§ Mr. GodberI beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 30, at end insert:
(d) the tenancy in question was the subject of a written agreement entered into less than five years before the termination of the tenancy and containing notice that the holding or the part of the holding as the case may be would be required by the landlord within that period for development purposes, and the development is commenced within the period of six months following the termination of the tenancy.
We frequently said in Committee that Clause 10 is one of the most complicated in the Bill. We are not seeking to complicate it further, but to clarify it with the addition of this subsection, which will follow and relate to the initial words of the Clause,
Subject to the provisions of this section, no sum shall be payable in pursuance of section 9 of this Act in a case where—".I hope it is clear that, although we have always accepted that the compensation under Clause 9 is right and fair. nevertheless one category is not covered, in which automatic payment is not right. Under Clause 9 compensation, a tenant will expect to receive this additional sum for a disturbance, but, in the type of case for which the Amendment would provide, where a written agreement had been entered into less than five years before the termination of the tenancy and containing notice that the holding or part of the holding would be required by the landlord within that period, the development would have to commence within six months after that termination. We make it clear that we are restricting the 477 provision to a fixed term tenancy for a period of five years or less. This is the type of tenancy for which we believe that it would not be reasonable to make the provisions of Clause 9 apply.It is common justice that this should be done, because the tenant enters into this arrangement for this period of time knowing that it is a short-term arrangement. He therefore cannot later claim that he is being put to unreasonable expense or difficulty because of the termination of the tenancy. This is a special problem which arises in various cases where land is required for development purposes and where the land cannot be immediately developed.
It could be argued that the Government's policies in other spheres will lead to the delay of certain development which would otherwise take place. The present economic difficulties, the present high Bank Rate—there are plenty of reasons why development should be delayed. It is nonsense that land should fall out of agricultural use in the interim period. The Amendment seeks to deal with such eases. Otherwise a landlord who lets land for a period of less than five years will at the end of that period, if Clause 9 applies, have to pay at least five years' compensation and will, therefore, receive nothing for the use of the land. He could well be out of pocket if he has let it for two or three years and has had to pay five years' compensation. This is nonsense in view of the conditions into which leases are entered into for these short periods. The tenant will not have suffered unreasonably, because he knew the conditions when he entered into them. Yet he will get an advantage under the Bill as it stands and the landlord will be penalised.
I cannot believe that this is the Government's intention. If this happens, land will be allowed to go derelict in those two or three years. This would be wrong. It would be wrong from the point of view of the nation, because this land should be productive. It would be wrong from the point of view of neighbours, because the land will produce weeds and vermin. From an agricultural and a general economic point of view it makes nonsense. Therefore, some provision such as that contained in the Amendment must be incorporated.
478 If the wording of the Amendment is not wholly in line with the Government's desires, we would naturally bow to their view, but before parting with this matter we should want a firm assurance that the Government would introduce in the other place something which would have the same effect, otherwise we should have to record our view that this is something which should be provided for. I hope that the Government will see the justice of this case and will make some provision.
To be fair to the Government, another way in which this could be dealt with is by short-term lettings under Section 2 of the Agricultural Holding Act, 1948. Such holdings are subject to Ministry approval. If there is to be no provision in the Clause. Section 2, which is useful in certain cases, will have to be used to a much greater extent and the Ministry's officers will be called on to approve a much greater number of cases.
We often talk in the House about the need to avoid the proliferation of civil servants. In a recent debate we were assured that the number of civil servants would not increase. If the Bill is passed in its present form, and if the only way in which the land can be used is by the utilisation of Section 2 of the 1948 Act, this will mean an additional amount of the time of officials being spent considering and approving short-term lettings over a period of time. If it were for a five-year period, it would have to come up for reanproval at least four or five times by officials and, presumably, by Ministers.
I therefore hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not, in rejecting the Amendment, call in aid the provisions of Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I do not think that that would be the correct way to deal with it. A clear case arises here, because the Clause has created the situation that a landlord letting for a short period knows that in the event of his dispossessing the tenant he has this greater sum of compensation to pay.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to face up to this fact and not merely to rely on Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I ask him to acknowledge that there is a case to be met and that it should be met in the Clause. If he does not like the wording of the Amendment, that is fine, so 479 long as he can give us a clear assurance that the point will be met.
If the hon. Gentleman rests his case on Section 2, he must state much more clearly than has been stated so far what his Department's attitude would be in future to applications for Section 2 consents where development is expected in less than five years. I do not press that point, because I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will meet me in another sense. If he does not, we must have a specific assurance that Section 2 consents will be more readily granted to take care in some way of these requirements.
My main concern is either that the Amendment be accepted or that something very similar is written into the Bill, otherwise I fear that waste will occur and inefficiency will be unnecessarily created.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. John MackieI am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall rest my case on Section 2, although we appreciate the point the right hon. Gentleman has made. We agree with the spirit of the Amendment, in that something needs to be done here, because it would be grossly unfair to a landlord who might collect three years' rent and have to pay anything up to six years in compensation for resettlement—for "reorganisation", as it will now be as a result of the last Amendment.
The circumstances are adequately covered by Section 2 of the 1948 Act. When I studied that Act, I had to go backwards and forwards through four Sections to get the point clear. Nevertheless, it is clearly there. Such licences or lettings require the Minister's consent. Applications can expect to receive favourable consideration where there is a reasonable expectation of development within the reasonably near future. Short-term lettings may not be given for periods of longer than 364 days. They can, however, be renewed if necessary, and this "if necessary" is an important point. The prospects of development may change or recede, although perhaps not for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, but he is adept at making political points. It is right that they should be re-examined at suitable intervals. Licences may be for longer periods. 480 —This covers the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the proliferation of civil servants.—For the same reason, consent would not usually be forthcoming for a period extending over many years.
The Amendment would not give the tenant adequate safeguard against changes in development schedules or priorities. If the development did not turn up within the stipulated five years, the landlord could press his tenant to make another five-year agreement and even another one after that. The whole purpose of the Bill could be undermined in that way.
It is a basic principle of the Agricultural Holdings Act that there can be no contracting out of its provisions, and the same principle is given clear expression in Clause 10(4) of the present Bill.
There can be little doubt that, if agreements such as the Amendment envisages were to be permitted at all, they would soon become standard provisions in every tenancy agreement, and a tenant's chance of becoming eligible for the new sum would be slender indeed. For this reason, we think that the Amendment is not only unnecessary but might be dangerous.
I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman with that explanation and that he will agree to withdraw the Amendment, in the light of the assurance which I have given. We see the point, but we consider that Section 2 of the 1948 Act covers it adequately. Licences can be given for a period much longer than one year. This would meet the right hon. Gentleman's other point about a proliferation of civil servants or extra work for existing staff.
§ Mr. JoplingThe Parliamentary Secretary has said that Section 2 of the 1948 Act provides for these arrangements to be made for periods longer than 364 days. Is he then saying that, if such an application came to his Ministry, the Minister would grant a controlled tenancy of that kind for up to five years? I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that clearly, and we want to know.
The other point which the hon. Gentleman made was very arguable. He said that, if the Amendment were accepted, tenancies could go on and on, five years after five years. This is met by the 481 concluding words of the Amendment. There is a proviso that development should be commenced within six months following the termination of the tenancy. If the development were commenced, no question of another five-year period could arise. I did not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument at all.
§ Mr. GodberI am greatly disappointed by the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. He disappoints me fairly regularly, but this time more than ever. It was an appalling reply. He has rested his case on Section 2 of the 1948 Act, but that gives us very little encouragement. The only argument which the hon. Gentleman adduced against this clear Amendment is that he thinks that it could be abused by people seeking an additional five years. The Government's Parliamentary draftsmen are perfectly capable of so wording an Amendment as to meet that point. Instead of the words,
following the termination of the tenancythe words could be,following the termination of an initial tenancy".There are lots of ways in which it could be done. The lawyers of whom the Parliamentary Secretary is so fond in other connections could help him out if he is willing and anxious to deal with the problem.The truth is that, knowing that Section 2 of the 1948 Act existed, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his officials really directed their minds to this point. The trouble is that we are now confronted with the narrow provision in the 1948 Act, produced for entirely different purposes but now to be foisted on to the requirements of this Bill, requirements which were known by the Government by reason of the additional burden which they are putting on landlords. We have never quibbled at that—we think it right—but we consider that it is the Government's corresponding duty to make provision for the type of case which I have put.
As I listened to my own argument earlier, I flattered myself that I must have convinced the Parliamentary Secretary because it was so clear and so logical that it could not be resisted. I am amazed at the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. We are not seeking to lay down an unreasonable impost. We seek merely 482 to clarify the legislation and to put it in such a form that both landlord and tenant are safeguarded and land which is required for agriculture for a short time shall not be sterilised or fall into disuse. Yet I fear that that is precisely what will happen. There will be pockets of derelict land in the countryside. Perhaps the total fall in agricultural production will not be enormous—I do not want to overstate the case—but there will be pockets of land on which weeds will grow and infect other land and on which vermin can breed. This is entirely against what the Parliamentary Secretary himself would wish, being a good farmer. In order to safeguard the hon. Gentleman from the consequences of his own Bill unamended, we shall express our view in the Division Lobby against him if he cannot give us a better answer.
§ Mr. John MackieI said that I saw the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I agree that something is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman must not say that we did not look at this matter. We looked at it very carefully, but we decided that it was covered by Section 2 of the 1948 Act. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to add legislation if the point can be covered already.
I have given an assurance. I appreciate the point, but, in being fair to the landlord, we must be fair also to the tenant. In our view, the Amendment would erode the security of tenure of a tenant, or could do so. Licences for periods longer than a year do not create tenancies, and each period of five years would be a new tenancy. The position would not be safeguarded by putting at the end of the Amendment such words as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. They would not be adequate.
However, I give the assurance that we shall look at the matter again. If we feel that it requires something extra we can put an Amendment down in another place. In the meantime, I reiterate our view that the Amendment is unnecessary and could be dangerous, and the matter is covered already by Section 2 of the 1948 Act. To show that we looked at the question carefully and did not skate over the Amendment, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the whole picture by citing the references: it starts at Section 2, it goes back to Section 1, from 483 there it goes to Section 94, and then back to Section 34.
On my assurance that we shall look at it again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
| Division No. 61.] | AYES | [5.58 p.m. |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Grant, Anthony | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Astor, John | Grant-Ferris, R. | Murton, Oscar |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Gresham Cooke, R. | Nicholls, Sir Harmar |
| Baker, W. H. K. | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Balniel, Lord | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian |
| Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) |
| Bell, Ronald | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere | Page, John (Harrow, W.) |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Hawkins, Paul | Peel, John |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Pink, R. Banner |
| Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Braine, Bernard | Heseltine, Michael | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Brewis, John | Hiley, Joseph | Pym, Francis |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter | Hill, J. E. B. | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M) | Holland, Philip | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Burden, F. A. | Hordern, Peter | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Campbell, Gordon | Hunt, John | Scott, Nicholas |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Sharpies, Richard |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Jennings, J. C. (Button) | Silvester, Frederick |
| Clark, Henry | Jopling, Michael | Stainton, Keith |
| Cooke, Robert | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Stodart, Anthony |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Kimball, Marcus | Tapsell, Peter |
| Cordle, John | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Corfielcl, F. V. | Kirk, Peter | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Costain, A. P. | Kitson, Timothy | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Cunningham, Sir Knox | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Dance, James | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langxtone) | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Longden, Gilbert | Walker, Peter (Worcester) |
| Doughty, Charles | Loveys, W. H. | Wall, Patrick |
| Eden, Sir John | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Walters, Dennis |
| Emery, Peter | MacArthur, Ian | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Eyre, Reginald | Marten, Neil | Webster, David |
| Farr, John | Maude, Angus | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Fisher, Nigel | Mawby, Ray | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Foster, Sir John | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Galbraith, Hon. T. G. | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Miscampbell, Norman | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Wright, Esmond |
| Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Monro, Hector | Younger, Hn. George |
| Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. | More, Jasper | |
| Goodhew, Victor | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Gower, Raymond | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Anthony Royle. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Blackburn, F. | Concannon, J. D. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Blenkinsop, Arthur | Conlan, Bernard |
| Alldritt, Walter | Boardman, H. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) |
| Allen, Scholefield | Boston, Terence | Cronin, John |
| Anderson, Donald | Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Archer, Peter | Bradley, Tom | Cullen, Mrs. Alice |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Brooks, Edwin | Dalyell, Tarn |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) | Darling, Rt. Hn. George |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.) |
| Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Buchan, Norman | Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) |
| Barnes, Michael | Cant, R. B. | Davies, Harold (Leek) |
| Barnett, Joel | Carmichael, Neil | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) |
| Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Carter-Jones, Lewis | de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey |
| Bessell, Peter | Chapman, Donald | Dempsey, James |
| Bidwell, Sydmy | Coe, Denis | Dewar, Donald |
| Bishop, E. S. | Coleman, Donald | Dickens, James |
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided:Ayes 150, Nose 232.
485| Dobson, Ray | Kelley, Richard | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Doig, Peter | Kenyon, Clifford | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Dunn, James A. | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Dunnett, Jack | Lawson, George | Pentland, Norman |
| Eadie, Alex | Leadbitter, Ted | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) |
| Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lee, John (Reading) | Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. |
| Ellis, John | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Price, Thomas (webthoughton) |
| English, Michael | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Lipton, Marcus | Probert, Arthur |
| Find, Harold | Lamas, Kenneth | Randall, Harry |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeeton) | Loughlin, Charles | Rankin, John |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Lubbock, Eric | Rees, Merlyn |
| Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Ford, Ben | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as) |
| Forrester, John | McBride, Neil | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) |
| Frastir, John (Norwood) | McCann, John | Rose, Paul |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | MacColl, James | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Garrett, W. E. | McGuire, Michael | Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) |
| Ginsburg, David | Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) | Sheldon, Robert |
| Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergton) | Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Mackie, John | Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Gregory, Arnold | Maclennan, Robert | Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.) |
| Grey, Charles (Durham) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Griffiths Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) | McNamara, J. Kevin | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | MacPherson, Malcolm | Slater, Joseph |
| Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Small, William |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Manuel, Archie | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Mapp, Charles | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Hannan, William | Marks, Kenneth | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Mtchaei |
| Harper, Joseph | Marquand, David | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Marsh, Rt, Hn. Richard | Swain, Thomas |
| Haseldine, Norman | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Swingler, Stephen |
| Hattersley, Roy | Mayhew, Christopher | Symonds, J. B. |
| Hazell, Bert | Mendelson, J. J. | Thornton, Ernest |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Millan, Bruce | Tinn, James |
| Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Urwin T W |
| Hooley, Frank | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Varley, Eric G. |
| Horner, John | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Wainwnght, Edwin (Dearne valley) |
| Hougltton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley) |
| Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Morris, John (Aberavon) | Wallace, George |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Murray, Albert | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Hoy, James | Neal, Harold | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Huckfield, Lesile | Newens, Stan | Weitzman, David |
| Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Wellbeloved, James |
| HugJws, Roy (Newport) | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn, Pliilip(Derby,S.) | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Hunter, Adam | Oakes, Gordon | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Hynd, John | Ogden, Eric | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | O'Malley, Brian | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Oram, Albert E. | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Janne-, Sir Barnett | Orbach, Maurice | Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Jeger, George (Goole) | Orme, Stanley | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Oswald, Thomas | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Owen, Will (Morpeth) | Woof, Robert |
| Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) | Yates, Victor |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles | |
| Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Pardoe, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) | Park, Trevor | Mr. Alan Fitch and |
| Judd, Frank | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Mr. loan L. Evans. |
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe next Amendment is Amendment No. 14, with which I think it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendment: No. 17, in Clause 11, in page 10, line 22, at end insert:
(7) Where a landlord has served a notice to quit after the initial date and before the passing of this Act and the reason for the service of the said notice was one of those specified in section 26(1) of the principal Act, notwithstanding the landlord's failure to specify the said grounds in the said notice, the landlord shall not be liable to make any additional payment as provided by section 9 of this Act.
§ Mr. StodartI beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 8, line 30, at the end to insert:
(7) Where a landlord has served a notice to quit after the initial date and before the passing of this Act and the reason for the service of the said notice was one of those specified in section 25(1) of the principal Act, notwithstanding the landlord's failure to specify the said grounds in the said notice, the landlord shall not be liable to make any additional payment as provided by section 9 of this Act.The Amendment refers to a matter which I raised in Standing Committee on a Scottish Clause. I said then that 487 it might very well also apply to the English Clause, and we have therefore put down Amendments to cover both Clause 10 and Clause 11. They concern the position of the landlord who last November may properly have served a notice to quit. The initial date for the Bill was 1st November, which is very close to the beginning of the Martinmas term, and it is unlikely that landlords were then fully aware of the details to be required by the Clauses. They cannot reasonably be expected to have become aware of them for quite a time after the publication of the Bill, because it is unlikely that it would be every-day reading in the average landlord's home. Therefore, as it has not been standard practice in Scotland, England or Wales to state specific reasons, which are now necessary, in notices to quit, there may well be many landlords who failed to do so immediately after 1st November out of sheer and natural ignorance.For example, a notice sent out in November last will not take effect until after this Bill is law, but failure to state specific reasons in the notice means that four years' rent has to be paid under Clause 9 in each case. This matter was commented upon in the edition of the Scots Law Times of 12th January, 1968. I do not propose to read the article at length. The heading was:
Notices to quit agricultural holdings under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1967.The sub-heading was:Is it negligent not to know the contents of an Act of Parliament before it has been passed?The general trend of the article, which is of considerable length, is that it would be a matter of great injustice if the compensatory payments had to be paid merely because notices did not fulfil the requirements of a Statute which had come out so recently as to make it virtually impossible for those serving the notices to know it.The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough in Committee to welcome the point when I made it rather late in the day on this Clause, and we have put down this Amendment in the hope of clearing the difficulty up. The effect of the Amendment would be to release from the four years' resettlement grant notices 488 which were served between 1st November, which was the initial date, and the passing of the Bill. It is with that objective that it has been put down.
§ Mr. John MackieAs he has said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) drew attention in Committee to the danger that a landlord who gave notice to quit soon after the introduction of the Bill might inadvertently fail to give it in the terms required by Clauses 10 and 11 and find himself obliged to pay the new sum to the individual concerned, even though the notice to quit had been given for a purely agricultural reason.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture accept the hon. Gentleman's argument and we are indebted to him for pointing out this possibility. However, the Amendment will not do quite what is required. It is cast rather too widely and would—unintentionally, I am sure—allow a landlord perhaps to avoid payment of compensation for private afforestation, for example, and would not give the tenant the opportunity to query the notice with the Agricultural Land Tribunal or, in Scotland, the Land Court on non-agricultural grounds, although he is entitled to do so when four years' rent depend on it.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about his legal reading and the point as to whether or not it is negligent not to know the law. The law says, of course, that ignorance of it is no excuse. However, we take the point about Bills, which are not law, and if the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment, I undertake to introduce another Amendment at a later stage which will give effect to the same general principle, which we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out.
§ Mr. StodartI gladly fall in with the hon. Gentleman's request. It would have been a miracle if my drafting of a provision on such a subject had covered all the points necessary. This is a matter in which considerable injustice might be done, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. In view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.