ALLOTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 23 May 1922 vol 50 cc570-620

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

My Lords, I wish to ask a question of the noble Earl, of which I think he is aware. It is whether this Bill, the Allotments Bill, deals anywhere with the matters contained in Part II of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, which was referred to a little time ago in this House; and whether he will at the proper time point out where this occurs. I also desire to ask whether the matter will be so treated as to repeal Section 11 of the Act of 1920 and also the Act of 1887. I think the noble Earl will see the relevancy of this question, because his other Bill is actually before the Consolidated Bill Committee to-morrow, and upon whether or not the provisions of Part II are dealt with in this Bill depends the decision at which we shall arrive with regard to Part II.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)

My Lords, I was unaware that the noble Lord had intended to ask this question, but it was my intention, with your Lordships' permission, to make some observations with regard to some remarks of your Lordships on the subject of the confused state of the law as to tenancies of allotments. I find that, without making the present Bill unduly lengthy, it would be possible to repeal the existing enactments on this subject—which, I think, answers the noble Lord's question—to reproduce them, with some minor Amendments, in such a form that the Bill will contain the whole law, or practically the whole law, on this subject, and to show clearly the distinction between the law as to allotment gardens and the law as to other allotments. I have not placed the Amendments on the Paper for the Committee stage, as they may be affected by the Amendments made to the Bill in Committee, but I hope that your Lordships will have the Amendments on Friday, so that there will be time for their consideration before the Report stage is reached. I understand that this procedure will be in accordance with the view of the Consolidation Bill Committee, who are giving some consideration to the matter in connection with tile Agricultural Holdings Bill.

LORD CLINTON

If the noble Earl carries out this idea of giving the whole of the allotment law under cover of this Bill, may we presume that the allotment part of the Agricultural Holdings Bill will be withdrawn?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes, all that part of the law dealing with allotment gardens will be placed in this Bill.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Determination of tenancies of allotment gardens.

1.—(1) Where land is let on a tenancy for use by the tenant as an allotment garden or is let to any local authority or association for the purpose of being sub-let for such use the tenancy of the land or any part shall not (except as hereinafter provided) be terminable by the landlord by notice to quit or re-entry, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, except by—

1. (a) a six months or longer notice to quit expiring on or before the twenty-fifth day of March or on or after the twenty-ninth day of September in any year or
572
2. (b) re-entry, after three months previous notice in writing to the tenant, under a power of re-entry contained in the contract of tenancy on account of the land being reasonably required for building, milling, or any other industrial purpose or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes, or, in the case of land let by a Government department or local authority or a railway, dock, canal, water or other undertaking, on account of the land being reasonably required by the department, authority or corporation for any such purpose as aforesaid or for the purpose (not being the use of land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the department, authority, or corporation or has been appropriated under any statutory provision; or
3. (c) re-entry for breach of the contract of tenancy or on account of the tenant becoming bankrupt or compounding with his creditors, or where the tenant is an association, on account of its liquidation.

(2) This section shall apply to a tenancy current at the date of the passing of this Act, but not so as to affect the operation of any notice to quit given, re-entry made, or proceedings for recovery of possession commenced, before that date.

(3) Where under any contract of tenancy to which this section applies, made before the passing of this Act, the tenancy is either by express provision or by implication made terminable by the landlord by notice to quit expiring on a date between the twenty-fifth day of March and the twenty-ninth day of September, the tenancy shall be terminable by him on the twenty-ninth day of September, and any notice to quit given in accordance with the contract shall have the effect of a notice to quit on that day.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1), shortly before paragraph (a), to leave out "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I raised a strong objection to the breaking of existing contracts, and my Amendment really raises the whole question of the principle. There may possibly be occasions when it is necessary to break an existing contract, but there must be some very strong and urgent reason for so doing. On reading through this Bill I cannot see any necessity for breaking existing contracts. Landowners have entered into contracts with local authorities, and with private individuals. Why should not those contracts stand, and this Bill apply only to future contracts? I may say, for your Lordships' information, that I had this morning a discussion with representatives of the National Union of Allotment Holders, and I may be able to come to a wide agreement with them covering many aspects of tenure. I may be able to deal with these matters on the Report stage, but I informed them that at this late hour the Committee stage of this Bill must proceed as if we had had no meeting at all. I reserve everything that may he discussed on the Report stage. I do not wish to delay your Lordships as there are many Amendments on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

Before the noble Earl replies I should like to remind my noble friend that although the National Union of Allotment Holders is an authoritative body it is not the only organisation which represents allotment holders. A large number are affiliated to the Agricultural Organisation Society, and I think, if the noble Lord is in negotiation with one body, he should also agree to negotiate with the others before any agreement is come to.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

It is a little difficult—in fact, it is impossible—for me to know what has taken place between the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, and the National Union of Allotment Holders. As a member of a Committee I heard the views of the National Union of Allotment Holders, the Land Union and the Central Landowners Association. Both of the latter bodies, I believe, represent the landowners' point of view. After hearing exhaustively the evidence of the allotment holders and of the landowners' representatives, all I am cognisant of is the compromise that we arrived at. Before I deal with the terms of this Amendment, which really strikes at the root of the compromise reached by the Committee, it is well that your Lordships should understand the present position of the landowner who lets land for allotment gardens. There is no statutory provision as to the length of notice to quit which he must give to obtain possession; this is a matter to be regulated by the contract of tenancy, If in a difficult position as regards giving notice in consequence of the provisions in the Agriculture Act, 1920, as to payment of compensation for disturbance, whatever be the reason for which the notice to quit is given, the allotment holder is entitled, subject to certain exceptions (such as the death of the tenant) which are not material for this purpose, to be paid at least one year's rent of the allotment garden, and this is all that it is necessary for the landowner to do if the resumption is for building, mining, or other industrial purpose, or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes.

The other case is this. If the notice to quit is less than one year's notice, the allotment holder can obtain such an amount as represents the benefits which would have accrued to the occupier from the occupation of the allotment garden on the terms of expired tenancy during the period between the date of the expiration of the tenancy and the end Of one year from the date on which the notice to quit was given. It will be realised that the ascertainment of this amount is by no means easy, and it is clear that in some cases the amount that would be payable would be much in excess of one year's rent of the allotment. In the recent inquiry by the Committee over which I presided the representatives of the allotment holders seemed to recognise that the maintenance of this provision as to compensation for disturbance tended to make landowners very shy of letting their land for allotment gardens, and, after a very full discussion, the decision was arrived at unanimously by the members of the Committee that, in the interest of all parties, it was desirable to modify the position as regards compensation to be paid to quitting allotment holders and provide them with some greater security of tenure.

The Committee accordingly recommended the compromise which is embodied in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, and I strongly urge upon your Lordships that the compromise should be substantially adopted. The effect of the compromise is that a landowner should be able, at any time of the year if his contract of tenancy so provides, to re-enter on the land if it is reasonably required for building, mining, or any other industrial purpose, or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes, but that otherwise the landowner must give six months' notice to quit expiring between September 29 and the following March 25. In return for this additional security of tenure it is proposed that compensation for disturbance shall be abolished, and that, in addition, no compensation for crops shall be payable to the allotment holder except where his tenancy is terminated by the landlord on some date between September 29 and March 25.

The Amendment now moved provides that security of tenure shall only be given if the contract of tenancy does not otherwise provide. That is to say, that the landlord is able to contract himself out of Clause 1 and still retain the benefit of Clause 2. I cannot press too strongly on your Lordships that this Amendment would entirely alter the value of the Bill to allotment holders. If Clause 1 is altered in this way it will not carry out the compromise at which we arrived. I fully appreciate the objection of a statutory provision interfering with voluntary contracts, but it has been found by experience that legislation for the protection of agricultural tenants is of little value unless Parliament insists on the provisions having effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. I am, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord, realising how entirely inconsistent it is with the compromise, will not press it. For many months I sat on the Committee and heard the views of both sides, and the compromise arrived at is embodied in this Bill. It is, I think, a fair one in the interest of both parties.

THE EARL OF JERSEY

I do not think the explanation of the noble Earl entirely meets the point raised by my noble friend. I did not understand Lord Dynevor to refer to contracting out, but to the case where land had been placed at the disposal of a public authority for a definite period. I cannot see any hardship in asking the public authority, or those who have volun-

tarily entered into an agreement, to carry out the terms of the contract. Those who have entered into such a contract may reasonably be prepared to give up the land at the time specified in the original contract. It is a dangerous policy for the Government to approve, and, in fact, to suggest, a violation of the sanctity of contracts. The effect, I think, would be very far-reaching, very mischievous and exactly opposite to that which the Government intend. Landlords who have hitherto voluntarily placed their land at the disposal of a public authority for a specific period will be reluctant to do so in the future, because they will never have any means of knowing whether the agreement will be carried out.

What is required is a sense of security, a sense of stability, awl a general spirit of mutual co-operation. To override contracts in this way strikes at the very root of this principle. For that reason I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment, or at any rate to suggest something that will meet the point raised by my noble friend. If not, I shall support him should he go to a Division. The proposal in the Bill will benefit very few people while it may have a very far-reaching effect and be detrimental to the whole community. We all have the interests of allotment holders at heart. We do not wish to discourage allotment holdings. On the contrary, we wish to encourage the idea of allotments, but unless something like this Amendment is carried, I fear the opposite will be the effect.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Allendale, V.	Denman, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Dewar, L.
Devonshire, D.	Goschen, V.	Ernle, L.
	Hood, V.	Erskine, L.
Crewe, M.	Knollys, V.	Gorell, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Knutsford, V.	Hylton, L.
	Long, V.	Joicey, L.
Ancaster, E.	Novar, V.	Ludlow, L.
Bradford, E.	Peel, V.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Chesterfield, E.		Muir Mackenzie, L.
Chichester, E.	Durham, L. Bp.	Nunburuholme, L.
Eldon, E.		O'Hagan, L.
Lucan, E.	Abinger, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Onslow, E.	Armaghdale, L.	Southwark, L.
Plymouth, E.	Ashton of Hyde, L.	Stanmore, L, [Teller.]
Portsmouth, E.	Bearsted, L.	Strachie, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Bledisloe, L.	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Stamford, E.	Clinton, L.	Sudeley, L.
Stanhope, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Sumner, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Rutland, D.	Chaplin, V.	Kenyon, L.
Linlithgow, M,	Devonport, V.	Lawrence, L.
	Falmonth, V.	Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Abingdon, E.	Hampden, V.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Coventry, E.		Parmoor, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Ampthill, L.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Derby, E.	Avebury, L.	Pontypridd, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Barrymore, L.	Raglan, L.
	Bellew, L.	Redesdale, L.
Jersey, E. [Teller.]	Cottesloe, L.	Romilly, L.
Kilmorey, E.	Deramore, L.	Rotherham, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Desborough, L.	Saltoun, L.
Morton, E.	Dynevor, L. [Teller.]	Sandys, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Harris, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
	Hawke, L.
Birtie of Thame, V.	Hindlip, L.	Wyfold, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection 1 (a), to leave out "twenty-fifth day of March" and to insert "sixth day of April." The noble Earl said: The Committee recommended that, except when possession of the land was required for building, the tenants of allotment gardens should not he dispossessed except at six months' notice which should not expire until Lady Day and Michaelmas, the ordinary cropping of an allotment. The dates of Lady Day and Michaelmas vary in different parts of the country, and in order that a landowner with a Lady Day or Michaelmas tenancy may give due notice of its expiration, it is necessary to make provision that notices may expire by any date between the earliest Michaelmas, September 29, and the latest Lady Day, April 6. I think this Amendment is necessary, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, leave out ("twenty-fifth day of March") and insert ("sixth clay of April").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

VISCOUNT GALWAY

With regard to these dates, we quite realise the advantage of the noble Earl's proposal, but I should like to make sure that full justice is done to allotment holders. So early a date as September 29 may be very prejudicial to some allotment holders in the north, because quite as many potatoes are gathered in October as in September in the Midlands and Yorkshire, and it seems to me that it might be unfair to try to force the allotment holders to get the potatoes out of the ground before they are ready. I did not catch what the noble Earl said about a moveable date, but I am merely looking at the possible injustice that may be done to the allotment holder.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

This matter has already been brought to my notice, and I fully realise that in many eases potatoes will still be in the ground on the date named. I shall be pleased to make further inquiries before the Report stage, but I rather think that, for the reasons which I gave, these particular dates should be adhered to.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, after subsection 1 (a), to insert: (b) re-entry under a power in that behalf contained in the contract of tenancy in the case of land let by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, dock, 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 by the corporation or company or has been appropriated under any statutory provision.

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name has probably been perused by most of your Lordships, and it tells its own story. In any case it is clear that it is proposed to apply to certain kinds of public undertaking, all of which appear now in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 1. Paragraph (b) requires, in the first place, three months' notice, and, in the second place, that the land should be reasonably acquired for the purposes of the public undertaking. My Amendment applies to railways, docks, canals, and water and other public undertakings.

