HL Deb 22 June 1922 vol 50 cc1059-92

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Termination of tenancies or allotment gardens.

1.—(1) Where land is let by a local authority, an association, or any other person, for use by the tenant as an allotment garden, the tenancy of the land or any part thereof shall not (except as hereinafter provided) be terminable by the lessor by notice to remove or by resumption of possession, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, except by—

  1. (a) a six months' or longer notice in writing to remove expiring on or before the first day of May or on or after the first day of November in any year; or
  2. (b) resumption of possession after three months' or longer notice in writing to the tenant, under a power of resumption contained in the lease, on account of the land being reasonably required for building, mining, or any other industrial purpose, or for roads or sewers necessary in connection with any of those purposes, or in the case of land let by a Government department or a town, county, or parish council, or a corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other undertaking, on account of the land being reasonably required by the department, council, or corporation for any such purpose as aforesaid or for a purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired or held by the department, council, or corporation, or has been appropriated under any statutory provision; or
    3. 1060
  3. (c) resumption of possession on account of any irritancy of the lease by the tenant.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1) (b), to substitute "one month's" for "three months'." The noble Lord said: It may be useless to press the Amendment, but the effect of this three months' notice will be that owners of land ripe for building will be reluctant to let ground for allotments. Agents have pointed out that feuars often want immediate entry, especially for industrial purposes. It may well be that the occupier of an allotment worth 5s. a year may hold up a building scheme or an industrial extension for three months and incidentally keep a large number of men out of work for weeks. It would be far better in the interests of the community that the allotment holder should clear out at once with the fullest compensation than block development for three months and get no compensation. It is a matter of sonic importance, and if the noble Earl has any doubt about it perhaps he will postpone the question to the Report stage.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 17, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am sorry to have to begin the Committee stage by refusing the noble Lord's request, but I think he will agree with me, before we finish this evening, that the Government have been very amenable, and that we have agreed upon nearly every other Amendment that will come before us. This suggestion has already been negatived in this House, for very good reasons, which were stated on the English Bill, and which I need not reiterate now. Clauses 1 and 2 are, in effect, the result of a compromise between the landlords and the allotment holders, and I think the allotment holders in Scotland would probably feel a grievance if they were not treated so well as those in England. After all, there is not much in this question of three months' notice at that time of the year. It is easy to give your notice well beforehand, and it would practically come in with the termination of a month or a week, according to when you gave your notice. I do not see the necessity of altering it from three months, and I think it would be unwise to destroy the general agreement arrived at between the two parties concerned. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. We have met him very fairly, I think, in regard to other Amendments later in the Bill.

LORD SALTOUN

I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection 1 (b), to leave out "reasonably" ["reasonably acquired for building"]. The noble Duke said: As the noble Duke opposite has said, we have had some opportunity of discussing these Amendments, and, in consequence, I and other noble Lords who are acting with me have reduced our Amendments as much as possible to avoid taking up more of your Lordships' time than is necessary. I do not propose to speak at any length on this question as I understand the Amendment is to be accepted. It was considerably discussed on the English Bill. It is a very reasonable Amendment, and several consequential Amendments which I have on the Paper are, I believe, the same as those moved to the English Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, leave out ("reasonably")—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, which was arrived at by agreement, and after very detailed discussion by the parties chiefly interested in the matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved to leave out all words in subsection (1) (b), after "in connection with any of these purposes," and to insert: (c) resumption of possession under a power in that behalf contained in the lease in the case of land let by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, clock, canal, water, or other public undertaking on account of the land being required by the corporation or company for any purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired or held by the corporation or company, or appropriated under any statutory provision.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved in the hope that certain undertakings that were given by the Government on the English Bill will be held applicable to the present case.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, leave out from ("purposes") in line 23 to ("or") on page 2, line 7, and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

LORD CLWYD

I believe this Amendment is going to be accepted by the Government, and I will not trouble your Lordships with any observations upon it.

LORD STANMORE

As Lord Stuart of Wortley has said, this Amendment follows Amendments already made in the English Bill, and we shall be very glad to accept it, but there are one or two verbal alterations in the drafting that we should like to suggest. I should be very glad if the noble Lord can put it down again on Report, and we can consult in the meantime as to these alterations.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

On that understanding, I shall, of course, be glad to meet the convenience of the noble Lord. Do I understand that they are purely verbal alterations?

LORD STANMORE

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "reasonably", where that word secondly occurs. The noble Duke said: I dare say that my noble friend opposite will see that this Amendment is made in the new clause.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 1, leave out ("reasonably").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Compensation on removing from allotment gardens.

2.—(1) Where land is let by a local authority, an association, or any other person for use by the tenant as an allotment garden, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of this section, and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be entitled at the termination of the tenancy, in removing from the land, to recover from the lessor compensation for crops growing upon the land in the ordinary course of the cultivation of the land as an allotment garden, and for manure applied to the land since the taking of the last crop there from in anticipation of a future crop.

(2) Compensation under this section shall be recoverable only if the tenancy is terminated by the lessor and terminated between the first day of May and the first day of November.

(3) Where under any lease entered into after the date of the passing of this Act land is let to a local authority or to an association for the purpose of being sub-let for use as allotment gardens, this section shall, except so far as is otherwise provided by the lease, apply not only to the tenancy of the sub-tenants but also to the tenancy of the local authority or association notwithstanding that the crops have been grown and the manure applied by the sub-tenants.

(4) This section shall apply to a tenancy (other than the tenancy of a local authority or association) current at the date of the passing of this Act, but not so as to affect the operation of any notice to remove given, possession resumed, or proceedings for resumption commenced before that date.

(5) This section shall apply to the termination of the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land the subject of a lease.

(6) Except as provided by this section or by the lease, the tenant of land under a tenancy to which this section applies shall not he entitled to recover compensation from the lessor at the termination of the tenancy, and the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1908 to 1921, relating to compensation shall not apply to any tenancy to which this section applies.

(7) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the tenant of any land to remove upon the termination of his tenancy any fruit and other trees or bushes planted or erection made by him on the land during his tenancy.

(8).—(a) The compensation under this section from the lessor on the termination of a tenancy to which this section applies, and such further compensation (if any) as is recoverable from the lessor under the lease shall, in default of agreement, be determined by an arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the Board.

