CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 9 of Corn Production Act, 1917.)

HC Deb 16 November 1920 vol 134 cc1727-802

Section nine of the Act of 1917 shall be amended as follows:—

(ii) For the words in Sub-section (1) from "(b) that for the purpose of" to "as the case may be," both inclusive, there shall be substituted the words— (b) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute the necessary repairs (not being repairs which the tenant is liable to execute) to any buildings on the land being repairs required for the proper cultivation or working thereof, may serve notice, in the case of neglect by an owner to execute repairs, on the owner requiring him to execute the necessary repairs within such time as may be specified in the notice, and in any other case on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give for securing that the cultivation shall be in accordance with the rules of good husbandry or for securing such improvement or change as aforesaid in the manner of cultivating or using the land, as the case may be":

(iii) For the words in the proviso to Subsection (1) "or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of land included in the notice" there shall be substituted the words "or whether the production of food on the land can be increased in the national interest by the occupier by means of such an improvement or change as aforesaid or whether the repairs required to be executed are necessary for the proper cultivation or working of the land, or whether the time specified in the notice for the execution of such repairs is reasonable":

(iv) The following new Sub-sections shall be inserted after Sub-section (2):— (2A) Where a notice other than a notice under paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this Section has been served under this Section on the occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute some work in connection with the cultivation of the land and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a further penalty not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues after conviction:

Provided that—

1. (a) proceedings for an offence under this Sub-section shall not be instituted except by the Minister; and
2. (b) the Minister shall be entitled, notwithstanding that proceedings have been instituted under this Sub-section, to execute any work specified in the notice, and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default any expenses reasonably incurred by him in so doing, and the right to institute any such proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice":

(2B) Where a notice has been served under paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this Section on the owner of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute repairs and the owner fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the repairs, and a tenant so authorised shall be entitled to execute the repairs accordingly and at any time after the repairs nave been executed to recover from the owner the costs reasonably incurred by him in so doing, in the same manner in all respects as if those costs were compensation awarded in respect of an improvement under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908":

(v) For the words in Sub-section (3) "make such order as seems to them required in the circumstances, either authorising the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding, or determining the tenancy by virtue of the order" there shall be substituted the words "by order determine the tenancy of the holding or of any part thereof":

(vi) The following new Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (3):— (3A) Where it is represented to the Minister by an agricultural committee that the owner of any agricultural estate or land situate wholly or partly in the area of the committee, whether the estate or land or any part thereof is or is not in the occupation of tenants, cultivates or manages the estate or land in such a manner as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon, the Minister may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable so to do in the national interest, and alter making such inquiry as he thinks proper and alter taking into consideration any representations made to him by the owner, by order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land or any part thereof:

Provided that—

1. (a) an order made under this Sub-section shall not, except where the person appointed by the order to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land is appointed to act in the place of a person previously appointed under this Sub-section, take effect until a period of six months has elapsed after the date on which notice of the order having been made was given to the owner of the estate or land, and the owner may at any time during the said period appeal against the order to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and where any such appeal is made the order shall not take effect pending the determination of the appeal; and
2. (b) an order made under this Sub-section shall not, except with the consent of the owner, extend to a mansion house, garden, or policies thereof, or to any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and which is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; and
3. (c) the order shall not operate to deprive any person, except with his consent, of any sporting rights over the estate which do not interfere with the production of food on the estate; and
4. (d) any person appointed to act as receiver and manager of any agricultural estate or land under this Section shall render a yearly report and statement of accounts to the owner or his agent and to the Minister;
5. (e) the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers conferred on the Minister under this Section:

The Minister may by an order made under this provision apply for the purposes of the order, with such modifications as he thinks fit, any of the provisions of Section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relates to the powers, remuneration and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees, and authorise the receiver to exercise such other powers vested in the owner of the estate or land as may be specified in the order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager:

Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof except with the consent of the owner or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court":

(vii) In Sub-section (4) for the words "if within three months after the Board have entered on any land the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires" there shall be substituted the words "if within one month after the Minister has entered on or appointed a receiver and manager in respect of any land the owner of the land so requires"; and for the words "person so previously in occupation" there shall be substituted the word "owner":

(viii) In Sub-section (9) the words "in respect of which any notice is served or order made under this Section or" shall be repealed, and after the word "section," where that word last occurs, there shall be inserted the words "in that behalf":

(ix) The following new Sub-sections shall be inserted after Sub-section (10):— (11) For the purposes of this Section the rules of good husbandry shall include—

1. (a) the maintenance and clearing of drains, dykes, embankments, and ditches:
2. (b) the maintenance and proper repair of fences, gates and hedges:
3. (c) the execution of repairs to-buildings, being repairs which are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land, and, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, are required to be executed by the occupier of the land under the contract of tenancy:

and references in this Section to cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be taken to impose upon a tenant the obligation to maintain or clear drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches where such maintenance or clearance is prevented by subsidence of the land or the blocking of the outfalls which are not under the control of the tenant, or to make a tenant liable for such maintenance or clearance of drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches, or the maintenance or repair of fences, hedges, and gates, where such work is not required to be done by him under his contract of tenancy or the custom of the country."

"(12) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Sub-section applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a 'notice in writing requiring him to cut down or destroy the weeds in the manner and within the time specified in the notice, and where any such notice is given the provisions of Sub-section (2A) of this Section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply as if the land were land which was not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, and as if a notice had been served on the occupier under Subsection (1) of this Section.

"The expression 'occupier' in this Sub-section means in the case of any public road the authority by whom the road is being maintained, and in the case of unoccupied land the person entitled to the occupation thereof.

"Regulations may be made under this Act for prescribing the injurious weeds to which this Subsection is to apply."

Amendment proposed [3rd November,] in paragraph (ii), in lieu of paragraph (6) left out, to insert the words

1. "(b) that the production of food on any land can in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation; or
2. (c) that the occupier of land has unreason ably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default; or
3. (d) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraph applies."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Major MACKENZIE WOOD

I beg to move, as, an Amendment to the proposed Amendment in paragraph (b,) to leave out the words "and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land."

This paragraph proposes to give power to the Board of Agriculture to control agriculture in a certain way, but these powers are not to be exercised if they would injuriously affect persons interested in the land. I wish to omit these words because I object in the first place to the words "persons interested in the land." They are vague, loose, and incapable of exact definition. Who are the persons interested in any particular piece of land? They are, of course, the owner and the tenant, but there are many more than that if you have a mortgagee and persons interested in the reversion of land and so on. The Ministry of Agriculture cannot possibly know all these persons, and if they are told they are not to injuriously affect these persons interested, it means that they must start an investigation before they make any order as to who are interested in the particular piece of land. They have not the information available, and to ask them to instigate an investigation of that kind would be, it seems to me, quite absurd. Another point is that these powers are not to be exercised if they would injuriously affect persons interested in the slightest degree, even although the public advantage on the other side is immeasurably greater. Surely this is a question when the balance should be struck between the injurious affection on the one hand and the public advantage that is likely to flow from the control on the other. If this provision is allowed to stay in the Clause, I am certain it will result, to a large extent, in nullifying the effect of the whole Sub-section. There is no desire really to ride rough-shod over the interests of the owner of land, or anyone else, in a matter of this kind. After all, it is a question of the discretion of the Ministry. They are not bound to make Orders when the decision of the matter is within their discretion, and their discretion is only going to be exercised after consultation with the Agricultural Committee. That should be quite sufficient to protect the interests of these people. I hope we shall have a full explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what these words exactly mean and what he hopes to accomplish by putting them in.

4.0 P.M.

Major BARNES

I beg to second the Amendment. This question raises what is to me the vital point of this Bill—the question of control. How vital it is is shown by what occurred in the House yesterday. We were told on the one hand by the Government that this ques- tion of control was the thing in the Bill on which they stood or fell. It was a quid pro quo. They pointed out that their agricultural policy gave guarantees, it gave compensation for disturbance, it gave permanency to the Wages Board, and as against those three gifts on the part of the Government they were taking control. That was the Government's position put yesterday. How strongly they felt on the matter is shown by the fact that the Prime Minister come down on one of his rare and welcome visits to the House in order to make a speech on the question. From the other point of view we were told that this question of control was so vital that if the Government stood by it the Bill was of no value, and that the Third Reading would be opposed by those Members who are principally interested in it. Under these circumstances, it does appear to me that the whole bona fides of the Government rest upon their maintaining this as a substantial Clause. It was said yesterday by the Minister in charge of the Bill that any question of control must depend upon two things. After a decision has been arrived at by those persons to whom control is entrusted it can be defeated if it be shown, in the first place, that the exercise of control will not be in the national interest, or, in the second place, that it will injuriously affect the interests of any person interested in the land. The assumption is that anybody exercising such control will not determine upon its exercise unless he is fully conversant with all the circumstances. Who is the body to be entrusted? The House has been assured, and hon. Members particularly interested in this Bill have been assured, that the exercise of control is not going to be from Whitehall, and that the Department of Agriculture are not going to lay down regulations and enforce them from a distance where the local conditions are not known, but that control is to be exercised by people on the spot who are conversant with the circumstances, who know all about the local conditions, and who have come to the conclusion that the order they make is the proper order to be made under the circumstances. That is what the Government told us.

Yesterday we were treated to a great display in this House. We had the Minister in charge of the Bill standing at the Box, with his back turned to the Opposition, receiving into his devoted bosom all the shafts being sent at him. The impression intended to be created in this House was that the Government were taking their stand upon a matter of real and vital importance. What is the picture before the country as the result of the Debate yesterday? It is a picture of the Government standing to protect the taxpayer against the irrationality and greed of the landed interests of this country. I am not saying that is the position. I do not believe it. I believe that hon. Members opposite, in their view of the Bill, are as much disinterested and as much concerned with the general interests of the country as any body of Members in the House, and I hope that I shall not be understood as saying, in the slightest degree, that Members opposite are not approaching this Bill in this spirit. I am simply pointing out the effect of the Debate yesterday. That was the effect created in the House, and that will be the effect created in the country, namely, that the Government were standing upon a vital matter, this matter of control.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member cannot review the decision taken by the House yesterday, and I must ask him to confine himself to the Amendment.

Major BARNES

With very great submission, and no one should show greater submission than a new Member, I suggest that the object of this Amendment is to make the question of control really substantial by withdrawing certain words that exist in the Amendment as proposed. I was endeavouring to show how important it was that the control should be substantial, and, in support of my argument, I was illustrating from the events which occurred yesterday. I will come to the position of those unfortunate people upon whom this great burden of responsibility is to be placed. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman who sits on this Front Bench (Sir K. Winfrey) who pointed out that a subsidy of 5s. would amount to something like £10,000,000 a year. If the difference between the world price and the guaranteed price be 10s., then the amount will be £20,000,000 a year. That is a very serious burden of responsibility laid upon the taxpayers in this country. That was stressed yesterday, and we were told that the sole protection which the taxpayer had was in this matter of control. This control is not to be exercised by the Central Department in Whitehall, but is to devolve upon local committees. In what situation will they find themselves if the Clause proposed by the Minister in charge of the Bill stands? They will find themselves in this humiliating position. Having, with the exercise of all their local knowledge and acting with a full sense of their responsibility, come to the conclusion to put their powers of control into operation, they may be met by the provision in this Bill that the action they propose to take will injuriously affect some person or other interested in the land. It has been pointed out already that there are all kinds of people interested in the land, and all sorts of interests. There is no definition in this Amendment which narrows that exceedingly wide field. It will be the easiest matter possible for any person who is subjected to an Order of this kind, and who may properly and rightly resent it, to stay such proceedings. If this matter is of importance, and if control is to be substantial, then these words should come out.

If in the exercise of their discretion the responsible authority do something which does injuriously affect some person interested in the land, then there ought to be proper compensation, and that compensation should be provided in the Bill. That is quite another point. It is not, I am sure, the desire of the hon. Member proposing the Amendment to the Amendment that any person should be subjected to any loss through the action of the Committee, but it is one thing to provide against a loss of that kind and quite another to put it in the power of any person, by a mere frivolous objection, to hamper the operations of this Bill. Make such provision for loss or injury as may be necessary, but do make your Clause really substantial by withdrawing these words. I recognise that yesterday, when meeting the opposition to this Clause, the Minister in charge of the Bill did point out these words, and probably, when replying to us, he will rely upon what he said yesterday. He will say that it is because these words were in that the Government got support for the Clause, and that if they were not in they would not have been saved from defeat even by the Members on this side of the House. I would say, in reply, that the Minister in charge of the Bill is now threatened with the loss of the measure He is told that the Third Reading will be voted against, and, if hon. Members do wish to destroy the Bill, they certainly have the power to do it. If they do not do so in this House, they can in the other House. That is perfectly clear. I do, therefore, suggest to the Minister in charge of the Bill that he should make the control really substantial, and should establish the bona fides of the Government in this matter by putting a Clause in the Bill which shall adequately protect the taxpayer, which shall put in an honourable and worthy position those entrusted with the exercise of control, and which shall prevent the plea that this Clause is mere camouflage and is merely intended on the face of it to carry some suggestion of control, with the perfect knowledge, both in the minds of the Government and of Members interested in the Bill, that it counts for nothing.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen)

The Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down said that I took my stand, yesterday on an important Amendment. Yes, and this was an important part of that Amendment. I justified the granting of some measure of control largely by the fact that we were going to take care that the interests of those who were interested in the land were not injuriously affected. In fact, I said that we could not exercise control except subject to an appeal to an arbitrator on this, particular point. I repeat to-day what I said yesterday. I hold that a certain amount of control is necessary, but I also hold that it must be just, and it would be most unjust if these words were omitted. It would be not only unjust, but it would be uneconomic. What are we proposing? In cases where an improvement in the method of cultivation will be a real improvement and where a change of cultivation will lead to greater production, we propose that there shall be an improvement or a change of cultivation, but, if the interests of those who are interested in the land are injuriously affected in the long run, it must prove- that the proposed improvement or change of cultivation will be of an uneconomic character. During the War, no doubt, mistakes were made, and cultivation orders were issued in some cases where the land was unsuitable. We had to get on as quickly as we could, some mistakes were unavoidable. In those cases we paid compensation.