Taking an example from the ease with which I am most familiar, it is common to let land to allotment holders along the sides of railway embankments, on the slopes of railway cuttings, along other stretches, either at the top or at the bottom of the embankment, awl also upon other kinds of promises, even within the boundaries of the railway station yards, where provision has been made for the future erection of warehouses, for the laying down of sidings, and for the carrying out of similar railway works. In those cases there is no question of surplus land, seeing that for the disposal of surplus land Parliament has made other and even more efficient provision than this. It has never become the subject of controvery such as I am raising now. These lands have to be resumed, sometimes, it is true, not until after a long time has elapsed, but there are eases where it is necessary to resume them at very short notice indeed. Damage may have been caused by an accident; that damage has to be repaired; and you have to resume possession of your territory, and get rid of the allotment holders. I know a case where a landslide occurred upon a railway near the Metropolis, and if it had been laid down in allotments I am inclined to think that the replacement of the land and the undoing of the damage would have meant the resumption of land from allotment holders, who would probably have been counted by the score.

As to the use of the word "reasonable," at present the railway and similar companies have this right of the resumption of land provided that it is for the purpose of their undertakings. If it is not for the purpose of their undertakings that resumption can be challenged, and the issue can be taken before some tribunal which has the power to decide it. The interposition of the word "reasonable," however, raises a separate and additional issue, and if you look at Clause 15, which is the definition clause, you will find that "reasonable" means reasonable in the opinion of, and according to the terms of a certificate granted by, the head of a Government Department—a Minister.

Your Lordships will naturally enquire what Minister is to have this power of saying that the resumption asked for is reasonable or otherwise. Naturally, you would think that it ought to be the Minister of Transport, because the question of whether the resumption is reasonable or not must depend upon the proposed new warehouse to be built, or the proposed new siding to be laid down, or the proposed widening of the line, which involves an alteration of your embankment and the creation of an entirely new surface. It is clear that these necessities are determined by a consideration of the requirements of the public in regard to transport matters. However desirable it may be to cultivate for a time a certain quantity of potatoes, or other vegetables, for food, it surely is inure necessary that you should have regard to the ultimate requirements of the transport undertaking.

Therefore, surely it is not seemly that the matter should be relegated to a Minister who must be occupied primarily with the production, from year to year, of articles of food, which, however valuable in themselves, cannot be taken to weigh in the balance with these great transport interests, the creation of which alone make the bringing of food to the people possible. I should say that in the Agriculture Act, 1920, the power of resumption is given to the railway companies without the intrusion of the word "reasonable," and without the exercise of the discretionary power being confided to any Minister at all, but is limited to the necessities of the case. That provision has not been found to work unreasonably, and I do not see why that precedent should not be followed upon the present occasion.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, after ("or") insert the said new paragraph.—(Loral Stuart of Wortley.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

My Lords, the point raised by the Amendment of the noble Lord is raised, I think, a little more fully, by a subsequent Amendment standing in the names of Viscount Devonport and Lord Clwyd. This Amendment is a little wider, and I had rather hoped the noble Lord would have postponed the discussion of this matter to a later period. The position really is this. Before the Committee over which I presided we did not receive any evidence to show that corporations or companies whose cases the House has now, or, by the subsequent Amendment will have, under consideration, have exercised their power of resumption unreasonably, and I see therefore the force in the argument that these statutory bodies, entrusted with the acquisition of land primarily for statutory objects, should not be hampered by this Bill in carrying out those objects. But I feel difficulty in assenting to the suggestion that there is any risk of their being so hampered by this Bill as to afford any justification for the differentiation which is proposed by the Amendment. The matter, however, does not appear to have such practical importance as to require me to resist the Amendment, if it be pressed.

I am sorry to give up the proposal of the Bill, because I do not think the railway companies and other big corporations, which are there to carry out statutory objects, are likely to be hampered by the measure, but, of course, I know full well the strength of those bodies in this House and elsewhere, and if it really is the opinion of those noble Lords who represent railway companies and similar corporations that this Amendment, should be accepted, I am afraid I shall have to bow to their decision. I would prefer, however, that your Lordships should reject this Amendment and wait until we come to the Amendment in the name of Viscount Devonport. If I have to accept any Amendment I would the sooner accept an Amendment in that form.,

VISCOUNT DEVONPORT

Do I understand that the noble Earl is good enough to say that he is disposed to accept the Amendment provided it is moved in a suitable position, and that his objection really is to the position in which it is now moved?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes, and I think the noble Viscount's Amendment is a little wider.

VISCOUNT DEVONPORT

I rather assumed that the words were identical, but possibly I am wrong. The point, however, is that the noble Earl will not resist the Amendment if he gets sufficient assurance that it is strongly supported. I did not propose to speak after my noble friend had spoken. because I think he made the case so completely, but since the noble Earl desires to get some fortification of his resolution, I, speaking on behalf of the dock and harbour authorities of the United Kingdom, numbering over forty, and including the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, can assure him that this Amendment is earnestly desired and required. I take this opportunity of thanking him for the indication which he has given that he will accept the Amendment in another form, and in another place.

EARL STANHOPE

I hope that the noble Earl will consider well before accepting an Amendment of this kind. There are several members of this House who view with considerable anxiety the question of placing the owners of land in different positions, according to whether they are private owners or public corporations. It seems to me that the owners of property, of whatever kind, should be treated in an exactly similar way. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I submit that if notice to regain the possession of land is sufficiently short, there is no reason, so far as I can see, why public companies should be treated in any way differently from private owners.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I do not know whether your Lordships wish to take the discussion now. I have indicated the line which the Government intend to follow, and it seems to me that having explained that the subsequent Amendment is the one which, if we accepted any, we should accept, it would be better to put off the discussion till later. I suggest that the present Amendment should be withdrawn, and that we should have the discussion on Lord Devonport's Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sure that we should be guided by the Government as to which Amendment, if any, should be accepted, but I should have thought that it would shorten the proceedings if we had the discussion now. I rather doubt whether any Amendment should be accepted, because I share the view that a public body should be treated in this matter in the same way as a private owner. Do I understand that if this Amendment is carried, and an allotment holder is turned out by a public body during the summer, he will get no compensation, whereas if he is turned out by a private landlord during the summer he will be entitled to compensation?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I think the question is one rather more of time—of three months.

LORD JOICEY

I think there is a great difference between railway companies and public corporations and ordinary private landowners. The land which is bought by such corporations is generally bought at a very high price. I know of instances where £1,000 and £1,500 per acre has been paid, and during the war this land was taken possession of by the Government for food cultivation. Surely we ought not to be put in a position to depend upon the decision of a Minister if we wish to resume possession. I cannot understand why this matter should have been brought within the purview of this Bill. After all, railway companies have had this power for many years, and they always treat the tenants reasonably. They only buy such land as they require for the development of their undertakings. I cannot see why this Amendment should not be passed. I think the grounds are altogether different from those in the ease of the ordinary landowner. These lands have been bought at enormous prices very often, and it may be a very serious matter if we cannot get possession in a short time.

