HC Deb 27 May 1957 vol 571 cc68-79
Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 13, line 20, to leave out from "securing" to "the" in line 21 and insert: the formation of economic units of agricultural land". This Amendment is put forward as a result of various suggestions put to us on Second Reading and in Committee, when it was felt that there should be greater clarity about the introductory words of this Clause. The Amendment does not seek to make any dramatic change, but we think it puts the position rather more clearly in that it relates the economic unit primarily to the occupier rather than to the owner. That, briefly, is the purpose. The Amendment makes no radical change of any sort, but we think that it would simply put into effect what we want to achieve. It is little more than a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dye

I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, to leave out "agricultural land" and insert "small holding".

In this Clause the Government are taking powers to do something with regard to agriculture which no Government have done before. They are seeking to give a subsidy to assist a person in buying a parcel of agricultural land and paying the fees in connection therewith. This is a new departure and, although there may be some reason for it in respect of a small owner or a comparatively poor person getting assistance, I cannot see any justification for giving this kind of public assistance to a large farmer or land owner so that he may buy and add to his holding a small parcel of land on the borders of his farm.

The purpose of this Clause is twofold. it is to enable the amalgamation of uneconomic holdings and to enable absorption of uneconomic holdings. I take "absorption" to mean the owner of a bigger holding acquiring a smaller one. I certainly do not take it to mean the acquiring of a bigger holding by a small holder. That we can hardly expect. If right the hon. Gentleman's purpose in this Clause were purely to enable two, or maybe more, small uneconomic units to be brought together under the same occupation—there might be difficulties in the way and the costs might be great— I would not oppose that and would leave the wording as it is, but this Clause seems to leave open the proposition that anyone applying for a grant in this respect can do so in relation to any kind of small uneconomic unit.

5.15 p.m.

After stimulation from me, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a speech in support of this Amendment earlier when he said that it was not the intention of the Government to enable land ownersh.p—landlordism—to be extended at the expense of small occupying owners. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was right in his contention, that the purpose of the Bill and this Clause was not to enable the return of the big estates. I am glad of that. If the hon. Gentleman re-reads that speech he will see that it fits in quite well with support of this Amendment because I am trying to limit the purposes of this Clause to a narrow purpose.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

Would the Amendment restrict it to the rather technical meaning of "small holder," which that term sometimes has? If so, would the hon. Member require it to be limited in that way?

Mr. Dye

I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring. The word "small holding" is used in the agricultural small holdings legislation. It also applies to a holding owned and occupied by a person who has a comparatively small acreage, and in that sense I have used it here. I have used it as an alternative to the Government's term of "unit". I think "small unit" is not a suitable phrase in connection with this Bill and I use the term "small holding" in that broader sense.

I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment and say that the purpose of this Clause is a simple and straightforward one, to enable the amalgamation of small uneconomic units and to give grants in connection with legal expenses and other incidentals therewith. I think that would be straightforward and quite understood.

As the Clause is drawn, it is possible for a big land owner or a big farmer to apply for a grant to buy out one of his very small neighbours. I want to limit that provision, and I think that the Minister is very much in agreement with what I say. I have here a report from a local newspaper of a speech which he made in Norwich on Saturday. The headline is "Government aim to help small farmer". The impression which that gives is that the Government are prepared to help only the small farmer—and that is the impression which the Minister wanted to give to those he was addressing.

I want to limit this provision of the Bill to the small farmer, because I do not think it right that a rich farmer should go to the Government for a grant to take over a small holding on his border. The report reads: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr, D Heathcoat Amory) emphasised in a speech at Norwich on Saturday that the Government had no wish to stamp out the small farmer. 'We have a good proportion of such men, and we want them for a number of reasons', he said. 'It is not true that all small farms are uneconomic. On the contrary, many of their occupiers are among the most efficient producers in the country'. It might well be, however, that in the future pattern of British farming there would be fewer small units than there were today. The Minister went on to say that so far as it legitimately could, the Government had tried to design the farm improvements grants scheme to help the smaller man, although it should be borne in mind that the object of the grant was to secure more efficient production.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dye

Apparently I am getting the support of hon. Members opposite for my Amendment, which would restrict this assistance to the small man.

