HC Deb 09 October 1941 vol 374 cc1210-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Cocks (Broxtowe)

On a point of Order. Is not the Motion we have been debating exempted business?

Mr. Speaker

No, it is not exempted.

Sir John Mellor (Tamworth)

I want to refer to the procedure of the war agricultural executive committees. The Minister has power under the Emergency Regulations to dispossess owner-occupiers or terminate tenancies in cases where land has not been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry. In practice the Minister of Agriculture acts through his land commissioners and the county committees who are appointed by him as his agents. I recognise that bad farmers must be turned out, and turned out swiftly, and I acknowledge that the executive committees perform, in general, difficult tasks with judgment and distressing tasks with consideration. I will not venture to criticise the merits of any particular decisions, because, for one thing, I lack expert knowledge, but I am concerned to consider procedure, for it is a grave step to deprive a farmer or anyone else of his livelihood. In the case of a farmer turned out of his farm in these circumstances he is most unlikely to get any other farm, at any rate during the war. His character as an agriculturist is, indeed, wrecked. He gets no compensation for disturbance. Having regard to these things, although I recognise that the procedure must be swift, surely every possible safeguard should be taken in order to prevent any miscarriage of justice.

What is the present practice? In the first instance, the district committee probably hears locally some reference to bad farming at a particular farm. They investigate the complaint and, if they think fit, report in writing to the executive committee. No copy of that report is given to the farmer concerned. It is considered by the executive committee and probably they send a couple or more members of the executive committee, one of whom may be the executive officer, to inspect the farm after giving due notice of the visit to the farmer. That inspecting committee report in writing to the executive committee. Again, no copy of that report is furnished to the farmer.

That report, in turn, is considered by the executive committee. If that committee take an adverse view of the farmer's farming, they notify the farmer that they propose to terminate his tenancy. The committee do not furnish the farmer with any written particulars of the grounds upon which they propose to take that action. The farmer is given 10 days in which to make representations to the committee, and he is told that he has the right to lay his case personally before the committee, if he so desires. It is usual, I believe, for him to be allowed to be represented professionally. I do not think it can be suggested that his appearance before that committee in any way conforms to what we ordinarily know as an appeal. It is, indeed, only an application to the committee to reconsider their own previous decision.

At that hearing, two written reports are before the executive committee, but the farmer has not been shown either of them, and neither of them is read in his presence. Indeed, he has never had any particulars in writing of the charges made against him, beyond the formal notice that he had been guilty of bad husbandry, and he cannot get written particulars even when he asks for them. The charge has never been crystallised, and, so far as I can see, there is nothing which can make him sure that irrelevant matter is not considered. All that the farmer knows about the charges against him is something that the witnesses may have said to him on a previous occasion. If the executive committee take the view, after that hearing, that the farmer's tenancy should be terminated, they send a report in writing to the Land Commissioner, in order that, through him, the Minister's consent to the termination of the tenancy should be signified. No copy of that report is furnished to the farmer.

All that the farmer gets in due course is a notice to quit, usually in about 14 days. From start to finish these proceedings are administrative. The executive committees are agents of the Minister, whose instructions to them are confidential. I have asked for copies of them, and have been refused copies by the Ministry. I suggest that this procedure is not calculated to inspire confidence in the executive committees, but it seems important that such confidence should be inspired. In most cases it is well deserved. The farmer should feel some sense of security, and, to quote a very old saying, justice should not only be done but should evidently be done. I realise that there are considerable difficulties about establishing an independent tribunal of a judicial character to review these decisions. First of all it would possibly involve substantial delay. I should like to see some such tribunal, if it could be set up without causing such delay, but I have not gone into that question to-day, and I do not wish to make a point of it. I want to make this point with all the emphasis I can: If we are not to have any such independent judicial tribunal to review these decisions, it is of the first importance that the procedure should be such that the farmer should feel that he has been treated with the most scrupulous fairness.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson)

The hon. Baronet has asked me questions on previous occasions on this subject, and I have given him explanations. Now I can only try to do so again. Unwittingly and unintentionally, I am sure, he gave a description of the procedure that is a parody of the facts. He spoke of the rumour of bad farming in the area leading someone to write to the executive committee. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sir J. Mellor

I did not suggest for a moment that the district committees did not make their, own examination and satisfy themselves. I merely meant that the matter originated in that way, but I did not wish to make a point of it.

Mr. Hudson

I am quoting only what the hon. Baronet said. The fact of the matter is that the duty has been laid on the committees of increasing to the maximum possible extent the production of food, in the present national emergency. The duty of the committees is to see that every piece of land in their areas is farmed as efficiently as is reasonably possible, and that it produces as much as possible. In view of the seriousness of the national position, nothing can be allowed to interfere with the performance of that duty. The district committees are composed of practical fanners selected because they were the best and most influential farmers in their areas. The executive committees in turn consist, for the most part, of practical farmers, again selected after great care, not only for their own farming capacity, but for their fairness and reputation among the farming community in the county. As far as I am aware, and all the evidence in my possession tends to confirm it, farmers generally have shown satisfaction with the methods adopted by the committees for the conduct of their business.

