§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir V. Warrender.]
Mr. WEDDERBURNI beg leave to call the attention of the House to a matter in regard to which I have a Question on the Order Paper for Tomorrow, namely,
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John Stirling, of Rashinlea farm, in Inchinnan, sub-tenant of a farm recently purchased by the Board of Agriculture; whether he is aware that Mr. Stirling has been given 14 days' notice to quit which is to take effect on 28th November, and that this notice is inadequate for the disposal of the stock; and whether he will issue an order postponing the eviction of this man for six months, so as to give him time to sell off his stock and re-establish himself.I am extremely sorry to be obliged to address the House for the first time on a matter of this sort.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESOn a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt, because I understand that it is the hon. Member's maiden speech, but, as a question of principle, is not the hon. Member raising a matter which is the subject of a question on the Order Paper for to-morrow?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe fact that the hon. Member has a question on the Order Paper does not preclude him from raising the matter now.
Mr. WEDDERBURNI merely read the question in order to save time and to explain to the House what is the 455 nature of the matter which I am raising. I assure the House that I would not take up its time if I did not feel that my duty to my constituents compelled me to do so. I submit that it is the duty of Parliament to see that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in its dealing with tenant farmers whether directly as landlord or indirectly as a purchaser, acts with the same consideration and humanity that we should expect from any private individual, and I appeal to the House for its sympathy in trying to do something at least to mitigate the very harsh treatment which is being suffered by a thrifty and industrious farmer. This man has been in occupation of his holding for the past 18 months. His reputation as a farmer is high. He has always punctually paid his rent and, in spite of great difficulties caused by the agricultural depression, he has successfully maintained the farm, together with his wife and nine children. He has accumulated a considerable stock, which amounts to 26 head of cattle, 10 pigs and 300 or 400 head of poultry. I submit that 14 days notice is an utterly inadequate time in which to dispose of this very large stock.
There is in the agreement with the tenant from whom he sub-rented the farm a clause that he would be given six months' notice to quit. This clause is not in the least binding on the proprietor or purchaser, and I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Board of Agriculture are acting entirely within their legal rights. They have purchased the farm with the right of free entry on the 28th November, and they are entitled to see that it is clear by then. They are not legally responsible for the eviction of this man. He was obliged to be turned out by the seller of the farm, in accordance with the terms of the purchase. The man has appealed to the Board of Agriculture to allow him to continue for a short time in order to dispose of his stock, but the Board of Agriculture cannot see their way to do so. I am not suggesting that the man ought to be left in the occupancy of his farm permanently, or even for a long period, but I think the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late moment, might see whether he could not do something to mitigate the hardship which the man is suffering.
456 The hardship which has been suffered by this farmer at the hands, or, to be technically correct, through the lack of consideration of a Government Department is a thing which no private landowner would ever dream of inflicting upon any of his tenants. If this thing had been allowed to happen by the negligence of a private landowner the country would have been made to resound with the indignant denunciation of Radical propagandists, but when the thing is allowed to happen by the negligence or lack of consideration of benevolent bureaucratic officials of the State, it is necessary to raise the matter on the Floor of the House before any attention is paid to it. Year after year laws have been made by Parliament, with increasing stringency, to protect agricultural tenants against their landlords, and those laws are very strictly enforced by the officials of the Government in Scotland But when the interests of the Board itself as a landowner are concerned, we find that a small and hard working farmer, with a family of nine children and a considerable stock, is allowed to be flung out of his farm on 14 days notice. That will happen in three days' time, and I want to know where they are to go and whether no consideration is to he given to the man when he appeals to he allowed to carry on for a little longer.
If this is the kind of treatment which agricultural tenants are to suffer under the operations of a Government Department, I do not know that we can blame many people for coming to the conclusion that all these laws to which I have referred are enforced not so much in order to protect the tenant as to harass the landowning class, and that when the Government have finished their work of harassing the landowning class out of existence they will turn their attention to the tenant farmers, who will rapidly suffer similar extinction. I ask the House to take note of the kind of consideration which agricultural tenants are likely to receive when they are brought under the control of the State. I appeal once more to the right hon. Gentleman. The notice that I have given to him is exceedingly short, and he must have the greatest difficulty in deciding whether anything can be done, but I would remind him that the shortness of the notice to him is nothing 457 compared with the shortness of the notice which has been given to the farmer. Perhaps the Scottish Office may have already arranged for other tenants to come in, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether anything can be done, whether he cannot allow at least a month's notice in order to enable the man to sell his large stock, and find some housing accommodation for his almost equally large family, and whether, if it is not possible to do this, the Board of Agriculture cannot concern itself in some way in order to mitigate the very real and cruel hardship which the man is suffering and which, although the Department are not legally and directly responsible for it, is consequent upon the actions and policy of the Board. I apologise to the House for having taken up so much of its time. I would not have done so had it not been that the eviction is to happen on Saturday of this week and that unless the matter is raised now it will be too late to do anything. I do not want to he unreasonable, hut I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and ask him if he cannot do something to mitigate the very harsh treatment which this man has received.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Archibald Sinclair)It is my privilege, in the first place, to offer the congratulations of the whole House to the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Wedderburn) upon his eloquent, effective, and persuasive maiden speech. The House will look forward with keen anticipation to the contributions which he will doubtless make to our discussions on larger issues of policy. In regard to the merits of this case, I must ask the House to realise that the Department of Agriculture does not stand in the relation of landlord to Mr. Stirling, on whose behalf the hon. Member has raised this ease. The Department of Agriculture bought this farm, actually signifying their intention of exercising their option of purchasing the farm in August last. Mr. Stirling is not the proprietor, nor is he the tenant, but he is the sub-tenant of a tenant of the proprietor. The Department gave the proprietor notice that it was exercising its option of purchase on one condition, and that condition was that the Department should have vacant possession of the farm on the 28th of this month. The 458 Department has had no direct relations with the sub-tenant or the tenant, but only with the proprietor. It went ahead, making its plans for the use of the land which it had acquired.
