HC Deb 05 June 1947 vol 438 cc442-59
Mr. T. Williams

I beg to move, in page 29, line 40, to leave out from "been," to "or." in line 42, and to insert: granted on an application made under the enactments relating to town and country planning. This Amendment, and the next Amendment, which is consequential, are designed to bring paragraph (c) of Clause 30 (2) into line with the new provisions relating to town and country planning contained in the Town and Country Planning Bill It deals with the case where agricultural land is required for some non agricultural use and application is made under the town and country planning legislation for permission to use agricultural land for non agricultural purposes, and that permission is given. It would clearly be wrong, in that case, when notice to quit is given, to reconsider the whole question under Clause 30. Agricultural considerations will have been taken into account when the decision to grant planning permission was reached. In such a case the Minister's consent to the notice to quit should not be required. The last two and a hall lines of Subsection (2) deal with certain other cases where planning permission is not required, but where it would nevertheless be wrong for the Minister's consent to be required—where, for example, a Private Act of Parliament may confer on a local authority or a statutory undertaker the right to buy and develop a certain area of land for some non-agricultural purpose, and planning consent may be unnecessary since specific Parliamentary approval has been given to the proposal. In cases of that description, of course, there would be Departmental discussions before any decisions were reached. Therefore, there is no point in the Minister's consent to a notice being required in respect of land to be used for non agricultural purposes on the lines I have indicated.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 29, line 43, leave out from first "of," to "such," in line 44, and insert "any provisions of those enactments)."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In page 30, line 1, leave out Subsections (3) and (4), and insert: (3) Without predudice to the discretion of the Minister in a case falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of this Subsection the Minister shall withhold his consent under the Section to the operation of a notice to quit unless he is satisfied—

  1. (a) that the carrying out of the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of efficient farming; or
  2. (b) that the carrying out thereof is otherwise desirable for the purposes of agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration or for the purposes of the enactments relating to smallholdings or allotments; or
  3. (c) that by reason of the purpose for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy to which the notice to quit relates, greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or
  4. (d) that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of the land being used for a use, other than for agriculture, not falling within paragraph (c) of the last foregoing Subsection:
Provided that in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Part of this Act paragraph (c) of this Subsection shall not have effect in relation to the termination of the tenancy unless it is so provided by a written contract of tenancy, specifying the purpose referred to in that paragraph.

Captain Crookshank

On a point of Order Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is about to move the Amendment as it is printed on the Order Paper. Would it be possible for the Question to leave out Subsections (3) and (4) to be put separately? I am not quite sure whether the new Amendment covers all the points we on this side have in mind. We may want some discussion on the leaving out of the Subsections. It would seem to me to be quite feasible, because these are quite different points.

Mr. T. Williams

I do not think it would be possible to have two separate discussions, since Subsection (4) is involved in the Amendment. Indeed, the Amendment involves the deletion of Subsections (3) and (4). Therefore, I suggest that whatever discussion there may be should be on the Amendment as printed on the Order Paper.

Captain Crookshank

I agree with the Minister that we do not want two discussions, but owing to the rather complicated language of his proposed new Subsection, I am not certain that he is covering all the points covered by the present Subsection (4). I want merely to safeguard the position, so that if it turns out that we wish to make representations about the present Subsection (4), we shall be free to do so. We may wish to make representations that that Subsection should remain. It is only in case the Minister's explanation is not satisfactory that we want to safeguard our position.

Mr. T. Williams

I think we could take the Amendment to leave out Subsections (3) and (4), and in that way save any point the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would care to put later.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

The Amendment to leave out Subsections (3) and (4) will be put as a separate question.

Captain Crookshank

That is the point I was making. I do not see any necessity for putting it in the manner in which it is proposed. I should have thought we could have had a discussion on leaving out the Subsections, if necessary.

Mr. T. Williams

I beg to move, in page 30, line. 1, to leave out Subsections (3) and (4).