We are now embarking, not on a hurried policy for a special purpose during a war, but on what I hope may be a permanent peace policy. We do not wish to make these mistakes. We wish these mistakes to be avoided. Therefore, instead of payment of compensation after mistakes, our method is an appeal in the first instance to a single arbitrator on this point: Are the Agricultural Committee right or not? Are they proposing something which will be an advantage or which will not be an advantage? Are they proposing something which will or will not injuriously affect those interests in the soil? If it will injuriously affect those interests, it is clear that the change of cultivation will be an uneconomic change. If, on the other hand, it does not injuriously affect those interests, probably it will be an improvement of cultivation and one that in the national interests should be made. Having adopted this principle of a certain measure of control, having put in the Bill a Clause whereby there will be no compensation payable if a mistake be made, we cannot now, under the Rules of Order, having regard to the Financial Resolution passed by this House, insert compensation. That being so, we must adhere to our principle that before any Order be carried into effect it shall be ascertained by an appeal to an arbitrator whether or not the interests of the persons concerned will be injuriously affected. The Mover of the Amendment raised a point as to what I may call the practical difficulties. Who are the persons interested in the soil? All such matters will be settled by the arbitrator. If a man appeals against a Cultivation Order on the ground that his interests will be injuriously affected, he will have in the first instance to prove to the arbitrator that he is interested in the land. If he is not interested, he has no locus standi, and there will be no question of frivolous objections preventing these Cultivation Orders. If objections are made frivolously, they will not be con- sidered. I do not see that any difficulty is likely to arise, and, realising the importance of this particular Sub-section, I must say that these words are an essential part of it, and I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, in paragraph (ii, b,) to leave out the words "by any owner to execute repairs," and to insert instead thereof the words "to execute the necessary works of maintenance."

I promised to make clear the intention of the Government in regard to repairs, and these words are merely put in to carry out that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In paragraph (ii, b,) leave out the word "owner" ["owner requiring"], and insert instead thereof the words "tenant or owner, as the case may be"; leave out the word "repairs" ["necessary repairs within such time"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Mr. E. WOOD

I beg to move, in paragraph (ii, b,) after the word last inserted, to insert the, words "giving particulars thereof."

I understand my right hon. Friend is willing to accept this Amendment, and, unless the House wishes it, I shall not give further particulars, as the Amendment is self-explanatory.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, in paragraph (ii, b,) to leave out the words "such improvement or change as aforesaid in the manner of cultivating or using the land, as the case may be," and to insert instead thereof the words the necessary improvement in the existing method of cultivation, or for securing that the land shall be used for arable cultivation, so, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown. The first part of this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment which was carried last night, while the last part, "so, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown," is simply to make it clear that although we have acquired by the Amendment inserted yesterday the right to order a change of cultivation in the sense that we can ask for a certain amount of arable land, we do not propose that there should be any attempt to dictate the particular crops to be grown in any particular year. The outside limit of our control is over improvement in the existing method of cultivation or a change of cultivation necessitating the maintenance or the production of a certain amount of arable land, and we wish to guard ourselves, as I promised we would, against any kind of attempt on the part of the agents or the officers of the Agricultural Committee, or the officers of the Ministry, to tell the occupying tenant or cultivator what he is to do in this year or any other year. We leave complete freedom of crops.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (ii), to insert a new paragraph— (iii) After the words "suspension of the covenant or condition," in Sub-section (1), there shall be inserted the words "or by reason of the execution by the owner of any works of maintenance. This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised in Committee. In the original Act, which we are here amending, if there is a suspension or alteration of a covenant, which benefits the tenant, provision is made for an adjustment of rent so that the landlord may receive his fair share of the benefit accruing from the suspension of the covenant. It was pointed out that we are taking large powers to compel the execution of repairs, and the execution of those repairs by the landlord may in some cases increase the value of the holding to the tenant. We think there should be an adjustment in favour of the landlord in that case also. I am quite aware that the Amendment which I have on the Paper does not quite meet the whole point, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Hope) were here, I should have suggested to him to move certain words which would have made the matter from the drafting point of view rather clearer. I understand that he is not present today, but I give the assurance that the-drafting will be reconsidered in another place, and the point which has been put before me by him and other Scottish Members will be safeguarded.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. WOOD

I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert a new paragraph (iii) After "notice" in the first line of the proviso to Sub-section (1), add "or copy of a notice. This is a small point, but it has been represented to me by those interested in the matter outside that it is desirable to make it quite plain that the same right of appeal should follow service of the copy of a notice as in the case of the service of a notice. If a notice is served on a tenant and copy of that notice is-served on the landowner it should be made quite clear beyond any question of misunderstanding that the same rights of appeal to the arbitrator follows the service of the copy of the notice on the landowner as follows the service of the notice on the tenant, and the same thing, should apply in the reverse direction. This Amendment is moved to avoid the risk of any possible misunderstanding.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I beg to second the Amendment.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro)

I will ask my hon. Friend to consider whether this Amendment is necessary. I think it is provided quite clearly in the Bill that where notice is served on a tenant, copy of the notice, shall be served upon the landlord, and vice versâ, and according to my advice it is unnecessary to add this Amendment. Under these circumstances, perhaps my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. WOOD

It is quite clear that copy of the notice is to be served when the notice is served, but it is not clear whether the service of copy of the notice carries the same consequential rights of appeal to the arbitrator.

Mr. MUNRO

I am advised that it does. If there is any difficulty in the matter we shall have it looked into, and words will be introduced in another place to deal with it.

Mr. WOOD

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: In paragraph (iii), after the word "of" ["portion of land"], insert the word "the."

Leave out the words "be increased in the national interest by the occupier, by means of such an improvement or change as aforesaid," and to insert instead thereof the words in the national interest be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of the required improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation or whether such improvement or use will injuriously affect the persons interested in the land.

Leave out the word "repairs" ["repairs required"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."

Leave out the words "for the proper cultivation or working of the land," and insert instead thereof the words "works of maintenance."

Leave out the word "repairs" ["such repairs"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Mr. LANE-FOX

I beg to move at the (iii) to insert the end of paragraph words Provided that the arbitrator in making his award on any appeal by the owner of land against a notice to execute repairs shall have regard, inter alia, to the cost of the execution of such repairs. The object of this Amendment is to direct the attention of the arbitrator to the question of the cost of the repairs, and to secure that the order shall be reasonable. There are cases in which it might be very unfair to have an order made upon an owner for repairs. For the better working of the Bill it is advisable that the attention of the arbitrator should be specially called to the need for keeping down, as far as he can, any unreasonable cost in any repairs he may order to be done.

Major WHELER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I sympathise with the object of my hon. Friends, but I do not think those words are necessary. Whether the appeal is by the owner or the tenant it will be open to the arbitrator to consider whether on account of the cost it is unreasonable for the repairs to be executed or not. That is a material point which he can take into consideration. There is the further point whether the land can be kept in proper cultivation by the execution of other works at less cost. It must be borne in mind that we are only dealing with works which are necessary for the proper cultivation of the land. All the works necessary for the cultivation of the land must be executed, but the arbitrator could certainly take into consideration whether the proposed repairs are really necessary or whether other repairs of a less ambitious character could be executed which would be sufficient in order to secure the proper cultivation of the land. I do not think that it would be well to put in this special direction. There are a great many other matters which the arbitrator will have to take into account, and we know that if you put in one direction it often seems to exclude others. All that my hon. Friends have in mind can he carried out without the insertion of these words.

Mr. PRETYMAN

What my right hon. Friend has said does meet the case. I think that the word "unreasonably" goes a Long way, and, obviously, the question of cost would be covered.

Mr. ACLAND

I agree. I think that it is always dangerous to direct attention to a particular thing, because it rather creates the presumption that one should not attempt to do other things. If this Amendment were accepted, I should move to add the words "also accruing to the tenant by reason of the repairs not being executed" and so it would go on.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

This is not only a question between landlord and tenant, but one affecting every tenant farmer who purchases his farm. He can be ordered to do repairs, and when the question of cost is referred to it includes not only the cost of building but the cost having regard to the very high prices at the present time. The cost of repairs at present would be at least 3½ times what they were formerly. This Bill is only a temporary measure. It can be repealed at any time in four years. The conditions under which they will have to execute these repairs apply to every tenant who has bought his farm, so that special attention should be directed to the question of cost.

Mr. LANE-FOX

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and the appalling prospect of what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) might do, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2A) to leave out the words "other than a notice under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section."

Paragraph (b) refers to this. Where there is any default in the matter of repairs by the landlord it was dealt with differently from the way in which the tenant was dealt with if he were in default in the matter of cultivation. In the matter of default in cultivation there could be summary proceedings in court. In the case of the landlord in default with repairs such proceedings are impossible as the Bill stands, but powers are given to the tenant to execute repairs at the landlord's expense. It was pointed out in Committee that if either landlord or tenant goes into court they should be treated in precisely the same way, and the object of this Amendment is to secure that equality of treatment.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD

These words instead of putting the landlord on the same footing will put him on a different footing. If the tenant is in default he is going to be sent to prison. If the landlord is in default he is not to be sent to prison, and no penalty is to be put on him at all.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

There is no question of going to prison.

Mr. LAMBERT

Some might be very glad to go there when you have got this Bill through.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

It is only a question of proceeding in Court, and we find that as the Bill stands a tenant in default will have proceedings taken against him in Court and the landlord will not. The only effect of leaving out these words is to obliterate the distinction between these two cases. It is exactly the opposite to what my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Mackenzie Wood) thinks.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2A), after the word "the" ["on the occupier"], insert the words "owner or."

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2A), to leave out the words, "in connection with the cultivation of the land."

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain this Amendment?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

These are all purely drafting Amendments. I realise fully the difficulty of dealing with this matter by reference, and, if I am in order in saying this at this stage, if the matter is pressed I shall be glad to recommit the Bill in respect of the Clause when we recommit the other Clauses, and set out the whole of Clause 9, provided always that I am assured that opportunity will not be taken to rediscuss the whole question. This is simply a drafting Amendment consequential on Amendments already made.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

I am quite satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. What he suggests will be a great help to us all.

Mr. LAMBERT

I re-echo what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. We should like to see the Clause as amended in print. It is impossible, without the assistance of a couple of lawyers' clerks, to go through the Clause and say exactly what it means, but if it comes up again I will engage in no unnecessary discussion unless there are obvious discrepancies between the Clause and what the House really meant. So far as raising the old questions over again is concerned, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not do that.

Mr. PRETYMAN

May I ask whether what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do is to issue on the re-committed Bill Clause 9 of the original Bill in its new form, showing in a different print, in italics or block print, those changes which have been inserted since, so that we may see exactly what the alterations are?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I do not know how far we ought to insert in print the alterations made in this Bill. The better course, I should think, would be, first, to move to re-commit the Bill in respect of Clause 4; secondly, to move the omission of Clause 4, and, thirdly, to move the insertion of a new Clause, which would be the old existing Sections of the Act of 1917, as amended. Whether I should show the alterations in different print or not, that is a matter on which I must consult others.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Will the right hon. Gentleman do that in a separate paper?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I will do my best.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2A): Leave out the word "penalty" ["further penalty not"] and insert instead thereof the word, "fine"—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Lieut. Colonel SPENDER CLAY

I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2 A, b) to leave out the words "notwithstanding that proceedings have been instituted under this Sub-section. The object of the Amendment is that when a question is sub judice the Minister shall not be entitled to execute work which might entail considerable expense. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to page 1 of the White Paper he will see that at the bottom it says that where a question is so referred to arbitration, no action shall be taken to enforce a direction by the Board until the question has been determined by the terms of award. By leaving in those words the paragraph seems to me to be contradictory. I admit that if these words are left out it will entail some re-drafting of paragraph (b). But I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should recognise the justice of omitting these words, and in re-committing this Clause would perhaps substitute words which would meet the difficulty indicated.

Mr. TOWNLEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I cannot accept the Amendment. By merely omitting these words we should leave the question absolutely open as to whether these two proceedings are cumulative or alternative. The House must decide which they should be. We do not care to take proceedings as a rule. It is the last thing we want, but in very bad cases when it may be necessary. At the same time we do not want to be held up in getting repairs executed. I do not see any inconsistency between these words and the words which my hon. Friend has read out. To leave the matter quite open, as this would do, would be a mistake.

Mr. E. WOOD

I do not think that the matter is quite so simple. It is evident that by re-committing it would be necessary to re-draft paragraph (b). That point will arise later. What is suggested by paragraph (b) is that while proceedings are going on and the matter is sub judice and a legal decision against the Minister may be given, the Minister can go ahead and charge any cost that has been incurred against the man who by the decision of the Court may after all turn out not to be liable. May I direct attention to what is actually going to be tried in the Court? At the top of page five of the amended Bill we read that where a notice has been served under this Section on the occupier, and where that person unreasonably fails to comply, he shall be liable. Yet while you are trying him you assume that the thing will be decided against him and you at once carry out the work. That seems to me a very unreasonable thing to do. You need not be afraid of any great delay, for the thing is dealt with in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and in most places such Courts sit every week or every alternate week.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock)

I quite appreciate the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but on further inspection of the Clause I think he will see that this Amendment is unnecessary. What we are trying to do is to get done work which ought to be done. The question of penalties and so on is a side issue. You do not want to relieve the persons from the duty of doing certain work because of the fact that he has incurred some other liability. If we look at paragraph (b) of this Clause, we find that it is declaratory; it says that the Minister "shall be entitled" to do the work. That is to say that side by side with anything else that is going on the Minister shall be entitled to do the work. The fact that proceedings are being taken does not put a stop to the carrying out of the work. The paragraph also contains the words: and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default any expenses reasonably incurred by him in so doing. If in fact it is ultimately decided that the works were unnecessary and ought never to have been asked for or carried out, then the expense of carrying them out will not be reasonably incurred, and there can be no demand made in respect of them. In other words, the Minister proceeds at his peril.

Mr. PRETYMAN

The Solicitor General shows a very small regard for what may fall on the taxpayer. If the necessary expense is incurred I do not think it can quite well be excused because it is going to fall upon the public purse rather than on the Government. The Government cannot ride two horses at once here. The real point arises here, from the fact that the word "unreasonably" actually exists in the original Government Amendment on which these words are based—under paragraphs (c) and (d,) as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, which are now added to the Bill. Paragraph (c) refers to the occupier of the land as unreasonably neglecting to execute repairs and paragraph (d) refers to the owner of the land in the occupation of a tenant as unreasonably neglectful. Prosecution under this Clause is to be instituted against a person who has unreasonably failed to comply. If the word "unreasonably" did not occur in Paragraphs (c) and (d) there might be a question as to the Minister having the right to order the work to be done reasonably or unreasonably. But there is the further point that if unreasonably the work is not done a man may be prosecuted, and at the same time it is possible to go on with the original proposal, which may not have been reasonable but which there is a right to carry out. When the Court is having a case tried it does not seem right that at the same time the work should be done. If the case is decided against the Board the work has plainly been wrongly done. I think the Minister ought to wait until the Court has either affirmed or refused to affirm that he is reasonably demanding that the work should be done, or he must let the Court go by and take his powers under the remaining Clauses.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

With great respect to the learned Solicitor-General and his contention that if the Minister unreasonably executed these, repairs he would be liable for the cost of them, I would like to ask under what Clause of this Bill that would occur. The only Clause dealing with the matter says that whatever orders or notices are given by the Minister he shall not be liable for the cost. I do not see how the Minister can be made liable if he does this work even unreasonably. Under the Corn Production Act, if he does work unreasonably he is liable, but under this Bill he is not so liable. This Clause gives him specific power to do these repairs, notwithstanding the fact that proceedings are going on. I think the learned Solicitor-General has possibly confused this with the position of an arbitrator. The tenant or occupier, if ordered to do work, might have appealed to an arbitrator, and then, of course, the Minister would not have power to do the work pending the decision of the arbitrator. Here that is not the case. This is a case where a man is taken before the magistrate and summoned for unreasonable conduct. If the case is dis-dismissed, and the man found not guilty, obviously he has done nothing wrong and the repairs are not necessary. I think it would be better if the Government stated precisely in this Clause that these repairs shall not be done by the Minister while any proceedings are pending in the police court.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I do not think that this question is very important either way. We can look at the matter again when the Clause has been completed, and we shall then be able to follow exactly what the words mean. My own view is quite clear. I have had an opportunity of looking at the Clause in perhaps a more perfect form than some of my hon. Friends. At the same time I should be very sorry to insist that I was right and that hon. Members were wrong. I am quite prepared to look into the matter again. These words are put in in order to prevent delay. Perhaps the best thing would be to let the words stand as they are and then reconsider them when we are dealing with the full Clause which the Parliamentary Secretary has promised. In the circumstances I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. ACLAND

I think that probably the best, way is to leave the words out. That, at any rate, would put the matter in a form in which it could not be left. What we want to do is to be precise.

5.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not think that would be the right procedure. We had better settle now what we are going to do and not wait until later to settle it. The Solicitor-General says it does not matter very much. I think it does matter very much. Suppose that the Minister calls on a tenant or a landlord and says that certain works are to be done, and that the tenant or the landlord says "No." The Minister then sends down a surveyor, an official from the Board of Agriculture, and probably an official from the County Agricultural Committee, who all arrive in motor cars, and all discuss whether or not the work is absolutely necessary. It will be very likely that one of the three experts disagrees with the other two. Then there will have to be further consultation and further visits to the site. The Board of Agriculture will say, "We have sent down our representative; we have sent down a builder and a surveyor, and they have sent in an estimate and plan. The county authority have also sent their representative, and the County Agricultural Committee has agreed. Therefore we are going to carry out the work." Suppose the landlord or the tenant disagrees with this decision and the matter is carried to the Court. In the meantime, the repairs are carried out. We will presume that the result is that the repairs or alterations are carried out in a reasonable manner and at reasonable expense. What is going to happen then, supposing the Court said repairs were unnecessary? I am not at all sure that, under those conditions, if the Minister could prove that the repairs were reasonably executed, he would not be authorised under this Sub-section to claim from the unfortunate person the cost of those repairs. Certainly he would be able to obtain all the costs which were incurred before proceedings were taken, that is to say, the cost of sending down all these people to ascertain whether or not all this new work was required. Consider for a moment the tremendous costs and trouble which are going to be put upon farmers and landlords by all these proceedings. It is quite easy to say the law will decide this or that, but how is the farmer to get to the law? He has got to have a solicitor, he has got to have a counsel, and they have to put their case before the judge or the arbitrator, and all these proceedings will have to be carried out, supposing this Sub-section is left as it is.

We are supposed to be doing something to benefit agriculture. It seems to me we are doing something which will entail needless trouble and expense on the farmer. It must not be forgotten that, under the Corn Production Act, if the Minister did anything foolish or wrong, the injured person had a financial remedy. I availed myself of it and succeeded, but for such a case this Bill does not provide. I raised this very point two or three days ago. There is nothing in this Bill which will provide that if the Minister—I do not use the word offensively—does foolish things, he has to pay instead of the person who is used in a foolish manner. As an economist, I was shocked to hear the opinion of the Solicitor-General. To what does it all amount? A Court proves that the action of the Minister was unreasonable, that is to say, was unnecessary. £1,000 has been spent. It does not matter, says the Solicitor-General, because the taxpayer is going to pay. Really, after the statement of the Leader of the House yesterday, that he was not in favour of unnecessary expenditure, or of expenditure which would not mean a return, it shocked me.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I really think the House has been under some misapprehension as to this Amendment all through. Before the Order can be made, the person in default, whether owner or occupier, can appeal to the arbitrator, who has to say whether or not the Order is reasonable and must be executed. If no appeal has been made to the arbitrator, it is perfectly clear that the person concerned has accepted the Order. Therefore, the only question is what is to be done in the case of his being in default, and of refusing to carry out an Order which has already been established as a final Order. Personally, I think it is better that the Minister should take both courses at once, if he desire, and that he should institute proceedings in order to obviate delay, and, at the same time, be able to execute the work himself. I think the Amendment is inconvenient, because it leaves the matter open as to whether he should take that course or not; but if it is the general wish of the House that the words should be omitted, I do not wish to press my personal view in this matter. I would merely make this remark, that the reconsideration would have to be in another place. If I move the omission of Clause 4, and reprint a new Clause, it must be on the understanding that we do not re-discuss in this House the points we have already discussed. I merely do it for the purpose of convenience. I shall not move, or expect other Members to move, Amendments to the Clause under those circumstances. If it is the general wish of the House, I will accept the Amendment, but I enter a caveat that it will have to be re-considered by the Minister of Agriculture in another place.

Captain BOWYER

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, when considering what other words should be put in, he will take into consideration such words as "at any time after the conviction." If there is a default, surely the sphere of activity of the Minister is to prosecute, and the Minister, I submit, is bound until he finds out whether or not he has got a conviction. If there is a default after conviction, the Minister can well stop in and say, "I will do the repairs," so that paragraph (b) should read, "The Minister shall be entitled, at any time after the conviction, to execute any work specified in the notice." I suggest that would defend the liberty of the subject, and do all that the Minister can desire to do.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Captain Sir B. STANIER

I beg to move, in paragraph (iv. 2A, b,) to leave out the words "any expenses reasonably incurred by him in so doing" and to insert instead thereof the words "the reasonable cost of executing such work in a proper and workmanlike manner."

What I want to do is to get at the actual cost of the work, and, to put it as shortly as I can, to exclude the expense of the Minister's officers.

Mr. E. WOOD

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I think these words mean substantially the same as the words in the Bill, but it may be that they express the matter rather more clearly. For that reason, I shall be willing to accept the Amendment, and similarly an Amendment on the same subject a little later.

Mr. ACLAND

This is a matter which is more far-reaching than merely its application to this Bill. The case I have in my mind is the destruction of vermin under the Forestry Act. The Forestry Commissioners may have vermin destroyed, and may recover the cost of so doing against the person who ought to have destroyed them. I think it is only a right protection to the public that they should be able to recover, in cases of that kind, expenses incurred by themselves in doing what the person in default really ought to have done, and not only, as this Amendment proposes, "the reasonable cost of executing such work in a proper and workmanlike manner." It is obvious that when a Department steps in and does work which ought to have been done by somebody on the spot, it very often costs more than if it had been done by the person on the spot, and it is hardly fair on the public that they should be out of pocket by the difference between the two sums. It is only, apparently, when a person on whom an Order has been served, and has every right of appeal, has been in default and contumaciously refused to do the work, that the Minister steps in and orders the work to be done, and it seems to me rather hard, in that case, if the expenses cannot be recovered.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In paragraph (iv, 2B) leave out the words "under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section."

After the word "land" ["owner of any land requiring"] insert the word3 "in the occupation of a tenant."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Amendment proposed in paragraph (iv, 2B): Leave out the word "repairs" ["in the notice to execute repairs"] and insert instead thereof the words "necessary works of maintenance."—[Sir A. Boscawen"]

Mr. TOWNLEY

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is meant by "necessary works of maintenance"? Last night we had a Debate on the subject of ploughing up pasture, and, contrary to the expressed view of most of those representing agricultural constituencies, it was decided that it was desirable to plough up pasture land. The question of maintaining that land under cultivation must include the buildings and the draining of the land, and I should like to ask whether that is going to be included under "maintenance," because this land, which has been ploughed up, will no doubt pay its way for a few years, and, after that, it will begin to cease to pay its way. It will be quite impossible for these buildings and drainage to be paid for in a few years. That is a cost, I now understand, that is to be recovered under this Clause from the owner.

Mr. E. WOOD

Is not the point raised met by an Amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, later on the Paper, in the same Clause, defining the expression "necessary works of maintenance"?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I think my hon. Friend ought to have raised this point earlier, because this is only a consequential Amendment. We have two or three times already used the words "works of maintenance," which is an expression I put in at the request, I think, of Members of the Committee as being clearer than "repairs," and there is no doubt about it that a work of maintenance cannot possibly mean the erection of a new building. That would be a contradiction in terms. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wood) is quite right. By a later Amendment on the Paper I define what "works of maintenance" are, and when we reach that Amendment I shall be willing to discuss any Amendments which may be put down to the definition I have placed on the Paper. I can assure my hon. Friend in general terms that the words "works of maintenance" clearly imply the maintaining of buildings, drains, dykes, and so on which exist at the time, and which must be maintained in a proper state of repair if reasonable cultivation is to be carried out, and they could not by any possibility be stretched to mean the erection of new buildings or works.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HUGH MORRISON

I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2B), after the word "owner" ["repairs and the owner"], to insert the word "unreasonably."

It is to make absolutely certain that the owner has failed unreasonably to execute any repairs.

Sir B. STANIER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I do not think this word is necessary here. We have got the words "reasonably" and "unreasonably" scattered all through the Bill with great profusion already, and if my hon. Friend will look at the Clause as it stands he will see that the owner already has an opportunity of appealing against the Order, and notwithstanding his appeal it is presumed in this case that the Order has been made and is therefore a reasonable Order, and if he refuses to carry it out after there has been this opportunity of appeal, what can his conduct be but unreasonable? Further, if we insert the words here, it will leave us in a great state of uncertainty. It introduces another opportunity for discussion or arbitration, or something of that sort, and meanwhile we shall not know whether the tenant may be authorised to proceed with the repairs or not, because nobody will be able to state definitely whether the refusal has been unreasonable or not.

Sir F. BANBURY

To a certain extent I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but it is very difficult always to be able to execute repairs at once, and I would like to put a case of my own before him. Several of my buildings are thatched and the thatch is in a bad state of repair. For the last two years I have tried to get that thatch into a good state of repair. Whenever I have been able to get a thatcher, none of my tenants have any straw, and whenever they have any straw, I have never been able to get a thatcher. This summer I did succeed in finding a tenant who had straw, and also a thatcher, with the result that, having got him, I said: "There are a good many thatched buildings on the farm, and you had better thatch all of them which can by any manner of means be thought to require it." He thatched nearly all of them, but when the hay harvest came on he left with the last but one building only partly finished, because, as far as I can make out, he prefers to thatch ricks during the hay and corn harvest to thatching roofs. The hay and corn harvest has been extremely prolonged, and I have never yet been able to get that thatcher back. He left me some time in June, and I have done my best, without success, to find another thatcher. I have asked all my tenants and have said to them: If you can get a thatcher, get him, and get the thing done;" but I have not yet been able to get another thatcher. I do not know whether my particular county is unfortunately situated, but an hon. Member below me who is connected with the Ministry of Agriculture (Major Barnston) informs me that his experience is the same as mine. Would it not be advisable, in order to guard against such cases, to put in some word such as that suggested in the Amendment?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

If my right hon. Friend will look at paragraph (iii) he will see that there is an appeal as to whether the time specified for the execution of repairs is reasonable. Therefore, there is not only an appeal against the order, but an appeal against the time specified within which the repairs should be executed, and I think that meets the point.