(b) Any such agreement or determination with respect to compensation may, if any sum payable thereunder is not paid within fourteen days from the date of the agreement or determination, be competently recorded for execution in the books of council and session or sheriff court books, and shall be enforceable in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral.

(9) This section shall not apply to any tenancy which had terminated before the date of the passing of this Act, or where a notice to remove has been given, or possession has been resumed, or proceedings for resumption have been commenced before that date.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (2), after "terminated," to insert "either (a)." The noble Duke said: This is consequential upon the Amendment which stands next upon the Paper to insert, at the end of subsection (2), the words" or (b) by resumption of possession at any time under paragraph (b) of the immediately preceding section of this Act." It is the equivalent of an Amendment moved by Lord Stanhope in the English Bill, which was accepted by the Government, and I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be prepared to support me now. In the Bill, as it stands, allotment garden holders receive compensation if they are evicted in the cropping season, but not if they are evicted in the winter season, on six months' notice, because, with that notice, they can arrange to avoid loss, and are not in the least hardly treated. If, however, an allotment holder is evicted after only three months' notice, as may happen under paragraph (b), he may be unable to avoid seine loss, even though the notice expires in the winter season. I am certain that noble Lords opposite, as well as the Government, wish to be perfectly fair to the allotment holder, and do not want him to have any chance of being hardly treated under the Bill. It is, therefore, proposed by the Government to follow the English precedent. I hope noble Lords will agree to that course.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 42, after ("terminated") insert ("either (a)").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I think that what the noble Duke said is quite correct. This undoubtedly gives considerably increased compensation, but it is generally considered quite reasonable, and in conformity with the English Bill, which passed through your Lordships' House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 43, at end, insert ("or (b) by resumption of possession at any time under paragraph (b) of the immediately preceding section of this Act").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ELPHINSTONE moved, in subsection 4, to leave out "other than the tenancy of a local authority or association." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next standing in my name—to insert, in subsection (6), after "1908 to 1921," the words: "and of subsection (9) of Section 26 of the Act of 1894"—should be considered together. Under the Bill, as it stands now, all contracts entered into by individuals as to allotments are cancelled, whereas those entered into by a local authority are not, as I understand it, subject to this retrospective legislation. I do not propose at this moment to start a discussion on the merits or demerits of retrospective legislation, for I should imagine that we are all of one mind—namely, that this is a very bad principle and one which is, to-day, far too often adopted.

I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill the reason why local authorities are exempted front the provisions which affect the rest of the community. Secondly, I should like to ask him whether we are right or wrong in thinking that, owing to this exemption, the position may arise that the local authorities, Lot being subject to these provisions but remaining within the scope of the Act of 1894, will be entitled to receive from the landowner the fuller compensation provided for by the earlier Act, whereas they would only have to pay to the allotment holder the rate of compensation provided for in this Bill. Considerable doubt exists in the minds of many of us as to the reason for exempting local authorities, and as to the possible consequences which may arise from that exemption.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("ether than the tenancy of a local authority or association"). —(Lord Elphinstone.)

LORD STANMORE

Clause 2 of this Bill, although the form differs slightly, is retrospective to just the same extent as Clause 2 of the English Bill: that is, it will affect existing agreements with allotment garden holders themselves, but only future agreements between landlords and local authorities or associations. In such agreements, the parties, having in view subsection (3) of Clause 2, and knowing the nature of the new compensation to the holders, can make whatever arrangement they choose; but in existing leases to local authorities or associations, the condition of the lease will hold good. I think that the words ought to remain in as they make it clear that the compensation under this clause is, in the case of current tenancies, limited to allotment holders only.

LORD ELPHINSTONE

I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can tell me what will be the position. I think it will arise that the local authorities can get what I may call the fuller compensation under the Act of 1894.

LORD STANMORE

There has been so much change in this part of the Bill that I should be very glad it the noble Lord would consent to postpone this matter till the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ELPHINSTONE had on the Paper an Amendment to move in subsection (6), after "1921," to insert "and of subsection (9) of section 26 of the Act of 1894." The noble Lord said: In the circumstances I do not wish to press this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

There is one thing that I want to ask, and it is this: There is great confusion as regards Section 26 of the Act of 1894, and I would like to ask whether His Majesty's Government would consider this matter carefully before Report., because I think it really does require amendment, and it is very likely that their advisers will be of the same opinion.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I agree with the noble Duke. Section 26 is being quoted very freely in this Bill, and there will have to be redrafting before the Report stage. We quite understand the position.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to leave out subsection (7) and insert the following new subsection: ( ) The tenant of any land under a tenancy to which this section applies may before the termination of the tenancy remove any fruit trees or bushes provided and planted by the tenant and any erection, fencing or other improvement erected or made by the tenant, making good any injury caused by such removal.

The noble Duke said: I would point out to Lord Saltoun that we are practically embodying in this Amendment all the proposals contained in his Amendments which follow. We have drafted them as one subsection, and are putting that in in the place of the subsection which now stands in the Bill. If we pass this Amendment it will probably negative the whole of his subsequent Amendments, but I would point out that it incorporates everything that he can reasonably want. I think we may take this Amendment in my name as intended to remedy a defect in Section 7 in its present form. The existing Allotment Act of 1892 contains in Section 7, subsection (6), a provision about the removal of fruit trees which this Bill expressly saves. That existing provision, however, applies only to allotments provided by local authorities, whereas this clause applies to allotment gardens leased from any owner, and we have to bring it on all fours in order to include them. It is proposed to insert this new provision, which is in the form which is to be found in the English Bill, to which your Lordships have already agreed.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 26 to 29, leave out subsection (7), and insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD SALTOUN

