an arbitrator, whose decision, of course, will be final. We think this will meet the very strong feeling as to hardship. I gave a distinct promise that I would try to meet this point, and 1 hope the House will consider it is fairly met by this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Major BARNES

I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words A council which has hired land compulsorily or by agreement shall have the option at any time during the tenancy of purchasing the holding from the landlord, and if the council so desires the purchase money shall be paid by means of an annuity. In determining the amount of compensation the value of the land shall be taken to be the value which the land would have had at the date of the notice to treat if it had remained in the condition in which it was at the commencement of the tenancy without regard to. any enhancement or depreciation in the value which may be attributable, directly or indirectly, to any buildings, works, or improvements erected, constructed, executed, or made in, on, over, or under the land, or any adjoining or neighbouring land, for the purposes connected with the tenancy wholly or partly at the expense of the council or with the consent of the council at the expense of any person not being a person interested in the land. This is an Amendment directed to removing what, I think, is the only real objection which exists to the Bill. The Bill necessitates the entry of the State into The market to buy very considerable quantities of land, but by the irony of fate, just at the time that the State is forced into the market, prices are very much against it, and that is nowhere more so than in the case of agricultural land. I think it will be generally admitted that there has been a very considerable increase in its value compared with its value prior to the War. In that connection I would like to bring before the notice of the House an expression of opinion by a gentleman who is probably in as good a position, if not in a better position than anybody in the country to express an opinion on that point. I refer to Sir Howard Frank, who wrote a letter a few days ago to the "Times" in relation to the effect on the market price of land by the entry of the county councils into the market. It is a letter of a most public-spirited character, and I would ask the indulgence of the House while I read some extracts. He said: I have noticed at recent sales that county-councils are buying land at auction, with the inevitable result that the price in certain districts is forced up and high prices fire being given. The vendor, especially when he is tenant for life selling with the consent of trustees, or a mortgagee selling under his power of sale, must dispose of the property at the best price he can obtain, and when advising an owner an auctioneer has to consider likely competition and the price that might be secured at auction in consequence, and it is often found that a tenant, given when the owner is in the position to give him the opportunity to buy privately, will not give nearly as much as the farm is likely to zetch at auction. The result I am afraid is going to be that the Government through the county councils will be paying in many cases such high prices that it will be difficult for the ex-Service man to make a living, and some one will have to stand the loss, presumably the Government. I suppose I shall be told I am foolish to write this letter, as when acting in a professional capacity my duty is to do the best I can for the landlord, and I shall be asked why I wish to interfere with sales which are going so well. I decline, however, to believe that owners themselves prefer to sell land at unduly inflated prices to ex-Servicemen. I have discussed the matter with big landowners and they are only too anxious to do what is right to help ex-Service men, and to sell their land at a reasonable price, but there are cases where an owner is obliged to 'go to auction, especially with heavily mortgaged estates, and when he is tenant for life. I hope therefore the Government will take this matter in hand forthwith so as to prevent the price of agricultural land from being increased still further by Government competition in the sale room, and if necessary I trust legislation will be enacted forthwith which will enable the Government to secure the land at a reasonable price. duly compensating the tenants who are turned out to make room for the soldier. 6.0 P.M.

I submit an expression of opinion coming from a man in a position of Sir Howard Frank should carry very considerable weight with this House. In the Amendment I propose I am asking the Government to pass legislation which will effect what Sir Howard thinks is absolutely necessary at the present time if the soldier is to get land on anything like reasonable terms, and if the Government is not to be saddled with a loss. This Amendment has been very carefully drafted. I am very anxious to frame anything I may do in this House upon the best models. The first part' of the Amendment is based upon the Amendment which I think originally appeared on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and which now appears later in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Lieut.-Colonel Weigall), where he is proposing for the tenant of a county council what, in my Amendment, I propose should be given to the county council itself. Under the Small Holdings Act the county council has the power to hire compulsorily, and it has the power to buy. What I suggest in the first part of my Amendment is that it should be given the power to buy after it has hired. That seems to me the only possible method by which we can avoid the necessity of buying the land at the present really high prices. I think it was during the course of the Debate on the Second Reading that it was suggested that was the way out; that if there was the necessity of going into the market at the present time the county councils should be given the power not only to lease— and to hire—but later to buy at a time when the market prices were more favourable, and that then the scheme would start with a better chance of success. It would not be weighted with the expenses incurred if the changes are to take place at the present time. The first part of the Amendment says: A council which has hired land compulsorily or by agreement shall have the option at any time during the tenancy of purchasing the holding from the landlord, and if the council so desires the purchase money shall be paid by means of an annuity. It will probably be at once pointed out— although I hope the necessity for doing so may disappear after what I have still to say—it may naturally be pointed out that the difficulties which arise if that course is taken and the land hired is that there may be expenditure upon it by the county council, and it might be very difficult later, when buying the land, to distinguish between the value of the land itself and the value due to this expenditure and these improvements. I might have despaired of drafting an Amendment that would have met a situation of the kind if I had had only my own unaided capacity to rely upon. But the situation has been fully met. It has been faced in the events of the last few years. This House has made provision for dealing with it. During the course of the War the various Government Departments have, in many cases, had to take land, to incur very considerable expenditure in improving that land, and, at alater period, to distinguish between the value due to the land itself and the value due to the expenditure of the Government Department. In the Acquisition of Land Act, 1916, which was part of the Defence of the Realm legislation, there was a compensation Clause which provided for distinguishing in such cases between the value of the land as it "was at the time it was taken by the Government Department and the value of the land subsequently after the expenditure by the Government on improvements. With a very slight adaptation the latter part of this Amendment would meet the cases of the kind which might arise. It reads: In determining the amount of compensation the value of the land shall be taken to be the value which the land would have had at the date of the notice to treat if it had remained in the condition in which it was at the commencement of the tenancy without regard to any enhancement or depreciation in the value which may be attributable, directly or indirectly, to any buildings, works, or improvements erected… I submit the Amendment to the Government. It seems to me that it does help us in a very real difficulty. It will, I trust, enable the provisions of this Bill to be carried out with the least possible expenditure, and in effecting that it must, it seems to me, facilitate very greatly the work in which the right hon. Gentleman in his Department are engaged. There can be no hardship entailed in it. The provisions proposed to be applied in the case of the tenant are those which have been, and are being, applied in the case of property taken during the War. This is just one of those cases where the experience we have acquired during the War in dealing with a difficult situation might be applied in the present emergency.

Mr. T. A. LEWIS

I beg to second the-Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I have taken a great deal of trouble to consider this-Amendment, to see how far we can meet the objects of the Movers, and how far it is necessary; because I recognise that one of the great difficulties we have in this land settlement is that we are buying and equipping holdings at the most expensive time. Seeing we do not intend that this additional expense should fall upon the settlers—and if that is the case there must be a deficit—it will fall upon the taxpayers. We want, therefore, to avoid that so far as we can. I realise that probably as regards the acquisition of land, the best way is not to buy but to hire, and possibly to buy later, when, we may suppose, the bulk of the land has fallen in price. Whether it will fall, and when, is at present problematical, so that at present possibly hiring is the better plan; but there is no reason why the councils should not buy later the land which is already hired. I have considered the matter very carefully to see whether we can accept this Amendment, and really whether it is necessary. I will just tell the House the conclusion I came to after going into it fully with my advisers at the Board of Agriculture, Part of the Amendment we could not accept at all. We cannot agree to force the owner of land to take an-annuity. We do not think that is fair. It is a very good plan that there should be annuities which the owner may take if he so wishes. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at Clause 8 he will see we have provided that in all these purchases-the compensation may be by annuity if the-owner is willing to take it. And in many cases, we believe, the annuity instead of cash will be accepted, especially from corporations. We do not, however, think it is fair to compel the owner to take an annuity as proposed in this Amendment. That part of the Amendment, therefore, we are entirely opposed 1o in principle.

My hon. Friend proposes that a council shall, any time after having hired land, buy, apparently whether they hire the land compulsorily or voluntarily; and he proposes that the compensation shall be fixed in such a manner that you shall take the then value of the land, taking it in the state it was when the tenancy commences,, and not taking into account any improvement executed by the council or their tenants. That, I think, in general is a per- fectly fair proposal. I came, however, to the conclusion that it was absolutely un-necessary to propose the Clause at all, and for this reason: it is all in the existing Acts at the present time. Under existing Acts the council may hire compulsorily. That is not altered by this Bill. On the contrary, we give greater facilities to hire compulsorily than exist now. After all, the council may purchase the land it has compulsorily hired by the simple process of making an order. You may make an order to acquire any land compulsorily, or you may make an order to acquire land that the council has already under the system of compulsory hiring.

Then as to the compensation, let me point this out, that under the existing law if a council hires compulsorily it does so with the right of perpetual renewal. It may go on renewing time after time, and, in fact, it becomes practically a tenancy in perpetuity. Where a renewal takes place, it is a renewal at the then current value, without taking into account any increase in value due to the use of the land either by the council or their tenant. In fact, the lease is renewed on precisely the terms my hon. Friend introduces into the Amendment for the purchase and fixing of compensation when there is purchase. What follows?A council acquiring by order land which it has compulsorily hired with the right of renewal on these terms, such rights of renewal and compensation, therefore, will be. fixed, having regard to the fact that, the tenancy could be renewed in perpetuity and on those very conditions which are laid down in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I suggest, therefore, from the point of view of dealing with land which has been hired compulsorily, we have full power at the present time. At any moment a council can purchase land it has hired, and do it on the terms contained in the proposed Amendment. I will come down to what really happens. For reasons that I do not quite understand councils have not availed themselves of this right of compulsory hiring to the extent that I think they might reasonably have done. I do not notice any particular disposition on the part of councils to avail themselves of that power now. We, therefore, propose to point out by circular in the strongest impossible terms the obvious advantage of proceeding by hire at the present time rather than by purchase. Some strong admonition on the part of the Board of Agriculture may be effectual. There is one further point. My hon. Friend's Amendment deals, I understand, with all cases of hire, be they compulsory or be they voluntary. I think the hon. Member will agree that it would be unfair in the case of voluntary hiring if we made the Clause retrospective, and compelled an owner to sell when he was quite unaware of this provision when he made the voluntary arrangement. Having regard to the future, is it wise to introduce compulsory purchase in cases where land has been hired by voluntary agreement? I do not think it is. If you do that you will pretty well freeze up the plans of voluntary agreement altogether. If after making a voluntary agreement landlords can be compelled to sell not at any definite time, but at any time, the landowner will say, "We will not let voluntarily, and you must proceed by compulsory law." I am all in favour of having compulsory power, but wherever we can proceed by voluntary agreement I think we should do so. I think this proposal would prevent voluntary arrangements being made, and I shall certainly oppose the Amendment as regards voluntary hiring. We cannot agree to any voluntary system of annuities being forced upon landowners. We think, as regard cases of compulsory hiring, the powers exist to-day, and the compensation paid will be nothing more nor less than is contained in the Amendment. As regards voluntary arrangements, we think it most undesirable to introduce the proposed plan, which would have the effect of putting an end to voluntary arrangements and would make it more difficult for the councils to obtain land. Although I sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend's object, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Major BARNES

I am extremely obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his very able and valuable statement, and if I had had the advantage of consulting his advisers I should not have put down this Amendment. I am pleased to find that practically the whole substance of my Amendment is already within the present Clause, and if my hon. and gallant Friend can assure me that in the circular he proposes to issue he will not only point out the advantages of compulsory hiring, but also the fact that they can" also purchase compulsorily the land they have hired com- pulsorily, that will meet what I have in view. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.