CLAUSE 107.—(Interpretation.) (Hansard, 5 June 1947)

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I beg to move, in page 84, line 18, at the end, to insert: (c) to land designated as land subject to compulsory acquisition under any public general or local Act. This Amendment seeks to bring into relation the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Bill and the provisions of this Measure. Under the Town and Country Planning Bill, the Minister can designate, or give approval to the designation of, land as subject or liable to compulsory purchase within a period of 10 years, and there is no limitation to the areas which may be so designated. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is given very wide powers of direction to landlords and tenants of agricultural land. I suggest that it is only right that his power of giving directions, involving an expenditure of considerable sums of money either by landlords or by tenants of land which is within the area designated by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, should be excluded, because, after all, what justification is there for saying to a farmer or a landlord, "You must spend a large sum of money in putting up buildings of a particular character," when the Minister of Town and Country Planning has given sanction to the compulsory acquisition of those premises within a short period, and to a conversion to a purpose quite different from agriculture? I suggest that if the Minister accepts this Amendment, it will not prejudice the interests of agriculture or the interests of the nation, but it will provide a proper co-ordination between this Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill.

§ Major Mott-Radclyffe
I beg to second the Amendment.
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, in Committee we were not altogether satisfied that there was adequate co-ordination between the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Minister of Agriculture on this very important point, and as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has suggested, the object of the Amendment is really to hover two possible sets of circumstances. The first is the case of land not actually under cultivation, for example, heathland being designated for agricultural purposes in the immediate future, when it is known that within to years the land is probably going to be required for a satellite town, or any other non-agricultural purpose. The second is land now under cultivation being continued to be designated for agricultural purposes when again in the next 10 years it is known that that particular area is likely to be required for a non-agricultural purpose. In either of these eventualities it would be putting an owner or occupier in an intolerable position if he were directed to spend money on capital equipment for buildings in order to farm efficiently when within 10 years, or a shorter time, he would be told that all his capital and labour have been spent in vain because his land is cooling out of production for a non-agricultural purpose. I hope the Minister will see the force of my arguments.

§ Mr. Marquand
I think the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) had two points in mind. The first was that there should be no difference between the two Bills, and, secondly, that under this Bill there should be no possible injurious effect on the owner of land designated under the Town and Country Planning Bill. We must remember that the word "designation" has two senses. In the planning legislation the land is designated as liable to compulsory purchase; under this Bill the land is designated as agricultural land; and I would remind the House that before land can be designated by the Minister of Agriculture it must be land which in his opinion, ought to be brought into agricultural use. Much of the land designated for compulsory purchase under town and country planning legislation will already be agricutural land within the meaning 551 of the definition. In other words, the majority of land will be farm land used for commercial farming purposes.
The Amendment would not, therefore, affect such land in any way. It is already agricultural land. It there is other land not at present being used for agriculture or for the purposes of trade or business and it is designated for compulsory purchase, the Minister would only be designating it if, in the Minister's opinion, it ought to be used for agriculture. It might, for instance, be a piece of derelict land which ultimately might be wanted for some non-agricultural purpose. The effect of designating it for compulsory purchase does not mean it will be bought necessarily within the next year or two.

§ Major Mott-Radclyffe
That is a short period, but it may not always be a short period. It may last 10 years. Surely, during that period it might be reasonable to use that land for agricultural purposes if the Minister holds it suitable for that purpose. Surely, it would not be justifiable to leave the land idle.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
It is not a question whether the land is not in use for 10 years for agricultural purposes. The point is that under the Bill as now drafted, the owner of land or the occupier might be directed to buy £4,000 or £5,000 worth of fresh equipment, and it is doubtful whether in 10 years he could earn the interest on that equipment.

