AGRICULTURAL LAND, TAMWORTH (LOSS) (Hansard, 19 February 1953)

§ Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)
This case appears to fall within the province of two Ministries. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has determined that responsibility lies chiefly within his Department, but the Minister of Agriculture has informed me that he is prepared to listen to this debate and take note of such matters as affect his Ministry.
This case is at best an example of lack of imagination by some official and at worst of misjudgment on the part of an official of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I do not want to attack officials because they cannot answer back, but at the same time I have a responsibility to a farmer constituent of mine—Mr. P. H. Mercer, of Harlaston, who drew my attention to this matter some time ago and whose complaint appears to me to be quite justified.
Mr. Mercer is a very well-informed and important farmer in this part of Staffordshire. I should mention that he was for a long time a member of the war agricultural executive committee. He has served on several land tribunals; he is the proprietor of the Coppenshill attested herd of dairy Shorthorns and of the Harlaston herd of Large White pigs. This matter is worthy of putting on record from an agricultural point of view. He is also a rural district councillor of 20 years' standing.
1581 Back in 1940 this farmer, who was at that time farming 700 acres, found there were certain lands in the vicinity of Tamworth which were not being cultivated. He drew this matter to the attention of the agricultural executive committee, and in due course, and at the request of the owners of the land—Burbury Estates Limited, a firm of speculative builders in Birmingham—he took over the cultivation of three fields. For the purposes of this debate only fields 237 and 244 are concerned. I understand that these owners had previously been fined £25 for non-cultivation of the land. Mr. Mercer took it over and the responsibility for its cultivation was vested in him by the owners in a letter which I have shown the Minister of Agriculture, and which appears to me to demonstrate that there was a tenancy.
The Minister of Agriculture, however, has expressed the opinion in a letter to me that there are serious doubts whether or not a tenancy existed. I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and should he be fortunate at a later moment to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he will give his opinion on this question of tenancy, which is very relevant in this case.
In 1940 these fields came under the responsibility of Mr. Mercer. In 1951 the Ministry of Agriculture were asked by the local planning authority for an opinion whether these fields or part of them should be handed over for building development. After a second application by the local planning authority—the first reply having been adverse—the Land Commissioner agreed that, bearing in mind the sort of land it was, field 237 and the frontage of field 244 should be handed over to the owners, Burbury Estates Limited, for building. That was in May, 1951.
Fourteen months later, in the second week of July, 1952, Mr. Mercer, paying a visit to these fields, which were some distance from his own farm, found mechanical equipment on the site of field 237 shovelling up earth, although there was a standing crop within two weeks of being cut. Not unnaturally, he was incensed. He drew my attention to the matter and the correspondence with the Ministry of Agriculture ensued.
1582 I contend that, whatever may be the strict powers of the Land Commissioner or the local planning authority, it is only a matter of common sense that in May, 1951, the decision to allow that land to be used for building should in some way have been notified to the occupier, Mr. Mercer; but in fact it was not. He spent money on cultivating the land, money on seed, money on labour and depreciation of his mechanical equipment. There was, too, a loss of production, a fact which I will not emphasise, because, although it was serious enough, it was not as bad as it might have been.
It is a very curious thing that none of the three parties concerned appear to have thought it necessary to keep the farmer informed. The owners, state the Ministry of Agriculture, did not consider that they were under any responsibility to inform the occupier, the farmer, as to their intentions to enter or as to their subsequent action. The Land Commissioner apparently did not think it necessary to inform the farmer, whose loss would obviously be serious. The local planning authority said it was the responsibility of the owners of the land.
The last point is valid only if no tenancy existed, but, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering will attempt to demonstrate that a tenancy did exist. I contend that when such an opinion is sought by the local planning authority of the Land Commissioner, and the Land Commissioner says, "Very well, this land must go for building," then he should tell the farmer not only what has been happening but, if necessary, what are the rights of the farmer under existing legislation. If I detect aright the feelings of the Parliamentary Secretary, he will say, "What has all this to do with me?"

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Snow
I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Marples
What I was thinking was, how can he find the farmer? If he informs the owner, how can he find the occupier if the owner does not tell him who the occupier is?