Farmers as a whole have co-operated, even in circumstances of considerable personal difficulty, in carrying out the orders of the committees. Only a small minority of farmers, generally owing to lack of farming knowledge but sometimes owing to causes outside their own control, have been unable, or have proved themselves unwilling to co-operate in carrying out the instructions of the committees. I repeat that these instructions have as their object to increase, to the maximum possible extent, food production on the farms. In the great majority of cases—in all cases that I know of, for certainly no case has been brought to my attention where this has not been done—the executive committee, when they are dealing with a farm that is noticeably below the proper standard of cultivation, proceed by giving specific written directions to the farmer as to the cultivations required to be undertaken. The district committees do not hear about the farm, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, merely by hearsay. We have conducted a detailed survey of the farms in this country county by county, parish by parish, field by field, and the district committees are intimately acquainted now with the conditions on every farm in their area.

Sir J. Mellor

May I make it perfectly clear once again that I do not dispute that for a moment?

Mr. Hudson

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to continue my argument. I want to make it clear to the House, and also to the public, what is the actual procedure followed. In the course of the last 12 months the district committees have carried out—and are still carrying out every day—a detailed survey of every farm in their area. Most districts, also, now have technical officers attached to them, and they are continually going round looking after the backward farmers, giving instructions, guidance and help. It is only as a last resort, after a long period of time, when they find that a particular farmer either will not or cannot carry out their instructions, that they finally decide that it is a case where the only possible remedy open to them is to recommend to the executive committee to dispossess the farmer.

If there is any criticism to be made of the present procedure, it is that it is too dilatory, that the delays already are too great, and that the committees are being too lenient. The members of these committees have lived with the farmers all their lives, have known them and been their friends, and their natural instinct is to be lenient with them and to give them not only one chance but two or more chances. It is only when the district committee, who know all the circumstances of the case and who know the fanner himself, finally decide that he really is a hopeless case, that any further action is taken. The hon. Member said that not only must justice be done, but that it must appear to be done. I entirely agree with him, but it is also an excellent maxim in this country that a man must be tried by his peers, and of that you cannot have a better example than this. The farmer is tried in the first instance by his peers, by the farmers on the district committee; after further opportunities have been given to him, his case goes before another set of farmers —the members of the executive committee—who go down and inspect his farm and see to what extent it is possible to give him another chance. If they finally decide that he is a hopeless case and has to go, even then he is given another chance. Before final decision is reached by the executive committee he is allowed to go before the committee, and is given a further opportunity of putting his case to his fellows. I say a further opportunity because for the past months, possibly a year, he has been putting his case to his fellows; he has been given notice when the executive committee members are going to inspect his farm, so that he can be present to explain why he has failed to carry out instructions or to put forward any mitigating circumstances. It is only when the matter has gone through all the stages I have described that the committee decide that he is a hopeless case and ask for my permission to turn him out.

Sir J. Mellon

Before my right hon. Friend leaves that stage, will he allow me to ask him what objection there would be to allowing the farmer to see the reports which are before the committee?

Mr. Hudson

The farmer is, of course, told what is the gravamen of the charges against him. The committee, when they go down to inspect the farm, discuss with him why a particular field is in a particular state, and tell him where they think he has been at fault or what he has failed to do. Even when the committee has decided to recommend dispossession that is not the end of the matter. The recommendation then goes before a person who, although he is my official, is charged with the duty of being impartial, and he decides again whether or not the committee were justified in their decision. It is only after all these steps have been taken that my consent is finally given. The hon. Baronet may perhaps say that there is still a need for an appeal tribunal. I am bound to say that I cannot follow the argument. The committee's consideration is dependent on the committee's experience over the last 12 months or two years, and it is very largely dependent on their personal knowledge of the man's own personal ability as expressed in his farming. It is quite impossible to see how any appeal tribunal would be in a better position to decide than, first, the district committee and then the executive committee, who are, ex hypothesi, themselves practical farmers. You cannot conceivably get any other tribunal in a better position to judge.

It might perhaps be argued, that we ought to change the present system, because it is having an adverse effect on the success of the food production campaign. Before you can put forward that argument you have to produce evidence. Quite frankly, I have not come across any such result, nor has any evidence been submitted to me that any such condition exists or that any adverse effect on the food campaign is being caused. I have personally examined a number of cases submitted to me by Members, in which they thought that a miscarriage of justice or some hardship had been caused. I have not found a case yet where I thought the action of my committees was not fully justified. I think there are far more cases where they ought to have taken action and have not done so. Therefore, I personally feel that no case has been made out for any change. There is no question at all that if a change were made, it would cause long delays. It may perhaps be said that the present system causes hardship. Of course, it does cause hardship to turn a man out of his farm, but he is turned out only because he has failed to carry out the necessary duty imposed upon all of us to do our best to help to win this war. Agriculture is not the only industry in which hardship is caused. Hardship is. inevitable in a war such as this. There is hardship in a man having to be turned out of his house because it has been requisitioned by the military authorities; there is hardship on many people. The vital thing is that we should increase to the maximum the production of food in this country and the committee's task is to see that the land is properly cultivated.

Sir J. Mellon

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I have asked two or three times as to why the report before the committee should not be shown to the farmer?

Sir R. W. Smith (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central)

If a tenant farmer has been found to have been farming unsatisfactorily, can he bring an action against the committee if he considers that they have acted wrongly?

Mr. Hudson

So far as I know, he cannot.

Sir R. W. Smith

Does the Minister say that if a farmer has suffered defamation of character as a result, he has no redress in law; that this tribunal may take away his livelihood and his character, and that he has no right of appeal? The Minister has said that these people are tried by their peers, but sometimes these peers on agricultural committees are not very friendly to the men they are trying. It is no good being tried by your peers if you do not really know what is the case against you. The documents are privileged, and surely in a court they would not be privileged.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.