HC Deb 04 August 1947 vol 441 cc1130-41

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 22, after "Minister" insert: give notice to the landlord that he proposes to.

Mr. T. Williams

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Where under Part II of the Third Schedule the tenant farmer desires to carry out an improvement for which the landlord refuses consent, under this Bill the Minister has the right to give consent if it is felt that the improvement would be definitely an improvement for the farmer. Therefore, if the Minister approves of a tenant's suggestion that the improvement ought to be carried out and the work is carried out by the tenant, he would qualify for compensation on quitting the farm. The Minister is empowered under the terms of the Bill to fix the proper compensation in any such case. The purpose of this Amendment—there are two Amendments running together—would be to allow the landowner to have the right of appeal to the Agricultural Tribunal if the Minister gave his consent. I suggest that this Amendment is absolutely unreasonable. After all if the tenant asks for and secures the Minister's consent to carry out an improvement, he carries out the improvement at his own expense and his compensation on quitting the farm is definitely limited to what the Minister regards as appropriate. Therefore, if the improvement of the land is of any value to the land itself, it would mean that there would be an increase of rent paid from the date of the quitting of the old tenant.

If, for instance, as has been suggested in another place, and as was suggested in Committee of this House, a tenant spent more on the improvements than the improvement was really worth, then it would be the tenant who would lose all his money and not the landlord. Therefore, there is no possibility of penalising the landlord if these Amendments are not inserted in the Bill. I hope, therefore, from the point of view of the national interest, where tenants are willing to undertake improvements that the landlord himself cannot or will not carry out, we ought to allow these tenants to carry out these improvements in the interests of more efficient and better farming. I am quite sure this is not a case where a landlord refusing consent for the improvement to be carried out should then have the right of appeal to the tribunal. I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House, in the interests of good husbandry, good farming, and high food production, will agree with me when I say we should disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Sir T. Dugdale

I am sorry to have to intervene again because the Amendment carries on a debate we had on a previous Amendment upon which we divided. Although the Minister says that the Amendment is unreasonable, we feel that there is a point of considerable substance in it, because under Part II of the Third Schedule there is no doubt at all that certain of the improvements mentioned in Part II of that Schedule could very drastically alter the whole character of the holding.

All we ask in this Amendment is that there should be in these circumstances an appeal to the Agricultural Tribunal, and we are very sorry that the Government are unable to agree to the Lords Amendment because we are of the opinion that when the tenant is given permission under Part II we ought to do our best to try to safeguard his interests. We are not only thinking of the landlord in this matter, but of the sitting tenant, the tenant who follows him and the succeeding tenant. In our Debate a short time ago the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) taked about grass dryers. It is impossible under this particular schedule to authorise the erection of a grass dryer. But it is possible to erect a building to contain a grass dryer, and that is the point. Suppose authorisation was given by the Minister for a building containing a grass dryer, which is at the moment a very fashionable instrument. In ten years there might be a new system adopted for the drying of grass, and I certainly believe that the whole process by then will be much cheaper. Then the landlord or the tenant or the succeeding tenant, one or another, or the whole three, will be likely to suffer loss by this particular method at this particular time, and for that reason we disagree with the refusal of the Government to accept the Lords Amendment.

There is a new point which has not yet been considered either by this House during the passage of the Bill, or by another place. At the present time capital and materials are very badly needed, and are in very short supply, and in the national interest and in the interest of the agricultural industry it is important—and I am certain the Minister will agree with this—to ensure that before a tenant is allowed to embark on capital expenditure, close consideration should be given to the possibility of capital, materials, and labour being wasted. If for no other reason than that, we believe that an appeal to the Agricultural Tribunal would be justified, and we oppose the Government in refusing agreement to this Amendment.

Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)

I would like to call attention to one particular item which may adversely affect the farmer. If a tenant does a so-called improvement and it is of little value, the tenant will suffer. But there is one matter—the removal of permanent fences—which may cost the tenant a good deal of money, and which may be looked on at the end of the tenancy as of no value to the farm. But what is the position of the landlord who may have to re-erect the permanent fences that have been removed? I think the Minister should consider that an appeal ought to lie against a tenant doing what may be not an improvement, but something harmful to the character of the farm.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

I cannot understand the Minister suggesting that this is an absolutely unreasonable Amendment. It seems to me both well-reasoned and reasonable. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate the point. The tenant seeks to make improvements. He has a disagreement with his landlord whether or not these improvements shall be sanctioned. He appeals to the right hon. Gentleman, who sets himself up as a judge. But the right hon. Gentleman has to be guided, not as a judge should be guided, by the entirely impartial consideration of the facts and evidence put before him, but by the advice of the county agricultural committee through which, in all these matters, he is bound to be represented. He has put himself into a position in which, having appointed his agents in the area, he cannot but be guided by their advice. This is not a matter on which he should act otherwise than in a judicial capacity, and he will not be in a position to act in a judicial capacity.

11.15 p.m.

It is but reasonable that, it either party should so desire, they should in a matter in dispute have the right to go to an independent tribunal such as the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I think that that argument is indefeasible. It is fair to say that the tenant's blood be on his own head if he goes to the expense involved. But the tenant is at liberty to give a year's notice to get out, to go away from the farm altogether, and then to demand and receive compensation from the landlord for the improvements he has effected.

In these circumstances, suppose that the tenant did in fact—after consultation with the local committee, perhaps—persuade the right hon. Gentleman that it was reasonable to go to considerable expense to effect improvements, and then found his judgment had been misplaced, and that he had misled the Minister into agreeing to sanction such improvements. He gives notice. What is going to happen? He applies for compensation. The landlord claims that what has been carried out has not, in fact, proved to be an improvement in the property; and the incoming tenant would not use the building, or whatever it might be, on which the money had been expended. Therefore, the landlord would not be able to gain any increased rent. So that matter goes to the tribunal for decision. The tribunal will have to decide who is to bear that loss: shall it be the landlord or shall it be the tenant? The tribunal is informed that the tenant has carried out that expenditure that the Minister sanctioned. It will then be quite impossible for any tribunal to mulct the tenant of the costs that have been incurred, and the result will be that the landlord, who retains what has been erected as a result of the expenditure of the money, will have to bear the cost. So I think that the least the Government can do is to accept the reasonableness of the right of the landlord or of the tenant, if he so desires, to exchange for the Minister's decision, whether or not an improvement shall be sanctioned, the decision of the agricultural tribunal. I hope that the Government will accept this Lords Amendment.

Major Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

A few minutes ago, on a very similar Amendment on Clause 14, we saw the Government take power, by supervision or direction order, to alter substantially the whole character of a holding, and then to divest themselves of all responsibility for the result. This Amendment is on very similar grounds, because some of the improvements set out in Part II of the Third Schedule, to which the Amendment refers, may substantially alter the character of a holding. For instance, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) said, the erection of a building, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) pointed out, the pulling down of fences—both of these could, in fact—and this is the point I want to come to—not only alter the character of a holding but involve very serious financial liability for either the landlord, or any subsequent tenant who followed the tenant who demanded that those improvements should be made.

The Minister's objection to this is, that all these would be covered by the compensation Clauses. It is true that, theoretically, the position of the landlord and of a subsequent tenant might be covered by the compensation Clauses; but, in actual fact, it would be very difficult, probably, for any arbitrator to ignore completely a very substantial capital expenditure which had been incurred on the responsibility, first, of the Minister, and, secondly, of the sitting tenant, although the actual "baby" in the future would be carried by the landlord and by any subsequent tenant. It is not an entirely watertight argument to say that a landlord who went to arbitration could demand an increased rent for the holding, because whatever rent an arbitrator might fix, the landlord has still to find a tenant prepared to pay that rent, and a prospective tenant might well not be prepared to pay an economic rent for the altered character of the holding.

The last and most important point of all, perhaps, is one which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond also touched upon, and that is, the need to assess adequately and fairly whether or not the expenditure of capital and of materials was really justified. The Minister continually told us upstairs in Committee—and quite rightly—that the two factors most needed in agriculture today are, first of all, capital—which is available to a very considerable extent—and, secondly, materials, which are in very short supply, as he well knows. We believe that it is of the utmost importance, when an outlay of capital, and a considerable quantity of materials in short supply is involved, that the Land Tribunal should be the body to say whether or not such expenditure is justified, and that, therefore, it is only right that there should be an appeal to that body. I hope the Minister will see the force of the argument.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)

May I put this point? The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the position of the landlord, who, he says, will not suffer any particular damage, but has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the vital question of the relationship between landlord and tenant? It is on that point that I wish to say one word. It is better in the interests of the partnership which the Bill sets out to make, that a proper relationship should exist and if this particular device of the tribunal is adopted, that relationship would be closer. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this once more, for it really is a point of value.

Mr. Vane (Westmorland)

The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that it is only necessary for him to say that this or that is in the interests of food production for everyone to follow him into the Division Lobby. If something is in the interests of food production, we will support him, but in this particular case there are practical considerations allied to estate management, which have to be looked into. It is not only a case of individual farms, but groups of farms and it is surely, best that the owner of property should have the last word in saying if the majority of the improvements in Part II of this Schedule ought, or ought not, to be carried out. That is a practical point of estate management and one which ought not to be swept aside. Lastly, might I remind the Minister that if Part II of this Schedule had been better drafted and had not been such a hotch-potch, it might have been that we could have agreed with him as to one part, and he could have agreed with us as to the other, and he would have avoided this difficulty. But he has brought all this trouble by not listening to us on this side from time to time.

Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead)

Part II of the Third Schedule is very wide and would include works in the nature of irrigation, such as the making of water meadows, and flowlands, and work of that sort which has to be kept up and which, is not kept up, becomes a considerable burden and in changing the nature of the holding in that way one may do a great deal of harm. There should, therefore, be the opportunity for appeal. The whole question of changing the character of holdings was dealt with too lightly in my opinion by the Parlia-mentry Secretary when he spoke of changing from grass to arable, or from arable to grass. One has also to remember the effects on the human element. Quite different types of workers are required for different types of farm work. Furthermore, a tenant may be chosen for a particular farm probably because he is suited for that type of farm and the landlord and his agent have agreed that that is the best farm for him to have. There is something else, although it is something which the right hon. Gentleman has probably completely forgotten, that is, the historical side of this matter. Most of the farms in this country are arable or grass because for centuries it has been proven that one or the other is the better, and I would ask who is the best able to judge? Only the estate office or the landlord, or his agent, can give an opinion on this matter. County executive committees cannot know the history of all farms in this county. When it is proposed to change the character of a farm there should be opportunity for appeal. This Amendment should, I think, be accepted and not turned down.

Mr. T. Williams

I do not want to appear to be lacking in courtesy to hon. Members. I am quite sure that the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) was speaking to the wrong Amendment. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), however, asked me whether in dealing with this Clause we had borne in mind the

Division No. 357.] AYES. [11.28 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Belcher, J. W. Coldrick, W.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Bing, G. H. C Collick, P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V Binns, J. Collindridge, F.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Blackburn, A. R. Collins, V. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Blenkinsop, A. Colman, Miss G. M.
Alpass, J. H. Blyton, W. R. Cook, T. F
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge) Corlett, Dr. J.
Attewell, H. C. Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Cove, W. G.
Austin, H. Lewis Bramall, E. A. Oavies, Clement (Montgomery)
Awbery, S. S. Brook, D. (Halifax) Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Ayles, W. H. Brown, George (Belper) Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Brown, T J. (Ince) Davies, Harold (Leek)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Buchanan, G. Deer, G.
Barstow, P. G. Burke, W A de Freitas, Geoffrey
Barton, C Byers, Frank Diamond, J.
Bechervaise, A. E. Champion, A. J. Dobbie, W.

relationship between landlord and tenant. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have not only borne that in mind, but that we have gone to an enormous amount of trouble with the two sides of the industry to try to get the maximum measure of agreement throughout the building up of this Bill. Whatever differences have been expressed, whether in Committee or on Report, we have consulted one side or another or both. Hon Members who have looked at Clause 24 will have seen that many of the contingencies that have been suggested by hon. Members are never likely to arise. The hon. and learned Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) advanced a curious case to the House. He suggested that county executive committees made up of landlords and farmers chiefly are not quite the right body of people to decide whether improvements on farms should be carried out or not, but that a tribunal consisting of a legal chairman, with just one landlord and one farmer is the right body to determine whether an improvement should be made or not. It is a curious suggestion for the hon. Member to make.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

What I have said is that the Minister is not the right person to decide.

Mr. T. Williams

Yes, the hon. Member insisted on suggesting that, although he knows that power given to me under the Bill is delegated to county executive committees. He knows that better than most hon. Members in the House.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 100.

