§ 18. Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to take action in cases where there is a legitimate complaint about the decision of a 645 county agricultural executive committee to grant or refuse a certificate under paragraph (g) of the First Schedule of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933.
§ Sir T. DugdaleThe only subject a C.A.E.C. is authorisd to consider under the paragraph referred to is whether the worker for whom the landlord requires the dwellinghouse is or is to be employed on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural holding or maintenance of an estate. As I told the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 15th May, the committee, when considering the issue of a certificate, have no power to take into account possible hardship to the sitting tenant or the fact that a cottage is situated some distance from the farm; and I have no power to require the committee to alter or withdraw their certificate. It is for the county court to consider all matters bearing on the reasonableness of granting an order for possession.
§ Mr. HiggsIs not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, once the certificate has been issued, the county court has very little option in the matter, and that there may be cases where the ground of complaint is the procedure which was adopted by the committee at the hearing? Is it not desirable that somebody should look into cases where it is suggested that the procedure at the committee's hearing was unsatisfactory?
§ Sir T. DugdaleI cannot accept all the implications of the question put to me by my hon. Friend, but I am looking into the whole position.
§ Mr. JannerWould the right hon. and gallant Gentleman reconsider this, particularly in view of the question which I put to him a few moments ago? Does he not realise that it is essential to have a right of appeal against the decision of the county agricultural executive committee—he will admit that, no doubt? In those circumstances, does he realise that at present the county court has no power at all, except on a legal point, to reverse the decision, and will he do something about this extremely serious matter?
§ Sir T. DugdaleNo, Sir. I think the House is getting into difficulties here. If the hon. Member will refer to my answer, he will see that the first part of the business is the duty of the county agricultural executive committee. When that committee has decided whether a certificate is to 646 be granted or not, the question whether or not possession is to be granted is a matter for the county court.
§ Mr. JannerNo.
§ Sir Waldron SmithersIn general, where there is complaint about the decision of the county agricultural executive committee, will my right hon. and gallant Friend allow, or take steps to allow, that complaint to go to an independent court of common law?
§ Sir T. DugdaleThat is a different question altogether from the one on the Order Paper, which does not deal with that particular aspect.
§ Mr. G. JegerIs the Minister not aware that whenever a case is brought before the court and a certificate is produced in support of the application, the court invariably takes it as a formal matter, and, because a certificate is produced, grants possession right away?
§ Sir T. DugdaleNo, Sir; I would not accept that.
§ 19. Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Agriculture what guidance or directions have been given to county agricultural executive committees as to the procedure to be followed by them when considering applications for certificates under paragraph (g) of the First Schedule of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933.
§ Sir T. DugdaleThe instructions that have been sent to C.A.E.Cs. provide for a preliminary hearing of both parties to the application either by special panels or by the labour sub-committee of the C.A.E.Cs. I am sending a copy of the instructions to my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. HiggsIn view of the answer to the last Question, does it not appear that, when the procedure to which my right hon. and gallant Friend has referred is not properly carried out, there should be means of going into the matter again? Will he be kind enough to look into the case of Mr. Mason, of Romsley, of which I have sent particulars to him, and in which it is suggested that the parties are not heard together, so that neither party has the opportunity of hearing what the other was saying?
§ Sir T. DugdaleYes, Sir. I am inquiring into the particular case about which my hon. Friend wrote to me, and will reply to him later.