HC Deb 04 August 1947 vol 441 cc1141-5

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 7, after "farming" insert: whether as respects good estate management or good husbandry or otherwise.

Mr. T. Williams

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

There are three further Amendments on the Order Paper which should be taken with this one, and they are:

In page 32, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert: (c) where the tenancy was created after the passing of this Act, that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for a purpose, specified in the contract of tenancy, for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy, and that. In line 17, at end, insert: (d) where the tenancy was created before the passing of this Act and the same person was landlord at the passing thereof as at the time when the notice to quit was given or, if the application for the Minister's consent is made before giving the notice to quit, at the time of the application, that greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or. Leave out lines 22 to 26.

These Amendments deal with an existing owner who prior to the passing of this Bill bought land subject to a tenancy. Under the Bill as it now stands, a person in that category could not come within the provision of paragraph (c) because he did not actually create the tenancy. That, of course, would be unfair to him. One of these Amendments makes this very clear. He would have to prove, first of all, his intention; and, secondly, greater hardship before he could secure the Minister's consent to the notice to quit. This is purely transitional in character. In any other case the owner can only give notice to quit and obtain the Minister's consent if he has made his intention clear in the written contract of tenancy. If he has done so he can give notice to quit and apply for the Minister's consent under paragraph (c) on the ground of hardship. What we have aimed at is the maximum security of tenure with the minimum amount of hardship. I think these four Amendments combined fulfil those intentions.

Mr. Alpass

I wish to express my deep regret that the Minister has seen fit to suggest that we should agree with the Lords in this Amendment, especially with respect to line 7 and the words which follow. I regard this part of the Bill as most vital in connection with the industry because it affects the question of security of tenure. The purpose of the Bill, we have been told, is to secure a stable and efficient agricultural industry and everyone will agree who has had experience that one of the essential factors in securing that desirable object is that the good farmer, so long as he is farming efficiently and properly, should not be unduly disturbed.

That principle was included by the Minister in the first draft of the Bill. I believe I shall not be divulging any secrets when I say this—that representations were made to the Minister from certain quarters that that principle of security of tenure as drafted originally was too rigid from the landowners' standpoint, and it was subsequently amended in the way that we have seen in the Bill. Some of us argued then that that was opening the door to make it possible for tenants to be disturbed for reasons quite apart from efficient farming and good cultivation. I want to suggest to the House that this pushes the door completely open.

Mr. T. Williams

No.

Mr. Alpass

That is a matter of opinion. You argue differently now: you used to argue in this way before you were Minister.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at what stage were you the Minister?

Mr. Alpass

I should have said that the right hon. Gentleman used to argue in that way. What, in effect, happens is that the tenant receives notice. I would say that this question of security of tenure is as necessary today as it has ever been in the history of the industry. I have been told that things like that do not occur today, that landowners are not of that character.

Let me tell the House that over the last two months I have had tenant farmers in my Division coming to me showing me copies of notices they have received from their landlords, which practically means that they have no security of tenure at all. Both of them to my knowledge are two of the best farmers in Gloucestershire. I have told them that when this great Agricultural Bill, this great charter for the industry, became law, then none of these things would happen and that they would be perfectly secure in their holdings. If this Amendment is accepted I shall have to tell them another story and that the Minister has conceded—[Interruption.] I speak with very deep feelings on this question because I have been a personal victim of want of security. I was dispossessed of my farm because my landlord died six weeks too soon and I received no compensation. Members opposite sometimes taunt us by laughing about these things, when they are being discussed in this House. I see some of them are laughing now; but it is no laughing matter to good tenants farming efficiently and well to receive notice from their landlords and be dispossessed.

11.45 p.m.

I want to argue this matter in a very serious fashion. It is suggested that something in addition to insufficient cultivation, or something that is inconsistent with good estate management, shall be a reason for the Minister validating notice to quit, by the words "or otherwise." I have heard it said many times that lawyers could drive a coach and four through nearly every Act of Parliament. I believe the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) would be competent to drive one through this Bill especially if these words remain and I can conceive of no other words than these two words "or otherwise" which are more vague or which are more likely to lead to litigation and perhaps, a case being taken to the courts and the House of Lords to decide on the interpretation of these two words "or otherwise."I want to suggest to the Minister that he should, if I may put it this way," stick to his guns,"and adhere to a principle which the Labour Party, to which I have belonged for many years, has always advocated in its agricultural policy.

There should be nothing to disturb a man who is farming his farm efficiently except when it is wanted for national purposes. This opens the door very widely and allows landlords to bring forward all sorts of reasons. It may be said that the man does not get on very well with his neighbours. I can conceive, as I have said in Committee, that if I happened to be a tenant on a certain estate I might be dispossessed although I might be one of the best farmers in the district. I suggest that to accept the words "or otherwise" is a departure from our principle and, to a large extent, nullifies- security of tenure and weakens the position of the good farmer. I hope the Minister will reconsider this and tell the Lords that we are not going to accept this in order to strengthen their position and weaken the position of their good tenants.

Mr. T. Williams

I am obliged to say to my hon. Friend that he completely misreads this Amendment. I know perhaps better than most hon. Members how keenly my hon. Friend feels about this particular question. I know he himself has suffered personally and a personal injury clings for a very long time. Therefore, if he engenders heat in any debate on security of tenure, or one or two other odd items which I could name, but will not, then I have every sympathy with him. But I am convinced that this Amendment does not, will not, and cannot, do what my hon. Friend suggests. In any case, at worst, this Bill is infinitely better, from the point of view of security of tenure, than any Bill ever introduced into this House. My hon. Friend, therefore, cannot go back to his constituents, farmers or anybody else, and say that the Labour Party have gone back on their promises. No person can secure possession of a farm by turning out his tenant without first of all securing the consent of the Minister. That never was so in the past. If he secures the consent of the Minister the tenant then has the right to go to an appeal tribunal and to argue why possession should not be given to another tenant. That never happened in the past. Therefore, I submit that this Bill with these Amendments gives the tenant farmer a greater measure of security than he ever had in the history of landlord and tenant in this country and I suggest, therefore, that these Amendments that have been embodied in the Lords Amendments are consistent with what the House was informed of before the Bill left the Commons. I hope, therefore, with that explanation, that the House will feel disposed to accept the Amendments provided by the Lords.

Question put, and agreed to.