Mr. ACLAND

May I also suggest that if hon. Members will read the Clause, they will see that what is intended is only that the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the repairs. The tenant would not apply to the Minister to authorise this unless the tenant were able to execute the repairs, and therefore the case imagined by the right hon. Baronet would not apply. He only said he came to the point where the tenant had the thatch and the thatcher, until the harvest came on. and if that was the case, a fortiori, the landlord ought to be able to find the thatch and the thatcher, and if the landlord were unable to do something which the tenant could do, the landlord would presumably be in default. Therefore, it seems to me to be quite reasonable that the powers of the Clause should be exercised without the insertion of further words.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL

I do not think the observations of the last speaker meet the point made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). A notice is to be served requiring the owner to do certain repairs within the time specified. That time specified might in itself be a perfectly reasonable time, but after that time has been specified something might arise—for example, a strike in the building trade—which might make it impossible to carry out that perfectly reasonable order within the time specified. If the Clause stands as it is now, notwithstanding the circum- stances arising which would make it impossible for the owner to carry out the order, he would still, under the strict terms of the Clause, have failed to comply with the requirement, and I think that would be a very unfair state of things. Therefore, I think, after hearing what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that some such word as "unreasonably" is necessary here to provide against a case where the order itself is reasonable but where circumstances intervene such as I have named.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2B), leave out the word "repairs" ["tenant to execute the repairs"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir B. STANIER

I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2B), after the word "repairs" ["tenant to execute the repairs"], to insert the words "in a proper and workmanlike manner."

I do not think any explanation of this Amendment is necessary.

Captain BOWYER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2B), leave out the word "repairs" ["entitled to execute the repairs"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Major STEEL

I beg to move, in paragraph (iv, 2B), after the word "accordingly," to insert the words "in a reasonable manner."

This Amendment was moved in Commitee but withdrawn on the Government inserting the word "reasonably" after the word "costs." That meets the case to a certain extent, but not altogether. It ensures that the costs of repair shall be reasonable, but not that the type or method of repair shall also be reasonable. There are several different methods of repairing a building, and one might be very much more costly than the others, and the object of the Amendment which I am now moving is to ensure that not only shall the costs be reasonable, but that the type and method of repair which is adopted shall also be reasonable. In this particular case the tenant is expending the money of the landlord, from whom he will recover, and I think the owner is entitled to every possible safeguard, not only as to the cost but also as to the method, of the repair which the tenant selects to carry out.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT

I beg to second the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr.Morison)

The effect of accepting this Amendment would be to nullify the Order. If the owner does not comply with the notice the repairs may be done by the tenant on the direction of the Court. If the Amendment were accepted, some other body would have to decide as to whether they were reasonable or not.

Colonel GRETTON

The repairs might be done in a slipshod and unenduring way, so that it might be necessary to have them done again in a short time. On the other hand, the tenant might carry them out too elaborately and in that way incur additional expense. I think the owner really does need some protection to ensure on the one hand that the work is done in a reasonably substantial manner, and on the other that it is not needlessly extravagant.

Mr. ACLAND

I think the hon. Member has secured his object by the acceptance of a previous Amendment, where it is provided that the work is to be done in "a proper and workmanlike manner."

Major STEEL

The kind of case I had in mind was, say, the putting on of a roof. There are many different types of re-roofing. You might, for instance, have a roof with projecting eaves which would add a good deal to the expense. The object of the Amendment is to secure that the type of repairs should be reasonable.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In paragraph (iv, 2B), leave out the word "repairs" ["after the repairs"], and insert instead thereof the word "works."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, after paragraph (iv, 2B), to insert the following new paragraph— (2c) A notice under this Section shall not require any work to lie executed within a period of less than one month from the date of the notice unless in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary that the work should be executed within some shorter period. This is in fulfilment of a promise made in Committee. It was urged that some period should be indicated on the notice requiring the work to be executed. It is quite clear we cannot have any absolutely rigid rule. For instance, you might have a notice requiring the destruction of weeds, and to allow a month in that case would defeat the purpose of the Order. It is reasonable that we should enact that at least a month should be allowed in cases where, in the opinion of the Minister, it is necessary that the work should be executed within a shorter period.

Mr. H. MORRISON

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add the words "specified in the notice."

The object of this Amendment is to make sure that the tenant shall know exactly what the period is before a penalty is incurred.

Mr. E. WOOD

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I hardly think the words are necessary, but at all events they are quite harmless, and I accept them.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (iv, 2B), to insert the words Provided that the owner shall be allowed to deduct from such costs the value of any allowances or benefits given to the tenant in respect of such repairs. The owner may have let the farm at a reduced rent in consideration of the tenant doing certain repairs, or he may have supplied certain material, and the object of my Amendment is to make it clear that all those matters will be taken into consideration.

Sir B. STANIER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I do not think I can accept this Amendment. I do not quite understand what it is my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. This is a case of works of maintenance which the owner is directed to execute, and which he has failed to do. Then the tenant is authorised to do them for him and to recover the cost. It is improbable in a case like that that the owner would supply any of the material or labour. If he were willing to do that, the chances are that he would have executed the work in the first instance. But if after refusing to do the work in the first instance, and after the tenant had been authorised to do it, he said, "I will supply, say, some of the tiles for draining," then the fact that the owner supplies those tiles would pro tanto diminish the cost on the tenant, and he can only recover the actual cost of the work executed in a "workmanlike and reasonable manner." Therefore, this proposal does not seem to be necessary.

Captain BOWYER

I am rather surprised at the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, because he seems to have changed the views which he held on this point in Committee, where he said, speaking of an Amendment in identical words with the exception of one word: I cannot accept these words, but I quite agree cases such as my hon. and gallant Friend mentions may arise and I will under take that the whole matter should be considered before Report. …. I propose first of all to inquire whether cases mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman arise in practice, and, if they do, to see what words are suitable. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman made some inquiry.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I have made inquiries, and I have come to the conclusion that these words are unnecessary.

Captain BOWYER

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he did not understand this Amendment. In Committee he was sympathetic. An hon. Gentleman asked him was he sympathetically inclined towards the Amendment, and the OFFICIAL REPORT represents him as giving assent.

Mr. TOWNLEY

I rather regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. Cases may well arise, particularly on small estates, where the landlord would say, "If you execute this work you shall have the grazing of a particular field, or, if you will do these repairs, I have a few horses, and I will plough up your field." That is a sort of case which should be provided for.

Mr. PRETYMAN

There might be a case where the landlord would say if the tenant would carry out the repairs he would have an allowance off his rent.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I have already accepted an Amendment provided that under certain circumstances a landlord may have an increase in his rent.

Mr. PRETYMAN

That is not the same case at all.

Amendment negatived.

Sir B. STANIER

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (iv, 2B), to insert the following new paragraph: (v) For the words in Sub-section (3) from "after the prescribed notice may," to "adapting such land for cultivation," both inclusive, there shall be substituted the words "(a) if the occupier is a tenant by order determine the tenancy of the holding or any part thereof. The idea is that the owner-occupier should be penalised in the same way as if he were a tenant.

Major WHELER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

As I understand it, this Amendment and the next one in the name of the same hon. Member are to be read together. They are part of a plan for dealing with what I may call the owner-occupier. In the case where the occupier is merely a tenant the procedure is that the tenancy can be terminated. In the ease of the owner-occupier the procedure under the existing law is that possession may be taken of the land and the land cultivated. The effect of these two Amendments read together would be this. The proper authority may not enter into possession of the land of the owner-occupier but may only appoint a receiver. What position have we reached? In the case of a tenant if he is a thoroughly bad tenant the tenancy can be terminated. In the case of the owner-occupier all we can do is to appoint a receiver. We cannot enter into possession. I think that would be a quite inadequate remedy. I do not think it would be suitable to such a case as this. It is quite true that when we get a badly-managed estate the whole question of estate management comes in, and there we suggest, in the Sub-section, we should have a right to appoint a receiver. I think a receiver is the proper person to deal with such an estate. But in the case of the ordinary owner-occupier, where perhaps only a few acres are involved, the appointment of a receiver is not an appropriate way of dealing with it, and therefore I think the present plan which is the law to-day that we may in such cases enter into possession is the proper way to deal with it. I submit to the House it would be very much better we should adhere to the law as it stands to-day and not adopt the plan of receivership which is inappropriate in this sort of case.

Sir B. STANIER

May I ask in regard to the second Amendment if the receiver or manager there to be appointed will have power to sell the land?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I do not propose to accept that Amendment and therefore the question will not arise.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

That disposes, I take it, of the two Amendments.

Mr. E. WOOD

May I ask whether it will be possible to have a short discussion on the second Amendment, because one or two of us have some observations which we wish to make on the point? I did hot like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I was only going by what the Minister himself said. I confess I do not understand why the two Amendments necessarily go together. The second one, I think, can be moved and discussed separately.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I have no desire to prevent discussion, but I do not think the second Amendment can be read without the first one. The first divides the occupiers into (a) the tenant and (b) the occupying owner, and it seems to me it would be difficult to read the second Amendment into the Clause unless the first was carried.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The position is that the House has negatived the first Amendment, and it would seem that the second Amendment cannot stand by itself.

Mr. WOOD

I would suggest that there are two distinct points. The first Amendment dealt with the question of the occu- pier who is a tenant. The Amendment I am asking the leave of the House to discuss deals with the case of the owner-occupier, and I wish to raise a question of assimilating the position of the owner-occupier to that suggested for the owner of a large estate.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the hon. Gentleman claims that the Amendment can stand by itself, I will allow him to move it.

Mr. WOOD

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (iv, 2B), to insert the following new paragraph: (v) After the word "tenancy" in the last line of Sub-section (3) there shall be inserted the words "and (b) if the occupier (hereinafter in this provision called "the owner-occupier" in default is not a tenant by order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the land or of the holding of which it forms part. Any such order of the Board may authorise the person appointed to act as such receiver and manager to do all such things as appear to the Board necessary or desirable for the cultivation of the land in respect of which the order has been made or for adapting such land for cultivation, and the Board may, by an order under this provision, apply for the purposes of the order, with such modifications as the Board thinks fit, any of the provisions of Section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relate to the powers, remuneration, and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees and authorise the receiver and manager to exercise such other powers vested in the owner-occupier of the land as may be specified in the order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager.

Provided—

1. (i) that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon, the land or any part thereof except with the consent of the owner-occupier or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court; and
2. (ii) the owner-occupier may at any time after any change in the ownership of the holding, or after the expiration of one year from the date of the order, apply to the Board to have the order appointing the receiver and manager revoked; and if on any such 1763 application the Board refuses to revoke the order, the owner-occupier may appeal against the refusal to the High Court in accordance with rules of court.

This is a point which should be discussed. If we are to have the power which is suggested in the following Sub-section to be applied to agricultural estates which are mismanaged, I think it worth while considering whether we should not also apply it to small farms hold by occupying owners. It is very desirable to have as far as one may one law for all cases, and more particularly for this reason, that I cannot believe it is a sound plan to deal with cases of bad farming in different ways. There are mismanaged estates of which the proper authority will have power to take possession and carry on farming operations themselves, and if we are to have a receiver or manager appointed in the case of such estates, I suggest it might be worth considering whether the same plan could not be applied also to a farm held by an owner-occupier. I would have preferred to have seen the last Amendment carried, as that would have helped my point. T would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this point, the object being to assimilate the position of the owner-occupier to that of the owner of an agricultural estate. We had considerable discussion on this in Committee upstairs, and no very satisfactory reasons were given why different treatment should be meted out to two classes that are in substantially the same position, seeing that the action is justified in the national interest from the point of view of food production.

Sir B. STANIER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I am still of opinion that the Amendment cannot stand by itself, and that is one reason why I ask the House to reject it. I will certainly, however, reply to the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend. The reason why we object to this is quite simple. Where we propose to put in a receiver or manager it is with a view of managing the estate. We have, say, got an estate so mismanaged that the theory is that the tenants on the estate cannot reasonably cultivate their farms. That is quite different from the case of the owner-occupier, where there is really only one holding. He is the owner, it may be the holding consists of 50, 100, or 200 acres or more. He is farming his own land. He is the one and sole occupier, and in that case if no other remedy is possible, it seems to me that for us to enter into possession of the farm ourselves is the only possible procedure. I am not in favour, generally speaking, of such a course, but in this case I think it is necessary, and I submit that to put in a receiver or manager would be both futile and an utterly inappropriate proceeding. A receiver put in in the case of a large estate which is badly mismanaged practically becomes the agent. He does not become the cultivator. The mismanagement of the estate is generally due to the fact that there is no agent, or, if there is one, that he is incompetent, and, therefore, in such a case the appointment of a receiver would be an appropriate remedy. That is a matter we shall have to discuss later on, but it does not appear to me to be appropriate in the case of a single holding, and, therefore, on the merits of the case, I ask the House to accept the Bill as it stands in this respect.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Does the argument of the right hon. Gentleman amount to this, that Sub-section (3) of Clause 9, which we are proposing to amend, authorises certain procedure which will give power to the proper authority to themselves step in and take possession and see that the land is properly cultivated? In the next Sub-section which we are coming to presently, there is another procedure laid down, and it lies at the discretion of the Board of Agriculture, which procedure they shall adopt; it will depend mainly on the size of the estate. If that is so, I do not think it is unsatisfactory.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

It is so.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I want the position to be made perfectly clear. There are two alternative procedures, and it would be at the discretion of the Board which they take in the case of a holding which is owned and occupied by the same person—it may be a holding of 3,000 or 4,000 acres, or it may be one of 100 acres only. There are two alternative procedures, one under the old Bill, which is to stand, and a new one which we are coming to directly. These alternatives are at the discretion of the Board, and they will exercise them according to the circumstances of the case. That, I understand, is the real position.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I think my right hon. Friend has accurately stated the position. The Ministry will have to decide whether it is an estate in the ordinary acceptation of the term comprised of several tenancies—

Mr. PRETYMAN

May I point out it is specifically stated in the Clause we are coming to that the question of the tenant does not arise at all.

