HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc311-7
Mr. Godber

I beg to move, Amendment No. 64, in page 50, line 24, after 'acquire', insert 'by agreement'.

We now come to one of the Amendments to which I was referring a minute ago, designed to limit the powers of the rural development boards. The Amendment seeks to insert the words "by agreement" in relation to the boards' powers to acquire land. This is an important limitation. We recognise that. The type of thing to which we are strongly opposed is bodies of this kind having powers to acquire land in any circumstances. If a board acquires by agreement, then the other powers which it has in this Clause are not thought to be excessive. But if, in fact, it does not have to obtain agreement in order to acquire, then it seems that this is widen- ing its powers very much indeed. Subsection (4) of Clause 44 sets out its main functions. Twice in Clause 44 (4,a, b and c) the acquisition is by agreement. Under the Clause which we are now considering, it goes wider. It says: Without prejudice to the generality of section 44…a Rural Development Board shall have power to acquire, There is no reference to agreement. That is why we feel that the Government are widening and broadening the powers of the rural development boards in a serious way, and we have been given no adequate justification for this.

We invite the Minister to tell us why the words "by agreement" have been omitted here; why he has not been able to include them and so limit the power of the rural development boards in this regard. If the words "by agreement" do not appear here, it means that compulsory powers are envisaged in regard to Clause 46, and we look on these compulsory powers with grave suspicion.

I would ask the Minister to consider the matter again. If he tells me that my reading of it is wrong and that there is no question of compulsion, then he will relieve our minds, but if he cannot, then he must tell us the reason why these powers are required, which are substantially beyond anything proposed in Clause 44.

Mr. Peart

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that Clause 46 conveys no powers of acquisition other than by agreement. If we wanted to do so, we should have to make specific provision for it. The purpose of the Clause is to give the board the same power as the Minister to enter into transactions involving loss for amalgamation purposes and to apply Schedule 3 by deed to holdings amalgamated in this way. It follows closely the wording of Clause 29.

If the Amendment were accepted it would make no difference to the Clause and it is preferable not to write unnecessary words into the Bill. I am advised that the courts, in interpreting a Statute, work on the basis that Parliament has intended every word to have some meaning. Therefore, if a phrase is inserted qualifying some word which does not need explanation, or a word which is used elsewhere without the qualifying phrase—in this case, in Clause 29—the courts will strive particularly hard to find a distinction in the meaning, and difficulties could arise.

I assure hon. Members that the words of the Amendment are unnecessary, and I hope they will agree that we should not leave a puzzle to posterity by including the words in the Amendment. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the addition of words not making any difference to the Clause, I should have thought that there was an argument for his accepting them. I believe it will be crucial to the success of the rural development boards that they should function within the atmosphere of co-operation. While we will be only too ready to accept any assurances, we have to remember that there will be a large number of able people throughout the country who will be reading this Bill when it becomes an Act, and we should try to interpret what it means. If these words would not alter the sense of the Clause and would do no harm, it would be much better to accept them because they would help to cultivate the right climate of opinion in which people would be ready to cooperate more fully with the development boards and make their task that much easier.

Mr. Henry Clark

The Minister assures us that every word in every Bill must have a certain amount of meaning. We can now play "hunt the slipper", and it would not be long before we found meaningless words in almost every Bill.

My noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) hit the nail on the head. Anything which makes the powers of the boards seem more reasonable is likely to make their success a good deal more likely. It will not have escaped notice that later in the subsection there is reference to allowing the occupier of an uncommercial unit to retain occupation of a dwellinghouse If he can be allowed to retain occupation, presumably he can be disallowed, and we are right back to evictions. We are giving these rural development boards powers which the Socialist Party would be horrified to see given to a modern landlord.

Draconian powers are to be given to these boards. Northern Ireland to a man has completely rejected the idea that we should have a board at all.

Mr. Peart

Northern Ireland does not have to have one.