I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that this Amendment will really cover the point he has in mind; or, at least, I hope it may. This wording alters the provision with regard to hardship, and I think that, to that extent, he will find we have tried to deal with the point. In Committee there was a very comprehensive Debate on Clause 30, and it was felt, with few exceptions, that Subsection (3) was too tightly drawn, so that there would be few opportunities for fresh young blood to enter the industry as farmers, and that there might be cases where the Minister's discretion should be exercised. After practically a whole morning's Debate, I undertook to reexamine this Clause to see whether, while providing for the largest possible measure of security of tenure—certainly a much larger security of tenure than ever before—we could so loosen the Clause as to deal with cases that might arise from time to time. This new Subsection (3) widens, to some extent, the Minister's power to grant consent to notices to quit. At present, Subsection (3) requires the Minister to withhold consent unless he is satisfied that there would be more efficient use of the land for agriculture. The only other case where he could give consent would be under the present Subsection (4), to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred. The present provisions would not give the Minister discretion where it would admittedly cause greater hardship to the landlord to withhold consent than it would to the tenant to grant consent to the notice to quit.

The cases where the Minster will be given discretion are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the proposed new Subsection. Paragraph (a) corresponds broadly to the present Subsection (3) although it is wider. Under the new paragraph (a), the Minister will have discretion to grant consent if he is satisfied that it will be in the interests of efficient farming. It is in wider terms than that of the individual holding in the present Subsection (3). For example, it may be that the landlord wishes to let his land to a young, potentially efficient farmer, but one who has not yet been an actual farmer, although he has had sufficient experience as a skilled worker, perhaps as a skilled agent, perhaps as a skilled manager. Yet, because he cannot prove that he is a skilled farmer, then, under the present Subsection (3) no matter how good he may be, the Minister would not have power to give consent to a notice to quit. Therefore, in such a case there would be no possibility of that individual securing a farm. The present Subsection would allow no discretion. The proposed widening of the Subsection would enable young blood to enter the industry.

Mr. Alpass

I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an extremely important part of the Bill, and I ask my right hon. Friend to amplify this point, and to explain its full effect. He said it would not allow a young farmer with experience and skill to come into farming. Is not that in conflict with the wording of the Bill, where it says: would be likely to result in the more efficient use for agriculture of the land comprised in the holding"?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Williams

That would not be so. Take the case of an old man. I do not wish to cast any reflection on age in using this example when my hon. Friend asks me to amplify what I am saying. Take the case of a person of 73 or 74 years of age; physically he is perhaps well past his best, but it may be that to date he has been reasonably efficient within his area. Then along comes some younger man of, say, 40 years of age, who started to work on the land when he was 14, and will obviously make a successful farmer. The landowner may want to make a change; he knows the old boy is well past his best, and he gives him notice to quit because he is satisfied that the new tenant, the man of 40, with his practical experience of farming, will farm the land better, although at that moment it could not be definitely proved that he was a more efficient person than the farmer of 73 or 74. I have put up a hypothetical case, and I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have no particular person or persons in mind. I am simply giving him an example.

Mr. Alpass

The Minister would first have to be satisfied that the change of tenancy would be likely to result in the more efficient use for agriculture of the land.

Mr. Williams

Yes.

Mr. Alpass

That would apply in the case he has just mentioned. If he was not satisfied that the young man, with all this experience and knowledge, would not make a better farmer than the old man, there is no reason for disturbing the old man.

Mr. Williams

That is, of course, a matter of opinion. Under the terms of the Subsection as it stands I should have no power to give consent, because I could not prove that the person referred to, who so far perhaps had never been a farmer, would be a more efficient farmer than the other.

Mr. Alpass

Or would be more likely to be.

Mr. Williams

That is to say would make more efficient use of the land than the other person. That is the sort of example one must bear in mind. Another type of case in which the Minister could give consent under the new paragraph (a) is where a farmer was reasonably efficient on his own farm but was perhaps negligent and careless in other ways, and might even cause inefficiency on adjoining farms: for instance, if he failed to keep his stock under control, and allowed his stock to stray among neighbouring stock, and may even have helped to scatter disease, despite the fact that on his own particular area of land he was a reasonably efficient type of person. If such a person did exist he could become a menace to neighbouring farms, and in that case would hate an injurious effect on farming as a whole. Under this Amendment the Minister would have some discretion. It should be emphasised that the governing factor in all these cases will be efficient farming.

Paragraph (b) deals with agricultural research, education and experiment on smallholdings. Under Subsection (3) it would be difficult to prove that the land would be more efficiently used, at least for a time. This paragraph also enables a smallholding authority to give notice to quit to an existing smallholder who has taken on a great deal of land other than his smallholding, and has turned himself into a large farmer, thus depriving another would-be smallholder of his chance.

Paragraph (c) deals with cases of hardship—and here I come to the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—where before creating a tenancy the landlord had some particular object in mind, and later on gave notice to quit in order to carry out that purpose. Under paragraph (c) the Minister may give or withhold consent on the basis of hardship. The governing factor here will be the landlord's intentions before creating the tenancy. That would cover such cases where the landlord purchased the land with the idea of farming himself, or perhaps of giving it to a member of his family. More than once the case has been quoted—and I think it is a reasonable case—where during the war a farmer purchased an area of land for a son who was in the Services; he did not want to farm it himself, but anticipated that when the boy returned—perhaps with practical knowledge of farming—he would be able to take over the farm there and then. In that case he would let the farm until his son returned, and when he wants it for his son I do not think it would be unreasonable for the Minister to be permitted to give consent. There is also the case where a farmer-owner becomes ill, and creates a tenancy for perhaps two or three years—and there may be many current cases now—anticipating that should his health be restored he will return ultimately to his farm and will take over the tenancy. These are cases in which the Minister's discretion would be based upon the hardship between landowner and tenant, and genuine hardship would obviously have to be proved.

I should draw attention to the proviso in that connection. Where tenancies are created after Part III comes into operation, paragraph (c) will be of no assistance to the person who is ill and creates a tenancy, and moves off to the Riviera, or anywhere else, to recuperate unless he inserts a provision in the tenancy agreement setting out his intentions. He would have to make sure of the future in his tenancy agreement, since he could not rely on paragraph (c). Paragraph (d) deals with cases where agricultural land is wanted for non-agricultural purposes: for example, private afforestation. If the landowner gives notice to quit in order to use the land for afforestation and the Minister thinks that is a desirable proposition, he would have discretion to grant consent. The effect of the new Subsection is to widen the range of cases in which the Minister can give consent. It has been drafted to cover only those specific types of cases to which I have referred, where we think the Minister should have discretion. It does not necessarily mean that he would give his consent in every case. Obviously, each case would be dealt with on its merits.

I wish to say a few words about the Amendment to my proposed Amendment, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass)— in line 5, after "farming," to insert: of the land comprised in the holding for which notice has been served. He, I know, feels very acutely on the question of security of tenure, as a result of long experience in the countryside His Amendment would restrict the Minister's discretion to an absolute minimum. It would remove any possible discretion to deal with cases of hardship, and the other cases to which reference has been made. I ask the House to remember that the present position is, that where the landlord wishes to give the tenant notice to quit 12 months' compensation is the tenant's only reward, and at the end of 12 months the tenant must go. In the future there will be security of tenure, except in the cases referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the new Subsection. Assuming that the landlord gives notice to quit and the tenant objects to that notice to quit, for the first time the tenant will have access to the Minister, and will be able to appeal to him to refuse his consent in respect of a notice to quit. Assuming that the Minister acts unfairly or unreasonably in the view of the tenant, the tenant will have a further appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. This Subsection will enable the Minister to deal with cases of hardship, and the other types of case to which I have referred. The tenant will have a greater sense of security than he has ever enjoyed before, and I hope, since we are all anxious to see new blood enter the industry and to see the best type of person farming the land, that we shall be willing to give this larger measure of security to tenant farmers, while at the same time preserving sufficient discretion to deal with the types of case to which I have referred.