§ Mr. Snow
I assume that the Land Commissioner has a responsibility for agricultural production. If he knows that a certain parcel of land is going out of agricultural production, he has a responsibility either to resist it or, if his resistance fails with the local planning authority, to bring to the attention of the farmer his rights of appeal. I do not think farmers always know—why should they?—what are their legal rights in such a situation.
My attention was drawn by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering to the rights of farmers under Sections 23 and 25 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, which refer to notices to quit and the 12 months' requirement to the right of a tenant to make representations to the Minister, to the duty of the Minister—if he gives consent to this land being transferred—to give notice to the tenant and to the right of appeal of the occupier.
Be that as it may, what happened was this. In 1953, as we are here discussing the matter—nine months or so after the builder went on to the land and destroyed part of the wheat crop—no building has been started. So it is not only this last nine months—but since May, 1951, that this land has been, as it were, transferred behind the farmer's back, that money has been lost and agricultural production has been lost.
My constituent takes the view that whatever may be his personal loss in the matter, the nation cannot afford to go on allowing this sort of thing to happen, because there are other such parcels of land awaiting development, not being developed, which could carry crops; and that when in the national interest he took over such a responsibility on land a long way away from his own farm he should have been protected by one official or another.
My raising of this matter on the Adjournment is on the assumption that this is not an exceptional case. If it is an exceptional case then, perhaps, the personal loss of this farmer will be considered by the two Ministers concerned, but I do remember that on 24th June last year the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) raised a similar case in this House, and was answered by a written answer by the Minister of Agriculture. The case affected an estate in Kent. I 1584 should like to think that officials, be they of the Ministry of Agriculture or of the local planning authorities, do realise that farmers are not always lawyers, that they do not always know their rights, and that they should in this sort of case be protected.

§ Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)
I would not presume, of course, to offer to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, let alone to the Minister of Agriculture, an opinion on the matter of law that would in any way bind them, but I would suggest to them that there cannot be really very much doubt that the farmer was a tenant. I understand that they have already seen a letter in this case from the firm that has been described as one of speculative builders, who wrote to the farmer in September, 1940—that is quite a long time ago—understanding that he was prepared to take the ground in question and to comply forthwith with the county war agricultural executive committee's requirements as to ploughing up of the land. The letter then goes on to say: I suggest that you pay a nominal rent of Is. per year for the land, and if you will kindly let me hear from you as soon as possible confirming your agreement I will have a tenancy agreement submitted to you by our solicitors, so that there is no delay. I believe there was no tenancy agreement, but that it was on the faith of that letter that the farmer went on to the land, as I understand. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider whether I am not right in saying that a simple permission to occupy creates a tenancy, that is, a tenancy at will, unless there is a stipulation for a yearly or a half yearly or a quarterly rent, that in this case there was a stipulation for a yearly rent, and that there can be no doubt whatever in these circumstances that the farmer was a tenant, a tenant from year to year, and, as such, entitled to the protection of the Agricultural Holdings Act by way of 12 months' notice to quit, by way of the opportunity of giving counter notice, and of the machinery for appeal which is provided by that Act.
I cannot help feeling that when action was taken, or not taken, or refused to be taken—I do not know enough of the circumstances—in the first instance, who- 1585 ever was considering the matter at that time must have been misinformed or, at least, ignorant of the existence of the circumstances in which the farmer entered.
If I may add one further submission, with great respect, on this matter, of which I have only the most superficial knowledge as to the facts, I would say that it seems to me that the fact that land is being agriculturally occupied might be obvious to anyone, even to a comparative town dweller like myself. In those circumstances, there is a probability that there is a tenancy somewhere, and it behoves those concerned, having regard to the Agricultural Holdings Act, to make rather careful inquiries as to what has happened, and certainly not to act in such a way as to deprive the farmer of any remedies to which he may be entitled under the 1948 Act.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)
I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) for raising this issue. Before I come to his main point, I should like to deal with the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
He said that the particular tenant in question had this agricultural ground for Is. a year, and that a letter had been sent to the tenant saying that in due course. if he agreed to the terms, a tenancy agreement would be submitted, if the tenant would let the owner of the land know. The hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to give his legal opinion as to whether there was a tenancy or not. Frankly, as a humble Parliamentary Secretary, it is not for me to give a legal interpretation as to whether there is a tenancy or not. I am grateful for that for many reasons. The first and most important, perhaps, is that I have not the legal knowledge, and, secondly, I should hate to have to decide in this particular case because a lot of human interest is involved.
If there is a tenancy agreement, it is up to the courts to decide it, and the tenant can go to court, and say, "Have I an agreement or not?" If he has an agreement, then he can insist on his rights 1586 under that agreement being observed. I think that the hon. and learned Gentle. man will agree that that is the proper course for the tenant to take.

§ Mr. Mitchison
Let me say, so that there shall be no misunderstanding afterwards, that I did not suggest that there had ever been a tenancy agreement in the sense of a written agreement. I understand that there was not. All I say is that he was a tenant and that, as I understand it, is sufficient to entitle him to the protection of the Agricultural Holdings Act. Of course, that is more useful to him than a law suit.

§ Mr. Marples
It is not a question of a lawsuit, it is a question of what his rights are in law. If he really was a tenant in this particular case, he is entitled to the full protection of the law, and I hope that he will go to law to get it.
Having dealt with that, I want to answer the point put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth. I think that the House must be grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has spent a great deal of time on this matter. He saw me and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture yesterday. He has spared no effort and no time and has been very diligent in his inquiries on behalf of his constituent. I should like to put that on record. He was very modest in his tone, he put this matter factually, he was really constructive and he avoided recriminations.
I am glad that he referred to the Minister of Agriculture, who is sitting beside me, and who is here to listen to this particular debate. First, can we agree on the facts? So far as I can see, the owner of the land did two things. I have gone into this matter very carefully and spent a long time today on it. First, he applied for planning permission to develop the actual land in question. The second thing he did was to allow Mr. Mercer the use of the land, and Mr. Mercer, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, was a well-informed and important farmer.

§ Mr. Snow
He did not "allow" him to use it; he asked him to use it.

§ Mr. Marples
After asking him, he allowed him to use it when he agreed to Mr. Mercer using the land with the agree- 1587 ment of the owner. I will deal with these two points first. The first point is that the owner of the land applied for planning permission.
In the spring of 1951 the owner of the land applied for planning permission to build houses privately on the two fields referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Houses had previously been built on adjoining land, and the use of that land was agreed by the local planning authority in the light of general pressure to fill up such gaps wherever appropriate before—this is most important from the point of view of the mind of the general public—better farmland was absorbed. The Minister of Agriculture did not give a specific agricultural clearance; that was not thought necessary because the land was in the middle of a large number of houses. Consequently, his permission was not sought, it being thought unnecessary to do so.
The second thing is that the owner allowed, or agreed to, or gave Mr. Mercer the right to use the land. The advice I have on that—I hesitate to cross swords with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering—is that Mr. Mercer was at best a tenant at will and possibly a trespasser. I only say that because that is what I am advised. If Mr. Mercer wishes to challenge that he must go to the courts, where he will get a dispassionate judgment on what his position is.

§ Mr. Mitchison
Will the hon. Gentleman consider the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act apart from anything else? There he will find something rather to the point in this matter. If this was an agricultural holding, I think it must be from year to year.

§ Mr. Marples
The point I am making is that this is not for the Parliamentary Secretary to consider; it is for the courts to consider. I must not take over the duties of the courts. We have enough difficulties in our Department, in all conscience, without taking on any additional duties.
Having done that, the owner applied for planning permission and then allowed Mr. Mercer to use the land. What results flowed from that? He was given permission to develop, and in June, 1952, an excavator came on the land and some of the wheat was removed by it.

§ Mr. Snow
It was not June. I have checked this up. It was the second week of July, within two weeks of the estimated date of cutting the crop.

§ Mr. Marples
My Department would be extremely sorry were the country to lose any food whatsoever. There, the hon. Gentleman is on an extremely good point.
As regards any land in the control of the Government or a local authority, instructions have been issued that no development shall take place unless due regard is paid by the developer to the crops which are on the ground. In this case the land was owned by a private person and let to a private person, Mr. Mercer, and the Government has no authority to tell the owner of the land or the occupier what they shall do. In other words, whatever the Government may say or do, they cannot say to the owner of the land that he shall not do this or that, but in the case of local authority or Government land the Government can do something about it.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth asked why Mr. Mercer was not notified when the planning permission was granted to the owner. That was one of his major points. There is no obligation on the local planning authority to notify an occupier or anyone else with an interests in a piece of land when permission to develop the land is given. That may seem to the hon. Gentleman and to the ordinary public a rather unreasonable matter, but it is not so unreasonable when we know the reason why. To place a requirement on the local planning authority to notify all interests would impose upon them a heavy and often impossible administrative burden. They would have to trace all the people with an interest.
Suppose the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth had a field and let it to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering. Unless the transfer was registered, how could the Government conceivably find out that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering was tilling the land? It would be impossible, administratively, unless there was compulsory registration. In the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, introduced by the late Government, which had an enormous number of Clauses, it was not. 1589 laid down there that the occupier of the land should know; the owner of the land, yes, but not necessarily the occupier.