LORD CLWYD

As I have put down the same Amendment to move in a different part of the Bill perhaps I may be allowed, if the discussion is going to be taken now on the question at issue, to say one word in support of the Amendment. The noble Earl opposite has asked what reason there is for treating the land of a public authority, such as a railway company, or a dock and harbour trust, differently from land owned by private individuals. The first answer to that question is that Parliament has in previous legislation recognised that distinction. In the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908 there is a distinction made for allotment purposes in regard to the land held by public authorities. There are also the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, the Housing and Town-Planning Act, 1909, and many other Acts passed by Parliament which embody the principle that there is a clear distinction between land held for public purposes and land held for purposes of private gain. I have no official connection with any railway company or dock board, but I have some knowledge of the importance of their operations for the interests of the trade of this country, and when this Bill was being discussed on Second Reading I expressed a very strong view that such an Amendment as this should be accepted. I was very glad to have some indication of a hope that the noble Earl in charge of the measure would be able to accept the Amendment at a later stage.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I do not wish to put your Lordships to the smallest inconvenience, and I am an old enough Parliamentary hand to accept the assistance of allies who pursue the same object. Among such allies the weightiest possible would be the Government Departments and the local authorities, whose ease is covered by the Amendment of Lord Devonport. Therefore, probably it would be less trouble to your Lordships if I withdrew this Amendment and the Division—if a Division is taken at all—were taken on the wider issue of the later Amendment. It is a pure accident. that I have the priority. I am advised that mine is the better worded Amendment, but if it is a question of wording we can put that right later on. We want to take the Division on the main issue. Of course, the point made is that there ought not to be a distinction between private owners and others, but limited owners, as one may call them, are only asking for resumption for specific purposes, and specific purposes do not exist in the case of private landowners.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Perhaps your Lordships would allow me, as one not connected with any of the so-called allied industries, to say that I, for my part, cannot see any distinction in principle between the position of the public company and that of the private individual in this connection. The noble Earl opposite has taken some pains to explain to us, first of all, that this Bill is intended primarily to establish the security of the allotment holder in his allotment, and he went on to explain—without much conviction so far as I am concerned—that, as the result of a bargain, the allotment holder is going to be asked to take far less compensation than is provided for him in the Agriculture Act of 1920, and that he is to be provided, instead, with greater stability or security of tenure. I fail to see how he is going to get the benefit of the bargain which he is suppose d to have made with the Government if, without any notice, what is described as a company owning a public undertaking (whatever that may be) is to be allowed, without any question as to whether the interruption is reasonable or otherwise, to dispossess him of his allotment, in spite of the fact that he may have put an enormous amount of labour, and, indeed, of capital too, into the undertaking. I hope that this Amendment will not be carried if the House means, as is suggested by the noble Earl, to give the allotment holders of this country greater security of tenure than they have had in the past.

VISCOUNT DEVONPORT

May I point out that under this Amendment the sort of thing contemplated by my noble friend (Lord Bledisloe) and others will not arise? This particular Amendment, as I understand, is only for the purpose of maintaining the status quo as regards voluntary arrangements already in existence. What the Amendment says in effect is that these voluntary arrangements should not be subject to the terms expressed in the Bill of giving six months' notice in one class of ease and three months' notice in another. It does not deal, at this moment, with the bigger question to be raised under Clause 4 of the Bill. This has a limited scope. It deals purely and solely with voluntary arrangements. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill is perfectly aware of that, butt do not think the majority of noble Lords who have spoken are. They rather assume that this is opening a wide question as to whether public authorities should be exempt. All we are asking for here is that existing agreements should be observed, and should not be subject to the three months and six months' condition imposed by the Bill. It is really a very small thing. We think that, as a matter of equity, it should be granted.

May I, at the same time, say a word on the point put by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury? He asks whether public authorities are to be exempt from paying compensation. Of course, they are not. There is no suggestion that they should be, and I say most emphatically that they have no objection to paying compensation. They are perfectly willing to come under all the conditions of the Bill in regard to compensation. They are in the habit of paying compensation when they disturb a tenant at the present moment. I think there is a confusion of thought in regard to the question raised by this Amendment. I repeat, it only applies to voluntary arrangements which are in force at the present moment.

LORD PARMOOR

There is one point I should like to raise on the form of this Amendment. I agree that it would be a perfectly proper Amendment if it did not go beyond companies having statutory powers; that is to say, companies which have their land under Statute in order that it may be used for a specific purpose. That differentiates them entirely from the case of ordinary landowners. But, as I read the Amendment, it goes outside that altogether. It uses the word "undertaking," and words of that kind, which might be applicable either to a statutory body or not. If it is confined to a statutory body it appears to me to be perfectly right, and I hope, if the noble Earl accepts it, he will see that it is so confined, and not allowed to stray to the ordinary public undertaking, which might include a large amount of land to which the principle of statutory undertakings is not applicable.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I think the noble and learned Lord has raised a point there, but I will look into it before the Report stage. What he really means to imply is that there may be a body of private persons who have purchased land on which they intend, perhaps, to set up an electricity undertaking. I am not quite certain, though, that that would not be a statutory obligation to provide electricity to the town. But I will look into that.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment with a view to the Division being taken at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE moved, at the beginning of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "three months" and insert "one month." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to enable an owner to obtain re-entry on his land after one month's notice instead of three months' notice. I am aware of what has been described as the bargain with the allotment holders, and my Amendment must be taken in conjunction with that which is to be moved by Lord Bledisloe—which appears on page 6 of the Marshalled List—to extend, so to speak, the area of compensation. If that Amendment is carried, the allotment holders will benefit, and my Amendment to reduce the notice from three months to one will not affect that benefit.

Supposing an owner of land at the present moment gets an offer to sell his land for building, if he has to wait three months before obtaining possession obviously the building season will be almost over. There is no question, as my noble friend has already pointed out, that when re-entry is obtained under this clause the allotment holder should receive compensation; he will get compensation whether the notice is for three months or one month, as the Bill stands, provided he has to give up the land between Lady Day and Michaelmas. If Lord Bledisloe's Amendment is carried, he will also get compensation after Michaelmas for ally work done after receiving notice. I venture to suggest that this Amendment would largely meet the point which has been raised by those who, speaking on behalf of public corporations, say that they require much shorter notice than is given in the Bill to regain possession of their land for making docks, extensions of railways, and so on. I hope the noble Earl will accept my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 17, leave out ("three months") and insert ("one month").—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD STRACHIE

I hope the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment, because it is another attempt to whittle down what has been described as an agreement, which was certainly a compromise, in which the allotment holders did not get the best of it. I cannot see why the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is so anxious to have one month's notice instead of three months'. Surely, anybody who intended to put up buildings, or to sink a mine, or to enter upon any other big industrial undertaking, would look more than one month ahead. That, of course, would apply to railways, canals, and such like. We do not know whether the Amendment which has been put down by Lord Bledisloe will be accepted, but if it is accepted more compensation will be given, and that might placate the allotment holder for having only one month's notice. On the other hand, I would remind your Lordships that it is not always a question of pounds, shillings and pence. Allotment holders would very often prefer to be allowed to gather their crops and get them in—which three months' notice would allow f hem to do—than to have only one month's notice and receive compensation for being disturbed on such short notice. The monetary compensation would not in all cases cover the loss sustained. I hope the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I fully expected that an Amendment to this effect would be placed on the Paper, and I understand its object. As most of your Lordships will see, when we come to the class of land dealt with in Clause 6, the time allowed in which an owner may resume occupation is one month instead of three months. But the cases are not quite similar. Clause 1 deals with land which has been let by the landlord, either voluntarily or compulsorily, for the purposes of an allotment. Clause 6 has reference to land of which possession has been taken by a council without the assent of the owner. The powers of the local authority under Clause 6 are very much more stringent than under Clause 1, because they are practically the allotment authority. Anybody who has studied the Bill knows that the authority may go on to this waste land and practically seize it, just as the Government did during the war under the Defence of the Realm Act. The Committee over which I presided was, and the Government are, of opinion that the two classes of land are not exactly on the same footing. The land under Clause 1 is land which is practically ripe for development. It is said, I know, that some people leave their land lying waste for the fun of the thing. That is not a very common occurrence. There are cases, but they are the exceptions. This is land which is practically surrounded by buildings and is absolutely ripe for development, and we are of opinion that the owner should be able to resume possession on one month's notice, taking into consideration the nature of the land and the powers the allotment authority have for taking land.

When we come to this other class of land, it is land which, perhaps, during the next year or two, or five, or ten years, may come in for building purposes. I think some noble Lords have already said that the probability is that owners of that sort of land will look a little ahead and therefore that three months is not too long a notice to ask. It also gives the allotment holder a slightly increased security of tenure. The object of Clause 1 is to reduce to a minimum the disturbance caused during the cropping season, and I am still unconvinced that the three months' notice will seriously affect the beneficial user of the land by the owner. There was a considerable difference of opinion in the Committee over which I presided, as I have no doubt there will be in this House, as to whether three months is or is not too long but, having given due consideration to this question, I do not think that the interests of the landowners are going to be seriously affected if the length of notice remains as it is in the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will leave the Bill as it stands and will not accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not quite follow the reasoning of my noble friend opposite. It appears to me that if your object is to give security of tenure to tenants—it may be one month, or it may be three months—then they all ought to be treated alike. Why should a man be worse treated because he happens to hold under a corporation, or because he happens to occupy a piece of waste land, than if he is occupying this other land? So far as the tenant himself is concerned with his prospects and welfare, it must be exactly the same in every individual case. Why should one man he treated worse than another? I agree that that does not settle the question as to whether it ought to be three months or one month. Whether you give three months or one month I do not pretend to care very much, but if the tenant is fully compensated, as we all agree he ought to be compensated, then the question of time as between one month and three months does not appear to be of great importance.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

You mean compensation if he is turned out in the cropping season?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes. Of course, if he is turned out in the cropping season he ought to be entitled to full compensation, and, if the compensation provided in my noble friend's Bill is not sufficient, by all means let your Lordships increase it. Speaking as a landowner, I have no desire whatever to turn out an allotment tenant without his having the full compensation to which he is entitled. That is elementary justice. The question of period is secondary. Whether it be one month or three months is not vital. What I say is that if one set of tenants are to hold with a fixity of tenure lasting three months then all tenants ought to have the same period; just as if one set of tenants has fixity for one month, so ought all to have fixity for only one month. I do not think the argument of my noble friend prevails.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

With your Lordships' permission I should like to add one or two words in reply on this point. As to the statement that three months would do a man no good, I would point out that in the ease of a notice to quit in July, it would do him good, because it could not take effect till three months afterwards, and the man would get the whole of his crops

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But if he did not he would get full compensation.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes, but the allotment holders like to get their crops. After putting the work in, they would sooner have their crops than compensation. We shall come to the other matter later on. I am asked, Why should a man on waste land be treated differently from a tenant on this other land?" I think the cases are somewhat different. Under these clauses a tenant will be paying a fair rent—very likely a high rent—for this land when the agreement has been made. In the case of waste land, however, I think it probable that the tenant will go in and pay very little rent indeed; very likely almost nothing at all. Consequently, on that sort of land, a tenant goes in with far greater risk than he does on this other land. I therefore think that the tenant on this other land ought to have a longer notice.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think it will be more convenient if we take Earl Stanhope's Second Amendment before that of the Earl of Malmesbury which stands next on the Paper.

EARL STANHOPE then moved in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "reasonably" ["reasonably required for building"] The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, as your Lordships will see, is that re-entry may be made to land after three months' notice if it be proved that the land is reasonably required for building. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 15 you will see, on page 11, that s here under this Act any question arises as to whether land is reasonably required for any particular purpose the question shall be determined by a Government Department. I suggest that these are not days when the country or Parliament desires to lay further duties on any Department of the Government, and thereby increase its work and bring about the necessity of a large staff. It seems to me that it is unnecessary that an owner of land should have to prove to a Minister that the land is required for certain purposes, and that the Minister should have to give his approval.

I know the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that it was only when there was any dispute that this question would be referred to the Government Department, but once you give the power to refer a question of this kind to a Government Department the number of questions increases, and in any case a staff is required to meet a possible large rush of such cases. I suggest to your Lordships that although the word "reasonable" does appear in other legislation, it is not one that should be adopted when it is possible to avoid it. It opens up a very wide door. It is a matter of opinion and very often not a question of fact. Therefore, the word is not one that should he put into Acts of Parliament if it can be avoided, and it seems to me that this is a case where it can be avoided. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, leave out ("reasonably").—(Earl Stanhope.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am assuming that the noble Earl does not want a tenant to be turned out unreasonably, and, of course, it is against that that we have to try to guard. I can assure your Lordships that the Ministry has in view the fact that the allotment holder feels strongly upon the possibility of the landowner turning him out when in reality the object of re-entry is for some other purpose than for building. The question is: Is the landlord bona fide exercising his right of reentry? If he is, I agree he should not be required to show that the exercise of his power was reasonable. Therefore, I am prepared to assent to the deletion of the word "reasonable" at the present stage, but it must be understood that I reserve the right to move at the proper time, on Report, Amendments dealing with the question as to whether or not the exercise of the power is bona fide, and to propose some method of determining any dispute that may arise as to whether the landlord is acting bona fide or not. I hope the noble Earl will leave it at that. What we want to make sure about is that it is a bona fide application. The allotment holders, whether rightly or not I cannot say, maintain that they have been turned out in some cases very unfairly.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I understand my noble friend is prepared to accept this Amendment on the understanding that on a subsequent stage he will, if he thinks fit, bring forward words to ensure that the action of the landlord is bona fide.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Then I advise my noble friend to accept that.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "reasonably required for building, mining, or any other industrial purpose or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes" and insert "required for any purpose other than agriculture." The noble Earl said: After what has fallen from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill it would, perhaps, be difficult to deal with the subject raised in my Amendment in exactly the same manner as it could have been dealt with had the noble Earl not already addressed himself to the Amendment of my noble friend who has just sat down. We feel, however just the claim of the allotment holders may be, that a very considerable hardship is inflicted in this clause not only upon landowners but upon the public generally. There is no doubt that the most satisfactory arrangement that was ever made between the allotment holders and those owning the soil was the old arrangement made in a voluntary manner. But now that has gone. So much land in the country has changed hands that it is possible that some alteration of the law is necessary.

