§ Amendment made: In page 91, line 22, leave out 'Fourth' and insert 'Third'.—[Mr. Peart.]
§ Mr. PeartI beg to move Amendment No. 92, in page 91, line 26, to leave out from 'transfer' to the end of line 34 and to insert:
'to any other a part only, or any estate or interest in a part only, of the land comprised in the unit'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this Amendment can be discussed the Opposition Amendment No. 93, in page 91, line 34, at end insert:
(c) the transfer is by way of sale or eviction of a tenancy of less than one-twentieth of the combined holding for purposes other than agriculture.
§ Mr. PeartIt would also be convenient to take the Government Amendments Nos. 94 and 141.
370 The purpose of Amendment No. 92 is to stop a loophole which would have allowed land subject to Schedule 3 to be transferred without the Minister's consent.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 141 will still make it possible to let land for grazing or mowing during a specified period of the year without breaching the conditions of the Schedule and make provision for lettings by conacre in Northern Ireland.
I hope that with that explanation the Amendments will be accepted.
§ Mr. Henry ClarkI welcome Amendment No. 141, which clarifies a point which it might have taken some time and trouble to clarify.
There are two misprints in Amendment No. 93. First, my name was omitted from the proposers of the Amendment. Secondly, the word "eviction" should read "creation".
Like most of the Amendments suggested by my hon. Friends, this is designed to make the Bill more effective and to make it work better. It deals with Part II of the Bill which seeks to encourage amalgamations and, where an amalgamation is created, to ensure that land amalgamated with the assistance of Government money remains in one unit. Quite rightly, there are provisions to say that land amalgamated with the assistance of Government money shall not be divided except with the Minister's consent.
There are one or two exceptions when the Minister's consent is not necessary, Amendment No. 141 being one. It would be very much in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill if the Minister accepted Amendment No. 93 as a further exception. We have had eloquent speeches about the amount of agricultural land which is lost year by year. Anyone who lives in the countryside knows perfectly well that there are always people making demands on farmers for small pieces of their land. In a field in my own area there is a small sewage plant for a public elementary school for which a tenancy has been created and in the next field an electricity transformer is to be built in a small enclave.
Time and again, when small lots are taken off, for bus stations, road widening and petrol stations, there will still be the whole process to go through. It is 371 tedious and silly enough as it is if, every time a minute piece of land is taken off a combined holding, the Minister has to be asked for permission. He will not then exercise his judgment faculties so accurately.
If permission for small pieces of property which is not unified did not have to be sought from the Minister, people will be less inhibited and less frightened of accepting Government assistance, and this will especially be so if they know they will not be tied up with red tape every time there is a transaction of a small piece of land. As far as I can see, every time a wayleaf is signed for a telegraph pole, one would have to send to the Ministry. We should make sure that these small changes do not involve much red tape, not only for the Minister, who does not have to spend his own money, but for the farmer, who may sometimes spend a whole evening composing a letter to the Minister of Agriculture asking him —[Interruption.]
The Minister seems to think that it is late. I thought he was one of those on that side of the House which suggested that the House should sit in the morning?
§ Mr. ClarkWe are quite prepared to carry on through the morning, so that the House does not sit this afternoon. I would be delighted to get to bed early this evening. But if the Bill is important, it justifies discussion. On the other hand, if we know in advance that the Minister will not listen to discussion, and that the chances of acceptance of amendments are remote, we might as well have gone off home hours ago; but we believe in democratic government.
It may be wondered why I suggest one twentieth in the Amendment. One twentieth seemed reasonable. I suggest the whole Amendment is reasonable and I ask the Minister to accept it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendments made: No. 94, in page 91, line 48, after 'include', insert 'subject to paragraph (b) below'.—[Mr. Peart.]
§
No. 141, in page 91, line 50, at end insert:
372
(b) do not include references to the granting or assignment of any right of occupation the grant of which is made (whether or not expressly to that effect) in contemplation of the use of the land only for grazing or mowing during some specified period of the year, and, without prejudice to the foregoing words, in Northern Ireland do not include references to the transfer or assignment of any rights arising by virtue of a conacre agreement.—[Mr. Peart]
§ Mr. StodartI am sure that it will be a relief to the House that in view of a letter which I have had from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on this subject, I do not propose to move my Amendment No. 96, in page 92, line 12, at end insert:
Provided that before refusing his consent under this paragraph, the appropriate Minister shall grant to the person applying for such consent an opportunity of being heard.
§ Mr. PeartI beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 92, line 41, leave out from 'person' to end of line 43 and insert:
'by whom the condition specified in paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 above is breached as respects any unit of land shall be liable to pay to the appropriate Minister'.It would also be convenient if we discussed with this the remaining Government Amendments to Schedule 3, Amendments Nos. 98 to 110 inclusive, and also Nos. 142 and 143. I hope that Amendment No. 103, in page 93, line 21, to leave out 'one thousand' and to insert 'two hundred and fifty' can also be considered in this context.
§ Mr. PeartWe had some criticism in Standing Committee about the provisions of what is now Schedule 3. Attention focussed on the method of fixing the amounts due to the Minister on breach of the conditions of the Schedule. This also applied to the opportunities available for challenging that amount and other matters in connection with a breach. We promised to look into these questions and, having done so, have produced proposals which go a long way towards meeting the doubts expressed in some quarters about the operation of the Schedule.
These proposals are given effect by the Amendment we are now discussing and others which follow. It might be for 373 the convenience of the House if I explained, briefly, what our new proposals are for Schedule 3, so that the present Amendment and others relating to it which follow can be seen in their proper context.
