CLAUSE 2.—(Definition of agricultural hereditaments.) (Hansard, 19 June 1928)

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)
The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) is not in order. I have made some research, and I find that the words "agricultural hereditaments" do not occur in the principal Act, and, that being the case, he will see that to put in these words will be to amend the principal Acts, and that is no part of this Bill. It will be outside the scope of the Bill. With regard to the second and the third Amendments, if the hon. and learned Member wants to move them, he must do so at a later stage, somewhere at the end of this Clause where it deals with agricultural buildings.

§ Mr. HARNEY
On a point of Order. May I suggest that further consideration be given to your Ruling. I understand you to say that you cannot admit my first Amendment which is after the word "Act" to insert the words "and in the principal Acts," because, having looked through the various Acts of Parliament, you find that there is no principal Act in which agricultural hereditaments are defined. I may he wrong, but I have before me a copy of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. [Interruption.] Presumably, it is a copy taken from the official one. There in the definition section, Section 68, are the words: Agricultural land' means agricultural land within the meaning of the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896 and 1923. The Bill that we have before us, according to Clause 10, says: This Act, except in its application to Scotland,"— 1712 that is the exception— shall be construed as one with the principal Act, and the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under the principal Act. Therefore, we have the expression "agricultural hereditaments." [Interruption.] I am so diffident that when I hear a laugh I think I must be wrong. We find here that the expression "agricultural hereditaments" in this Act means: Any hereditaments being agricultural land. Therefore, I am right in saying that the definition given here of agricultural hereditaments is the adoption of the definition of agricultural hereditaments given in the Act of 1925. If that be so, the point. I wanted to raise was this. You are now having agricultural hereditaments defined in this Bill, and you are having this Bill made one with the Act of 1925. You have the definition, therefore, in one Act of agricultural hereditaments different, as regards the purpose of this Bill, from what it is as regards the purposes of the principal Act. My Amendment was intended to be entirely helpful, and what I wished to point out by it was that it would be an absurdity if the question ever came before any Judge, who would have to say: "I am to read this Act of 1928 as if it were embodied in the Act of 1925, and I have to construe agricultural hereditaments under the composite statutorial structure. I find that agricultural hereditaments mean, where you are dealing with purposes in connection with the 1925 Act, one thing, and, when you are dealing with purposes in connection with the 1928 Act, another thing. I therefore, do not know, when questions arise, whether I am to apply to them the definition of the 1925 Act or the definition of the 192 Act." I therefore wish in the most kindly and harmonious spirit—[Interruption]—to assist the Minister of Health by just putting in innocent words to ensure that this conflict shall not arise, because, in all cases, the definition of agricultural hereditaments shall be the definition given in this Bill.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
On a point of Order—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must deal with one point of Order at a time. The hon. Member has not convinced me that the definition of agricultural here- 1713 ditaments occurs in the principal Act. I understood him to say that the term used there was agricultural land, and that that was defined. Unless he can show me that the actual term "agricultural hereditaments" is used in that Act, I am afraid that I must rule his Amendment out of order.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Perhaps the hon. Lady will put her point of Order after this point of Order.

§ Mr. HARNEY
It is true that the expression used in the Act of 1025 is "agricultural land," and it is equally true that the expression used in this Bill is "agricultural hereditaments." But it is equally true that in Clause 10 of this Bill it is stated: This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act. If it is to be construed as one with the principal Act, you have no definition whatsoever in this Act of agricultural hereditaments. I contend that I ought not to be precluded from helping the Minister in this matter.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member's object is thoroughly, good, but I think he has admitted that the term "agricultural hereditaments" does not occur in the principal Act. It is for that reason that I cannot allow this particular Amendment. If it were accepted and passed, it would have the effect of amending the principal Act. There is no power to do that.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
I understood you to say, Captain FitzRoy, that amending the principal Act was outside the scope of this Bill. May I ask you to turn your attention to Clause 7 of this Bill, which says: The principal Act in relation to London shall … be amended as follows: I humbly submit this point of Order. If Clause 7 of the Bill amends the principal Act in regard to London, why should it be wrong to amend the principal Act with regard to other details of the Bill? You have decided the point in regard to Clause 10, which says: This Act … shall be construed as one with the principal Act … How can we exclude from one part of the Bill an amendment of the principal Act, 1714 when another part of the Bill is devoted to the pa rpose of amending the principal Act?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Clauses are not similar. If in Clause 7 we were dealing with the point now raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), it might have been in order. As it is, I cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
May I turn to Clause 2? Clause 2 says that in places outside London the Rating Act, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and in relation to London, as amended by this Act. Is that the same point as Clause 7, or does it rot show that the scope of the Bill extends to an amendment of the principal Act?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think that arises in this particular case.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
I am afraid I have put my point very badly. I should have said paragraph (a) and (b) of Clause 1, instead of Clause 2. Paragraph (b) allows the principal Act to be amended in regard to London. There may be agricultural land in London. Is it, therefore, your Ruling that it is correct to alter the definition of agricultural hereditaments so far as London is concerned, but that we may amend nothing in regard to places outside London? Is it your Luling that it is not within the scope of the Standing Orders to amend anything relating to places outside London?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The particular paragraph to which the hon lady refers, chills with Amendments that have been made in subsequent Acts to the London Valuation of Properties Act. That raises an entirely different point.

§ Miss LAWRENCE
I am extremely sorry, but it makes reference to amendment of the principal Act. Clause 7 goes on to amend the principal Act. My point is that under your Ruling it would be perfectly correct to amend the definition of agricultural hereditaments in London hut incorrect for the rest of the country, and that seems to me to be anomalous.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There is nothing in the principle Act dealing with agricultural hereditaments.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
With great respect, may I point out that you stated that your Ruling would depend on whether the words "agricultural hereditament" appeared in the principal Act. May I call attention to Section 68 (1) of the principal Act, where this very expression is defined. Hereditament means any lands, tenements, hereditaments or property, etc. Therefore, I submit that in its context the term "agricultural hereditaments" is defined by Section 68 (1) of the principal Act.

§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
That Section speaks of "hereditaments" but not of "agricultural hereditaments."

§ Mr. HARRIS
I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, after the second word "land," to insert the word "primarily."
I hope that this Amendment will bring about general agreement, and as it will be one of the last Amendments that will be debated while you will be in the Chair, Captain FitzRoy, it would be rather nice to have the Committee harmonious. Later on I shall ask the Committee to leave out, in line 25, the word "only." I do this for pretty much the same reason that I moved an Amendment earlier today. I have in my mind agricultural land which for part of the year is used as *a football ground or a cricket pitch. For instance, the land will be used for grazing during the week and on the Saturday afternoon it will be used for football or cricket. Under the present definition, this land would be excluded from the advantages of the Bill. The Minister of Health said this afternoon that he was very anxious to do anything he could to encourage sport and recreation and the utilisation of land for such purposes. So far as I can ascertain from the present wording of the Clause, immediately the land is used for football or cricket for a fee, it will be deprived of relief from the payment of rates, under the Bill. That would be an unfortunate state of affairs. I move the Amendment in a. constructive and helpful spirit, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
The hon. Member is evidently under a misapprehension. Such land as he has described which for a short period in the year is used for the purpose of a football ground 1716 would not be necessarily excluded by this Clause from the benefits of the Bill. If he looks a little further down the Bill and he notes what is excluded, he will see that it is— land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for purposes of sport or recreation. Ground held under the condition which he has described would not be defined as land kept mainly or exclusively for the purposes of sport or recreation. I think the hon. Member will find that land of the kind he has described is already subject to 75 per cent. rebate in relief of rates as agricultural land, and not only will it continue to come under the same definition but it will receive 100 per cent. rebate under the Bill. In these circumstances, perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment and let us come to that unanimous and harmonious conclusion to which he referred.

§ Mr. HARRIS
I should have thought that the word "only" would have the opposite effect but if the right hon. Gentleman assures me that it has not, I will withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir ROBERT HAMILTON
I beg to move. in page 2, line 25, after the word "only" to insert the words "land used for poultry farming."
The intention of the Bill is to divide hereditaments into classes, and one class, agricultural hereditaments, is to receive the benefit of entire de-rating. Poultry farming is a very important branch of agriculture but it is not clear, in the Bill as drafted, whether those persons who devote their time and capital to the rearing of poultry are to get the advantages which are to be given to farmers who devote their attention to other branches of the industry. The Amendment puts poultry farmers on the same basis as other farmers engaged in agriculture. The importance of raising things which we import so largely from abroad at present has been urged again and again, and one of these commodities is eggs. Great attention is being devoted to improving the marketing of our home-produced eggs, and I ask the Minister of Health to assure us that land used for poultry farming will come within the definition of agricultural hereditaments.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
Certainly the intention of the Government is that land used for poultry farming, in the sense used by the hon. Member should be included in the definition of agricultural land and should receive the benefit of the rebate under the Bill. I think in many cases, if not in all, land used for poultry farming is at present given the advantages of assessment as agricultural land, but in case there should be any doubt about it perhaps it might be well to introduce some words which will make it perfectly clear that the intention of the Government will be carried out in this Clause. I must point out, however, that the Amendment as it is moved will go too far, because it might be interpreted to mean that any little backyard in which one or two fowls are kept should be included as agricultural land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The hon. Member shakes his head. hut hon. Members opposite say, "Why not?" You cannot possibly contemplate that all the millions of cottage backyards are to be investigated by rating authorities in order to see whether a few hens are kept there. That is not the serious intention of anyone, and, therefore, it will be necessary to put some limit and say what extent of land in the hereditament shall be treated as agricultural land. Perhaps a quarter of an acre might be inserted, but if the hon. Member is prepared to withdraw his Amendment I will undertake to give careful consideration to this point and, on the Report stage, bring in an Amendment in carefully considered words which will carry out his intention. I think we must put down some such limit.

§ Mr. HASLAM
I should like to express my appreciation of the attitude of the Minister of Health in agreeing to make quite sure that poultry farmers will be included in this Bill and will get the relief which other agriculturists will get. The poultry farmer is not one of the producers who is coming off very well under this particular scheme. We have already seen that he stood to be very hardly hit by the kerosene tax, and furthermore he uses a considerable amount of petrol. It would therefore have been unfair if he had been denied this small amount of rating relief. He is also worthy of consideration in that he is an agriculturist who is endeavouring to introduce up- 1718 to-date scientific methods into farming. I am sure that, although the poultry farmer does not perhaps get very much advantage under the Bill, yet he will remember that the large-scale farmer is more in need of relief than he. The poultry farmer will also remember that in the last few years he has derived very great advantage from the development of motor transport. The development of motor vehicles in this country and the encouragement of road improvement have beer, of great advantage to him. I, therefore, feel sure that the poultry farmer will be pleased with this concession and as a producer will give his support to the scheme.

§ Sir R. HAMILTON
I have to thank the Minister of Health for the way in which he has met us, and, on the assurance that he will give further consideration to the matter with a view of introducing an Amendment to cover the point I have raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee will not have forgotten that to-night we are to have the-opportunity of paying our last respects and offering our best wishes to Mr. Speaker on his departure. I think the Committee will desire that that ceremony should not be delayed until too late an hour.