§ Major Mott-RadclyffeI beg to move, in page 89, line 21, after "not", to insert "without the consent of the Minister."
This Amendment seeks to allow the Minister to give leave to a landowner, in certain cases, to apply for a certificate of bad husbandry in spite of the fact that a previous order is already in force. This would get over the rather curious position which, as the Schedule is drafted, although the supervision order is in force, the landowner is precluded from any opportunity from exercising his rights and applying for a certificate. We think this is very unfair.
§ Mr. MarquandThe reason this Schedule is drawn as it is is simply that if an owner were allowed to make such an application the Minister would be obliged to grant a certificate. The very fact that a tenant is under supervision shows that he is a bad farmer who cannot be farming in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. There seems to be no point, therefore, in the proposal put forward, since it is not at all clear in what circumstances the Minister could or could not give consent. The issue of a certificate would simply be automatic. I should like to remind hon. Members that the fact that the tenant is under supervision, and that the landowner is, therefore, precluded from asking for a certificate of bad husbandry, does not in any way prejudice the position of the landowner. He will have available to him the supervision and dispossession machinery instead of a certificate of bad husbandry. If the tenant is under supervision, and the landlord considers he is not making satisfactory improvement, he is entitled to go to the committee, after a period of 12 months' supervision, and request that the tenant be dispossessed. I explained this 'previously, and won the admiration of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) for my eloquence, if nothing else. A landlord, if his request is refused, will be allowed to appeal to the tribunal, and if either the Minister or the tribunal grants the landlord's request and dispossesses the tenant, he will leave in three months without compensation. There is no essential differ- 556 ence between that machinery and the bad husbandry machinery. The effects are the same, and the landlord's position is no more affected by the one than by the other.
§ Amendment negatived.