We propose four main changes in the Schedule. First, that the so called penal sum should be replaced by the concept of what might be called damage to farm structure. Secondly, we propose that instead of being able to fix the amount due, the Minister should become entitled to a definite sum. Thirdly, we are providing arbitration as the method of settling the amount of that sum and other facts relating to the breach. Finally, we are dropping the idea of charging interest on this particular sum.
I hope that these new arrangements will be welcomed as a positive attempt to meet some of the suggestions made, and to ensure that if its conditions are breached, an appropriate balance is held between the public interest and the rights of the private individuals concerned. Against this background I would add that we took the view that having provided for arbitration it would be inappropriate to retain the provision whereby the Minister virtually determined that there was a breach and created the liability by serving his demand.
Under the new arrangements both liability and the amount that the Minister can demand are to be settled by agreement or arbitration. Amendment No. 98 therefore provides that liability to repay grants and to pay the additional sum arises at the time of the breach; and Amendment No. 99 makes the liability to pay interest on the grants run until payment.
Amendments No. 100 and 102 define the additional sum over and above the repayment of certain grants and loans, which is to be paid to the Minister if the conditions of paragraphs 3 or 4 of the Schedule are breached. Amendments No. 101 and 110 make it clear that these sums can be charged on the estate and interest only in the land comprised in the unit which the person responsible had at the time of the breach. I know that the Opposition put down Amendment No. 103, which would reduce from £1,000 to £250 the maximum sum which the Minister could demand for a breach of the conditions. We have gone a long 374 way to meeting their points and relaxing the conditions in Schedule 3. I hope that what I have said will be extremely helpful to them, without their pressing this particular Amendment, which we could not accept.
§ Mr. GodberWe are grateful to the Minister for going some way to meet the very genuine concern felt over the Schedule. Undoubtedly the Amendments put forward, in so far as I can follow them, meet many of the points made. It would seem that the one line in the whole of the page that has not been altered is that which we sought to change and which was dealt with in our Amendment No. 103. As I read it this figure would still remain when everything about it has been moved. That seems rather strange.
§ 9.15 a.m.
§ Mr. PeartThe right hon. Gentleman is quite right, but I think that he will agree that the new arrangements go a long way to meeting his points.
§ Mr. GodberIt looks as though if we had not tried to amend the £1,000 that would have gone, too. Everything else seems to have gone except this point. Nevertheless, we accept that the right hon. Gentleman has moved a substantial way over the Schedule, and when it is possible to look at this more fully our colleagues in another place will be able to consider the appropriateness of this figure. Generally speaking this is an advance, and we welcome it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: No. 99, page 92, line 46, after second 'interest' insert 'until payment'.
§
No. 100, in page 93, leave out lines 4 to 9 and insert:
(b) subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, an additional amount equal to so much of the value of the unit, when subject to the conditions imposed by this Schedule, as is attributable to the land which is the subject of the breach.
§ No. 101, in page 93, line 11, at end insert 'comprised in the unit'.
§
No. 102, in page 93, leave out lines 14 to 20 and insert:
(2) The additional amount payable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall not exceed—
(a) the amount by which the value of the land which is the subject of the breach, when
375
freed from all conditions under this Schedule, exceeds the value attributable thereto as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, or,
§
No. 104, in page 93, leave out lines 25 to 31 and insert:
(3) Before commencing proceedings against any person to enforce the liability imposed on him by, or the charge arising under, subparagraph (1) above, the appropriate Minister shall serve on him a notice specifying the condition alleged to have been breached and, if it is the condition relating to use, the nature of the use constituting the breach; and, unless within two months of the service of the notice that person has—
(a) admitted in writing the breach and his liability in respect thereof or, as the case may be, the breach and the existence of the charge, and
(b) agreed in writing the amount recoverable by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subparagraph,
the matter or matters still in issue shall be determined by arbitration.
(4) Section 77 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (procedure for arbitrations) shall have effect as if any such matter were one required by that Act to be determined by arbitration under that Act.
(5) Sections 75 and 77 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (provisions regarding arbitrations) shall have effect as if any question in sub-paragraph (3) above were a matter required by that Act to be deterbined thereunder; and sections 78 and 87(2) of that Act shall have effect as if the parties to the dispute were the landlord and tenant of an agricultural holding.
(6) For the purposes of the Limitation Act 1939, no cause of action or right to receive money shall be deemed to have accrued to the appropriate Minister by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above until the date on which he served the notice referred to in sub-paragraph (3) above.—[Mr. Peart.]
No. 105, in page 93, line 32, leave out 'the breach of the' and insert 'a breach of either of the said'.
No. 106, in page 93, line 34, leave out from not)' to second that' in line 40 and insert any person who is or was at any time entitled under the lease, agreement or tenancy to enforce those terms, or to exercise by forfeiture or otherwise any sanction for their breach, shall be liable to pay to the appropriate Minister the amounts specified in subparagraph (1) above so far as not recovered from any other person unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court in, which proceedings for recovery are taken against him'.
No. 107, in page 93, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 94.
No. 108, in page 94, line 6, after 'breach', insert 'or, if he accepts a lesser amount in satisfaction of those sums, on the giving by him of a written discharge therefor'.
No. 109, in page 94, line 13, at end insert 'or where he has already become so liable by reason of a previous breach of condition'.
376
No. 110, in page 94, line 44, after land ', insert ' comprised in the unit '.
No. 142, in page 95, line 1, after Ireland', insert '(a)'.
No. 143, in page 95, line 3, at end add: