Clause 4.—(REPAIR OF DAMAGE AND COMPENSATION.) (Hansard, 26 March 1958)

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope)
I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 39 and to insert: not be payable under this subsection to the tenant of an agricultural holding in respect of any damage suffered by him, being damage due to factors which, on a requisition made under subsection (1) or (2) of section six of this Act, would fall to be taken into account in assessing any increase or diminution in the rental value of the holding". Will it be convenient, Sir Charles, if, with this Amendment, we take the four Amendments in Clause 4, page 6, line 11, Clause 6, page 7, lines 22 and 26 and Clause 18, page 12, line 15?

§ The Chairman
Yes, they go together.

§ Lord John Hope
In the Scottish Standing Committee, the Opposition criticised as being too restrictive the proviso to subsection (2) of the Clause, which limits claims for compensation by an occupier of agricultural land to damage suffered by him in consequence of injury to growing crops, or tenants' improvements. I undertook to look into the points raised before the Report stage.
The proviso to subsection (2), as at present drafted, would exclude claims for compensation in respect of damage to such things as hayricks, livestock and movable hen houses and I think it can be accepted that as it stands the proviso is too restrictive. The effect of the proposed Amendment, that is, the first of these five 446 Amendments, is to entitle an occupier of an agricultural holding to claim compensation for damage suffered by him in respect of injury to everything other than items which fall to be taken into account under the provisions which come in Clause 6 for assessing any increase or diminution in the rental value of the holding, such as the loss of the use of land because of the erection of flood banks or something of that sort.
The second Amendment, the one deleting subsection (5) which defines tenants' improvements, is consequential. The expression disappears from the Bill in the amended version of the proviso to subsection (2). The third Amendment, which inserts a new subsection in Clause 6, is made necessary by the widening of the compensation provision of Clause 4 (2) effected by the first of these five Amendments, and also by the omission of subsection (5) of the Clause by the second Amendment.
As the Bill stands unamended it is clear that the tenant of an agricultural holding would be entitled to claim compensation for damage to any improvements made by him to the farm and could not require that that same damage should be taken into account as an item entitling him to a reduction in rent, as indicated in the third Amendment. The Bill as amended would not make this clear, and it is, therefore, necessary to do that in the third Amendment.
The Amendments omitting subsection (4) of Clause 6, page 7, line 26, which defines "agricultural holding" and inserting the definition of "agricultural holding" in Clause 18, that is, page 12, line 15, are consequential. The definition was previously required only for the purposes of Clause 6, variation in rent, but in consequence of the Amendment to the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 4 it is also required for the purposes of that Clause. The definition of "agricultural holding" is, therefore, being transferred to Clause 18, the Interpretation Clause.
I hope that by this means we have met what were constructive and reasonable criticisms by the Opposition on this Clause.

§ Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
It is very satisfactory that the Government have agreed to make 447 these changes. Many weary hours would have been saved in Committee had the acceptance of these reasonable improvements suggested by the Opposition been a little more prompt and a little more often. We can only regret that the time lost was not saved. However, all is well that ends well.
I think that the noble Lord himself agreed that these improvements will obviate any feelings of injustice and that the Bill, by their acceptance, is thereby improved. I only hope that the lesson of this will be learned by all of us and that we shall realise that it is wise to accept improvements as soon as they are suggested and not stretch their consideration to such an extent that patience and sometimes tempers are rattled by unnecessary stubbornness and preconceptions on the part of the Government to change what is in the written law.

§ Lord John Hope
I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out from "maintainable" to "from" in line 43 and to insert: if it is made to the authorised persons after the expiry of two years. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, together with this Amendment, we were to discuss the next Amendment, in page 6, line 3.
These two Amendments increase the period for lodging claims for compensation from one year to two years from the date of the completion of the drainage and protective works specified in the order or the carrying out of maintenance works, and no distinction is made in the time limit as between the various interests which may suffer damage as a result of the execution of the works.

§ Mr. John Mackie (Galloway)
I was interested to hear what the right hon. 448 Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) had to say on the first Government Amendment. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that Governments should act in a spirit of sweet reasonableness. But as I look back I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can very fairly accuse the present Government of not having acted in a spirit of sweet reasonableness all the way through, especially when he reflects on the very stubborn opposition which his own party evinced during the Committee stage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ended by saying that many weary hours could have been saved in Committee. Of course, it is permissible for the Opposition to waste time if it so desires. That has always been the normal parliamentary procedure.
Many of us on this side of the Committee—and I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) would agree with me in this—have recollections of many a weary hour that we had to spend in the Scottish Grand Committee when the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were responsible for the government of the country. I can only hope that what the right hon. Gentleman has said today about the Amendments proposed by my noble Friend is an indication that if and when—I can go no further than that—his party is called upon to take office it will act differently from what it did in 1948.

§ Mr. Woodburn
This is the first time that I have had any complaint to make about the accuracy of the memory of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie), but on this occasion it seems to have completely failed him. If he will examine the records he will find that I never resisted any reasonable Amendment, that I was always willing to consider a suggestion and that if my example is followed the Scottish Standing Committee will make much more speedy progress and will never have any necessity for the Guillotine.

§ Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)
I had not intention of taking part in the discussion on this Amendment, but what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) just said rather refreshed my memory of some of the many long and weary speeches which he has delivered 449 during the Committee stage of many Bills. Unlike himself, I am not complaining about it.

§ The Chairman
I am complaining. We are only dealing with the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill at the moment.

§ Mr. Hoy
I would not attempt to defy your Ruling, Sir Charles, but, two hon. Members having said a few words on the subject, I thought that I might be allowed to make just a few remarks.
I want to say a word or two about stubborness. What the hon. Member for Galloway failed to appreciate was that if it had not been not for stubbornness but for the very good reasoning of the arguments put forward by the Opposition, these Amendments would not have been moved. It was because of the efforts of the Opposition that we have these Amendments on the Notice Paper today. We are grateful to the Minister for having seen reason.

§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
I wish to express my thanks to the Minister, as one of the hon. Members who suggested that subsection (2) should be amended, for his having accepted the intention of the Amendment and put down words suitable to hover it. I should also like to express our thanks to the Minister for having accepted the Amendment first moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who would have liked to be here today, but who is away on Parliamentary business. I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to accept these proposals.