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid that I am not quite sure what is the position in regard to discussing this Amendment.

Captain Crookshank

I think you are referring, Mr. Speaker, to the point of Order which I put to your predecessor.

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain his point of Order to me.

Captain Crookshank

I do not wish to pursue it now, but it related to the intentions of the Government in regard to this new Subsection. We merely wanted to safeguard our position.

I listened with great attention to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, and it seems, while giving himself greater discretions than was the case under Subsections (3) and (4), he has made it easier to deal with one or two of the problems which worried us considerably when we were considering this Clause at an earlier stage. We have always been anxious that there should be no undue difficulty put in the way of the young man, if you are still young at 40, which is the age mentioned by the Minister. We are anxious that young men should have an opportunity to make their way up and eventually start off on their own. We were afraid that the structure of the Bill was so rigid that it would be very difficult for people, through the years, to make the upward climb, which we consider to be absolutely vital.

The Minister has made the position a little more fluid and a little more easy in the direction in which we were particularly interested. Instead of Subsection (4) he is now proposing to insert paragraph (c). He is dealing rather differently with the case of a person who has bought land with the idea of passing it on to some member of his family. The position is, I think, somewhat better: previously the Minister could not intervene if a case of this kind had occurred before 1947. It was sufficient to satisfy the Minister that a man had bought the land for his son or grandson, that meantime the land was being farmed for him, but that he wanted it back. The Minister has now changed that. The wording of the Subsection is not very clear. As I understand it, there will be no prescriptive right in a case of that kind, but it will be within the Minister's discretion to decide whether it is a greater hardship for a man not to be able to resume farming in order to give the land to his son, than in the case of the tenant.

6.45 p.m.

It will be a difficult discretion to exercise, but at any rate it does not tie it down to any particular year or generation. Generally speaking, the Minister is to decide whether or not the father or the grandfather is to be able to carry out his pre-determined purpose. When we first saw this Subsection we were not clear about its intentions, or whether this was the right way to handle the problem. It has come before us at rather a late stage, but subject to any comments my hon. Friends may wish to make, I think the Minister has made an improvement. It is as well that he should have seen the important point of not tying up these tenancies in such a way that it would be impossible to go forward year by year. It will be a difficult discretion to exercise, and will be the old question of life of the experienced old man and the young man who has to win his spurs. Having heard the Minister, I think he has made an improvement in the Bill by introducing this Amendment.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

The question before the House is to leave out Subsections (3) and (4). I would make the suggestion to the House that we delete the Subsections and then deal with the Amendment to insert the new Subsection (3).

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Mr. T. Williams

I beg to move, in page 30, line 1, to insert: (3) Without prejudice to the discretion of the Minister in a case falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of this Subsection, the Minister shall withhold his consent under this Section to the operation of a notice to quit unless he is satisfied—

  1. (a) that the carrying out of the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of efficient farming; or
  2. (b) that the carrying out thereof is otherwise desirable for the purposes of agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration or for the purposes of the enactments relating to small holdings or allotments; or
  3. (c) that by reason of the purpose for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy to which the notice to quit relates, greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or
  4. (d) that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of the land being used for a use, other than for agriculture, not falling within paragraph (c) of the last foregoing Subsection:
Provided that in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Part of this Act paragraph (c) of this Subsection shall not have effect in relation to the termination of the tenancy unless it is so provided by a written contract of tenancy, specifying the purpose referred to in that paragraph.

Mr. Vane

While welcoming this encouragement to people to set up business on their own instead of buying them out, I feel that paragraph (c) could be made to serve its purpose better if the Minister would take into account the elastic nature of the farming system in this country. As the Minister knows, one of the differences between a country where peasant proprietorship rules and a country where you have owner-occupiers and tenants, is that in the latter case large numbers of tenant farmers invest capital in their farms while in the prime of their life, and then, when they are older, look out for a smaller place to purchase with the idea of their sons carrying on the larger farm. One might have gathered that paragraph (c) covered that contingency. But it can only cover it where the man purchases a farm with vacant possession. In the great majority of cases, farms are put on to the market subject to occupation by the existing tenant.

