Mr. W. ADAMSONI beg to move, in page 10, line 22, to leave out the words "wells, or reservoirs," and to insert instead thereof the words, "or wells."
I had practically finished my speech and, therefore, I have nothing more to say on this point. I am sorry the mistake occurred, but I was looking at an old Order Paper which led me astray.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. R. W. SMITHI beg to move, in page 10, line 25, after the first word "of", to insert the word "other".
This is in order to make the Schedule quite clear. The words are:
Making or improvement of watercourses, ponds, wells or reservoirs, or of works for the application of water power or for supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes.I presume that the Government want to make the supply of water for agricultural and domestic purposes apply to watercourses, ponds and wells, or other works for the application of water power, and it seems to me that the wording would be improved by the insertion of the word "other" in the Schedule. If the word "other" is left out the wording is not quite clear. You might have a man making a pond for fishing purposes. That would not be domestic purposes, but the landlord would be obliged to pay compensation. That is not what is intended.
Duchess of ATHOLLI beg to second the Amendment.
There is a distinct point raised here. The Under-Secretary has emphasised the importance of the extension, under Parts II and III of the Schedule, of the improvements which may be made to a 2369 holding by a holder without the consent of the landlord. I am certain that he has made the extensions on behalf of agriculture, because he wants tenants to have wider powers to make the improvements that are necessary for the improvement of the holding, but he will not deny that this is going to impose additional liabilities on the landlord. The wording here does not make it clear that the improvements mentioned have to be suitable for the agricultural purposes of the holding. A pond might quite well be for purposes other than agricultural. I mentioned in the Standing Committee the case of a reservoir, which did not have an agricultural purpose at all. It would be possible for a tenant to make a pond, to stock it with trout and then let the fishing.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThe intention of this Amendment, I understand, is that the making or improvement of water-courses, ponds, wells and so on, should be included only when required for the application of water power or for the supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes. That would, of course, cut out the making or improvement of a watercourse for drainage purposes, and it would be just for such a purpose that a water-course would be most frequently required. While we are anxious that there should be no error in the framing of the words in the Schedules, we are advised that the insertion of this word "other" would destroy the very purpose that we have in view.
§ Major ELLIOTI should have thought that drainage was the extraction of water for an agricultural purpose. We agree that these things should be looked into, and if the Under-Secretary will look into this matter between now and the passage of the Bill in another place the Amendment can be withdrawn.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONWe have looked into the matter since the Amendment first appeared on the Paper and this is the best legal advice that we can get. If hon. Members opposite are not satisfied they can quite easily take steps to raise the matter in another place.
Mr. R. W. SMITHI suggest that the word "Drainage" which occurs in Part II of the Schedule would give the power to deal with a water course but in view 2370 of the Under-Secretary's statement I do not propose to press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. R. W. SMITHI beg to move, in page 10, line 23, after the second word "for," to insert the word "the."
§ Amendment agreed to.
Earl of DALKEITHI beg to move, in page 10, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
but excluding the removal of stone walls and growing hedges.I think it will be generally felt that the destruction of stone walls without the consent of the landlord is unreasonable. In certain cases the removal of permanent fences may be an advantage, as in the case of a number of small fields with straggling thorny hedges, but when it is a case of two fields of considerable size separated by a stone wall it seems unreasonable that the tenant, without the consent of the landlord, should be entitled to remove that stone wall the making of which may have cost about£20 apart from the cost of quarrying and carting. It is, of course, possible that the tenant may not be awarded any compensation, but the owner will have lost about£20 or£30 worth of property and he may even have to give compensation in addition.
Duchess of ATHOLLI beg to second the Amendment.
My Noble Friend has referred to the making of stone walls and I would point out that the making of a hedge is also a matter which occupies a considerable time. A hedge may represent years of attention and growth and it does not appear right that power should be given to cut down hedges promiscuously without the consent of the landlord.
Mr. W. ADAMSONA similar Amendment—not the same in words but in purpose practically the same as this Amendment—was very fully discussed in Committee and it was decided that it could not be accepted. In view of that fact I hope that hon. Members will not press this Amendment.
§ Sir F. THOMSONI do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite accurate in saying that the particular matter raised in this Amendment was considered in Committee and while I am aware that the clock is running against us at the moment, I think that this is a substantial point which ought to be considered.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSA number of Members on this side are in favour of this Amendment and I think that in all fairness the right hon. Gentleman ought to make us this concession. Some of my hon. Friends who have done a great deal to help the progress of this Bill feel very strongly on this matter, and I feel that if we had an opportunity of arguing the question we would convince the House of the necessity for the Amendment.
§ Major COLVILLEI do not think it should be brought against us that the clock is nearing four. If it is an important point, it should be decided on its merits. In Committee it was discussed very briefly. It takes a long time to grow a hedge, and in Part I of the First Schedule, the fact that it takes a while to grow a tree or a shrub is admitted by placing them in that part of the Schedule. We submit that the growing of a hedge should be treated in the same way and placed in that first part of the Schedule as an improvement to which the consent of the landlord should be required.
§ Amendment negatived.
Mr. R. W. SMITHI beg to move, in page 10, line 27, to leave out the word "Making" and to insert instead thereof the words "Repairing or renewal."
We think it ought to be the repairing and renewal instead of the making of embankments and sluices against floods.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIt is obvious that new protective works are of great importance, but we think the matter is adequately safeguarded by Clause 22, Sub-section (2).
§ Major ELLIOTThe Government are in a singularly obstinate and stubborn mood. The clock is running on, but I think that fact should not be used against us. There are many of these points in the Schedule which are of very 2372 great importance, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) said, it is not generally realised in the House that while many of the other Clauses of the Bill deal with smallholdings, these Clauses deal with every piece of agricultural land in Scotland. These are much the most important parts of the Bill as far as Scottish agriculture as a whole is concerned, and it is rather a pity that the Government have shown themselves so obdurate on this question.
§ Major ELLIOTThe Secretary of State plumes himself on having allowed the insertion of the ward "the," but that is pretty small change. I know that he comes of a hard-fisted people, but he must not get the reputation of a Crœsus for handing out the word "the." It must be clear to the Government that these questions will have to be raised in another place, not in any unfriendly spirit towards the objects of the Bill, but because they are very important questions which have to be discussed; and unfortunately I am afraid that the saving of time now may mean that the House will have to discuss them at a later stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. R. W. SMITHI beg to move, in page 10, line 29, to leave out from the word "equipment" to the end of line 30, and to insert instead thereof the words "other than moveable fittings and appliances."
This is of vital importance to the agricultural industry, and we are here to look after their interests. The Government have agreed to only one Amendment, but it is rather ridiculous that we should have to rush through this Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. W. ADAMSONI beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I do not intend to detain the House, as I have already explained that I am anxious to get this Bill by four o'clock. Therefore, I simply content myself with 2373 moving the Third Reading, and hope that Members in every part of the House will assent to the Motion.
§ Sir F. THOMSONThere is one thing I should like to mention on this Motion, and that is the very urgent need of codification of the law in the Scottish Landholding Acts. We have to wade our way through the 1886 Act, the 1911 Act and the 1919 Act, and now we have this Measure. This Bill consists of two Parts. The first amends the Small Landholders Acts, and the other Part amends a quite different set of Acts. The whole thing leads to a vast amount of confusion. Part I of the Bill containes a number of useful Amendments of the law; I think that some 10 or 11 of the Clauses in it are due to recommendations of the Nairne Committee. We are opposed to the Clause giving an option to statutory small tenants to become landowners, because we do not think it is to the advantage of Scottish agriculture to extend the small landowning system in the Lowlands. We also are of opinion that the question of resumption on the ground of personal occupation ought to be left to the Land Court, and that it should not be mandatory on them to exclude resumption by people who desire to reside on the holdings.
Coming to the second Part of the Bill, which is of great importance, the Government suggested that arbiters should be chosen by the Department of Agriculture. We thought, in view of the widened scope of arbitration under the Bill, that it was much better that the panel of 2374 arbiters, as hitherto, should be appointed by the Lord President. We have given the Government a great deal of assistance in the passing of this Measure. Important changes have been brought about in the Schedules. No one can say that we have had too much discussion of these. The Bill embodies many useful Amendments to the law, and we do not propose to divide against it.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI support the Third Reading. The Bill does not go so far as some would like, but it remedies a great many grievances and it deserves support.