There are still, I think, three ways of obtaining land for allotments. I need not enumerate them to Your Lordships, but I would point out emphatically that the land upon which allotment holders will turn their eyes is the very land which is required for building purposes. When we say that some people are apt to think that it is only from the point of view of the landowner that this Amendment is being moved. Nothing of the sort. It is absolutely necessary for the development of building operations, the erection of houses, and increasing the rateable value of areas which are overburdened with rates, that land of this character should be brought in for building operations as soon as possible. Later on we come to the certificate of the Minister of Health or the Minister of Agriculture, but I hope the noble Earl will consider the great importance of obtaining land readily and swiftly for building purposes.

What generally happens in a spreading town? A circle is formed, and it is upon that circle of land that these allotment holders cast their eyes. Another very important matter is that a man who cannot obtain land for building purposes at a certain moment perhaps finds that later it is of very little use to him. You cannot build in every season of the year.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

May I interrupt the noble Earl? I do not quite know what Amendment he is moving. Is he moving to leave out "reasonably required for building, mining," etc.?

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

I am proposing to leave out "reasonably required for building, mining," and so on, and to insert "required for any purpose other than agriculture." These words are also used in Clause 6 of the Bill. If the noble Earl accepts my words it would make re-entry and recovery or possession much more easy; and if he reads the Amendment in connection with the Bill he will see that the words "required for any purpose other than agriculture" get rid of the word "reasonably."

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The word "reasonably" has gone. Now the noble Earl desires to move to leave out other words in lines 20 to 23 for the purpose of inserting "required for the purpose other than agriculture." As a matter of form I shall put the Question that the words "required for" stand part of the clause in order to safeguard later Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 20 to 23, leave out ("reasonably required for building, mining, or any other industrial purpose or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes") and insert ("required for any purpose other than agriculture").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I have an Amendment to a somewhat similar effect, but I do not find myself in accord with the noble Earl in his choice of language. He is prepared to make this apply to any land whatever so long as it is not agricultural or horticultural land. I can conceive all sorts of purposes, not of great public importance, which should not be allowed to take precedence as regards the user of the land over the cultivation of allotments. It may be desired to use the land for lawn tennis courts, or for a cinema, for septic tanks, or slaughter houses; and these should not take precedence over the cultivation of allotments. May I say in support of my alternative Amendment that it is most undesirable to have a string of specific purposes to which this clause is to apply, because you are almost certain to be excluding something you would otherwise desire to include. There is an old legal maxim which says that expressio unius est exclusion alterius; in other words, immediately you begin to select certain subjects to which your legislation is to refer, you necessarily exclude everything else. I am suggesting, as an alternative, the words "any urgent public purpose." I cannot support the noble Earl's Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

The noble Earl, in his speech, dealt entirely with building, and we have already settled that question. We have deleted the word "reasonably" and agreed as to the three months' notice. I do not think he said anything about his Amendment. The effect of it would be that allotment holders could be turned out for every other purpose except agriculture. There are sonic people who think that allotment holders ought to be turned out for lawn tennis, and others who think not. I will not debate that point. The Amendment, however, makes the reasons for which you may turn out a tenant very much wider, and I cannot accept it. As regards the period of time there is a distinction between Clause 6 and this clause, and we think that the purposes for which the landlord can reclaim the land should also be different in the two cases. Perhaps, the noble Earl does not quite appreciate the fact that this clause only refers to the cropping season. There is nothing to prevent an allotment tenant being turned out during the non-cropping period for lawn tennis courts. In the Bill we say that he shall not be turned out during the cropping period except for building, mining, or any other industrial purpose. I hope the noble Earl will accept this definition and will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

After what has fallen from the noble Earl I will not, of course, put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division. I hope, however, that he will consider tie matter between now and the next stage, and bear in mind the fact that it is important to get hold of building land at a time when it is necessary to begin building operations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1) (b), to omit all words after "(b) re-entry, after three months' previous notice in writing to the tenant, under a power of re-entry contained in the contract of tenancy on account of the land being reasonably required for," and to insert "any urgent public purpose." The noble Lord said: I do not want to take up the time of the House on this Amendment. I have already given my reasons for moving it. I do not suggest that the words I have chosen have any artistic merit, but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can avoid this long string of specific subjects and put down something on Report stage which would not be so confusing to the minds of allotment holders.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 21 to 32, leave out from ("for") in line 21 to ("or") in line 32, and insert ("any urgent public purpose").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I think the words in the Bill are sufficient, and I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD BLEDISLOE

In that case I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "roads" to insert "or sewers." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is practically drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, after ("roads") insert ("or sewers").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

VISCOUNT DEVONPORT moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out all words after: (b) re-entry, after three months' previous notice in writing to the tenant, under a power of re-entry contained in the contract of tenancy on account of the land being reasonably required for building, mining, or any other industrial purpose or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes, and to insert the following new paragraph: (c) re-entry under a power in that behalf contained in the contract of tenancy in the case of land let by a government department or local authority or by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking on account of the land being required by the department, authority, corporation, or company for any purpose (not being the use of the land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the department, authority, corporation, or company, or has been appropriated under any statutory provision").