There will be a large measure of dissatisfaction among tenant farmers when they discover that if they wish to do what their fathers have done, what has been their ambition for a long time, they must find a place with vacant possession. The Minister is putting a still greater premium on any land which reaches the market with vacant possession. Perhaps in another place the Government might consider omitting some of the words in paragraph (c), while still leaving the Minister complete discretion to ensure that no hardship is done either to one party or the other.

Mr. W. Roberts

I am very anxious to see a high degree of security of tenure for the farmer. There are two substantial alterations which the Minister is proposing to make, and which seem to be of rather doubtful value. Paragraph (c) provides that a man who buys a farm for his son will be able to get the permission of the Minister to give the sitting tenant notice to quit if he fulfils certain conditions. I understand that even if a man buys a farm and recognises the tenant of the farm, thereby creating a tenancy with regard to the new ownership, the Minister might give permission for him to take possession of the farm if it is the man's intention that his son should farm it.

Mr. T. Williams

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the proviso to the new Subsection, he will find that it says: Provided that in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Part of this Act paragraph (c) of this Subsection shall not have effect in relation to the termination of the tenancy unless it is so provided by a written contract of tenancy, specifying the purpose referred to in that paragraph. That is why I said that after the commencement of this Act paragraph (c) will be of no value to the person who purchases land in future unless he specifies his intentions in the written contract of tenancy.

Mr. Roberts

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that further explanation, which I had not altogether grasped. The scope of the Minister's discretion is not increased with regard to the date of the purchase of the land.

Mr. T. Williamsindicated assent.

Mr. Roberts

That disposes of the first point I wanted to raise, and I now come to the second. In paragraph (a) there is the phrase, "in the interest of efficient farming." The Minister gave two examples where he considered that the new wording would give him more latitude than the old. One was the case of the up and coming young man who might replace the older man. I take it that the practice of the Minister and his agents, in considering this matter in connection with wartime regulations, has been to compare farms. If the sitting tenant was a bad farmer, and the proposed new tenant was a good farmer, they judged that it was in the interests of efficiency that permission should be given to terminate the old tenancy.

Mrs. Lean Manning (Epping)

The character of the man came into it.

Mr. Roberts

The Minister gave us the example of the young man who had no farm previously. There is something to be said for widening the Clause so that that point can be covered, but I do not think there is very much to be said for the Minister's second example—the farmer whose fences are bad, and who allows his stock to trespass. As we know, this is a very tiresome habit of some farmers, and it reduces the efficiency of farmers in the neighbourhood. But this is a wrong way to deal with that problem. If a farmer is being a nuisance to his neighbour, because his fences are bad, that is a very good reason for dealing with the law of trespass.

Mr. York

It cannot be done.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Roberts

I believe that neighbours in country districts are quite prepared to go to law with each other. Where a man is making a habit of allowing his stock to trespass on another man's land he ought to be stopped. The law ought to have been altered long ago. To give that as an adequate reason why the Minister can give consent to the termination of the tenancy of an otherwise good tenant is opening the door to all kinds of abuses. The Minister will still have to be advised by his local committees as to whether, on the whole, the general efficiency not, apparently, of the farm, but of the neighbourhood, will be increased by a change of tenancy. He will not ask, in each case, whether a man's stock has been straying. The committee which will consider the matter may be influenced—and I suppose this Bill will have to last for another 25 years or so— by the words, "efficient farming." That opens the door to all kinds of extraneous considerations. Let me be quite frank, there are popular and unpopular farmers—there are men who may he unpopular for perfectly good reasons, but that is not a sufficient reason for their being dispossessed of their farms. Unpopular farmers' cattle sometimes stray, and popular farmers' cattle sometimes stray.