Dodds, N. N. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Shackleton, E A. A.
Driberg, T. E. N. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Sharp, Granville
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Lindgren, G. S. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Dumpleton, C. W. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Durbin, E. F. M Longden, F. Shurmer, P.
Dye, S. Lyne, A. W Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C. McAdam, W. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Edwards, John (Blackburn) McAllister, G. Simmons, C. J.
Evans, John (Ogmore) McGhee, H G Skeffington, A. M
Fairhurst, F. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Farthing W. J. Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Smith, C. (Colchester)
Fernyhough, E. McLeavy, F. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Snow, Capt. J. W.
Fool, M. M. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) Mann, Mrs. J. Sparks, J. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Stamford, W.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Mathers, G Stephen, C.
Gibbins, J. Mayhew, C P. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Gibson, C. W. Medland, H M. Stross, Dr. B.
Gilzean, A. Mellish, R. J. Stubbs, A. E.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Middleton, Mrs. L. Swingler. S.
Gordon -Walker, P. C. Mikardo, Ian Symonds, A. L.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Mitchison, G. R Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Monslow, W. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Moody, A. S. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Morgan, Dr. H. B Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden Morley, R. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Gunter, R. J. Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C.) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Guy, W. H. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Thorneyeroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hale, Leslie Moyle, A. Thurtle, Ernest
Hall, W. G. Nally, W Tiffany, S.
Hardman, D. R. Nichol, Mrs. M E (Bradford, N.) Titterington, M. F.
Hardy, E. A. Nicholls, H R. (Stratford) Tolley, L.
Harrison, J. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) Wadsworth, G.
Haworth, J. Noel-Buxton, Lady Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Oliver, G. H. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Orbach, M. Webb, M, (Bradford, C.)
Herbison, Miss M. Paget, R. T. Weitzman, D.
Hewitson, Capt. M Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Hobson, C. R Palmer, A. M. F Wells, W T. (Walsall)
Holman, P. Pargiter, G. A West, D. G.
House, G. Parkin, B. T. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Hoy, J. Paton, J. (Norwich) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Pearson, A. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Piratin, P. Wilkes, L.
Hughes, H D. (Wolverhampton, W.) Platts-Mills, J. F. F. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Hynd, H (Hackney, C.) Porter, E. (Warrington) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Porter, G. (Leeds) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Irving, W. J. Price, M. Philips Williams, W R. (Heston)
Jay, D. P. T. Pritt, D. N. Willis, E.
Jeger, G. (Winchester) Proctor, W. T. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Pursey, Cmdr. H Wilson, J. H.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Ranger, J. Wise, Major F. J.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Rankin, J. Woodburn, A
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Reid T. (Swindon) Woods, G. S.
Keenan, W Rhodes, H. Wyatt, W.
Kenyon, C. Robens, A. Yates, V. F.
King, E. M Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Kinley, J, Rogers, G. H. R. Zilliacus, K.
Lavers, S. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Lee, F. (Hulme) Royle, C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Leonard, W. Sargood, R Mr. Michael Stewart and
Levy, B. W. Scollan, T. Mr. Hannan.
NOES.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Baldwin, A. E. Crowder, Capt. John E. Head, Brig. A. H.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H Darling, Sir W. Y. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Beeechman, N. A. Digby, S. W. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Bennett, Sir P. Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Hogg, Hon. Q.
Birch, Nigel Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Hope, Lord J.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells) Drayson, G. B. Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J
Bossom, A. C. Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Hurd, A.
Bower, N. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Jarvis, Sir J
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W.
Butler, Rt Hon R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Challen, C. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M Lambert, Hon. G.
Channon, H. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Lancaster, Col. C. G
Clarke, Col. R. S. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Gridley, Sir A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Cole, T. L. Grimston, R. V. Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Low, Brig. A. R. W. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Pitman, I. J. Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Touche, G. C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Raikes, H. V. Vane, W. M. F.
Maclay, Hon. J. S. Ramsay, Major S. Ward, Hon. G. R.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Rayner, Brig. R. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Maude, J. C. Sanderson, Sir F. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Mellor, Sir J. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Molson, A. H. E. Spearman, A. C M. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. York, C.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Nicholson, G. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Nield, B. (Chester) Sutcliffe, H. Mr. Drewe and
Noble, Gomdr. A. H. P Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Commander Agnew.
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Teeling, William