I agree that my Amendments are covered by the Government Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection 8, to leave out "Board", and insert "sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the allotment garden is situated." The noble Duke said: This Amendment is very much in conformity with the English Bill. This is one of the arbitration clauses, and it is far more advantageous to have someone in the locality who knows the point at once than to have the Board, who are at a considerable distance. I think the Government more or less agree to this Amendment. There is only one other point—namely, that it is most desirable that there should not be any legal procedure, but that it should simply be done by letter or some other means. It is possible that other words may have to be added to simplify the formula, and I ask the noble Duke to do that on Report, if it be necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 35, leave out ("Board"), and insert ("sheriff having jurisdiction in the, place where the allotment garden is situated").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am prepared to accept the noble Duke's Amendment, subject of course, as he has suggested, to the necessity of looking into the drafting of the clause. We want, in the first place, to avoid expensive legal proceedings, and, secondly, to ensure that anybody can get the matter settled reasonably near his own locality, and that the arbitration shall be done by people who understand the locality, as localities differ very much. We do not say for a moment that the Board could not have done this—I think they could perfectly well—but the sheriff substitute exists, and there is no reason why he should not deal with the matter. As the noble Duke suggests, there is no reason why it might not be done by a letter addressed to the sheriff clerk, to whom the sheriff could then give the necessary directions.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, at the end of subsection (8), to insert the following new paragraph: (c) The proper expenses of the arbitration shall be borne by such of the parties or by the parties in such proportions as the arbiter shall direct, but be recoverable by the arbiter from any of the parties, and any amount paid by any of the parties in excess of the amount (if any) directed by the arbiter to be borne by him shall be recoverable from the other party or parties and may be deducted from any compensation payable to such party or parties. The noble Lord said: The Amendment proposes to insert a new subsection which had its origin in the Agriculture Act, 1920.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 42, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Laminglon.)

LORD STANMORE

We are prepared to accept this Amendment. I may possibly want to suggest some revision of the drafting, if my noble friend will agree to that.

LORD LAMINGTON

I agree to that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Amendment of statutory provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land for allotments.

4.—(1)—(a) An order for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments under the Allotments Acts shall no longer require the approval of the Secretary for Socotland, and the references to such approval in paragraphs (5) and (7) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1919, in so far as that schedule applies to any such order, shall cease to have effect.

(b) Paragraph (6) of the said schedule (which relates to orders providing for the compulsory acquisition by leasing of land for allotments) shall be amended by the addition thereto of the following provision—

"(c) It shall not be necessary for the order to incorporate any provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts or of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, other than such provisions as may be prescribed by the Board under subsection (7) of section twenty-six of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894."

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section twenty-six of the Act of 1894 as amended or applied by any subsequent enactment, any question or difference arising on the termination of a tenancy created by a compulsory lease, or on the resumption of possession of any land the subject of such a lease, with respect to the amount due for compensation for improvements, or for depreciation, or for the loss of the land, or otherwise, shall in default of agreement be determined by an arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the Board.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment counsel shall not be heard in any arbitration under the Allotments Acts, or as to compensation payable for lands acquired for allotments under those Acts, unless the Board otherwise direct.

(4) Paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of section 26 of the Act of 1894 (which restricts the breaking up of permanent pasture on land taken on lease for allotments) shall not apply to land so taken on lease after the date of the passing of this Act.

(5) So much of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1892 as requires that a local authority before acquiring land for allotments shall be of opinion that such allotments cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent and on reasonable conditions by voluntary arrangement between the owners of land suitable for such allotments and the applicants for the same, shall cease to have effect.

(6) For section twenty of the Act of 1919 (which relates to land for allotments) there shall be substituted the following section:—

  1. "(1) If a local authority are unable by agreement to acquire by purchase suitable land for allotments at a reasonable price, the authority may apply to the Board for an order providing for the compulsory acquisition of such land by purchase:
  2. "(2) If a local authority are unable by agreement to obtain on lease suitable land for allotments at a reasonable rent and subject to reasonable conditions, the authority may apply the Board for an order providing for the compulsory acquisition of such land by leasing:
  3. "(3) For the purposes of any application under this section the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect."

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (1). The noble Duke said: This is an Amendment of considerable importance. The paragraph which I propose to leave out gives power to the Chairman of I he Board of Agriculture to sign or confirm compulsory orders. We consider that any order for compulsorily acquiring land should be signed by the Minister responsible to Parliament. In this Bill there might not be great objections to time exercise of the power, but it is creating a very bad precedent. During the war it was temporarily allowed in England, but the power lapsed. I think it is most necessary to keep the control in the hands of Parliament, and that any of these orders should be signed by the responsible Minister. It may be argued that he is head of the whole Department, and therefore is responsible, but I do not think it is the same thing. My Amendment, after all, only follows out the lines on which the Government have worked in other measures, suck as the Agriculture Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 10 to 16, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD STANMORE

Paragraph (a) was inserted in the Bill a accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Allotments, made, no doubt, with a view to the simplification of procedure. Local authorities in Scotland have never been able, even temporarily, as in England, to make compulsory orders for allotment land without confirmation. They have to apply for an order to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, a Department which, as the noble Duke says, is responsible to Parliament through the Secretary for Scotland, just as the Minister for Agriculture is responsible for the Department in England. It is the case that the Schedule to the Act of 1919, designed primarily for the compulsory acquisition of large tracts of land under Part I of that Act, does require the approval of the Secretary. We do not say that the deletion of this paragraph would mean serious delay or expense in making allotment orders. It is clear that there would be no difference in the responsibility if the noble Duke's Amendment is accepted. The responsibility was, and remains, with the Secretary for Scotland.

LORD SALTOUN

Does the noble Lord accept the Amendment?

LORD STANMORE

I shall not divide against it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON moved to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: My object in moving this. Amendment is simply to elicit information as to the reasons for the insertion of this paragraph, and to ascertain its precise effect. If it is really intended to facilitate the drafting of an order, well and good; but it would rather appear that it would be in the sole discretion of the Board to decide which clauses are to be included in the order and which not.

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 17 to 20, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)

LORD STANMORE

I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. Paragraph (b) is truly a drafting Amendment intended to clarify the meaning of Schedule I of the Act of 1919, so far as it relates to the leasing of allotment land. That Schedule, in paragraph (2), directs that the order shall incorporate, with any necessary adaptations, the Lands Clauses Acts, and Sections 70 to 78 of the Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845. Paragraph (6) (b) of the Schedule, which relates specially to the leasing of allotment land, applies Section 26 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, which, in turn, directs that the order may apply, with adaptations, such provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as appear to the Board to be necessary. Many of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act have no possible application to the leasing of allotment land, and it is thought better to make it clear that only the relevant provisions need be incorporated. All such orders have in any case to be in a form prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland, by Article (2) of the Schedule. While the paragraph in the Bill is not of great importance, its retention is thought desirable, as it will make consolidation easier.

LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ELPHINSTONE moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection: (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (9) of section 26 of the Act of 1894 (which deals with the compensation payable by a landlord on resuming possession of land compulsorily leased for allotments), compensation shall be payable only to the allotment holders and not to the parish council and the allotment holders. The noble Lord said: I was very glad to hear from the noble Duke opposite that His Majesty's Government recognise that Section (26) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act of 1894, so frequently quoted here, is in such an unsatisfactory condition that steps will be taken to put in only that part of it which at present holds good. It is possible that the point I was going to raise may be one of those which are to be dealt with, but at present the section reads— … the landlord shall pay to the parish council and to the allotment holders of the land for the time being such sum— What I want to ask is whether it is really intended, as appears on the face of it, that the landowner should make what, in effect, sounds like double payment—one payment to the local authority, and the other to the allotment holder. While on the subject of Section 26 of that Act I should also like to draw attention to what I consider the extreme vagueness of what the compensation is really payable for. The words are— by way of compensation for the loss of such land for the purposes of allotments. It is very hard to see on what basis compensation is likely to be assessed. I think it would have been a very good thing if a clause could have been added to this Bill as was done, I believe, in the case of the English Bill, detailing the compensation payable in the case of allotments other than allotment gardens. At the present moment there are at least four Acts dealing with this question, and it is almost hopeless trying to consult them in the endeavour to extract the information required.

This leads me to the question of the definition—or rather I should say the want of definition—of the word "allotment," which urgently requires to be defined. We all know small holdings, and we know market gardens; and allotment gardens are defined in this Bill. So far as I know it is almost impossible at the moment, in spite of the Acts of 1892 and 1894 and the Agriculture Act, to say what is or what is not an allotment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Elphinslone.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I really do not think that the noble Lord's suggestion will make matters very much better. We are well aware of the point he has raised. First of all, as to double compensation, we have agreed already that we are going to have a competent arbiter selected according to the methods suggested by noble Lords on the other side, and I think we can be pretty certain that the arbiter will be a fair man. I have never heard of anyone—certainly not in my own country—paying double compensation, that is, two compensations for one subject, and I do not think there is any real risk of that. Even if any arbiter suggested it to him, I cannot imagine that the noble Lord, for instance, would pay double compensation for the same thing, or that it would be very easy to extract; and I ant not really frightened of it.

Another point which the noble Lord touched upon is the question of paying compensation to local authorities in the case of resumption. The point there is that they may have had to spend a great deal on the land and it is resumed again very quickly. That:, again, would be a matter for arbitration, and there would be very little to go to the small holder. The main point is to have a fair arbiter; I would far rather take my chance with a fair arbiter than with an abstruse Act. So far as Section 26 is concerned, if there is anything in it which is not clear—certainly I cannot speak for the Government—I will do my very best personally to see that the matter is made clear, and I have no doubt the noble Lord will help me in that.

LORD ELPHINSTONE

I thank the noble Duke for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "not." The noble Duke said: The Amendment on the Paper suggests that pasture is not to be taken as long as arable land is available. I rather fancy the noble Duke opposite does not want to accept this Amendment, but I am afraid it is one which we on this side must press. It was accepted by your Lordships and put into the English Bill, and I do not see any reason why it should not be inserted in the Scottish Bill. As your Lordships are aware, it is very often the case that pasture near a town—it may be for grazing cows or otherwise—is very important, and it is undesirable that it should be broken up if other suitable land is available. In the next Amendment I am suggesting the insertion of the words, "only if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland that no arable land which is equally suitable for the purpose, is reasonably available." This is not a very strong Amendment and I hope your Lordships will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, leave out ("not").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

The noble Duke has apparently a rather uneasy conscience about this Amendment and thinks that I am not likely to accept it on behalf of the Government. I understand, of course, what he really wants. He knows what happened in the war when a great deal of very fine pasture was broken up and irretrievably spoilt, and I fancy he wants to prevent allotments being taken up and laid out and then, possibly, thrown up again a very short time afterwards, with the result that the allotment is no use and the pasture is ruined. If the allotments were going to remain there I do not suppose the noble Duke would mind. I will not say it is equally important, but it is almost as important to have allotments around a town as it is to have grazing for cows, more especially when the grazing for cows can be put farther away, and the allotments must be closer.

I think it would be a pity to say that no ground around a town which is in grass is to be broken up foe allotments, because that would make it extremely difficult in some cases to get any allotments. We must trust to a great extent to the common sense of individuals. There is agricultural ground, and it is just as important to increase the agricultural ground as it is to maintain the pasture in some cases. I am thinking now of a town in the north where it would be perfectly impossible to have allotments if this were to go on. It is a town where allotments are particularly wanted, because all round there is grazing land which happens at present to be held by auctioneers, and flying stock comes in one day and goes out the next. It is particularly dirty ground which, in my humble opinion, would certainly be much better if it was in arable rather than in its present state. That is the reason why the Government oppose this Amendment. I think we may trust the local authorities and the landlords between them to agree on the subject. I would rather not hypothecate one particular thing for one subject and one for another, but leave it to their common sense.

So far as compensation is concerned, I want to remind the noble Duke that it is a question of compensation. I will say that I am sure he does not mean that, but is thinking on the broad lines; but it is a question of compensation, and there is an arbiter there, and if the pasture is broken up there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the arbiter giving absolutely full and proper compensation. For that reason I do not see my way to accept the Amendment, and I hope the noble Duke will not press it. I am glad to see that conscience has also pricked some of the noble Lords on the other side who, I think, may possibly have been going to support the Amendment.

LORD BLEDISLOE

With a wholly unpricked conscience I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Duke on this side. I do not see, in the first place, why you want to establish a different principle in relation to Scotland from that which we have already admitted and inserted in the Bill in relation to England. What does this Amendment mean? I do not think that the noble Duke opposite has really reasoned along the lines on which the Amendment goes. All it says is that when you have arable and pasture land between which to choose, you choose the arable first and do not unnecessarily break up pasture. In the light of what happened during the war, it seems to me to be a very reasonable Amendment to suggest. Furthermore, as I pointed out when a similar Amendment was under consideration in the case of the English Bill, there is going to be a great temptation in some cases to put pressure on the local authority to plough up pasture land in preference to taking what might otherwise be more suitable arable land. There is a high manurial value in newly turned pasture land from which market gardeners and allotment holders are going to derive a benefit for three or four years. But that is not going to be a sufficient reason in the public interest to tie up pasture land for accommodation purposes, as so much land is in the neighbourhood of large towns, when there is arable land which is equally suitable for the purpose; and that is the whole point. I hope the noble Earl will insist on the Amendment.

LORD LAMINGTON

I hope the noble Duke will persist in his Amendment. The noble Duke opposite spoke with a rather uneasy conscience. I thought his own speech was very wobbly indeed. It is most indecisive to talk about trusting local authorities and everybody else. We want to see some Security against land being wantonly taken when other land equally suitable is available. I hope, therefore, that the noble Duke will press his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I am afraid I must press this Amendment. I do not think the noble Duke opposite has quite grasped the point. I would remind your Lordships that the Board will decide this matter, and that it is only if suitable land cannot be obtained elsewhere. That is entirely for the Board to say. This safeguard is in the English Bill, and I think it only right and fair that your Lordships should give it to Scotland. We want to make the provision of allotments as easy as possible, and if people have a fear that their pastures will be broken up they will be less inclined to give the land.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am prepared to accept the noble Duke's Amendment, subject to this: that it will probably be argued over again by other experts in another place.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, at end insert ("only if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland that no arable land which is equally suitable for the purpose, is reasonably available"). —(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:

"(5) Section 5 of the Act of 1892 shall be amended by the addition of the following provision— And it shall be the duty of the local authority with respect to any land acquired by them, under this Act to provide and maintain adequate and suitable approaches thereto.

The noble Marquess said: The effect of this Amendment will be to lay upon a local authority the obligation of providing an adequate approach for allotment holders to their allotments. It will also, of course, have the effect of protecting, in some measure, the owners or occupiers of neighbouring land from the risk of trespass.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)

THE DUKE of ATHOLL

With the intention of this Amendment I agree, as I think everybody must. It would be impossible to have allotments if there were no means of access to them, but I desire to point out to the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment that local authorities already have the powers, as the clause stands, and that the matter is fully covered. I think it is more clear as it already is than it would be if the obligation suggested by this Amendment were adopted, but if the noble Marquess will not press the Amendment I will promise to look into it. If by any chance it is not already clear that proper access will be made by local authorities, then I shall be quite ready to reconsider the matter, but I am certain that what the noble Marquess desires by his Amendment is already provided for.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

Is the duty laid upon the local authorities?

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

They must, of course, provide access to the allotments which they provide, but if there be any doubt I will let the noble Marquess know. I went into the matter this morning very carefully, and I think it is already provided for.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Is it not the fact that in the present Act this is merely a permissive power, and not a mandatory obligation? I understand that the noble Marquess desires to make it mandatory upon local authorities to provide proper means of access to these allotments, and I should have thought that that was a proper obligation to put upon local authorities. I know allotments to which it is extremely difficult to take a wheelbarrow owing to the miserable condition of the path giving access.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I can only repeat what I have said, that if the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment now we will go into the matter and bring it up again on Report, if necessary. As at present advised I believe the point is covered already by Scottish law.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CLWYD moved, at the end of subsection (6) (2), to insert: Provided that in the case of land which has boon acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, or canal under- taking, such leasing shall be subject to a condition enabling the corporation or company to resume possession of the land when required by the corporation or company for the purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was so acquired.

The noble Lord said: The object, of the Amendment is to place harbour authorities and railway companies in Scotland, in relation to the compulsory leasing of land by local authorities, upon precisely the same footing as they are put in the English Bill. As your Lordships will remember, statutory corporations in England were protected in regard to this by Section 39 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. This protection was affected by the English Bill as it was first introduced into this House, but, substantially, the protection was restored by an Amendment passed in this House to that Bill. The object of this Amendment is to put Scottish railway companies and harbour authorities in the same position as English authorities and railway companies.

I will only say, further, that there has undoubtedly been a difference in the legislative development upon this point as between Scotland and England and Wales, but the fact remains that up to a recent date Scottish companies were protected by this exemption. In the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, however, this exemption was, for some reason, possibly through inadvertence, ignored, and there is no mention of it in this Bill. There may possibly be a doubt as to the necessity of this Amendment, but I think it is on all grounds very desirable that it should be made clear that in this matter of compulsory leasing by local authorities there is no difference between the railway companies and harbour authorities in Scotland and similar authorities in England. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 27, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Clwyd.)

LORD STANMORE

I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. With respect to allotment gardens, railway, dock and canal undertakings will enjoy special privileges on resumption, given them in Clause 1 of this Bill; and with respect, to land leased from local authorities for allotments, not being allotment gardens, the Bill makes no change in the existing law with respect to such undertakings. The Amendment indicates nothing as to notice or compensation. I should also like to point out that the right of resumption has been settled in Clause 1 on the noble Lord's own Amendment.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

This is no question of resumption but a question of the creation of what you may call new intrusions upon property which really has been appropriated by Parliament for totally different purposes, and it was only done in 1919 when legislation was passing this House, which is describable really as emergency legislation, introduced not during the war but arising out of the war, and as an immediate sequel of the war. It is true that, in view of the fact that a very important transport measure was going through the House at the time, the same attention was not given to the need for an exception being made in favour of statutory companies in this case as ought to have been given. These rights to invade never existed until 1919, and were then only created because of the special necessities.

We submit that it is unreasonable that railway systems and other statutory undertakings, some of which have been grouped together so that English and Scottish railways will be under the same management, should be subjected to different procedure and treated as if they were going to be guilty of arbitrary resumptions. There is no fear of arbitrary resumptions as against allotment holders by railway companies and others. They do not take back into their own hands these little gardens and scraps of spare land for no reason at all. They would only take them back in order to widen railways, or for the erection of warehouses in the neighbourhood of stations. These purposes would require expenditure, and that has to come out of capital which has to be raised. Therefore, I think you have the best possible security against any arbitrary use of the power to resume.

LORD CLWYD

May I ask the noble Lord, if there is any doubt as to whether the two categories of companies in England and Scotland are not upon the same footing, whether he is prepared to accept words on Report which would make that point clear?

LORD STANMORE

I am afraid I cannot give such an undertaking.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause: —(1) The council of any burgh with a population of ten thousand or upwards shall, unless exempted by the Board from the provisions of this section, establish an Allotments Committee, and all matters relating to the exercise and performance by the council of their powers and duties under the Allotments Acts as respects the provision of allotment gardens (except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money) shall stand referred to such committee, and the council before exercising any such powers shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent., receive and consider the report of the Committee with respect to the matter in question, and the Council may delegate to the committee, with or without restrictions, any of the said powers except as aforesaid. (2) An allotments committee established under this section shall comprise persons other than members of the council, representative of the interests of occupiers of allotment gardens in the burgh, and being themselves occupiers of such allotment gardens provided that such co-opted members shall be less than one-half but shall not be less than one-third of the total number of the members of the committee. (3) The accounts of any receipts or payments by or to a committee under powers delegated under this section shall be accounts of the council and made up and audited accordingly.

The noble Marquess said: I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the Scottish National Union of Allotment Holders. Under the Land Settlement Act, 1919, the allotments committees are purely advisory in their functions. In the English measure the allotments committees are set up on a statutory basis, and have far more power to stimulate interest in the borough councils in allotments than the purely consultative committees in Scotland. When a local authority is disinclined to forward the interest of allotment holders it has been found that these consultative committees in Scotland have been quite unable to do anything for their constituents. Even when these committees have met regularly they have found that many matters concerning allotments have not been brought before them and that they have not been consulted with regard to questions of finance in connection with allotments. There is a sentimental side to this question. Allotment holders in Scotland are anxious to enjoy the same status in relation to a local authority as allotment holders in England enjoy under the English measure.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 30, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)

THE DUKE OP ATHOLL

I am very sorry that I cannot agree to the noble Marquess's Amendment. It involves an absolute and entire alteration of the county method by which these matters are dealt with in Scotland. I know that a clause on similar lines appears in the English measure, but I should have thought that the noble Marquess, who is so perfervid a Scot, would have been the last person to advance that as a reason why we should have it in the Scottish Bill. By Section 19 of the Land Settlement Act, 1919, it is already the statutory duty of the town council of every burgh, where the Secretary for Scotland so requires, to appoint annually a consultative allotments committee, and we may be quite certain that if there is sufficient agitation in any place where the local authority has not clone so, the Secretary for Scotland would require such a committee to be set up. That consultative committee can consist of persons not being members of the town council.

I understand that certain allotment holders desire the more detailed provisions of the English measure; particularly, that the committee should include a certain proportion of allotment garden holders who are not town councillors, and that all the functions of the council with respect to allotment gardens should be referred to this committee. This is an absolute novelty, and I do not think the noble Marquess, on reflection, would desire to press it. It means that you are going to say to town councils that they must delegate their power, so far as allotments are concerned, to a non-elected committee. It would certainly be ultra-democratic legislation. The town council is elected by the people, and one can imagine that they are those who are trusted by the voters.

If town councils do not act in the matter of allotments, and there is a sufficient demand in the locality, then it is a simple thing for the electors not to return them at the next elections. To say to a town council, which is given certain powers, that it must put these powers in the hands of another body who have sot been elected at the polls is quite contrary to the spirit of both county and borough legislation in Scotland. That is the real reason why I must oppose the Amendment, and I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree with me if they consider the matter a little further.

EARL STANHOPE

I always knew that Scotland was a very conservative country, but though I am considered a reactionary, being a Die-Hard, I confess that. Scotland is certainly much more Tory than I am. I do not know anything about Scottish local legislation, but may I point out that members of educational committees in Scotland, as in England, need not necessarily be members of the town council, and that there are such persons as co-opted members in Scotland at the present time?

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

May I point out that it is proposed to delegate the whole of their power with it; a very different thing. The only committee I know of that delegates its powers at all is the cattle diseases committee, which is a committee of the county council. In this case it is a new committee right outside the existing authority. I do not say for one moment that they would be unreasonable, but they might be, and the town council would have divested itself of all its powers and obligations towards citizens in the matter.

EARL STANHOPE

It is, in fact, only suggested that Scotland should once more follow England, because, under the English Bill, the co-opted members could not come up to one-half of the elected members of the council, although they have to be one-third, and, therefore, they have no possibility of being in the majority on these committees, and the town councils would not delegate their authority to these ad hoc members, as the noble Duke seems to think. I think it is very essential that allotment holders should have allotments committees, to assist them to obtain allotments, and to see that they are well run. I grant that, under the English Bill, I hoped that His Majesty's Government would agree that these allotments committees should be permissive, that the word should be "may" instead of "shall," but it was most strongly resisted by the Government on the English Bill, and I am bound to confess that it has caused me considerable amusement to hear the arguments put forward by the Government, because they are just the arguments which were put forward on this side of the House against the Government on the English Bill. England and Scotland are not the same country, but they are very similar in many respects, and particularly in regard to allotments.

LORD BLEDISLOE

It seems to me rather difficult in this matter to differentiate between allotment holders in England and Scotland. With all respect to the noble Duke, he does not appear to me to have rightly interpreted the Amendment of my noble friend. He rather assumes that the whole of the powers of the local authority concerning allotments must, under this Amendment, be delegated to an advisory committee. But surely that is not what this Amendment suggests. It says that all matters relating to allotments shall stand referred to the allotments committee, with certain additional members. It goes on to say that the council shall receive and consider the report of the committee. It is open to them, after receiving that report, to adopt and act upon it, or not, just as they choose. It goes on to say that they may, if they choose, delegate—it is absolutely permissive— any of their powers, except the power of levying a rate or borrowing money. It is, therefore, within the option of the local authorities to delegate powers, if they choose to do so, but as regards what is mandatory in this Amendment, all that they delegate is the power of considering allotment questions. I sincerely hope the Amendment will be accepted, because I am certain, as a matter of equity, that it is difficult to argue that the Scottish allotment holders should have less say in the management of their allotments than similar allotment holders in this country.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I think, perhaps, it is the fault of their not being Scotsmen, but the noble Lords who have spoken are, no doubt, not aware that there is already a consultative committee in Scotland on the matter of allotments, and any town council can set one up. What we object to is giving them statutory powers to act in the matter. There is a statutory body which could deal with it, but Lord Linlithgow's Amendment would mean that powers were given away by the town council, with the exception, no doubt an important one, of finance. I see that Lord Haldane, who is far more versed in the law of Scotland than I am, shakes his head. Perhaps he will give his view.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

The noble Duke is really under a misapprehension. This Amendment does not propose to take any powers from the town council and hand them over to any committee. What it proposes to do is to introduce the procedure which is usual or universal in connection with boroughs in England. Local Government in England is carried on in this way. There is a committee, which is very often a statutory committee, and certain matters stand referred to it. It has no power over the town council, but merely inquires into those matters and refers to the main body, which may approve its action. The value of that is that it gives new vitality to the boroughs. Instead of providing some sort of sub-committee, which might be set up or not, you have now the statutory committee, which looks into such matters as education and brings them before the town council. There is no question of the town council delegating its powers, but merely of how the town council is to be advised. I should have thought that a better objection on the part of the Government was that this is importing English procedure into the system in Scotland, which has never had that procedure, and that it ought to be resisted on patriotic grounds. I can only say that I consider the English procedure much better than that which obtains in a Scottish burgh, and that the noble Duke need not be apprehensive that he is introducing any dangerous revolution.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

I do not think the noble Duke in charge of the Bill would accuse those who have asked me to move this Amendment of being any worse Scotsmen than he is, or than I am, and I am sure he would be the last to dispute that there are some good things for which it is necessary to come to England if we desire to enjoy them. The society which supports this Amendment desires to be put in precisely the same position as the allotment holders in England. If my noble friend quarrels with the wording of this Amendment, I do not stand here to defend it, and, if he will undertake that, at a later stage of this Bill, he will accept an Amendment which shall have the effect of placing allotment holders in Scotland in precisely the same relation to burgh councils as the English allotment holders occupy towards the town authorities in England, I will withdraw my Amendment now.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am afraid I would not fall quite into that trap, because it would be admitting exactly that for which the noble Marquess has been asking. I am glad to say that I have now the opinion of Lord Haldane that it is a perfectly new type of legislation for Scotland. It is a type which we have never had before, and we have got on very well without it. I would only point out that there is nothing permissive in the Amendment. If the noble Marquess would change the word "shall" to the word "may," and make it permissive I should be glad to consider the question on Report. But this is compulsory. It would be the only case in which it occurred in Scotland. I want to remind the noble Marquess that there is already a committee, and that consultative committees can be set up, although they have no power to vote; that is the difference. The town council have been elected by the people with the power of voting. They ought to retain that power, and not delegate it to other people. But there is nothing to prevent their having as many consultative committees as they like, and they are able to do so, if necessary, by order of the Secretary for Scotland.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

The noble Lord asks me to change the word "shall." It is a small word with a big meaning. I am afraid that I shall have to divide the House upon the Amendment, and I am not without hope that the noble Viscount below me will support me.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am not prepared to divide the House, for the very good reason that I think noble Lords on that side are more numerous than we are at the present moment, and it would be a waste of time. This is, of course, a matter which will be discussed a good deal in another place, and probably time would be wasted if I were to divide the House now. Therefore, I accept the Amendment with the proviso that it does not accord with what the Government desires.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5:

Powers of entry on unoccupied land.

(3) The right of occupation of the council may be terminated—

  1. (a) by not less than six months' notice in Writing to that effect given by the council to the owner in manner aforesaid, and expiring on or before the first day of May, or on or after the first day of November in any year; or
    2. 1086
  2. (b) by not less than one month's notice in writing given to the Council in any case where the land is reasonably required for any purpose other than the use of the land for agriculture.

(4) A tenant to whom land is let by a council or association under this section, and whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the right of occupation of the council, shall, unless otherwise agreed in the lease, be entitled to recover from the council or association, as the case may be, such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice to remove given by the council or association, as the case may be.

(5) Any person who is interested in any land on which entry is made by a council under this section, and who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, shall, if he makes a claim not later than one year after the termination of the right of occupation, be entitled to be paid by the council such amount or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss; and such amount or amounts shall in default of agreement be determined by an arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the board: Provided that a periodical payment of compensation in the nature of rent shall not exceed the rental value of the land as defined by this section.

(6) For the purposes of this section the expression "unoccupied land" means land in respect of which no person is entered as tenant or occupier in the valuation roll in force at the date of the notice of intended entry.

The expression "rental value" means the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay for the land if the land had continued in the same condition as at the date when entry was made under this section.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 19, after ("given") insert ("by the owner").—(Lord Saltoun.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STANMORE

I agree to all the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch.

Amendments moved—

Page 6, line 20, leave out ("reasonably")

Page 6, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise")

Page 6, line 39, leave out ("or amounts")

Page 6, line 41, after ("that") insert ("such amount may be paid by the council by way of periodical payments to be determined as aforesaid and that").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

EARL STANHOPE

Might I congratulate the Scottish members of the Government upon understanding a clause which I entirely failed to get the English section of the Government to understand on the English Bill.

On Question; Amendments agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN had given notice to move, in subsection (6), after the first "entry," to insert "and which has not been let and occupied subsequent to the making tip of the valuation roll." The noble Lord said: This is a rather important point. I do not think it will be understood by many of your Lordships, but every now and again it has been found impossible to find a tenant until after the valuation roll has been made up, and it is then entered as "unlet," and the landlord's name is entered as occupier. It may not be long after the making up of the roll before the landlord finds a tenant, who may have entered upon occupancy by the time the valuation roll is published. Of course, the valuation roll remains, until it is made up again the following year, with the landlord's name entered upon it.

If this subsection stands as it is framed such a person, although a bona fide tenant, may be ejected by the town council. That may be a very serious hardship for the tenant, because no compensation under subsection (5) will compensate hint for what would be, possibly, a very serious loss indeed. He might have put his capital in the land and not be able to find another field, and it would be a very serious matter for him. I have been asked to add certain words to the Amendment on the Paper, so that the words to be inserted will read, after "valuation roll," "prior to the receipt by the owner of the notice required to be given under subsection (2) of this section."

LORD STANMORE

I suggest that a simpler form of words to be added after "valuation roll" would be "and before the date of the notice."

LORD SALTOUN

I will move my Amendment in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 4, after ("entry") insert ("and which has not been let and occupied subsequent to the making up of the valuation roll, and before the date of the notice").—(Lord Saltoun.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: "This section shall not apply to land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock or canal undertaking." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in the hope that it will also be accepted.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 9, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

LORD STANMORE

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I beg to move a new clause after Clause 5.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 9, at end insert the following new clause.—

("—(1) Where land has been let to a local authority or to an association for the purpose of being sub-let for use as allotment gardens, or is occupied by a council under the powers of entry conferred by this Act, and the landlord, or the person who but for such occupation would be entitled to the possession of the land, proposes, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to resume possession of the land for any particular purpose, notice in writing of the purpose for which resumption is required shall be given to the local authority or association or council.

("(2) The local authority or association or council may by a counter notice served within ten days after receipt of such notice on the person requiring possession demand that the question as to whether resumption of possession is required in good faith for the purpose specified in the notice shall be determined by arbitration under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agriculture Holdings Act, 1908.

("(3) Possession of the land shall not be resumed until after the expiration of the said period of ten days or the determination of such question as aforesaid where such determination is demanded under this section.

("(4) This section shall not apply to any case where resumption of possession is required by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD STANMORE

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause: .The obligation of a town council under the Allotments Acts to provide allotments shall, if the population exceed ten thousand, be limited to the provision of allotment gardens not exceeding twenty poles in extent.

The noble Lord said: I think possibly this Amendment will be accepted by the Government, and I need not say very much on this subject, because the clause is already in the English Bill (Clause 12). It also follows recommendation number 10 of the Departmental Committee. As a matter of fact, one-eighth of an acre is sufficient for the purpose. The tilling of an allotment garden is not meant to be a whole-time occupation for a man, but a means of profitably employing his spare time. The area of an ordinary allotment luring the war was 10 poles; therefore, my proposal of 20 poles is double that amount, and this will not preclude a town council from letting a larger area to a single plot-holder temporarily, in the event of plots falling vacant, as they occasionally do. On the other hand, in urban areas it n ay not be possible to supply all the applicants with more than 20 poles each. I hope this Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 9, at end insert the said new clause. —(Lord Belhaven, and stenton.)

LORD STANMORE

I regret the limitation proposed, as 20 poles is a very small patch. However, it appears in the English Bill, and in those circumstances I am not prepared to resist it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF KINTORE moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:

"—Where an order has been made for the compulsory acquisition of any land, and notice to treat thereunder is not served by the acquiring authority within three months of the said order, so far as it relates to land in respect of which notice to treat has not been so served, shall become null and void.

"(2) Where an order has so become null and void as respects any laud no order authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or any part of such land shall be made within three years after the expiration of the said three months, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Board that there are special reasons justifying the failure to exercise the powers under the original order."

The noble Earl said: I entertain a somewhat confident hope that the reasonableness of the new clause that I propose may appeal to my noble friend, and that he will find it in his power to agree to it. I propose it in order to bring the Bill in this regard into line with the English Bill. As the Bill stands, while there is power in the local authority to make orders for compulsory acquisition of land there does not appear to be any limit to the time during which notice by the acquiring authority to treat must be served, and during which the power must be used. To acquire the land and then do nothing with it would seem to be obviously to the prejudice of the owner.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 9, at end insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Kintore)

LORD STANMORE

I am very glad to accept the noble Earl's Amendment, but there are one or two alterations of a purely drafting character which I should like to make on Report.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Travelling facilities for occupiers of allotments.

7.—(1) Where a town council as owner or lessee works any tramway or omnibus service the council may charge reduced fares to occupiers of allotments provided by the council when using such service for the purpose of proceeding to or returning from their allotments, subject to such conditions as the council may impose.

(2) Any person who travels at any such reduced fare on any occasion for which it is not available, or who fails to comply with any of the conditions attached thereto, shall be liable on summary conviction to a line not exceeding forty shillings.

LORD LAMINGTON moved in subsection (1), to substitute "allotment gardens" for "allotments" ["occupiers of allotments."] The noble Lord said: My object is simply to provide that the privilege to be given should be restricted to those who have allotment gardens, and not extended to those who may be working allotments for profit and are not entitled to the concession. Those who have allotment gardens may be some way from them and it is desirable to give them facilities, but I think those facilities should be restricted as I have indicated.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 19, leave out ("allotments") and insert ("allotment gardens").—(Lord Lamington.)

LORD STANMORE

I think it would be rather difficult to carry out this Amendment. A town council will not have a tramway service of its own unless in the case of a large town, where probably all the allotments would be allotment gardens in any case. In practice I think it would be difficult to distinguish between the two classes.

LORD LAMINGTON

Keep it to the English Bill.

LORD STANMORE

I think the objection would still hold good.

LORD LAMINGTON

The noble Lord has not answered the point that in the case of the English Bill it is inserted.

LORD STANINIORE

My noble friend will agree that it would be very difficult to distinguish between the two classes in a large town and to say who should have these privileges and who should not.

LORD LAMINGTON

I should think it quite possible, but I do not propose to press the Amendment if there is any vital difficulty in the matter.

EARL STANHOPE

Surely the whole point is that the Amendment brings the matter into line with the definition clause, Clause 11 of this Bill. If a piece of land is described as an allotment garden it comes in as an allotment in all kinds of Acts. If you call it an allotment garden here it will make it perfectly clear.

LORD SALTOUN

I asked the noble Lord on the Second Reading if he would define the meaning of the words "allotment" and "allotment garden." The definition may be found in some other Acts, but it is extremely difficult to get at them, and I think it is most important that it should be in the present Big. If there is no definition now of the meaning of the word "allotment," there will be a great dispute about it when a consolidation Bill is brought in.

LORD STANMORE

If the noble Lord presses the Amendment I will not oppose it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LAMINGTON

There is a consequential Amendment, similar to the last, which I now move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("allotments") and insert ("allotment gardens").—(Lord Lamington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Interpretation.

11.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

(2).—(a) In the Allotments Acts, except the provisions thereof hereinafter specified, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "allotment" includes an allotment garden.

(b) The excepted provisions referred to in the foregoing paragraph are—

In the Act of 1892, subsection (3) of section seven and subsection (2) of section eight.

In the Act of 1894, provisoes (a) and (b) to subsection (5) and subsection (9) of section twenty-six.

(3) Where under this Act any question arises as to whether land is reasonably required to any particular purpose the question shall be deter-mined—

  1. (a) where the landlord is a Government department by a certificate issued by the department;
  2. (b) where the landlord is a town council or a county council by a certificate issued by the Secretary for Scotland;
  3. (c) where the landlord is a parish council by a certificate issued by the Scottish Board of Health; and
  4. (d) in any other case by a certificate issued by the Board.

And any such certificate shall be final and conclusive.

LORD STANMORE

There is an Amendment to this clause which is consequential to an Amendment moved by the Duke of Atholl.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 19, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (6)").—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I have also a consequential Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 10, lines 24 to 37, leave out subsection (3). —(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.