I think that the words "efficient farming" are so wide as to be open to all sorts of undesirable possibilities and I regret that the Minister has introduced them. The Minister in considering these cases ought to have regard to the efficient farming of the land in question. As to his first example concerning the young man, he may not be able to appoint that young man on a knowledge of his work on the farm in question, but he may have been the manager of another farm, and the Minister can judge from that farm and say that the young man is likely to make a better farmer than the present man, who is a very indifferent farmer. I do not see why the Minister could not give the farm to an able young man perfectly well—perhaps not under the regulations as they are at present in the Ministry—but under the actual wording of the old Clause. I think that the present proposals open the door to a serious possibility of abuse, perhaps not this year or next year, but eventually.

Mr. Alpass

I beg to move, as am Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, after "farming," to insert: of the land comprised in the holding for which notice has been served. The effect of this Amendment would be to restore the words of the Bill as originally drafted. I feel very strongly indeed on the question of security of tenure, because not only have I seen great injustices done, but I have suffered personally from them. In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, it was stated that it was based upon the twin pillars of stability and security. I submit that the alteration of the wording of this Clause which the Minister has proposed will very seriously weaken the pillar of security. I think that it will undermine its foundations very seriously.

On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister said that Clause 30, which gives greater security of tenure to the farmer, is a most important Clause. In future, when a tenant receives notice to quit, he will have the right of appeal to the Minister except, of course, if he has failed to fulfil the terms of his tenancy agreement, and if the Minister considers a change of tenant would be likely to result in the more efficient use of the land, then the Minister has power to give consent. I suggest that the wording he is now asking the House to accept opens the door in a very dangerous fashion. We had the pleasure of the Minister's presence at a very large meeting in the capital of my county, when he spoke to a gathering of farmers. He was very enthusiastically received, and I suggest that every one of the farmers present went away from that meeting under the impression that the only reason a farmer could be dispossessed of his farm was on account of his inefficient farming.

Mr. Vane

Not a good farmer.

Mr. Alpass

The only reason that a farmer could be dispossessed. I submit that that was the impression he gave. With my colleagues, I have been about the country explaining this Bill, and we have all emphasised that this is a most important part of the Bill, and that so long as a man was doing his duty to the farm, and farming efficiently, he had no need to fear that he would be disturbed. Now some new element is brought in. It is suggested that if a farmer does not keep his fences in good order—and, by the way, that is one of the reasons a landlord can apply to the executive committee for power of dispossession—or for some other reason which may not be directly connected with the actual farming of his own farm, the Minister should have power to sanction the notice to quit. On the question of the young farmer and the old farmer, I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) that the power to say to the old farmer, "You are getting past your prime; this young farmer would farm the land more efficiently, and, therefore, the Minister should be allowed to sanction the notice to quit to the old farmer," is contained in the original draft.

Mr. Vane

I never said that.

Mr. Alpass

I know of several occasions where a man does not get on very well with his neighbours because his politics or his religion do not suit them. I am not putting forward an imaginary case. I have known occasions when a man differed from the rest of the farmers in his district on politics or religion, and they said to the landlord that it would be in the interests of farming in that district if he were to ask the farmer to leave. I do not say that these things are as frequent now as they used to be, but the door has been opened, and I can imagine cases of that sort occurring in the future. If I happened to be the tenant on a big estate—[Interruption]—my opinions are known—I can imagine that it might easily be suggested that in the interests of the efficient farming of the district Mr. Alpass should be asked to leave. I might be as good or a better farmer than anyone else in the district. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can go into my county and find out my character. I suggest that the only reason why a man should be dispossessed of his farm, unless the land is wanted for national or public purposes, should be inefficient farming.

We in the Labour Party have always put this in our agricultural policy and programme. I know that all sorts of things are done at conferences—sometimes Ministers are outvoted—but I have yet to learn that at any conference of the Labour Party this important proposal with regard to absolute security of tenure to the good farmer has been in any sense varied. I am rather afraid that somebody has been whispering in the ear of the Minister on this question and has over-persuaded him. Certainly, it would not be any member of the Labour Party, because he is not in the habit of making concessions to his hon. Friends behind him. I want to suggest quite seriously that no reason has been given for the alteration of the words as they were originally drafted. We do not want to bring in any extraneous matters that have nothing to do with the man's individual farming, and if this is carried with the alteration suggested by the Minister, it will give many of the farmers in the country a feeling of insecurity, whereas under the original words they knew that, as long as they farmed properly, they could plan ahead and nothing would happen to disturb them in their tenancy or prevent them from reaping the fruits of the labour, money and energy which they had put into their farming operations. I shall be very sorry if the House agrees to this alteration, because I feel it is seriously weakening the important policy upon which the Bill is based.

