§ 52. Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to any cases where the owners of agricultural land have already intimated to their tenants that the existing rents will be increased when the full de-rating of agricultural land begins to operate; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in order to ensure that the advantage of de-rating should go to the producing tenant and not to the landlord?
Mr. GUINNESSA case was brought to my attention by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in which a farmer has recently received formal notice to quit He states that he was previously informed by the landlord that the farm would fetch more rent when it is relieved of all rates. From the information before me this particular notice appears to be invalid, and the farmer concerned would be well advised to consult a solicitor with a view to protecting his interests. I would also point out that the compensation for disturbance payable by a landlord who serves his tenant with a notice to quit, as in this case, without assigning any reason, will be a minimum of one and a maximum of two years' rent. In my opinion it is extremely unlikely that in such circumstances any landlord will take the risk of giving a satisfactory tenant notice to quit, thereby involving himself in the certain liability of paying compensation to the extent mentioned. Apart from the exceptional case to which I have referred, the answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative, and the remainder does not, therefore, arise.
§ Mr. RILEYMay I ask how the right hon. Gentleman explains the fact that his own Department sent a notice to the Sutton District Council with regard to land owned by the Ministry, intimating 213 that the rent of 19 acres was to be raised from£55 to£76, and in the notice the Ministry used these words:
In fixing this rent the Ministry have taken into consideration the fact that next year no rates will be payable in respect of agricultural land.
Mr. GUINNESSThat letter was misunderstood originally, and since then, in spite of the explanation, misrepresented. The Sutton Bridge Council had a lease of 20 acres for 14 years from 1914. That lease has expired, and it is the duty of the Ministry to re-let the land at a rent comparable with surrounding holdings. That paragraph in the letter made it clear that, in refixing this rent, we were comparing it with the new and more favourable rents for the surrounding holdings, and not with the present rents, and therefore the meaning of that sentence was the exact contrary of what the hon. Member suggests. The misrepresentation of one sentence in a letter like that is entirely irrelevant in view of the declared policy of the Government in all these cases to give the full benefit of de-rating to the tenants on all our Government land.
§ Mr. RILEYWill the right hon. Gentleman say why that reason was given in a letter if it was not in their mind?
Mr. GUINNESSThe reason was given in the letter because we wanted to make it clear that we were fixing this new rent on the most favourable comparison, that is to say, with the lower rents that will be fixed, and not with the present rent.