The noble Viscount said: This is a question which was previously discussed, and I do not propose to say any more upon it, except to express my regret and apologies that I did not realise that the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Stuart of Wortley, was more limiting in its proposals than my own. I thought it was in identical terms, but, as the noble Earl has pointed out, my Amendment goes further. I do not propose to re-discuss the matter, but I leave it in the noble Earl's hands.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I would suggest, before I put this Amendment in the form in which it stands, that the question should be put as to whether the words "in the case of land let by a Government department" stand part. If that is disagreed to, it can then be moved to leave out such remaining words as is thought necessary. I would suggest that the new paragraph (c) should then be moved, and when it is moved I think there are three Amendments on the Paper which will apply to it in the same way as they apply to the clause as it stands. One is in the name of Lord Bledisloe, and another in that of Lord Stuart of Wortley. If that course is agreed upon, I will call upon these noble Lords in the proper place.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I do not know whether I should say anything more upon the actual question. I do not suppose your Lordships will take a Division on the question, and I have very little to add. I can only tell your Lordships for your guidance that when this matter came up before the Departmental Committee it was suggested, and it was always in my mind, that there might he some company such as a water company which had purchased a great deal of land for making a reservoir and had never set about making it, and that such land would be very useful for allotments until it was wanted. I am bound to say that on the Committee we felt that it was very unreasonable that such a company should not be called upon to try to make terms and let this land for allotments. That was the sort of case we had in mind. I do not intend to press that the clause should be kept as it is, and I am bound to confess that, as the Bill stands, it might have an adverse effect on the railway companies, who in the past have behaved very well towards the allotment holders. I rather think that, with three months' or even one month's notice, difficulties might arise. Supposing a company had voluntarily agreed to let a railway cutting for allotments, and the cutting began to slip in, even though the work wanted doing at once. I am just a little doubtful if they would be able to act, so that I do not think that the clause as it stands could be made to apply to railway companies. I am saying that only to inform your Lordships as to how the matter struck me during the inquiries which we made.

EARL STANHOPE

I merely want to ask a question. On the Second Reading the noble Earl referred to certain owners taking possession of land and then not using it for the purpose for which they had re-entered it. I understood, after discussion with the National Union of Allotment Holders, that the cases referred more often than not to local authorities; at any rate, they gave two cases of local authorities, and I suggest that under the Amendment as put down by the noble Lord in front of me, you are letting in exactly the type of owners to whom the allotment holders most object.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think I had better put the question on the assumption that it is proposed to leave out the words "in the case of land let by a Government department or local authority."

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, leave out ("or in the case of land let by a Government department or local authority").—(Viscount Devonport.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

There is a consequential Amendment that the words from the beginning of line 25 to "or" in line 32 should be left out.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 25, leave out from ("authority") in line 25 to ("or") in line 32.—(Viscount Devonport.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

It is now open for the noble Viscount, Lord Devonport, to move the new paragraph (c) standing in his name and in that of Lord Clywd, and that is the question which I shall now put.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 32, insert the said new paragraph (c).—(Viscount Devonport.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think Lord Bledisloe desires to amend this Amendment by inserting after "agriculture" the words "and horticulture." Perhaps I should save time if I mention what appear to me to be the other two Amendments to the proposed new paragraph, which might be made after the new paragraph had been inserted. The first is that which I have just mentioned in the name of Lord Bledisloe. I believe Lord Stuart of Wortley wishes to leave out the word "corporation." There is a further Amendment which was originally put down to the clause, and which might lie moved in relation to the new paragraph, and I should be glad of your Lordships' guidance in this matter. I have never seen a more complicated clause than this, when one takes all the Amendments and attempts to harmonise them. Does Lord Stuart of Wortley desire to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "corporation."

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I thought that was consequential.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Lord Bledisloe has an Amendment to the clause to insert at the end of paragraph (b)— Provided that such notice shall only be operated with the consent of the Minister of Health. I think it would lie in order to move that Amendment to the Amendment now before the House if he desires to do so, but I shall be glad of guidance in this very difficult matter.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Shall I move the addition of the words "and horticulture"?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I have put down an Amendment on the Paper to show that that is included.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am very much obliged.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Lord Stuart of Wortley is good enough to say that he does not move his Amendment. Lord Bledisloe has an Amendment to the words in the clause which are reproduced in the Amendment:— Provided that such notice shall only be operated with the consent of the Minister of Health.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Yes, I desire to move it, and with all the more emphasis because the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Devonport, which has just been adopted by the House gives, as I think Lord Parmoor has just pointed out—

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

May I beg Lord Bledisloe's pardon? I have notice of another Amendment to be moved by Lord Ancaster which comes three or four words before his.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I have lost my way.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am sorry that the noble Lord has lost his way, hut I will do my best to take him by the hand and come back with him. Lord Ancaster has an Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I beg to move.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— After ("acquired") insert ("or held").

LORD BLEDISLOE

As I was endeavouring to point out when we all lost our way, Lord Parmoor was emphasising the fact just now that there is a real distinction between an ordinary industrial company and a statutory company whose business is to look after the public interest. The particular Department which is best able to decide whether such interruption is reasonable or otherwise in the best interests of the locality, would naturally be what we used to call the Local Government Board, and is now called the Ministry of Health. Greatly though I respect the opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture, I suggest that it is not the best body to decide what is in the interest of an urban community. For that reason, and as some check upon undesirable interruptions with the activities of urban allotment holders, I desire to move this Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Before putting the noble Lord's Amendment I think it is desirable that paragraph (c) should be agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 32, after ("provision") insert ("Provided that such notice shall only be operative with the consent of the Minister of Health").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think it only right to say that I hope that His Majesty's Government does not consider that we have absolutely concluded the question upon this stage of the Bill. I believe there was a general agreement in this House that some Amendment was required, but there is a great deal of doubt whether it should go the full length of this paragraph. I only wish to enter a caveat lest it should be thought we had agreed to the whole of the paragraph as it stands.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I would sooner not accept this Amendment. I would like to look into it further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

My next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 15, leave out ("twenty-fifth day of March") and insert ("sixth day of April").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2

Compensation on quitting.

2.—(1) Where under any contract of tenancy land is let 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, on quitting the land, to obtain from the landlord compensation as provided by this section.

(2) Compensation shall be recoverable under this section only if the tenancy is terminated by the landlord between the twenty-fifth day of March and the twenty-ninth day of September.

(3) The compensation recoverable from the landlord under this section shall be for crops growing upon the land in the ordinary course of the cultivation of the land as an allotment garden or allotment gardens, and for manure applied to the land since the taking of the last crop there-from in anticipation of a future crop.

(4) Except so far as is otherwise provided by the contract of tenancy, this section shall also apply where under any contract of tenancy made after the passing of this Act land is let to any Local authority or association for the purpose of being sublet for use by the tenants as allotment gardens notwithstanding that the crops have been grown and the manure applied by the tenants of the local authority or association.

(5) The compensation under this section from the landlord on the termination of a tenancy to which this section applies and such further compensation (if any) as is so recoverable under the contract of tenancy shall in default of agreement be determined by a valuation made by a person appointed, in default of agreement, by the Minister, and if not paid within fourteen days after the amount is agreed or determined shall be recoverable upon order made by the county court for the district within which the land is situate as money ordered to be paid by a county court under its ordinary jurisdiction is recoverable.

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

(7) Except as provided by this section or by the contract of tenancy the tenant of land under a contract of tenancy to which this section applies shall not be entitled to recover compensation from the landlord at the termination of the tenancy; and the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, relating to compensation, and the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, shall not apply to any tenancy to which this section applies.