Mr. Paget (Northampton) rose—

Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. and learned Member rise to second the Amendment?

Mr. Paget

No, Sir.

Major Wise

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Paget

I think the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), in moving this Amendment, forgot that the power given to the Minister is a discretionary power. If a landlord came to the Minister and said, "I want to get rid of a farmer because he does not get on with his neighbours, owing to his having a different religion," I think it would be rather unlikely that the Minister would agree.

Mr. Alpass

A Labour Minister.

Mr. Paget

Indeed, any Minister. It is a discretionary power, and it seems to me to be a delusion to say that it departs from the principle that a good farmer ought not to be disturbed in his land. It merely recognises that a man may be a bad farmer, not for what he does to the land which he occupies, but for what he does to his neighbours' land. He can be a very bad farmer for that reason, far more so today than used to be the case, now that it is recognised how important it is to try to get cleaner herds in this country. Farmers who are going in for attested cattle and who are trying to get their herds clean, and to produce the best quality of milk, may find their very desirable efforts frustrated by a neighbour who will neither keep a clean herd nor keep his cattle in, and there must be power to deal with that sort of case.

Mr. Alpass

That was really provided for in the Bill as it was, because it said that one of the conditions of good farming was proper management of stock

Mr. Paget

If this Amendment were inserted and power confined to the land comprised in the holding for which notice has been served. a man could not be turned out of his farm because he continually allowed his cattle to stray. That was precisely the example given by the Minister. A man may do tremendous harm to a whole neighbourhood if he lets a tubercular herd stray into, and mix with, other cattle which are attested and kept clean. That is the great mischief which can be done in those circumstances, and if we are trying to build up an attested and clean status on which the herds can be kept, it is essential that this power should be available.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In page 30, line 33, leave out "(3) and (4)," and insert "to (3)."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Marquand

I beg to move, in page 31, line 36, at the end, to insert: except in the case of a tenancy subsisting under a contract entered into before the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-seven. Subsection (10) of Clause 30 deletes paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection (2) of Section 25 of the 1923 Act, which provided that 12 months notice to quit need not be given in the case of land owned by Government Departments, local authorities and statutory undertakers where that land is wanted for a purpose, not being an agricultural purpose for which it had been purchased by the Government Department, local authority, or statutory undertaker concerned. This provision will not create any hardships for the future since paragraph (c) of Section 25 of the 1923 Act will still remain. This provides that any landlord can make an agreement with his tenant to resume possession for some particular non-agricultural purpose at less than 12 months notice if he so desires. It will, therefore, be possible for Government Departments, local authorities and statutory undertakers to take advantage of paragraph (c) and make agreements to resume possession earlier than 12 months. It was pointed out, however, that this does not cover existing agreements, which rely on paragraphs (a) and (b) which are to be deleted, and Government Departments and so on might be placed in a difficult position if they were unable to resume possession under 12 months. The Amendment is accordingly proposed simply to safeguard the existing agreements made, which relied on the paragraphs which are now to be deleted.

Mr. Vane

Is not this a very backward Amendment? Surely public authorities should set an example to private owners. We have been talking of security of tenure, and now we have a Minister on the Front Bench opposite, without any reason, suggesting that a quite considerable part of the agricultural land of this country should be held on terms by which the owner, local authority or Government Department, can terminate the occupier's tenancy under conditions which the have just been told are intolerable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 31, line 37, leave out from first "to," to the end of the subsection, and insert: any such notice as is specified in Subsection (8) of the last foregoing Section."—[Mr. T. Williams.]