If we were to give assistance to a rich than in the purchase of land we should have some difficulty in explaining that to the people. The grant towards the purchase of land should not be made available to any rich people and not to the type of farmer whom I mentioned in Committee—the hobby farmer, whose money is made elsewhere but who owns estates in the country largely for the leisure and pleasure he gets out of them. Nor should the grant be given to thriving people, whether they are in business in a very large way or in a moderate way. I want to limit the grant to the amalgamation of small uneconomic units.

Mr. Watkins

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Godber

I am sure that both my right hon. Friend and the House are grateful for being reminded of some words which my right hon.. Friend used at Norwich on Saturday. It has given us great pleasure to hear them again. I am sure that the people of Norwich were very glad to hear them.

Mr. Dye

The people who heard him were not Norwich people.

Mr. Godber

The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) has prayed those words in aid of his own Amendment but he has applied his own interpretation to them.

I should like to deal with the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and the rest of his speech on their merits. He has said that he is mostly concerned to see that the benefits of this Clause are not given to what he described as the rich land owner. That is where we look at matters from a different angle, because we are looking at them from the point of view of the land rather than the owner. If we try to look at the Bill in terms of the owner, whether it be by way of a means test at one end or a rich owner at the other end, we get into considerable difficulties. We are concerned with the long-term benefit to the agricultural land of this country. I think that the hon. Member is, too, but he cannot get it if he looks at the problem in the terms of his Amendment.

Because we look at the problem from the point of view of benefiting the land, we do not think it would be right to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. It might well introduce all sorts of restrictions on amalgamations which are right and proper from the point of view of sound, economic farming. We accept that it would be wrong for large numbers of these small farmers to be bought up but where uneconomic holdings exist, perhaps on the edge of larger holdings, we feel that it might be justifiable for them to be completely absorbed. On the other hand we should prefer to see two uneconomic holdings put together to form one reasonably-sized unit.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

I understand that the Clause excludes crofts. If the hon. Member is looking at the problem from the point of view of the land, why should it be assumed that there will not be occasions when two crofts should be amalgamated?

Mr. Godber

I believe that there is legislation applying specifically to crofts. That is the reason why they have not been included in the Bill. I cannot claim to be an expert on the problem of crofts, but I know that there are special problems relating to them and I think that they are covered by separate legislation. That is why they have not been inclued in the terms of the Bill.

It is right to remind the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West that in any case these agreements and amalgamations must be voluntary. They cannot be brought about compulsorily. A tenant still has all the right of protection against eviction or dispossession. An owner is not bound in any way to accept any offer by a large landowner. The amalgamation is voluntary. The hon. Member is looking at the matter as though it were compulsory, but it is not. His right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in Committee, was clear about that, because he felt that it might be difficult to make the progress we wish because these amalgamations are voluntary. We have to seek to encourage people, where possible, to make use of the provision, in areas where we think it is right that amalgamations should take place, but we have no compulsory power over them. That is the safeguard for the people whom he has in mind.

In any case, we do not think it would be practicable to agree to accept the Amendment because it would limit what we could do. Lord St. Aldwyn's Committee will naturally view very carefully the whole basis on which these amalgamation grants should be made. It will no doubt set out a rough code of procedure and will take note of the desire which the hon. Member has declared, and which I imagine is fairly generally shared, that in general it shall not be the case that small farms shall be sucked into very large units. That Committee will wish, I feel sure, rather to see two or more of these units brought together to make one effective unit, where that is desirable. But in any case, I do not think it would be right to limit its discretion in this matter. For that reason, I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dye

I beg to move, in page 13, line 40, after "approved", to insert: provided that the occupants of the land have been notified of the application". The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that the tenant of a so-called uneconomic holding which somebody else is trying to buy should himself be informed of any such move. It is only right that the tenant should be informed if there is likely to be a change of land ownership for which the Government are giving a grant. Merely to change the ownership of the land could, of itself, perhaps do no good. It might only prove to be an exchange of one landlord for another—possibly of a good one for a worse. The purpose of an intending purchaser might be to get possession of the land, and he could get a grant towards buying out the tenant right. The tenant should be informed first of any such possibility, because he might, in those circumstances, be himself inclined to buy.

Generally speaking, I do not think that it is right for anybody to try to buy land behind the back of the existing occupier. I have had drawn to my attention quite recently that that has happened in respect of land owned by the Land Commission, though it was generally understood that the Land Commission, when selling its land, would make a first offer to any sitting tenant. In one case, a neighbouring owner approached the Land Commission with a view to buying some of its land without the knowledge of the tenant.

It would be indefensible if the Government were, or were likely, to dispose of land without the knowledge of the existing occupant to some other person or company, but such a thing could happen. It seems to me that the general principle should be that if grants are given towards the purchase of land the existing occupant should be fully informed before any such transaction takes place.

Mr. Watkins

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully, as it is rather important. The Minister himself has laid down in the Bill that proposed transactions must have his approval, and that such particulars as he may require must be provided. That being so, surely in the event of an amalgamation the occupants of these holdings should get notification. There is nothing more disturbing than to get one's first information by listening to farmers' wives in the market place on market day. The Forestry Commission used to be particularly bad in this respect. At one time tenants did not know that their holding had been taken over. I therefore think that this Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Godber

I am not surprised to hear that the first news that people get is often what their wives hear in the market place on market day. I believe that that is the most fertile source of information known to the agricultural industry.

I understand the fears and the views expressed by both the hon. Members, but this matter is rather comparable to that raised in relation to Clause 12, where, although we do not agree that we can write it into the Bill, we have given an undertaking that as a matter of administration, owners and tenants will be notified of any arrangements that may concern them. We think that this might well be a comparable case where notification should be given, but we do not think that it would be wise to attempt to write that provision into the Bill.

The reasons here against writing the provision into the Bill are more cogent even than those given in Committee in respect of Clause 12 by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—because the subject matter here is more involved. I think that the arguments are even more valid here, but I can give an undertaking that we shall, in all cases, notify owners and tenants administratively wherever this arises. I think that that undertaking should go far to meeting the desires of hon. Members, but I do not think that I can invite the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willey

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given a very unsatisfactory reply. We should not argue by reference to Clause 12, which dealt with an entirely different question—that of legal interest. Here the occupants are known, and I should have thought that there was no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. Godber

I do not think that I can accept that. In a good many cases, undoubtedly, the occupants may be known, but there are cases, in which a number of people have an interest in the land, where it would be difficult indeed to establish the facts. I have given a fairly reasonable undertaking and one which, I should have thought, in one of his more generous moods the hon. Gentleman would have said was more than adequate. I assure him that we are seeking to do as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) desires, but we do not think it wise to write it legally into the Bill. That is the only difference between us. I give him the assurance quite categorically that we will notify these people.

Mr. Dye

The Parliamentary Secretary's reply is most unsatisfactory, and I should not think that he has convinced any of his supporters on that side of the House, let alone hon. Members on this. We now know of the danger that is coming to tenants of agricultural land, and that the security that has so far been given to them by the 1947 Act is likely to be taken away from them very soon after 1957. It is because of what the Government have in mind, about security of tenure and the rights which they now hope will go, that I want to make quite sure that where a subsidy is given to a person to purchase land, the occupier or tenant should be given prior notice.

The Parliamentary Secretary has fallen down completely in his reply, and we must stand for the rights of the tenant in this respect. A man can have put a lot of work and capital and value into his land, and he should not have it bought over his head by anyone, particularly someone assisted by the Government in the purchase. I hope that the House will not agree with the Government and that, if necessary, it will divide.

Mr. Paget

The Parliamentary Secretary quoted what I said with regard to the difficulty of ascertaining legal ownership and legal interests. That is totally irrelevant to the question of occupancy. Occupancy is a question of fact. The occupant is the chap who is there. There is not the slightest difficulty in doing what the Amendment seeks to do, and we have had utterly unreasonable reasons advanced against it.

Mr. Godber

I feel that I have given a specific undertaking that we will do administratively all these things that we are being asked to do. Therefore, I think that the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West are quite unjustified. I have given a categorical assurance, and the hon. Gentleman, by responding as he has done, does not encourage us to give way or to help him as we are trying to do.

I am sorry if I quoted the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in any way which he regards as improper. I thought that there was considerable similarity. We have here a case of amalgamations where the ownership can become very involved. I know that this Amendment refers only to occupants, but I was dealing with the whole picture, although perhaps a little too broadly. I have given a categorical assurance that the occupants will be informed, and I would have hoped that that would be a reasonable assurance.

Mr. Paget

If the hon. Member can give that categorical assurance, why not put it in the Bill? Not one reason has been given for not including it in the Bill. There are no legal complexities here. One can see who is in occupation and the occupants can be told. The hon. Gentleman says that that will be done: then why not put it in the Bill?