6.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I quite agree. The Sub-section covers the case where the whole estate is in one man's hands. That is so, according to the Clause. The hon. and gallant Member is quite right in saying that it would be within the discretion of the Ministry to decide whether we should utilise the powers given by this Bill or the existing provisions under the Corn Production Act. We should probably use the new provisions in the case of large estates, and when dealing with small occupying owners we should probably use the other powers.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

Then there is no responsibility for loss upon the Ministry of Agriculture, but if they actually went into occupation, then I understand the Ministry would be responsible. I think this point should be clearly understood. If you appoint a receiver under the Clause, he spends the money of the owner, and he has no responsibility at all, but if the Ministry go into occupation, and they will probably lose, then they have to pay the money.

Mr. WOOD

What is the position now? I have been in great difficulty in following all the White Papers which have been issued relating to this Bill, and I want the position made clear. Am I to understand that you have got two alternative procedures, under one of which you enter into possession of the farm and under the other you appoint a receiver? In the one case I understand you are liable for the loss, and in the other you are not. I think that is a most amazing proposal. I hope my right hon. Friend will say where we are, and if that be so I hope that he will not consider that we are in any way departing from any pledge we have given if we insist upon a careful examination of this question when Clause 4 is recommitted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (v), to insert the words: "on the yearly day customary in the district, not being less than three months after the making of the Order."

It is obvious that there will be great loss in other directions if a tenant happens to be turned out at any date except the ordinary statutory date for the termination of tenancies in that particular district. I think there ought to be three months' notice. Under ordinary circumstances a tenancy can only be terminated by 12 months' notice, but it might be that in a particular case of very bad cultivation it would be advisable to get rid of a tenant earlier, and I am suggesting that where notice is given it must be within three months of the next term day.

Major WHELER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I sympathise with the object of my right hon. Friend which is that a suitable day should be selected for terminating the tenancy, but I very much doubt whether the words he has proposed really meet his point. The yearly day customary may not be the day on which a particular tenancy is terminated, and it might be customary generally in a district that the tenancy should terminate at Lady Day, but it might be Michaelmas Day. I suggest that the words "at the expiration of the current year of the tenancy" would meet the point of view which has been raised. With regard to the latter part of the Amendment, "not being less than three months after the making of the Order," I do not think I could accept those words, because they might mean that a very bad tenant, who had been cultivating his land badly, might be allowed to go on for another 15 months, and that would not be in the national interest or the landlord's interest or in the interest of food production. I suggest that it would be better to leave out those words, and substitute the words "at the expiration of the current year of tenancy."

Mr. PRETYMAN

I think there is great force in what my right hon. Friend says, but I think those words would enable a landlord to turn out a tenant at a week's notice, and that would create great inconvenience. I think, therefore, there must be some term, and I suggest three months. If the right hon. Gentleman will make it two months I will not object. I do not think you could possibly turn out a tenant within less than two months.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I think that is reasonable, and I will accept two months.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: At the end of paragraph (v), insert the words "at the expiration of the current year of tenancy not being less than two months after making the Order."—[Mr. Pretyman.]

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert the words Provided that where a tenancy is so determined the tenant shall have no claim for disturbance under the provisions of this Act or otherwise against the owner or the landlord. Where the tenancy is so determined the tenant has no claim for compensation for disturbance under the Act, and that is what I desire to provide for by this Amendment.

Major WHELER

I beg to second this Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I quite agree that in such a case the tenant would have no claim for disturbance, but my hon. and gallant Friend will see, if he looks at Clause 7, that compensation for disturbance is only payable where there is notice to quit given by the landlord.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

Clause 7 is in the second part of the Bill. Part 1 deals with Amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the other part deals with the Corn Production Act.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

The claims for compensation for disturbance only arise under the second part, and, inasmuch as under this Bill compensation for disturbance can only be paid where notice to quit is given by the landlord, I think my hon. and gallant Friend will see that this Amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In paragraph (vi, 3A) leave out the words "such a manner" and insert instead thereof the words "a manner inconsistent with good estate management and so."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir B. STANIER

I beg to move, in paragraph (vi, 3A), after the word "thereon" ["production of food thereon"], to insert the words and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister by the said committee that not less than six months' previous notice in writing has been given by the said committee to the owner of their intention to make such representation, and that such notice contained sufficient directions as to the manner in which such cultivation or management should in the opinion of the said committee be improved, and that notwithstanding such notice the cultivation or management of the estate or land has not been adequately improved. This Amendment is to provide sufficient time for notice to be given to the owner in reference to making representations, and I think that is only fair. Many things may happen on a farm or land, and it is not often easy, indeed it is very often impossible, to do certain things in a very short time, and this would give a sufficient time to carry out the work and would provide for proper notice being given.

Major WHELER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

We are now dealing with the Sub-section which deals with the case of estates which are grossly mismanaged, and we are following the recommendation of the Selborne Report, which suggests that power should be taken to deal with these cases by putting in a receiver or manager. The conditions under which we can do that are already very carefully safeguarded. In the first place the matter has to be considered by the Agriculture Committee. After they have made a representation there is to be an inquiry by the Minister, and he has to consider any representations made to him by the owner.

Thirdly, there is the further delay of six months before the order can take effect, during which period the owner can appeal to the High Court. The House, I think, will therefore see that the Clause is very carefully surrounded by safeguards, and that plenty of time is given to the owner to state his case and to appeal to the High Court against the order, if he so desires. My hon. and gallant Friend and those who are associated with him in this Amendment now propose in addition to that that the Agricultural Committee must inform the owner not less than six months before that they are going to take the condition of his estate into account. That will add another six months. The result will be that probably nothing can be done in the case of an estate of this character for about eighteen months. I think that is really imposing an unreasonable delay. I hope that this Sub-section will be utilised in very few cases. It is only applicable where an estate is so mismanaged that proper cultivation cannot be carried on. It is only, I say, in such cases and after giving the owner an opportunity of stating his case and appealing against the order that the Clause will be brought into operation. I happen to know one or two estates in the whole country of which complaint has been made. I do not believe there are any more, but of course cases may arise.

Sir F. BANBURY

They may be made.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

If they are, surely, after giving reasonable time for consideration, we ought to act without unreasonable delay. I think there are sufficient safeguards. There will be quite long enough, as it is, properly to consider the matter without introducing this additional delay—additional safeguard, if you like so to call it. I would, therefore, ask the House not to accept this Amendment. I tried in Committee, as my hon. Friends remember, to introduce various concessions extending the time and giving greater safeguards to the owner. I thought that was only right. I do not think, however, that this really is necessary, as we have sufficient safeguards.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has only heard of two cases. He is, therefore, legislating in this matter for two estates—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

Oh, no!

Lieut. Colonel ROYDS

I understood the right hon. Gentleman—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I said I only knew of two, and I did not think there were many.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

Quite so!

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

But cases may arise in the future.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

Quite right. My right hon. Friend does not know any more cases, but if a Government introduces legislation of this character, they naturally have, or one would assume so, more material on which they have formed their opinion. Therefore the Clause, it is perfectly obvious, is introduced by the Government because they know of two estates which might come under it at the present time. I think it is very important that that has been mentioned, because the introduction of this legislation will undoubtedly affect the credit of the whole land of this country. There are only two estates that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government know, or possibly there may be more, and they have introduced this legislation, at the suggestion of someone, to apply to every estate in the country, and that, naturally, affects the credit—this Clause combined with the other Clauses of the Bill.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

We are following the Selborne Report.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

I do not find any fault with the concessions the right hon. Gentleman made in Committee; but I think this is very absurd legislation under conditions which are totally unnecessary, and a waste of time, and it will affect the credit of the land. What did the Selborne Report say? It recommended that three years' notice should be given before any steps were taken. The right hon. Gentleman is not following the Selborne Report. If that Report were followed and three years' notice was given, I have no doubt even those two estates to which reference has been made—and of which I have no knowledge whatever—would be put in order. The right hon. Gentleman now says that the Amendment introduced extending the period to a further six months would make it eighteen months before the Clause began to operate. The Selborne Report suggested three years should be given before it began to operate, and this Bill is said to be founded on the Selborne Report. Therefore, I really trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment which is only asking for an extension of six months instead of three years.

Sir F. BANBURY

My right hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, said that this Clause safeguarded in many ways the interests of those concerned. He said that you have to go to the High Court, and that you have to wait six months, and that if he accepts the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend the delay will be eighteen months. But this is a most extraordinary Clause, and one which I venture to say has not been introduced into our legislation—certainly for the last two hundred years. Appeal to the High Court! Of course, the owner of property, before it is taken from him, ought to have an appeal to the High Court. I very much doubt whether a Clause of this sort ought ever to have been introduced. Even supposing there are numerous cases of bad management, to introduce a Clause like this and to say that the right hon. Gentleman is to have the right, because you have safeguarded the matter by an appeal to the High Court; to say that you must even wait eighteen months before the agricultural committee—agricultural committee forsooth! What do they know about this thing, how can they be trusted in this sort of manner? An agricultural committee can come down and take away a man's property, which he has either purchased with money he has himself made or has inherited. To say that it shall be taken away because, forsooth, in the opinion of some practically self-constituted committee backed by the Minister of Agriculture—who may be no one knows who!—to say that the property is not managed in the best interests of the country, and, therefore, has to be taken away from the owner, and that if the High Court chooses they can order its sale—well, I never heard of such legislation in my life!

I cannot conceive of a Government in which there are some so-called Conservative Members ever introducing a Clause of this sort. I should like to have seen my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General (Sir E. Pollock), if the time had been, say, six years ago, and we had been sitting on the opposite side of the House, and the then Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) had introduced words to this effect. I can conceive myself cheering the scathing criticism which my right hon. and learned Friend would have passed upon such a measure as this. We are descending into the depths of Socialism. A man can no longer call his property his own if some other body chooses to say that he is not managing it in a proper manner.

The credit of agricultural estates would, said my hon. and gallant Friend, be affected by this legislation. Undoubtedly it will. Who will be fool enough to invest his money in agricultural property when he knows that a Clause of this sort is in an Act of Parliament? It is all very well to talk about the High Court, but there is the expense of going to the High Court, which may be £1,000, £1,500, or £2,000, and this when possibly all that the owner has done has been to affront one or two members of the Agricultural Committee. These one or two members of the Agricultural Committee, in order to score off this particular owner, send up to the Minister of Agriculture a detailed statement—probably very much exaggerated. It does not follow that the Minister of Agriculture will know anything about agriculture, and he, in order to save himself trouble, or because he does not want to offend the one or two members of this particular Committee, or because they have influence with the Labour party or some other party, does what? He takes action, so that the owner of this estate has his property taken away from him, and somebody else is put in to manage it for him.

If the estate be managed badly the Board of Agriculture is to give it to another person. The Government, which has never managed any single enterprise in the last five years with any success or with any common-sense, are going to put in one of their representatives, and this man, so put in, is to spend the money of the owner, whether the owner likes it or not, in managing his property. Supposing, as is probable, that the receiver put in does not understand his business, or supposing he has ideas upon the best method in which to manage an estate. Supposing he thinks that grass land, which will fatten bullocks, will be better for being ploughed up; and supposing, in an estate consisting practically entirely of grass land, and capable of fattening bullocks, supposing, I say, he ploughs up the whole of that land and then finds that he can do very little with it. Supposing he finds that the result of it all, owing to the expensive implements, and so forth, brings about a heavy financial loss. Will the owner have to bear it? Nobody in their sane senses outside Kussia ever heard of anything like this. No one in his senses will ever invest money in the land if this Clause becomes law. Those of us who are unfortunate enough to possess land and property will be very much tempted to sell that land if we can find anybody foolish enough to buy it. The idea of supposing that this sort of thing is likely to encourage production is absolutely absurd. All it will do will be to discredit land and to prevent capital being attracted to it. It may probably, if it is ever put into operation, result in serious loss to the unfortunate owner of the land. I really do trust that in another place the Government will agree to withdraw altogether this proposed Clause. As my hon. and gallant Friend says, this is put in in order to deal with two cases.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

That is a complete misrepresentation and the right hon. Baronet ought to know it. I have already explained that I am personally aware of only two eases at the present moment that this Clause might under any circumstances be applied to. I pointed out, however, that there might be other cases. It is quite unfair on the part of the right hon. Baronet to twist the words I have used. I always endeavour to treat the right hon. Baronet fairly, and to state the case fairly.

Sir F. BANBURY

Hear, hear!

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I think it is most unfair to twist my words and put upon them a meaning which I certainly did not intend.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have no wish whatever to misrepresent my right hon. Friend or to put upon the words he used any meaning which he did not intend to put upon them himself, but I understand that there are only a few cases, as I understand, which have arisen to the knowledge of my right hon. Friend. If you put a Clause of this sort into a Bill you invite cases to arise. You invite busybodies to go about and see whether or not they cannot find out that, say, my right hon. Friend here (Mr. Pretyman) is managing his estate badly. You certainly invite people to do that. It may bo that my right hon. Friend has not given an order to some member of the Agricultural Committee, and he in return, points out that there is some defect in the management of the estate of my right hon. Friend. Clauses of this sort invite this kind of criticism. It is very dangerous to legislate for a small number of cases, and the fact that hard cases make bad law is well known everywhere. I do not know whether it is possible to do anything in this House, but I earnestly hope that the Government, before this Bill goes to another place, will consider whether they are not doing a serious injury to the agricultural interest by putting in a Clause like this, and will see that it is necessary, not to drive capital from the land, but to attract capital to the land. At the present moment capital can be profitably employed in a large number of ways, but there is not as much of it as there was before the War, and, therefore, anything which drives capital from any given industry is bound to injure that industry. Apart from any question whether it is in accordance with English law to say that a man's property is not his own, and that somebody else shall decide for him whether he manages it well or badly, the inevitable effect of a Clause like this will be to injure and depress landed property.

Mr. ACLAND

I think that if the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) had spent a little time in getting to know the general lines of opinion in agricultural counties, he would not have made the speech which he has just made. The danger is that it may be taken to represent agricultural opinion outside this House. I do not think it does. I do not think that anyone who knows, as many of us do, how these Committees are going to work, would dream of thinking that further delays must be imposed before anything can be done under a Clause of this kind. I think that, if it goes outside this House and is quoted in some of our big urban centres, that that speech has been made on behalf of British landowners, it will do the cause of British landowners infinite harm, and will lead very much more quickly than need be the case to demands for land nationalisation.

Sir F. BANBURY

I would much sooner have nationalisation. This is confiscation.

Mr. ACLAND

I think it shows that the right hon. Baronet is out of touch with the general body of reasonable landowning opinion. Those of us who know our local districts, and live and work there, know that these agricultural Committees, in the main, as set up lately, consist of the most noted and trusted landlords, land agents and farmers in the counties. The work of these Committees will not be done in Committee; it will be done through the talk in the market town which takes place on market day, and, long before the Committee gets to the stage of sending a representation to the Minister that an owner is managing,his estate "in such a manner as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon," the whole public opinion of his neighbours and of the people with whom he will come in contact will have been bringing pressure to bear upon him to get his estate into order, so that action of this kind may not be neenssary. In country districts, people know and talk to their neighbours, and they do not like this kind of official action being taken by Committees unless a man has been given every chance, by private representations in a friendly way, to get matters put right. No one who knows the respect in which landowners are still held in rural districts would dream of unjust action being rapidly taken against a landowner in this manner. I think it is inconceivable that a Committee, of which the majority can be members of the County Council, which the farmers can entirely dominate because they have the opportunity of dominating the County Council, and which has a number of persons added to it—mostly, after all, fairly reasonable men—by the Ministry of Agriculture, will really need to have its action stayed by a further six months in addition to all the safeguards that are put in the Bill. I venture to repeat what I said a few days ago with reference to another Amendment. Do not let us try to make out in this House that the landowning interest in this country is worse than it is. It has its faults, I daresay, but surely it is ten thousand pities that we should get up a further protest here against a Clause which seems to me so reasonable as this will be, which will only be put in operation through the general public opinion of our friends and neighbours, and which, we may be sure, will not be put in operation unless there is ample ground for it.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I hardly think that the criticism of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is justified. We are, perhaps, apt to lose sight of the light hon. Baronet's agricultural knowledge, because we all sit at his feet in regard to matters of finance. I believe, however, that no one takes a greater practical interest in agriculture than he. I remember his coming to me on one occasion and telling me that he had lost his shepherd, and asking me if I could get him another one, while, in the meantime, he was carrying out the functions of a shepherd to a lambing flock. I very much doubt whether my right hon. Friend opposite, with all his knowledge of agricultural matters, has gone so far as that, and, therefore, I think that in future he should rather defer to the right hon. Baronet's knowledge of agriculture than criticise it. So far as I understand the Amendment, I think that my right hon. Friend opposite has rather lost the point, that what is asked for is not an extra six months after the local committee have reported a case to the Ministry. It is that the local committee must themselves have been cognisant of the matter for at least six months, and must, at least six months before they report the case to the Ministry of Agriculture, have written to the owner of the estate concerned to remonstrate with him. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request. I listened with attention to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I rather gathered that he thought that this was going to be settled by the gossip of the market-place rather than by hard facts. I had not intended to oppose this Clause very strongly, because I feel that in some ways the Government would derive great advantage from it. Paragraph (d) of the Clause states that any person appointed to act as receiver and manager of any estate or land shall render a yearly report and statement of accounts to the owner or his agent and to the Minister, so that there will really be an opportunity for the Ministry of Agriculture to understand something about the accounts of agricultural estates, of which, I am sure, they have hitherto had no comprehension. That will be a great advantage, and, in fact, I think that gome owners might be almost tempted to mismanage a small portion of their estates in order that the public authorities may step in and show them how the work should be done, because they will have the privilege themselves of seeing the accounts of the receiver and manager, and these will also go to the Minister.

I do not think that my hon. Friends have taken any too strong a point in commenting upon the Parliamentary Secretary's remark that he only knew of two of these cases, because I presume he does not introduce the Bill on his own personal knowledge, but on information in the; possession of the Ministry of Agriculture, for which he speaks. I hardly think that a Clause of this drastic kind ought to be introduced without some wider knowledge of the necessity for it. If the Government came to me and said that they had information showing that a large area of land in this country was being grossly mismanaged and was not producing the quantity of food that it ought to produce, and that, therefore, a Clause of this kind was necessary in the interests of the country, I, for one, should be the last to refuse it to them; but they have not said so. They say that they know of two eases where this Clause may be applied, and they think that some others might occur in the future. That really is not a sufficiently strong ground for their asking the House to consent to the application of a totally new feature of legislation—involving the taking of a man's property and the putting in of a receiver and manager of his business—to agriculture, the poor Cinderella of all the industries in the country. It is not to be applied to banks nor to any other industry, but only to agriculture. I can quite understand that it may have more applications in the future than it has had in the past, because the position of agricultural owners at present, with the burden of taxation which they have to bear, makes it impossible for them to carry out on their estates the improvements that they used to carry out. Parliament now comes down upon the owner of an agricultural estate and takes away from him every penny which he has available for improvements on his estate. For thirty years I have owned an agricultural estate, and, until this taxation was imposed, the whole of the income available, after paying necessay outgoings, went for improvements. The result is that now not a single cottage more is required within that area under the present housing legislation. No one asks for cottages, because they were already built before this legislation was passed on general grounds. Now, however, the whole of that money which used to go for improvements is taken compulsorily from me by the State in rates, taxes, and other burdens. In future, therefore, it may be that owners will be unable to carry out the necessary improvements on their estates, and, if that be so, it will be better, perhaps, that the State should come in and do the work; for then they will know what it costs, and what money there is available to meet the cost, while the owner will have the privilege of seeing the accounts and of knowing how much better the estate is managed. Speaking on behalf of owners of land, I would not descend to object to this Clause. If the Government like to introduce it, very well, I will accept it. I do not think it would be the opinion of landowners in this country that they should object to a Clause like this. We do not think we deserve it; we think we have done our duty to the best of our ability, and that we are more sinned against than sinning; but if, in the interests of the country, the Government say they want to take the power of managing our estates better than we can manage them ourselves, I say, "Take the power; I will not deny it to you."

Mr. TOWNLEY

I think the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that very few estates are badly managed puts an entirely new complexion on this Clause. No such statement was made to us in Committee. We naturally supposed that, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) has said, the Government were acting on information from the Ministry of Agriculture. I can only suppose, from the position of this Clause in the Bill, that the Government realise that the provisions which have already been passed will be so detrimental to agriculture that the estates of this country will gradually fall back, and that they are now making provision for the management of those estates which they anticipate will practically go out of cultivation. There is much in this Bill which I do not think hon. Members, and certainly not the farming community of the country, have the least idea of. Few hon. Members probably realise that farmers in the future are to be liable to have individual Acts of cultivation forced upon them. They are to be told what fields they are to plough, and at what date they are to plough them.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot take this opportunity to make a general review of the Bill.

Mr. TOWNLEY

I apologise for transgressing the rules of the House, quite unintentionally, but I urge the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, if he persists in this Clause, to give us adequate protection in the amount of notice we receive before the Clause is put into force.

Amendment negatived.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I beg to move, in paragraph (vi, 3A, (b,) to leave out the words "garden, or policies thereof" and to insert instead thereof the words "or the garden or grounds attached thereto."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he is making this change? In Committee he accepted the words moved by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hope). Will he now explain why he is altering them. In Scotland "policy" is a word we understand well. The other I am not quite so sure about.

Mr. MUNRO

I think this Amendment has a bearing upon the following Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hope), which it would not be in order for me to discuss at the moment. I think this Amendment is moved inter alia for the purpose of making it quite clear that an Order shall not extend to the grounds of a mansion house.

Amendment agreed to.

Major STEEL

I beg to move, in paragraph (vi, 3A, b,) after the word "thereof" ["mansion house, garden, or policies thereof"], to insert the words "or to woodlands."

The Ministry can appoint a receiver at present to take over a mansion house or a garden or a park, and the object of the Amendment is to include woodlands amongst those parts of an estate which he cannot take over without the consent of the owner. The whole object of the Bill is to increase the production of food, and, as food is not grown in woodlands, the question of food production does not seem to arise. In the second place, if the Ministry did decide that it is necessary in the national interest to put in a receiver to manage the agricultural land, he would no doubt appoint a man whom he would deem to be an agricultural expert. But it would not necessarily follow that the man whom he appointed, and who was an agricultural expert, would also be a forestry expert, and, although the arable land might be better managed, it does not necessarily follow that under this gentleman the woods would be better managed. I quite realise that there might be a proviso to give the receiver or manager power of access to the fields through the woods, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he could see his way to accept this Amendment to include woodlands, subject to a proviso giving to the receiver the power of access through the woodlands to the fields if he considers that is necessary.

Sir A. SPROT

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment. It was moved upstairs, and then the question was considered from two points of view. It was suggested that shrubberies ought to be excluded from an estate of which possession is taken by a receiver under the Clause, and in the second place, it was suggested that woods, properly speaking, should also be excluded. As regards shrubberies, after the Amendment to which I have just referred, moved by my right hon. Friend, it is abundantly clear that shrubberies are excluded from the operation of the Clause, indeed, I am so advised, and therefore I think no further question arises with regard to shrubberies. When one comes to deal with woods, however, that is quite a different matter, and I suggest for the consideration of the House that there is no good reason why woods should be excluded from the operation of the activities of the receiver. My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Steel) said the object of the Bill was food production, and food is not grown in woodlands. That is absolutely true, but he knows—none better—that on the other hand there is a direct connection between woodlands and agricultural development, and that agricultural development is very often seriously retarded, and food production might be largely impeded by the ravages of the rabbits and game which inhabit the woodlands. Speaking on the information which I have before me, I should be very sorry if this Clause were to exclude the receiver altogether from the management of the woods upon an estate. Nothing is more common in ordinary practice than that a whole estate, including woodlands, should be under the management of one man, and I think it might lead to undue complication, and very difficult questions might arise, if the management of the woods were in the hands of one person, and the management of the rest of the estate in the hands of a second. Accordingly, I suggest that the main argument upstairs has been met, and shrubberies are clearly excluded from the ambit of the Clause, but there is no reason in the world why the woodlands of an estate should be under different management from thee rest of the estate. In these circumstances, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friends may see their way not to press the Amendment further.

Major WHELER

Would this Receiver have full power to sell any timber and do just what he likes? If that is so, it is a very serious situation. There may be certain reasons why timber should not be cut down, and if this official who is put in takes a different view, you may see an estate absolutely ruined. Therefore the woodlands should be kept entirely distinct for that reason alone. I agree that there may be shrubberies and game preserves round about which might injuriously affect the arable land. But I am thinking more of the growing timber, which some people might say should be cut if it is eight years old, while others might say it should be standing if it is 100 or more. It might seriously affect the future of the estate if the Receiver, who might be a cery competent man in supervising the general management of the estate as far as the arable side was concerned, had preconceived ideas about timber which might seriously damage the estate.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

I think the fears of my hon. Friend are perfectly certain to be realised because the Receiver would have no capital other than the money he gets out of the estate. Naturally, therefore, he would cut down timber in order to get money, and in doing that of course he only has regard to the management of the estate for the time being and not for the future. If my hon. Friends wish to preserve their woodlands from being cut down on an improper occasion, they should certainly insist on these words being inserted because it is the only source from which the Receiver can get cash.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration to this point. The object of the Bill is to further the production of food, and not to interfere with the timber on an estate. I think the point that has been made is a very good one. There is a danger that an estate may be deprived of timber without securing any increase in the production of food at all.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY

I think the attack on landlords from the Opposition earlier in the day was far-fetched, but if the Clause is to be passed at all increasing the production of food, it is an absolutely ridiculous proposition for the Government to ask for powers to deal with woodlands. Forestry has nothing to do with the production of food. I hope the Government will reconsider this Amendment. I think the whole Clause is likely to be inoperative, but for the Government to ask for authority to cut down timber because a certain amount of corn is not produced on an estate seems an impossible proposition.

Mr. ACLAND

I join in the appeal to the Government to give a little more consideration to this. It is not altogether an easy question. I quite see the point that probably these estates will be derelict, or at any rate very badly managed, and the woodlands will very likely be in as bad a state as the agricultural land. Probably they will be little better than rabbit warrens, and I quite see that unless the authority who was to come in and make himself responsible, for agriculture had some control over the woodlands also, at any rate to the extent of getting the rabbits killed down, it would be an extremely difficult thing to carry out the functions the Clause gives them. On the other hand the officer put in by the Department of Agriculture will not be primarily a forestry expert, which is a very different line of country of its own, and I think, althought I have not any particular sympathies with an owner who allows his estate to get into this condition, there ought to be some prospect that the person put in would not fell all the woodlands in order to provide capital for running the rest of the estate. For instance it would not be unreasonable to consider whether in the management of the woodlands at any rate there might not be consultation with the forestry authority, who at any rate would come in from the point of view of the desire to preserve the timber and get it replanted, and to keep the woodlands managed in an efficient way. At any rate I hope the Minister responsible will not turn down the Amendment altogether, but will give further consideration to it.

7.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I have been rather impressed by the arguments used with reference to the question of woodlands. The House must realise, however, that we are dealing with a difficult case. The chances are that whenever these Clauses are in operation it will be because there is either no agent at all or a very bad agent. What is really wanted is a good agent that will look after an estate. In most estates that I know of the agent is responsible, not only for the agricultural land, but also for the woodlands. The woodlands, as a rule, are so mixed up with the agricultural land that to nave one man managing the arable land and another man responsible for the woodlands or, as would be the result of this Amendment, to leave the woodlands to the management of the owner who was managing the estate before, and to allow the receiver or manager to look after the agricultural land, would lead to great difficulties.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

It is very often done.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

We are dealing with an estate that has been grossly neglected. The Clause will not be put into operation except in such a case. Under these circumstances, are we not going to handicap very seriously a receiver or manager who is put in if we allow an owner, who has mismanaged the estate before, still to look after the woodlands? Those woodlands might be mere rabbit warrens, and the damage done on the agricultural parts of the estate by the excessive game in the woodlands might be most prejudicial to the good management of that estate. Therefore, the question is not so simple, and I cannot accept this particular Amendment, as the Secretary for Scotland has already intimated.

We are confronted with what does sound a difficult problem, namely, whether the receiver or manager shall have the right and the power to fell and sell timber on an estate. I do not think that that difficulty is quite as great as it appears. The terms and conditions of the Order would be settled by the Minister after representations by the owner, and under the Clause the owner can not only appeal against the Order, but he can appeal to the High Court against any particular provisions or conditions of that Order. The question whether or not the manager should have the right to fell timber and to sell it, therefore, is a matter to be settled when the Order is arrived at, and one on which the High Court would have a word to say. So I think that the difficulty in that respect is largely met. I cannot accept the Amendment, which would be fatal to the Clause, as it leaves an owner who has mismanaged his estate with the right still to manage the woodlands. I will, however, give this undertaking, that in another place the Minister will fully consider the point, in view of the possibility of the present arrangement not being satisfactory. We will further look into it, and if it does not supply sufficient protection for what, I agree, is a serious point, I will undertake to see that the matter shall be rectified in another place.

Sir G. YOUNGER

So far as I can make out, the main contention here is that there may be ravages by ground game from the copses in the woodlands. Why could we not give power to deal with that, though surely we ought not give power to cut down a man's trees and to sell them. Let an owner be compelled to give access to his woods for the purpose of destroying any excessive ground game, but do not let his trees be cut and sold.

Mr. E. WOOD

I would like to put this point to my right hon. Friend. There is a proviso in this Clause which states: Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof. … He must know, as we all know, that there are a great many estates where the capital value of the timber is by far the larger part of the capital value of the whole estate. What is true as regards land, if the object be to protect the capital value of the owner's property, is still more true as applied to timber. Therefore I would ask whether he cannot extend the protection of that proviso to the case of timber?

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendments made: In Paragraph (vi, 3A, c), after the word "estate" ["rights over the estate"] insert the words "or land."

After the word "estate" ["food on the estate"] insert the words "or land."

In paragraph (vi, 3A, d): Leave out the word "agricultural."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (vi), to insert the words: The owner of any estate or land in respect of which an Order has been made under this Sub-section may, at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the Order, or after any change in the ownership of the estate or land, apply to the Minister to have the Order appointing the receiver and manager revoked, and if on any such application the Minister refuses to revoke the Order the owner may appeal against the refusal to the High Court, is accordance with rules of court. I have put down this Amendment to meet an undertaking I gave in Committee with a view to the revision of an Order where such an Order would be made in the case of such an estate. The proposal is that at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the Order or of the change of ownership of the land, application may be made to the Minister to have the Order appointing a receiver or manager revoked. In the event of the Minister refusing to revoke the Order, the owner is given power of appeal against that refusal to the High Court. It has been pointed out to me that after a reasonable period an estate may develop into perfectly good order, and the owner may be willing to give an undertaking that he would keep the good estate in good order in future. As we do not wish in any way to interfere unreasonably with a man's property, we thought it right and proper that after three years we should take any such undertaking into account, and if we thought reasonable, revoke the Order and hand the estate back to the owner. If there is a change in ownership, then the original cause of trouble will have disappeared with the old owner, whether by death or by the sale of the estate. There, again, we thought an opportunity would arise for the revoking of the Order. I undertook, in Committee, to consider these points, and I have accordingly put down this Amendment. It does not go quite so far as some of my hon. Friends wish to go in respect to the change of ownership. If they move their Amendments I will then give my reasons why I cannot accept them. I think, however, that my Amendment reasonably meets the situation.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or after any change in the ownership of the estate or land."

There are two Amendments standing in my name to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, which only authorises an application to be made to the Ministry three years after the estate has been in the hands of the receiver, or after a change of ownership. If the Minister refuses, the owner may appeal to the High Court. One of the Amendments in my name, and in that of the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Sir B Stainer), provides that, ipso facto, on any change of ownership an order shall be made revoking the receivership. That seems to be only reasonable. I take it that there is no desire on the part of the Ministry to retain possession of an estate any longer than is absolutely necessary. Such an estate is taken possession of because a particular owner has managed it badly. This particular owner "might die or sell his estate, and then it is only reasonable that the new owner should have an absolute moral and legal right to be put in possession of the estate at once. Otherwise, if a now owner is not to be entitled to go into the estate at once, how is that estate to be sold to advantage? It will still remain in the dead hands of the Government. That is what it comes to, because, although the estate may be in the hands of the Government, the owner is the only person who would still have the power of selling it. If it were in the hands of the receiver, I imagine he would naturally wish to deal with it to the best advantage. But if the owner sold it to a purchaser, he could not sell with any arrangements whatever for putting that purchaser in possession. All that the purchaser could do would be to apply to the Minister for permission to take possession of the estate for which he had paid hard cash. It seems a remarkable state of affairs, but that is what is provided by the Bill. My right hon. Friend talked a very great deal about the Selborne Report, and I am sure he thinks very highly of it. The Selborne Report says that one thing we ought to do is to attract capital to the land. I do not know how you will attract capital to this class of estate if you leave it for an unlimited period in the hands of a Government manager. Certainly, if a son should succeed his father, it is only right and reasonable that he should be put into control of the estate, and then you could see how he got on. I therefore propose to move both Amendments standing in my name. They work in together, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept them.

Sir B. STANIER

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I think the object of my right hon. Friend and of the hon. and gallant Member for Grantham is the same. The only difference is one of the method by which it should be carried out. The hon. and gallant Member for Grantham does not seem to have considered all the cases which have to be provided for in exceptions of this nature. He put the very legitimate case of a son succeeding his father. That is a case that people always have in mind and wish to provide for. Has he considered the case of a perverse owner, who wishes to get rid of his property, and who might take this sort of step to get rid of it? He might offer the estate to his son, and in that way through his son, exercise a certain amount of control once more; or he might make it over to an infant son, and act as his guardian. One could give other illustrations, but these are two which the House will do well to bear in mind before coming to a conclusion as to what is the better method of dealing with this question. It is because my right hon. Friend has felt that there may be some cases where mere change of ownership cannot operate in the method that the hon. Member for Grantham suggests, that he has thought it better to leave the matter in this way, that there can be an application, after any change of ownership, to the Minister. If it is a bona fide change an order would be made, no doubt, cancelling the order. If, on the other hand, it is not a bona fide change, then no order will be made. If we were to go as far as the hon. Member suggests, and to say that in every case when any change of ownership in the land takes place, there should be a revocation of the order, the effect might be that you would give an opportunity to an owner, against whom an order had been made, and rightly made, and who was anxious to get rid of the order, to take steps which had not been contemplated by my hon. Friend and to which probably the House, would not agree, the result of which would be to discharge the order and thereby discharge him from the order. In the circumstances, inasmuch as one cannot make a complete catalogue of all the cases in which there may be a change of ownership, and yet not an effective change of ownership, it is better to leave the matter in this way that an application can be made to the Minister, rather than to say that in any case if a change of ownership takes place a particular result must follow, and must follow without any possibility of conditions being imposed.

Mr. LAMBERT

I am sure that it would not be the desire of the Government to prevent the sale of an estate, assuming that the owner grossly neglects his estate.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Hear, hear!

Mr. LAMBERT

The sooner that owner is out of the management of the estate the better.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Quite so.

Mr. LAMBERT

Then surely it would be wise for the Government to enable that owner to sell with the greatest possible expedition and with the least possible formality.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Quite.

Mr. LAMBERT

It would not be the desire of the Government to put in receivers.

Sir E. POLLOCK

No.

Mr. LAMBERT

The House must remember that there may not always be as reasonable Ministers as we have now. There may be other Ministers who may come in who may be of a very reforming character, and who may think they can change the cultivation of the land to the great advantage of the community. I have always had great doubts about that kind of Minister. The Solicitor-General says that there may be collusion on the part of an owner and another person to effect a spurious sale.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Hear, hear!

Mr. LAMBERT

Could not my right hon. Friend bring forward an Amendment to meet that case? Bather than have this Clause, I would go so far as to give power to the Government that where an owner mismanages his estate he should be compelled to sell it. Then you would have no responsibility for that owner. That would be a far better method of approaching this question. Assuming that I am a very recalcitrant owner and my right hon. Friend wants to buy my estate, he would not like, first of all, to go to the Minister. We know what delay there is involved in going to a Government Department. He might go to the High Court. I will leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend to imagine what would be the difficulties there. Surely the Government could meet this difficulty. It must be in the national interest that if you have an owner who is unpro-gressive and will not cultivate his land to the best advantage, that that owner should be got rid of quickly and another owner put in his place. If the Government can meet that case, and I am sure that, with my right hon. and learned Friend's ingenuity, he could do so, it would be much better. Do not make it difficult for an owner of an estate to sell his estate, when in the national interest it would be advisable for the owner who is unprogressive to get rid of the land to an owner who would be more progressive and would manage it well.

Mr. PRETYMAN

The real difficulty is a financial one, because what would occur normally would be that the estate would be mismanaged for want of money. It is hardly conceivable, and I hardly think it is likely, that where an owner has ample funds and where he is warned he would not spend the necessary money to put the estate in order. It is rather want of means than any other cause which would bring the estate under this order. Presumably the receiver in managing the estate would have to spend money. I do not know whose money it would be. The owner has not any money, and I do not know who is to supply him with money, or where it is to come from. There is nothing suggested in the Bill. I do not know whether under this Clause a would be purchaser of the estate, who had money and who would put the estate in order, could be approached by the Ministry of Agriculture, who would say, "We will hand it over if you pay us for everything we have done." I do not know whether that would be a very desirable state of things. The financial difficulty is very great, if it comes to making application to Ministers I would rather suggest that between now and when this Bill goes to the other House the Minister should consider whether it would not be as well to allow the owner of an estate, even where the Board of Agriculture or the local committee do not want to take it, to apply in the first instance for the appointment of a receiver and manager to take over the estate and to manage it better than himself. In that case the initiative would come from the other side. I do not see why that should not be put in the Bill. It would be better to make the release from the order automatic. If the Minister likes to satisfy himself that the new purchaser is a man competent to put the property in proper order I should not object, and if the Minister is satisfied that the new purchaser has the necessary means the estate should be handed over to him automatically, without application being made to Court, where financial terms may be made which would be unfair to the estate and to all concerned.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I agree that the actual effect of this Clause will be that in practice these derelict estates will have to be sold. There will be no money to run them, and the Clause with its conditions really will not come into effect. The Solicitor-General has spoken of cases where there might be evasion. In many cases the owner is not a person who is deliberately neglecting the estate through wickedness; he is very likely some old, incapable person who has got into the hands of a very slack agent. He is a man to be pitied, and he is the last person who would be liable to go into all sorts of legal forms to hand over his estate in a fraudulent manner in order to evade this Clause. It is to the advantage of the country and everybody concerned that the estate should pass straight away and be sold.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD

I am glad the Government have refused to accept this Amendment, because had they done so it would have enabled a carriage and horse to be driven through the whole Sub-section. If you had a perverse owner with several sons all he would have to do would be to transfer his estate periodically to his sons and to go round in a circle and he would prevent anything being done by the Ministry of Agriculture, even though they decided to take over the estate. There is another case. Supposing a manager had been conducting an estate for several years, and had got to know the estate, which he had been conducting very well, and suddenly the owner died and the estate devolved upon a minor. Would it be fair to that minor to say that, although he and his friends desired that the manager should remain in occupation and to carry on as he had been doing, that he should be compelled to give it up and hand it over to someone else? The minor is not able to carry on the work himself, and the transference might take place at a very inconvenient period of the year. If this Amendment is accepted it would compel the manager to retire, and to hand the estate over to a minor who has made no preparation for running the estate, and is probably quite incapable of doing so. To accept this Amendment would be to create a very great hardship, and to do great harm to the minor in that position. Other examples of the sam" kind could be brought forward. I am sure it is not the intention of the supporters of the Amendment to do anything which would have that effect, but that would be the effect, because three months after the death of the owner ths manager who had been appointed by the Board of Agriculture would have no power at all to deal with the estate, and would be powerless to do anything to safeguard the rights of the minor, who is the new owner.

Mr. WILSON-FOX

The hon. Member who has just spoken and the Solicitor-General are perhaps concentrating their minds too much upon the exceptional cases, and are not considering what are likely to be the most general cases which will arise. We shall be legislating from the wrong point of view if we allow the exceptional cases to obsess our minds to the exclusion of the ordinary cases. That being so, from the business point of view the right thing to do would seem to be to make release automatic on change of ownership. It seems to be admitted by everybody that what will commonly be the case will be that everybody will desire, and it is right that they should desire, sales of these derelict estates at the earliest possible moment. You have two parties to a sale, the seller and the purchaser, and the course which the Government propose will discourage purchasers from coming forward. Who is going to buy a law suit? It is a very common expression in business, and one which has a very real effect on the minds of possible purchasers. The proposal of the Solicitor-General really does put every single man who wants to buy one of these estates in the position of buying a law suit of whose result he will be quite uncertain. That is contrary to public policy. The Government can get all they want without going so far as they are doing to try to prevent these imaginary cases of fraud from occurring. Surely it does not pass the wit of man to introduce words which convey the idea of bona fides. Let a sale be upset afterwards if it can be shown to be not bonâ fide, but let it be assumed that such sales are really, as they probably would be in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, bonâ fide, and let the release be automatic. That is the businesslike course to pursue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to promise to consider the matter further, and have it dealt with in another place.

Sir F. BANBURY

I understand that the two Amendments are put together. I understand the objection of the Government to accept a release. There might be a fictitious sale. I do not consider that it is at all likely, but I cannot deny that it is possible. It is possible in certain circumstances that an owner, having the receiver appointed and not being able to manage his own estate, might endeavour by some such method as this to get rid of the receiver, but after all I presume that it is the desire of the Government not to put this Clause into operation unless there is some great necessity for it. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that A has an estate and the Minister puts in a receiver under this Clause. Suppose A sells to B and B manages badly, what is to prevent the Government taking possession? That seems to me to be a remedy which would be in the hands of the Government. If the Government were obliged to investigate every case with the possibility that it might be taken to the High Court it would be very difficult to do, but the simplest thing would be to accept this Amendment, and, if it should turn out in any given case that the now purchaser did not do his duty, put in a receiver again. I agree thoroughly with the right hon. Gentleman who represents one of the Divisions of Devonshire that, if a man mismanages his property and it is considered that in the national interest it ought to be managed in a different way, the only proper course is to say in the national interests, "We are going to acquire your property and we will give you a fair price for it." I believe in the long run if anything of this sort happened, even if only in two or three cases, the Government will be compelled to take over the property. There is one point T would like elucidated. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Protyman) asked if the owner has not any money, where is the money to come from? Am I not right in thinking that if the owner has got money it will come from him. If he has not got any money, they will take away from him that which he has. In any case the unfortunate owner, if he can scrape together, beg or borrow, will be compelled to do that by the Government, and the whole of the expense and loss, if there is loss, will be borne by the owner and not by the Department. I would be obliged if my right hon. Friend would say "Yes" or "No" to that.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MURROUGH WILSON

I beg to move, at the end of Paragraph (vii) to insort a new paragraph— (viii) In Sub-section (5), after 'notice,' insert 'and with the consent of the owner.' The object of the Amendment is to find out why they are restricting the consent. Why restrict the consent to the cases in which only a portion of the land is let, and why should it not be asked for when the whole is let?

Mr. LANE-FOX

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

The effect is this: Already the consent of the owner is necessary if a part of the land is sold. It is a matter of ordinary estate management. The result of the Amendment would be that the owner could insist on the central authority farming all the land. That is not the object of my hon. Friend. We desire that the estate should be managed in the ordinary way by the lessee.

Mr. ACLAND

The hon. Member made a point which has not been answered. Under Sub-section (5) as it stands already the consent of the owner has to be obtained before part of the land can be leased, and he only proposes that the consent should be necessary if the whole of the land is leased. It is not a question between leasing and selling. It is a question between leasing a part of the land and the whole of the land. On the merits I think that it would be difficult to deprive the Board of any chance of leasing the land, but one does not see on the face of it why the owner's consent is necessary before part of it is leased while consent is not necessary if it is leased in its entirety.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Tbo right hon. Gentleman has referred to what is difficult to understand in the original Section 5. My reading of it is that you may let the land as it has been let before, or when it is all the subject of one holding. If you are going to split it up so as to make a different set of holdings, and instead of making one holding let part thereof, then you have got to ask for the consent of the owner, because in the previous case you are carrying out the ordinary estate management, and in the next case you are doing something contrary to the practice which has been hitherto adopted. For this you require the consent of the owner. I think that that is the explanation of Section 5, but I am far from saying that it does not offer a considerable, number of questions such as those which have been referred to.

Mr. ACLAND

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it could be made clear in another place?

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

had given notice of an Amendment to leave out paragraph (viii).

Mr. SPEAKER

The next Amend-mont would impose a charge.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS

In what respect?

Mr. SPEAKER

It would impose a charge in this respect, that by leaving out out paragraph (viii) of this Bill the operations of Sub-section (9) of the Act of 1917 with regard to compensation for the ploughing up of land would come into force. That would mean that in future Section 9 in the Act of 1917, which is being abrogated by this Section, would be enforced, and would give compensation in the case of ploughing-up Orders. There is no provision in the Resolution which was passed by this House providing for such compensation.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I beg to move, in paragraph (ix, 11), to leave out the words the rules of good husbandry shall include—

1. (a) the maintenance and clearing of drains, dykes, embankments and ditches:
2. (b) the maintenance and proper repair of fences, gates and hedges:
3. (c) the execution of repairs to buildings, being repairs which are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land, and, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, are required to be executed by the occupier of the land under the contract of tenancy:

and references in this Section to cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry shall be construed accordingly: Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be taken to impose upon a tenant the obligation to maintain or clear drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches where such maintenance or clearance is prevented by subsidence of the land or the blocking of the outfalls which are not under the control of the tenant, or to make a tenant liable for such maintenance or clearance of drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches, or the maintenance or repair of fences, hedges, and gates, where such work is not required to be done by him under his contract of tenancy or the custom of the country. and to insert instead thereof the words the expression 'necessary works of maintenance' means such of the following works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed (that is to say)—

1. (a) the maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments, and ditches;
1796
2. (b) the maintenance and proper repair of farm roads, fences, gates, and hedges;
3. (c) the execution of repairs to buildings:

Provided that a notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section requiring any person to maintain or clear any drains, embankments, or ditches shall not operate so as to impose on that person any obligation in that behalf if and so far as the execution of the works required is rendered impossible by reason of the subsidence of any land or the blocking of outfalls which are not under the control of that person. This Amendment is for the purpose of giving a new definition of "maintenance." My right hon. Friend has put it down in accordance with an undertaking which he gave to make quite clear what is meant by the expression "necessary works of maintenance." It contains words which are at present in the Bill.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. J. GARDINER

I beg to move, as;in Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (b), after the word "fences," to insert the word "stone-dykes"

Mr. MUNRO

While the word "stone-dykes" are very familiar across the Border, they might mean either a stone wall or a drain in this country. I know that what the Mover of the Amendment means is a stone wall. I would suggest that he substitute the word "walls" for "dykes" in his Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY

Will there be incorporated in the Scottish application Clause a statement that a wall means a dyke?

Mr. MUNRO

I think that that would be entirely unnecessary.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made to proposed Amendment: In paragraph (b,) after the word "fences," insert the word "stone-walls."—[Mr. Gardiner.]

Mr. PRETYMAN

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (c), after the word "buildings," to insert the words "being repairs which are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land."

I see that the words "farm roads" have been added since the Committee stage of the Bill, and no explanation has been given. It is clear that many of these works, such as embankments, might involve a very large expenditure indeed Everyone will agree that heavy expenditure ought to be incurred so far as it is pocessary for the cultivation of the land, but no further. The guarding words of my Amendment are necessary. It may be necessary in some cases to spend money on farm roads, but I do not know of any case where a landlord has been called upon to spend money on such a purpose. I cannot understand why farm roads are included. They are in quite a different category from fences, gates, and hedges, which are absolutely necessary.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

Farm roads were added because cases might arise where the cultivation of the land was rendered almost impossible by the condition of farm roads. I agree that, the matter should be properly safeguarded and I would accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment but for one thing, and that is that this proposal is already in the Bill. If he will look at the Amendment just moved by the Solicitor-General, he will see that the expression "necessary works of maintenance" means "such of the following works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed," and there follow the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Those three paragraphs are governed by the words "necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land."

Mr. PRETYMAN

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of farm roads during the time between now and the Bill reaching another place?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I will, certainly; but, inasmuch as a man can be ordered to repair farm roads only in so far as the work is necessary for the proper cultivation of the land, I think the matter is perfectly safe.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (c), after the word "buildings" to insert the words, "(not being repairs in the nature of replacement)."

This is a necessary safeguard, for under the Government Amendment, if repairs of the nature of replacement are insisted upon, it might be a very serious hardship on the persons concerned.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK

My hon. Friend raises a matter which is one of general law rather than a question which concerns this Bill. In every case of repairs there comes a point at which it is impossible to repair, and replacement is necessary. For instance, you can sometimes patch up an old floor, and you sometimes patch it up with a number of new planks instead of repairing the old ones. If these words were inserted they would really be making a very strong breech in what is the system of repairs as well understood at present. Controversy has sometimes arisen as to whether or not atenant occupying a house, fair wear and tear excepted, is bound to make a replacement at all. On the other hand there comes a moment when, instead of patching, he must do something in the nature of a replacement. Replacement does not mean rebuilding; it does not mean attaching new buildings on to old buildings or anything of that sort, but there comes a point at which something which can be called replacement is necessary as incidental to the ordinary system of repairs

Mr. LANE-FOX

Would this cover the case of a building not being used for the cultivation of the land?

Sir E. POLLOCK

I do not think it would. The advantage of the Amendment I moved is that we get the words, "such works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed" at the head of the Clause. Before it is possible to call for the execution of repairs to buildings, the repairs called for must be such as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed. That is the test which has to be fulfilled. For these reasons, it is impossible to accept the Amendment as it stands. It is perfectly well understood that at times a certain amount of replacement, small, it may be, is necessary, but I am sure I can satisfy my hon. Friend that the sort of replace- ment he has in mind is not intended to be, and is not, included in the Bill.

8.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY

There must be many oases in which floors or rafters have become worn out, and require to be replaced by new ones, but there are in some parts of the country large barns which were used in the past, but the form of cultivation has changed, so that in many cases the barns are not used, and have got into such a state of disrepair that they could not be repaired except at enormous cost. What we want to guard against is the agricultural committee or some persons coming down, and saying, "Here is a building which has not been used for 30 or 40 years, but because we think it is necessary that that building should be replaced, you have got to replace it." Another case is perhaps a commoner one. There is an old road which has not been in use. Some cantankerous person might say that this road must be repaired. I quite admit the difficulty, and I think the Amendment would go a little further than is intended, but I do think some words ought to be introduced to prevent the cases I have instanced. If the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me, will he give an undertaking that he will in another place introduce words to meet these cases? This Bill is creating an entirely novel procedure, and we ought to be very careful that nothing is done which is unnecessary, and which will involve great expense to what, after all, are almost the poorest classes in the community at the moment.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I do not wish to press the Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

Major MACKENZIE WOOD

I would like to ask the Minister a question with regard to the original Amendment as proposed by the Solicitor-General. The point to which I wish to draw his attention is the omission from this Amendment of half a dozen lines which appear in the original Clause, as the Bill left the Committee, from the words "or to make a tenant liable for such maintenance" down to the end. I am not quite sure whether the provision which is made there has been re-inserted in an earlier Amendment. I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary as to why the words were left out, and if I am right in thinking that the substitution of some similar words in paragraph (c) in the first Amendment passed to-night meets the case.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

The reason why these words have been omitted from this particular part of the Clause is because they have been in substance inserted already in the original Amendment I moved, which is the first standing on the Order Paper to-day, namely, that in lieu of paragraph (b) to insert the words: (c) that the occupier of land has un-roasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default. This particular paragraph with which we are dealing now merely defines the works of maintenance and obligation to repair which has already been made by paragraph (c). My hon. and gallant Friend may say that we have omitted there any reference to the custom of the country. If he will look at an Amendment to Clause 25, which is the definition Clause, he will see I there propose to insert: References to the terms, conditions, or requirements of a contract of tenancy of a holding shall be construed as including references to any obligations, conditions, or liabilities implied by the custom of the country in respect of the holding. Therefore, there is another form, and I think a much better form, than that contained in the original Sub-section, and this Sub-section merely becomes a Subsection of definition, and nothing else.

Captain HOTCHKIN

had the following Amendment on the Paper: At the end of paragraph (ix, c) to insert the words (d) the fencing against stock by an occupier where the Minister is satisfied that damage is likely to be caused to ditches and watercourses.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Is not this Amendment at a point where it will be cut out, if the Amendment now before the House is carried? Would it not be in order for my hon. and gallant Friend to move the Amendment now, or would it be more in order to do it after?

Mr. SPEAKER

The words have been cut out. The question now before us is whether the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman shall be inserted. If it is proposed to add anything to them, of course the addition must be made before the whole Amendment is put.

Captain HOTCHKIN

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to insert a new paragraph: (d) the fencing against stock by an occupier where the Minister is satisfied that diunage is likely to be caused to ditches and watercourses. The point raised here is the case of a man who has a grass field and a stock field, and on the other side of him a man has an arable field and a ditch or a watercourse. According to the custom of the country, the ditch has to be cleared out by the man who owns the arable field, but the stock of the man who has got the grass land gets into the ditch. The point I am particularly keen about is to have some, powers by which it will be possible, if necessary, to compel the owner of a grass field to put up some temporary fence to prevent his stock getting into the ditch.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I cannot accept this Amendment, because this suggests setting up new fencing. The whole of this Clause deals with maintenance and repairs of existing fencing, etc. This is setting up new fencing It may be a perfectly proper thing, but it cannot be a work of maintenance. If it is repairing anything that exists, it is already covered by the terms of paragraph (b).

Amendment to proposed. Amendment negatived.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. ATKEY

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert a new paragraph, (13) This Section shall not apply to land belonging to a local authority. The reason for this Amendment arises from the fact that many authorities, particularly water authorities, acquire land for the purpose of their undertaking, and an entirely different object is sought by those authorities from the purpose sought by the promoters of this Bill. Land of that character it would be most undesirable to have cultivated, and I move this Amendment in order to protect local authorities, who have bought land for another purpose, from the provisions of this Clause.

Mr. R. McLAREN

I beg to second the Amendment.

It being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, farther Proceeding was postponed without Question put.