HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc304-8
Mr. Hoy

I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 41, line 39, at the end to insert: (5) The provisions of the Settled Land Act 1925 relating to improvements authorised by that Act (including those provisions as extended to trusts Or sale by section 28 of the Law of Property Act 1925) shall, if it is so provided by regulations under this section, have effect as if works of any description specified in the regulations, being works of a kind mentioned in Schedule 4 to this Act or prescribed by a scheme under section 26 above, were included in Schedule 3 to that Act (which sets out the improvements so authorised, distinguishing in Parts 1, it and III between improvements the costs of which are not liable to be replaced, may be required to be replaced, and must be required to be replaced) and were contained in the Part thereof specified in the regulations. (6) In the application of subsection (5) above to Northern Ireland—

  1. (a) for any reference to the Settled Land Act 1925 and to Schedule 3 to that Act there shall be substituted references to the Settled Land Act 1882 and to section 25 of that Act, respectively;
  2. (b) the words from '(including those provisions' to 'Law of Property Act 1925)' and from ' distinguishing in ' onwards shall be omitted.
The purpose of the Amendment is to allow capital money arising from a settled estate to be used on works of a kind which may be grant-aided under the farm amalgamations, farm improvement and hill land improvement schemes. This point was raised in the Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), and we agree that it ought to be covered.

The Amendment provides for the necessary arrangements to be made by way of regulations made by the appropriate Minister under the Bill. The works concerned are the farm improvements listed in Schedule 4 to the Bill and any item eligible for grant aid under a farm amalgamation scheme made under Clause 26 or a hill land improvement scheme made under Clause 39.

The regulations will be able to provide that any of these items shall be treated as if they were included in Schedule 3 to the Settled Land Act, 1925. That Schedule lists the improvements on which capital money arising from a settled estate may be used, and is divided into three parts. Part I lists items the cost of which does not have to be replaced by instalments. Part II shows those whose cost may be required to be so replaced by the trustees of the settlement or the court. Part III sets out works for which the cost must be replaced by instalments.

The regulations under the Bill will specify into which part of the Settled Land Act Schedule the various improvements under this Bill are to be treated as falling. There is corresponding provision for Northern Ireland, but not for Scotland where there is no comparable settled land legislation.

A precedent for dealing with a comparable situation by way of regulations exists in Section 11 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946. The regulations will be subject to the usual negative Resolution procedure.

I am sure, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will agree, that this is a useful Amendment and that it will command general support. I am personally grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to the matter.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. More

I thank the Minister for having taken notice of the suggestion I made in Committee. When I raised the matter, I was afraid that it would be regarded as a piece of legal antiquarianism to do with out-moded standards. It was far from that. What this deals with is the two developments which have, perhaps, been more notable than anything else in agriculture in recent years. The first is the immense development of capital investment which has been and still has to be made. The second is the large element of new blood which is being drawn into farming personnel in terms of owner-occupiers.

I thought it rather regrettable that I found it necessary to raise this in Committee. One would have hoped that it might have been recognised in advance, when the Bill was being drafted, and that some serious effort might have been made to revise the whole of this legislation in a comprehensive form to make it easily intelligible to farmers, owners and their professional advisers. We must be thankful for small mercies. Without wishing to sound disparaging, I describe this as a small mercy because, grateful though I am for the recognition this Amendment implies, it is but a small nibble at what needs to be done.

The fact facing those engaged in agriculture is the immense scale of capital development regularly and constantly required to keep farming modernised. Even with grants from the Government, the cost of these necessary improvements and investments can be prohibitive. It is therefore imperative, if agriculture is to maintain modernisation on the scale required, that all possible sources of capital should be available. In many cases, owners need grants both under the Settled Land Act and this Bill.

This is now clearly a matter which cannot be dealt with in this House. I hope that it will be dealt with in another place when the Bill reaches there. What is needed is a completely revised code for all this legislation. I point out the extraordinary discrepancies which strike the eye when one compares this Bill with the Settled Land Act.

Schedule 3 of the Settled Land Act and Schedule 4 of this Bill to a large extent deal with the same general problem of capital investment in farming but the discrepancies and differences are often so great and often so small as to be quite incongruous and ridiculous. Let us take a few examples. Some of the improvements for which the Bill provides do not appear to be eligible for grant under the Settled Land Act. Conversely, many things considered necessary in the Act do not appear in this Bill. Yet both have the same objective—the encouragement of capital investment in farming.

The first case for which the Bill provides is the erection, alteration, enlargement or reconditioning of permanent farm buildings and so on. The Settled Land Act is far from specific about that, although it mentions farm buildings. The interesting subject of sewage disposal is the second item in the Bill—sewage disposal other than from dwelling houses. The Settled Land Act deals with drainage and the distribution of sewage as manure. Are the two Measures saying the same thing, or different things?

The Bill refers to bridges, railway crossings and creeps while the Settled Land Act talks about bridges, but says nothing about railway crossings and creeps. Fourthly, there is the provision or laying on of electric light or power for agricultural purposes, while the Settled Land Act deals with heating apparatus, electric power apparatus, engine houses, engines, gasometers, dynamos and so on. Here, again, the two do not correspond. So it goes on. The 14th item in Schedule 4 of the Bill is claying and marling. We do not know much about claying in our part of the world. The Settled Land Act says nothing about this subject.

What does the Amendment do? When I raised this subject in Committee I asked that Schedule 4 of the Bill should be harmonised with Schedule 3 of the Settled Land Act, but, apparently, what the Bill enables the Minister to do is to put individual improvements into the Settled Land Act Schedule according to his discretion. This is putting new wine into old bottles, sometimes with explosive effect, because the Bill also appears to give the Minister discretion as to whether he puts these things in Part I, Part II or Part III of the Settled Land Act Schedule.

That has great and important effects on people interested in Settled Land Act land and could affect the position of trustees, a tenant for life, or the remainder. Surely it is wrong that financial liabilities of that kind should be affected in this way by Ministerial discretion in a Bill which deals not with trustees, but with agriculture.

What I urge upon the Government is that before the Bill goes to another place—and I hope that not so long will be spent on it there as here, and I speak as one who sat through 20 months of the Standing Committee—the Government will have a look at the whole of this issue to see whether they can seize this opportunity to devise a sensible and thought-out code which is comprehensive and designed to do sensibly what the job ought to be, which is to enable owners who are engaged in farming to call upon their trustees for capital money for sensible improvements in everything which conduces to agricultural modernisation.

With that slightly critical thought, I give my professional blessing for a small mercy and thank the Minister for having taken notice of my proposal.

Amendment agreed to.