HL Deb 11 August 1919 vol 36 cc778-82

House in Committee (according to Order).

[LORD DENMAN in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Restriction, of notices to quit.

1. On the making after the passing of this Act, of any contract for sale of agricultural land comprising one or more holdings, any then current and unexpired notice to determine a tenancy given, either before or after the passing of this Act, by an owner or any predecessor to a tenant of any such holding prior to the making of such contract of sale shall be null and void, unless such tenant shall, after the passing of this Act and prior to such contract of sale, by writing, agree that such notice shall be valid.

VISCOUNT PEEL

All my Amendments on this clause are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Clause 1, page 1, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("agricultural land comprising one or more holdings) and insert ("a holding or any part of a holding")

Clause 1, page 1, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("a tenancy") and insert ("the tenancy of the holding")

Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("given") insert ("to the tenant") and leave out from ("Act") to ("shall") in line 20

Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out ("such") and insert ("the").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

VISCOUNT PEEL

This Amendment is also purely drafting.

Amendment moved—

Clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out ("'Agricultural land' in this Act") and insert ("In this Act— 'Agricultural land'").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Exemption of purchases for public purposes.

3. This Act shall not apply to a contract for sale to a Government department or local authority for the purpose of providing small holdings or allotmeuts, or for any other public purpose.

EARL STANHOPE moved that Clause 3 be omitted from the Bill. The noble Earl said: My objects, in moving this omission, are two. The first is, as I think everybody will agree, that where immediate possession of land cannot be secured a lower price is obtained in the market for the land. I think that is obvious to every one, because it cuts out a small man who wishes to buy a holding and farm is himself. He has to give notice to the then occupier and he has to wait a year or more before he can get into occupation himself, and therefore his capital is locked up for that period and he has to live on income which he derives from other sources. By Clause 3 the Bill is not, however, to apply to Government departments or local authorities. The result of that is that the Government Departments and local authorities are able to acquire land at once, and their capital is not locked up in the same way as in the case of a private purchaser. Therefore the Government department or local authority is put in a privileged position as regards price. I think that is exactly what your Lordships do not desire to do. What I think at any rate the large majority of this House desire is to increase the number of occupier-owners; whereas if this clause is allowed to stand, what you are doing is to penalise the man who desires to become an occupier-owner and you are giving an advantage to the man who eventually will become the tenant of a public body. I think there are no two opinions that the former occupier is a more desirable person to encourage than the occupier-tenant of a public body.

I have this further reason. It has been put to me that I should not press this Amendment, because it would be extremely useful to show to the country that under private ownership and by the ordinary way in which agricultural land is owned you have security of tenure under this Bill, whereas the moment you become a tenant under a public body you are then at once liable to have notice to give up your tenancy whatever your terms of contract may be, and that nothing would help those who are hostile to the nationalisation of land more than that it should be realised that under public ownership people are liable to be turned out of their holdings without any notice whatever, whereas under private ownership they have security of tenure.

I suggest to your Lordships that it is very undesirable to put public bodies in this very privileged position, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted. I may be told, of course, that it is desired to get land immediately in order to set up small holdings. That is quite true; but in spite of the Amendments which have been moved to the Bill by the noble Viscount, the notice to determine a tenancy is only of effect before the land is sold. Therefore once a Government Department has acquired land it would have power, without this clause, to give notice to tenants in order to set up small holdings. The effect of this Bill is very largely to transfer the onus of giving notice to tenants from the seller to the purchaser. I cannot see why when land is sold to a public department the onus of giving notice to tenants should not again be on the purchaser even though that purchaser be a public department.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 3.—(Earl Stanhope.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think that my noble friend has not appreciated the principle of the Bill. The whole point of it is to safeguard farmers who, in the case of sales when notice has been given to them to quit their holdings, do not know until a rather late stage in the year whether or not they are going to be turned out, with the result that they cannot make their arrangements for taking other farms. That is bad for agriculture and that is the mischief at which this Bill hits. It is not to give a privilege to anybody. It is quite obvious that it is not for that in the case of the Government, because when the Government is acquiring land for small holdings it is not to sell again; it is for the purpose of getting land, and therefore the tenant knows there is not the slightest chance of his being turned out. He has no uncertainty and he can make his arrangements. Therefore that advantage which is given to him in the case of other sorts of sales is quite unnecessary in the case of the Government Department.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I think both my noble friends go too far in defence of the particular people for whom they are speaking. I could not support my noble friend's Amendment as he leaves it, because what I care for more than anything else at the present moment is to get on the land the sailors and soldiers who fought for us. I think this clause is necessary for that purpose for a limited period. If this Amendment wore carried as moved, it would certainly in my judgment have the effect of delaying in many cases the placing on the land of the sailors and soldiers who fought; and I regard, what I may call, the national pledge to these men as paramount to every other consideration. That, however, is only for a limited time—two, three, or four years. After that I cannot for the life of me see why any distinction should be made between the Government and a private individual in this matter. Therefore while I could not support my noble friend's Amendment as it stands, I should certainly support an Amendment limiting the operation of this clause for a definite period.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FORESTER

I have handed in an Amendment to limit the time in this clause.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have had no notice of any of these Amendments.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

There is no notice of this Amendment on the Paper, but perhaps the noble Lord will read it.

LORD FORESTER

It is in Clause 3, page 2, line 4, after "purpose," to insert "made within two years after the passing of this Act." You have just passed the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill, in Clause 11, subsection (5) of which it is stated that a council, when selling or letting a small holding at any time before the expiration of two years after the passing of the Act, shall give preference to suitable men who have served at any time in the Forces of the Crown, etc. In that Bill it was laid down that in your opinion the period of two years should be given to settle on the land these men who have fought and won the war for us. If my Amendment is accepted that will give you in this Bill the period you name as the time for settling the men on the land. I fail to see after that period, granting that two years is the period required for these men to be settled on the land, why Government Departments should receive anything more than ordinary private owners.

Amendment moved— Clause 3, page 2, line 4, after ("purpose" insert ("made within two year safter the passing of this Act").—(Lord Forester.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I really must protest against the numerous Amendments of which no notice has been given. On the Land (Facilities) Bill I believe there were more manuscript Amendments than there were on the Paper, and some of them were very complicated. I will deal with my noble friend in this way. Will he make it three years? If so, I will accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am quite sure my noble friend will accept three years. I should like, however, if I may be allowed, to say that we are always treated with such great courtesy by the noble Viscount that I rather shrink from calling into question something he has just said. When he thinks how business is hustled through now he must not be too critical if we are forced to rely upon manuscript Amendments.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am not able to give them that profound attention which I should do if I had more notice.

LORD FORESTER

I accept "three years" and am very much obliged to the noble Viscount.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Application of Act.

4. This Act shall not apply to Ireland.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I beg to move a drafting Amendment, to this clause.

Amendment moved— Clause 4, page 2, line 5, after ("to") insert. ("Scotland or").—(Viscount Peel).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported.