HC Deb 20 March 1931 vol 249 cc2360-4
Sir F. THOMSON

I beg to move in page 8, line 21, after the word "consideration," to insert the words: the purposes for which the holding is equipped, the effect of such contravention on the permanent equipment of the holding, and the loss and inconvenience which the landlord or incoming tenant may incur in restoring the said arable lands to their usual rotation and. The Clause provides that— The arbiter shall take into consideration any injury to, or deterioration of the holding due to such contravention, except insofar as the landlord shall have recovered damages in respect of such injury or deterioration. My Amendment provides that the arbiter shall take into consideration the purposes for which the holding is equipped, and it also provides for the loss and inconvenience which the landlord or incoming tenant may incur in restoring arable lands to their usual rotation. I wish to be quite certain that all these considerations will be borne in mind by the arbiter, and it is because we are not quite sure that that will be so under the words of the Clause that I move this Amendment.

Earl of DALKEITH

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I am advised that the hon. and learned Gentleman may be quite satisfied that the point upon which he desires to be assured is covered in the Clause as it now stands. The arbiter is directed to take into consideration any injury to or deterioration of the holding, which appears to be a sufficiently wide provision. Further, the tenant is entitled to compensation in respect of pasture only in so far as the value of the holding is increased to an incoming tenant. I think that the point put by the hon. and learned Gentleman is met.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Would injury to the holding include injury to the buildings?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Every injury.

Amendment negatived.

Earl of DALKEITH

I beg to move, in page 8, line 24, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that in no case shall compensation be payable under this section for any temporary pasture laid down or left at the termination of the tenancy in excess of two-thirds of the extent of the said arable lands. I move this Amendment in the interests of good farming and the maintenance of employment on the land. I desire to further any assistance such as is contemplated to help arable farmers during this period of depression. There are many who advocate some extension of temporary pastures, but it would not do to carry that out wholesale and apply it all over the country. Clearly a balance must be kept, and a proportion of arable land must be maintained. Quite apart from the point of view of the owner of the land, a wholesale extension of pasture would entail very serious disadvantage in regard to employment, and clearly a large number of families would be put off the land. Under the Clause as it stands, a number of farmers, say 25, in a district, could arrange to put the whole of their arable land down to pasture, but this could not be in the national interest, and it would, as I have said, put a number of families off the land. The Government often quote the opinion of the executive of the National Farmers' Union as representative of all agricultural opinion in Scotland, but I would ask them in this case to consider also the opinion of those people who are employed upon farms in Scotland. We all hope that this is a temporary situation, due to the fact that arable farming is uneconomic in many districts, but the Government appear to be bringing in a permanent method of curing this temporary situation. Would it not be better to agree with the opinion of the National Farmers' Union on subjects pertaining to better farming, and to carry out their recommendations, which would make it possible to make arable farming pay? This Amendment has been suggested to me by certain farmers and by men who are accustomed to act as arbiters in the South of Scotland. They feel that at least one-third of each farm should be left under rotation in Scotland. I would ask the Government to be sympathetic towards this Amendment.

Mr. R. W. SMITH

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. W. ADAMSON

The question that arises in regard to this Amendment is, what is meant by arable land? It is not very clear. The Amendment is very similar to one moved by the Noble Lord in Committee, except that in that case the limit was one-half of the arable area instead of two-thirds. For the reason given on that occasion, the Amendment cannot be accepted. The Clause is one for freedom of cropping and the limit of two-thirds is not justified and would interfere with the power of a farmer to make the very best of his land. In these difficult days for agriculture that the Noble Lord has been speaking of, surely we ought to put no fresh difficulties in the way of the farmer making the very best use of his land.

Major ELLIOT

It is not quite as simple as the right hon. Gentleman has represented it. It is not simply a matter of the farmer making the best use of his land. It is a case of whether a temporary advantage shall he allowed to override the permanent interests of the country. It is not to the advantage of agriculture, and particularly not to the advantage of the farm labourer, that large areas should be laid down to grass. It may be a regrettable necessity in the circumstances of the time, but it is only reasonable, when the right hon. Gentleman is making so strong a case for the very best use being made of the land, to point out that it is not accepted by all authorities on agriculture that the best use that can be made of the land is to lay it down to pasture. Certainly from the point of view of the agricultural labourer it is a very great hardship, because it may lead, not only to a great area which was previously employing arable workers being withdrawn from their area of employment, but also to buildings and equipment which were kept up for their benefit being allowed to fall into disrepair and, consequently, make it more difficult to return to arable when, as we hope, it is possible again for arable to become prosperous. I think the right hon. Gentleman rode rather lightly over the question in his suggestion that what it was wanted to do was to make the best use of the land. He was arguing for the exploitation of a temporary advantage which may, in fact, be a great disadvantage to agriculture at the end of the day.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I hesitate to take part in a debate on a Scottish Bill, but we have certainly had a great many Scottish Members speaking on our English Bills, and I feel justified in offering one or two observations. We are extremely interested that the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers are apparently encouraging the laying down of arable land to grass. Is that the attitude that is taken up by the Scottish Office? We find in England that laying down to grass is certainly a very expensive expedient which is only resorted to in time of great slump in the arable markets. It is not encouraged from the national point of view, and it is looked upon very seriously. It has a bad effect on the labour market. It employs fewer men than arable land employs, and I am surprised at the attitude of the Scottish Office in encouraging it.

We have had no argument from anyone as to why this laying down of land to grass is encouraged. It is more than winked at. If my hon. Friend goes to a division, I shall support him. The object of having some hold on how much land should be laid down to arable and how much to grass is to prevent gluts, and what we are suffering from very much at present is the tendency to have gluts in one or other of the forms of arable production. Certainly, as the Clause reads at present, I can see farmers getting panicked into going into one or other commodity wholesale, with the result that in a year or two there will be a glut in that form of production. I certainly deprecate the attitude of the Scottish Office, which has taken no control over this encouragement of glut. It is a very bad sign, and want of foresight, and I am surprised that hon. Members below the Gangway do not protest against it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will argue that that is being dealt with elsewhere by means of the Marketing Bill. He is going to make it far harder to deal with the question of the quota if he encourages farmers to change their mode of cultivation suddenly by a mere whim. I hope very much to hear that the Scottish Office is going to turn over a new leaf.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government are here definitely refusing an Amendment which would do something to help to stop the deterioration of agriculture, while at the same time they are asking Parliament to spend immense sums of money in order to get agriculture back on to an arable basis. The position will be hopeless if the House of Commons is to undo one day what it did the day before. That is why I personally resent a great deal that is contained in this Bill. I particularly resent the position taken up by the Minister on this, and on other occasions. This is definitely a backward step as far as agriculture is concerned; it is not progressive in any sense. Also, as I said, I resent it more because we are doing an entirely different thing to-day from that which we did a few days ago. You are not only going to put agriculture back, but you are going to spend money needlessly, and you are wasting the time of the House of Commons.

Amendment negatived.