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

Division No. 117.] AYES 5.42 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Hannan, W. Parker, J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hastings, S. Paton, John
Baird, J. Healey, Denis Pearson, A.
Balfour, A. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Pentland, N.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon, F. J. Herbison, Miss M. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Benson, G. Hewitson, Capt. M. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Holmes, Horace Probert, A. R.
Blackburn, F. Houghton, Douglas Proctor, W. T.
Blenkinsop, A. Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Randall, H. E.
Blyton, W. R. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Redhead, E. C.
Boardman, H. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Reeves, J.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe) Reid, William
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Bowles, F. G. Jeger, George (Goole) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Boyd, T. C. Johnson, James (Rugby) Royle, C.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Brockway, A. F. Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Lawson, G. M. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Skeffington, A. M.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Lindgren, G. S. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lipton, Marcus Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank
Champion, A. J. Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson Stones, W. (Consett)
Coldrick, W. MacColl, J. E. Sylvester, G. O.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) MacDermot, Niall Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury) McGhee, H. G. Tomney, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) McKay, John (Wallsend) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Cronin, J. D. Mahon, Slmon Viant, S. P.
Crossman, R. H. S. Mainwaring, W. H. Wade, D. W.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery) Mason, Roy Watkins, T. E.
Dodds, N. N. Mellish, R. J. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Dye, S. Messer, Sir F. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mitohison, G. R. West, D. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Monslow, W. Wilkins, W. A.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.) Willey, Frederick
Fienburgh, W. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gibson, C. W. Oliver, G. H. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Oram, A. E. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Greenwood, Anthony Orbach, M. Wlnterbottom, Richard
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Owen, W. J. Woof, R. E.
Grey, C. F. Paget, R. T. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Zilliacus, K.
Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Palmer, A. M. F.
Hamilton, W. W. Pargiter, G. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Deer.
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Channon, Sir Henry Gibson-Watt, D.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Chichester-Clark, R. Godber, J. B.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Goodhart, Philip
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Gough, C. F. H.
Arbuthnot, John Cooke, Robert C. Gower, H. R.
Armstrong, C. W. Cooper, A. E. Graham, Sir Fergus
Atkins, H. E. Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Corfield, Capt. F. V. Green, A.
Baldwin, A. E. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Balniel, Lord Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Barber, Anthony Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Harris, Reader (Heston)
Barter, John Crowder, Petre (Ruislip— Northwood) Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Baxter, Sir Beverley Cunningham, Knox Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Currie, G. B. H. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Deedes, W. F. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Dodds-Parker, A. D. Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MCA. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) du Cann, E. D. L. Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Body, R. F. Elliott,R. W.(N' castle upon Tyne. N.) Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Bossom, Sir Alfred Errington, Sir Erio Hirst, Geoffrey
Braine, B. R. Farey-jones, F. W. Hobson,John (Warwick & Leam 'gt' n)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Fell, A. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Finiay, Graeme Hope, Lord John
Brooman-White, R. C. Fisher, Nigel Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Fletcher-Cooke, C. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Butcher, Sir Herbert Freeth, Denzil Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden) George, J. C. (Pollok) Howard, John (Test)

The House divided:Ayes136,Noes180.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Roper, Sir Harold
Hulbert, Sir Norman Marshall, Douglas Sharpies, R. C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Mathew, R. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Mawby, R. L. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Moore, Sir Thomas Spearman, Sir Alexander
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Nairn, D. L. S. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Kerby, Capt. H. B. Neave, Airey Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Kerr, H. W. Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Kershaw, J. A. Nugent, G. R. H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Kimball, M. Oakshott, H. D. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Kirk, P. M. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Studholme, Sir Henry
Lagden, G. W. Page, R. G. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Lambert, Hon. G. Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale) Teeling, W.
Lambton, Visoount Partridge, E. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Leburn, W. G. Peyton, J. W. W. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Pike, Miss Mervyn Vane, W. M. F.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Longden, Gilbert Pitt, Miss E. M. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Pott, H. P. Wall Major Patrick
Lucas, P. B, (Brentford & Chiswick) Powell, J. Enoch Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Macdonald, Sir Peter Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
McKibbin, A. J. Profumo, J. D. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Rawlinson, Peter Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Rees-Davies, W. R. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Remnant, Hon. P. Wood, Hon. R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.) Renton, D. L. M. Woollam, John Victor
Macmillan, Maurlce (Halifax) Ricisdale, J. E. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Maddan, Martin Robertson, Sir David
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Mr. Wills and Mr.Bryan.