§ Mr. Snow
Surely the county agricultural executive committee would be free to offer an opinion on the matter? National production is concerned.

§ Mr. Marples
It may be so, but the hon. Member himself said that Mr. Mercer was a well-informed and important farmer and a member of many committees. If he did not know, how should anyone else know?

§ Mr. Snow
He asked the agricultural executive committee, who were unable, so I am informed, to give a clear answer on the rights of the matter.

§ Mr. Marples
The hon. Member began by saying that Mr. Mercer was a well informed person and was on a number of committees. He now says that Mr. Mercer did not know of certain circumstances. If a very well informed farmer did not know, how could other people or a Government Department know?

§ Mr. Snow
I do not think it is in dispute that Mr. Mercer is extremely well informed on farming matters, but neither a farmer nor an ordinary Member of Parliament like the Parliamentary Secretary or myself can know all the legal complications of these matters.

§ Mr. Marples
That may be. But Mr. Mercer made a voluntary arrangement with the owner of the land. He was not asked to make it, but he made it freely. He could have said to his landlord, "Will you let me know whenever anything happens?" and if his tenancy agreement so provided, he would know what the owner was going to do. In other words, if he entered voluntarily into an agreement with his landlord—that is what Mr. Mercer did; he accepted a certain amount of land—it was for him to arrange privately with his landlord that notice should be given.
My third point is that notification is not necessary, because except in exceptional cases the grant of planning permission does not prejudice other interests in the land. The planning permission is of no avail unless it is accompanied by the right to develop the land, and no owner need dispose of that right to another person unless he wants to do so.
1590 My next point is that rarely do difficulties arise where the existing owner of the land gets permission to develop—Normally, an occupier is protected by the terms of his tenancy or other agreement—I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will take this point—but where there is no tenancy or other agreement the occupier may be exposed to the risk of arbitrary action by the owner. This, however, is a question of relationship between the owner and the occupier and is not the concern of the planning authority, whose responsibility is with the use of the land and not with the interests of individuals in the land.
I also say to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth that one is very sympathetic to third party interests, but that if a Government, even in a Welfare State, such as we have today, say that they are going to look after the interests of every party to a voluntary agreement, they will be up to their eyes in trouble.

§ Mr. Snow
What if the third party is the nation?

§ Mr. Marples
It is not the nation in this case.

§ Mr. Snow
Certainly it is.

§ Mr. Marples
No. The main point is that if Mr. Mercer was developing the land, his interest in it is covered by his agreement between himself and the man from whom he obtained the land. As far as the Government are concerned, any person can apply for permission to develop, which will be given if the land is suitable for development. But the interests of individuals in the land depend upon the agreement between the individuals concerned. In this case, Mr. Mercer would have been well advised to have come to a more precise and meticulous agreement with the owner of the land before he started developing it.
No one regrets more than I do the loss of food, if any has occurred, to the country. It is one of those things which the average man in the street cannot understand, and I cannot understand it either. Had one known of this incident at the time when it happened, one would have made inquiries immediately. I am only sorry that Mr. Mercer did not call attention to it at the moment it happened, because had the hon. Gentleman 1591 brought it to the attention of my right hon. Friend or myself, we would have moved at once to try to see that no unreasonable action was taken in destroying the wheat.
It is not a question of the Government interfering; it is a question of the relationship between the owner of the land and the occupier of the land. While one is sympathetic to third parties, I do not think that the Government can take unto themselves the obligation of informing every person who may or may not be interested what is going to happen to a particular piece of land.

§ Mr. Snow
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, having listened to this discussion, will examine the record very carefully indeed, because I am not at all satisfied with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has said.