§ Mr. Marquand
I was trying to divide the subject raised into two parts. I suggest the first is the question of any con' fusion of the Town and Country Planning Bill with this Bill. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Town and Country Planning feel they are overlapping in any way. The hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) said that if land has been designated for compulsory purchase for non-agricultural use, the fact will have to be taken into account in deciding what standard of estate management or good husbandry would be reasonable in that particular case. I do not think the Minister, having decided to make use of land during that period, would require the standard of estate management to be in excess of what was reasonable. But that is a matter for administration. I ask hon. Members to accept the assurance that 552 such administration will be conducted reasonably.

§ Major Mott-Radclyffe
Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether this is the sort of case he visualises under Clause 81? Is this the case where the Minister of Agriculture might step in and acquire land designated under the Town and Country Planning Bill?

§ Mr. Marquand
Certainly not.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I would like to put one question to the hon. Gentleman. He has expressed the proposition that the Minister of Agriculture can designate, for the purpose of agriculture, land which has already been designated under the Town and Country Planning Bill by the Minister of Town and Country Planning as being liable for compulsory purchase. I suggest that might cause confusion. He says that if that happens the burden imposed on the landlord and the tenant would only be reasonable having regard to the fact that the land is liable to compulsory purchase. Will he go so far to meet us as to say that he will insert words to that effect in this Bill? As the Bill stands, there is no limitation placed upon the Minister of Agriculture as to the obligations he can impose on land which he designates, and which is also designated under the Town and Country Planning Bill.

§ Mr. T. Williams
If the hon. and learned Member will recall what happened in Committee, he will remember that not only the situation of the land, but all other relevant circumstances have to be taken into consideration. Since this was moved by Members of the Opposition, he should haze been the first to remember it. This would be a case where every relevant circumstance would be taken into consideration.

§ Mr. T. Williams
I beg to move, in page 84, line 22, to leave out from "occupied," to "and," in line 23, and to insert: 'by the same person for the purpose of farming the land. This Amendment is to give effect to the desire expressed by the Opposition during the Committee stage. The Amendment indicates that "occupied" would cover 553 all farm buildings whether on the farm or off the farm, together with the farm house, which were occupied by the occupier.

§ Mr. Williams
I beg to move, in page 85, line 21, at the end, to insert: 'relevant circumstances,' in relation to an owner or occupier, includes all circumstances affecting management or farming other than the personal circumstances of the owner or occupier. During the discussion of Clauses 10 and 11 on the question of good estate management and rules of good husbandry it was suggested that regard should be paid not only to the character of the land, but also to other relevant circumstances, and those words were accepted. The object was to make it clear that all relevant circumstances relating to farming or estate management should be taken into account. However, during the discussions fears were expressed that the words might go too far—so far as to cover the personal circumstances of either the owner or occupier. It was suggested, for example, that if the owner had insufficient capital, was utterly uncreditworthy, was unable to borrow, and was unable to carry out the responsibility of good husbandry or good estate management, he would be able to plead financial inability as a good excuse for not carrying out his duties. It was suggested that financial disability might be due to extraneous circumstances unconnected with the land, and I promised to look at the matter again. After reconsideration, I suggest that this Amendment interprets the words "all relevant circumstances" to mean matters affecting the farming or management of land and not the personal circumstances of the owner or occupier concerned. This definition will affect Clauses 10 and 11 and I am sure hon. Members will agree with it.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Relevant circumstances include all circumstances affecting management or farming. The Minister has just said that they would include the fact that the land has been designated as liable to compulsory purchase. I doubt whether that could be said to be the case, unless there was specific reference to it in the definition stating that that was the case. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not add to this definition in another place, words to the effect that one of the rele- 554 vant circumstances to be taken into consideration will be the fact that the land in question is designated to be subject, or liable to compulsory purchase under the Town and Country Planning Act. I do not think that is covered by the Amendment if that is the intention. I ask him to look at it again so that it will be quite clear and that there will be no misunderstanding.

§ Mr. T. Williams
All I can say is that "other relevant circumstances" means "other relevant circumstances."