A new fact has just come to my notice as to what happened between the Department and Mr. Stirling. I have ascertained that the principal tenant gave the sub-tenant notice prior to 23rd June last. Therefore, apart from the 14 days' notice some time before, Mr. Stirling has been under notice since 23rd June. Actually Mr. Stirling wrote to the Department about it on that day. No doubt the hon. Gentleman was not aware of this. I had this paper handed to me on the Bench just before he got up to speak. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he fully realised that the Department were acting within their legal rights, and he went on to say that the Department ought to act with as much consideration and humanity as would be expected from a private individual. I entirely agree with that, and it is on no other ground that. I want the House to judge the Department of Agriculture in this case.
The only other point that arises, and which makes it extremely difficult for me —as the hon. Member knows, because he spoke to cue about it and asked for a little time for the sub-tenant to turn round—is that a man is coming in on the 28th of this month, four days from now, a man with a family who also has to make very considerable arrangements for changing his home four days hence. Quite frankly, I must tell the House that it is impossible to make arrangements for Mr. Stirling. I told the hon. Member that, if it could have been done, I should have been only too glad. I do not like to say I will make further inquiries, because that suggests that the matter is still sub judice. I must ask the House to support me when I say that the Department cannot take any further steps.
§ Mr. MAXTONWill the hon. Gentleman say if his Department did in fact convey to this sub-tenant a reasonable notice? When the right hon. Gentleman sat on these back benches he was very strenuous over what he regarded as the stupid action of the Scottish Agricultural Department. I assume that it 459 is much the same Department now as it was in those days, when he railed against it from behind. I want his assurance that he is quite satisfied, not only that notice was given to the tenant-in-chief, but that the notice was definitely and certainly conveyed to this man, not that there might be a chance of his being put out on 28th November, but that be definitely had to go. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that definite notice was given to the man who has to get out?
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRYes, that was the point that I made. I do not know that the notice was given in a formal way. It was only given to the proprietor from whom the land was bought. The landlord had undertaken to sell that property to the State. The moral obligation of the relations of landlord and tenant, obviously, are upon the proprietor. The fact is that the tenant gave the sub-tenant notice before 23rd June. That is the new fact.
§ Mr. GROVESWill the right hon. Gentleman say what is the advantage of getting rid of the present tenant and bringing in a new tenant?
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRThe farm is going to be split up for small holdings and made into a family farm.
§ Mr. GROVESIf the right hon. Gentleman could ascertain that the incoming tenant has not yet vacated his old premises, could he not then give Mr. Stirling an increase of a month?
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRHonestly, I cannot. If there had been six months to go, I would gladly have given it consideration, but it is only a matter of four days before the new tenant comes in, and to give an undertaking of that sort now, suggests that the matter is still open. There has been so much uncertainty about it. I adhere to my decision.
Mr. WEODERBURNI wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very considerate reply. I would like to put one further point. He says that this farm is being split up into four smallholdings. Are we to take it that all four smallholders are moving in on Saturday, and, if not, might not some arrangement be made whereby Mr. Stirling could be left in possession of some part of the 460 farm until his stock is disposed of? My information is that he had no idea that he would have to quit, until 11.30 p.m. on the night of 14th _November. In regard to the notice on 23rd June, I, no more than the right hon. Gentleman, had heard of it. Since the superior from whom he had leased the farm has gone bankrupt, it is quite possible that the affairs of that superior might have been in a, mess, and that Mr. Stirling himself might not have been informed last June that he would have to quit at the end of November. He expressed the greatest astonishment, consternation and grief that he should have to go at 14 days' notice. I would ask, in view of the fact that the circumstances are certainly rather hard, first, if the new tenant is not immediately ready to move in, whether Mr. Stirling could be left for a little longer; secondly, if all the four new tenants are not moving in at once on the same day, whether some compromise could be made; and, thirdly, if all smallholders are bound to take up occupation on Saturday, so that this man has to go, whether the Board of Agriculture would help him in some way, by giving him facilities to dispose of his stock, and so mitigate the hardship which he has suffered?