Mr. Clark

That is quite right. We do not have to have one, and the Minister can then avoid providing the money. These boards are a classic piece of Socialism. First, we are told of the existence of a problem, and no one will deny that a problem of some sort exists. Then it is suggested that a board be given certain powers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Clark

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a matter like this, one gets rather carried away. The wording of the Bill is so strong that the Government of Northern Ireland have said that they do not intend to proceed with a rural development board for Northern Ireland. The National Farmers' Union has told me that it would not touch it with a barge-pole, and almost every land owner in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Despite his regret, the hon. Gentleman is still pursuing the same course. The Amendment is merely to insert the words "by agreement". The hon. Gentleman must now come within order.

Mr. Clark

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am following the point made by my noble Friend. The wording of the Bill and the Draconian powers to be given to the boards are the very things likely to detract from the success of the boards when they once exist. Those not in the fortunate position of being able to resist the imposition of a board are frightened off by the terrifying powers they are to be given.

Sir Frank Pearson

rose—

Mr. Peart

I think that it might be helpfull if I intervened briefly at this point to respond again to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). I assure the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) that Clause 46 conveys no powers of acquisition other than by agreement. That is quite definite. I have explained the legal difficulties. If hon. Members consider this, I am sure they will agree that what I am saying is correct. I hope, therefore, that they will not press this too much.

6.15 a.m.

Sir Frank Pearson

May I clarify one point with the Minister? It concerns the occupier of an uncommercial unit within an area controlled by a development board. Can I rest completely and absolutely assured that that board will not have the power to acquire without agreement an uncommercial unit?

Mr. Peart

I have said so.

Sir Frank Pearson

If I may have that absolutely firm assurance, I shall be satisfied.

Mr. Peart

I have given that assurance twice.

Mr. Hawkins

I have heard what the Minister has said about this matter. As a layman, but one who has a lot to do with agricultural land, I should have thought that the words a Rural Development Board shall have power to acquire". must mean that it has power to acquire land whether the other person wants it or not. If that is not the meaning, why not put in "by agreement"? That would be a sensible thing to do. The Minister could do it if he wanted to. I cannot believe that it would upset some legal gentlemen in his Department too much.

It would be far better for the start of rural development boards, if we have to have them, to have the right sort of atmosphere and to make sure that nobody misunderstands the meaning of these words. Anybody could well understand the meaning of a Rural Development Board shall have power to acquire by agreement". There would be no need to go to a lawyer to spend money on an interpretation. There would be no risk of getting two contradictory opinions about it. The inclusion of these words would remove doubt. I still hope that the Minister will accept these two words, thereby making the position much clearer to the average man on the land.

Mr. Godber

I rather share the view which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has just expressed. The Minister has given a categorical assurance about this. He has also explained that one should not put superfluous words into the Bill. Following his argument, however, I must ask him why, in Clause 44, we have the words "by agreement", and more than once. I find this extremely difficult to understand. In Clause 44(4), we have the words "acquire by agreement" in lines 25 and 31.

We were being logical in suggesting the insertion of "by agreement" in Clause 46. The point is precisely the same. If we are told that these words are unnecessary in one place, why are they necessary in the other place? If this does not make any difference to the meaning of the Bill, surely the point reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West has great emphasis in that one of the problems is that people seeking to interpret Acts of Parliament like to have them in the simplest possible form. With the words "by agreement", there can be no question about the meaning.

As the Minister refers us back to Clause 29, I refer him to Clause 44 and ask why these words were appropriate there if they are not appropriate where we suggest them. Clause 29 refers to other Acts and in brackets states powers of acquiring land by agreement". If we have the words "by agreement" in reference to those other enactments, why cannot we have them where we suggest in Clause 46? I am sorry if I am being dense.

Mr. Peart

The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is correct. I was advised about the legal position. As I pointed out, the Clause conveys no powers of acquisition other than by agreement. For that reason I argued that to make the Amendment would not alter the operation of this part of the Bill. However, I am prepared to look at the matter again. Provided that there are no legal difficulties, I will consider the proposal favourably. With that assurance, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Godber

In the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not encounter any legal difficulties and in view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.