(8) A tenant of land under a contract of tenancy to which this section applies may before or within a reasonable time after the termination of the tenancy remove any fruit trees or bushes planted during the tenancy or any erection, fencing, or other improvement erected or made during the tenancy, making good any injury to the land caused by such removal.

(9) The tenant of an allotment garden held under a contract of tenancy with a mortgagor which is not binding on the mortgagee shall, on being deprived of possession by the mortgagee, be entitled to recover compensation from him as if he were the landlord and had then terminated the tenancy, but subject, to the deduction from such compensation of any rent or other sum due from the tenant in respect of the allotment garden.

(10) This section shall not apply to any tenancy which is terminated by the effluxion of time before the date of the passing of this Act, or where a notice to quit has been given, re-entry has been made or proceedings for recovery or possession have been commenced before that date.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

My first Amendment is a drafting Amendment intended to make it clear that this clause applies to allotment gardens which come into existence before or after the passing of this Act.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 22, after ("is") insert ("before or after the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert "Subject to the provisions of this section." The noble Lord said: Apparently there has been a curious omission from the provisions of this Bill, because it appears that the tenant of an allotment cannot receive any compensation if he happens to have received three months' notice under Clause 1, subsection (1) (b), which would not expire between Lady Day and Michaelmas. I think it is quite obvious from the Report of the Departmental Committee over which the noble Earl presided that it was intended that whatever date the notice should be given there should be full compensation paid, and perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to remind him of his own Report. Paragraph 28 says— Where, however, the owner reasonably requires to resume possession of the land for building, mining or other industrial purposes, or for roads necessary therefor, we recognise that it would be unreasonable from the point of view of his interest and would hamper the development of land, if so long a notice as six months was made the minimum by statute, and in such a case we recommend that a shorter notice, expiring at any date, should be substituted, but in this case, we consider that on quitting the allotment holder should be entitled to compensation for crops and unexhausted manures. Under the Bill as framed, as I have pointed out, if three months' notice happens to be given on the 24th December with a view to the user of the ground for industrial purposes, the tenant gets no compensation whatever, although he may have carried through all his winter cultivation and put in a considerable amount of fertiliser, and may have ploughed in a green crop in the autumn with a view more effectively to manuring the crops from which be expects a harvest during the following summer or autumn months. It is an obvious omission, and if it is intended to give not merely security of tenure but also full compensation to a suddenly dispossessed allotment holder, it is clear that this gap ought to be filled. I may mention that this particular Amendment foreshadows an Amendment—a new subsection after subsection (9)—to which my noble friend has already referred.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 28, at the beginning of subsection (2) insert ("Subject to the provisions of t his section").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

This Amendment. is intended to raise generally the question as to whether the compensation shall in future be limited, as is proposed by the clause, or whether the tenant of an allotment garden shall be entitled to the further compensation which is suggested by the later Amendment in the name of the noble Lord. It is an essential part of the compromise suggested by the Allotments Committee that the compensation shall be restricted to that which is proposed in the Bill, and as I have already stated, I am bound to resist any substantial alteration to those clauses of the Bill which are intended to carry out this compromise. The representatives of the allotment holders have come to realise that the existing provisions as to payment of compensation on disturbance have tended to restrict the voluntary provision of allotments, and they have acquiesced in the proposal to reduce their right to compensation provided they get the increased security of tenure afforded by Clause I of the Bill. I am unable, therefore, to accept the Amendment.

LORD STRACHIE

I rise to support the Amendment because I have a similar and perhaps wider Amendment on the Paper, leaving out the whole of subsection (2), and I ask the noble Earl why, if it is right to give compensation to the smallholder, it is not right to give it in every case to the allotment holder. In the case of the farmer, or the smallholder, who receives twelve months' notice, compensation is still payable, but on the other hand, it is proposed that if the allotment holder is turned out after only six months' notice he is to receive no compensation. That does not seem fair, and I shall certainly support the Amendment.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

I ask leave to support the decision of the Government. I sympathise with the object which Lord Bledisloe has in view—namely, that of making equal provision for all allotment tenants, and avoiding what appears to he a somewhat invidious distinction—but this Bill, unless I have misconceived the object of the Government, is far more intended to facilitate the provision of allotments by voluntary effort throughout the country than to devise a new scheme altogether to deal with this most complicated question. We have on the Statute Book a whole series of Bills dealing, either directly or indirectly, with the provision of allotments, and this Bill does not pretend that it has suddenly found a golden key to unlock the door which has hitherto refused to be opened in some cases. It has been drawn up after consultation with those who feel most strongly about this question, both in regard to the rights of property and to the rights of the citizen to have a reasonable amount of land to occupy and cultivate, and, having regard to all that has passed, I respectfully submit that we ought to support the Government by the arrangement at which they have arrived.

We ought to do that, not merely because the Government have entered into an agreement with those who represent different interests, but because, if we want this legislation to smooth the path and not to exacerbate conditions, we shall do well to stand by that arrangement and not try to introduce new provisions. Nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, who has taken part in many similar discussions in the other House with myself, the danger and the risk of suddenly importing into a structure which has been carefully built up as the result of negotiations between interested and well-informed people, something which, though good in itself, is inconsistent with that at which the parties to the compromise have arrived as their conclusion. Therefore, in the interests especially of the allotment tenants of the future, I entirely support the line which the Government are taking.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am loth to express an opinion not quite in accordance with that of my noble friend who is such an authority on this subject, but I do not think the case is quite as clear as would appear from his speech. It is true that there appears to have been something in the nature of a compromise in the Committee over which my noble friend in charge of the Bill presided. But this House is not bound by that arrangement unless it thinks it is a good one. Further, unless I am misinformed, a very large section of the allotment holders did not agree to this provision. I am informed that the Agricultural Co-operative Association, which represents at least half of all the urban allotment holders of this country strenuously object to this provision.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Their representative signed the Report.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

But I believe the fact is as I have stated. What I would ask my noble friend is this—what would be the position in law if my noble friend's Amendment is rejected? Is it the case that if notice, instead of being given at the end of the season—we will say at Michaelmas—is given in December, after the allotment holder has cultivated the whole of his ground, has put in his fertilisers, has, as my noble friend suggested possibly ploughed in a green crop, he would then have no compensation at all? If so, would he not be the only agriculturist in the whole of the United Kingdom who in such circumstances would receive no compensation. Is there no other law? I know the great inconvenience of dealing with this matter piecemeal, as my noble friend has pointed out. I may be wrong. I only ask.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

No, he would not get it.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Well then, I think that is a very hard case.

EARL STANHOPE

It is almost a harder case if notice is given in July to terminate at Michaelmas, for then again no compensation is payable. In other words, those who live in the North of England who have not yet dug their potatoes at Michaelmas, or who have cabbages or green crops which they expect to gather at Christmas, if they go out at Michaelmas would receive no compensation.

THE EARL or ANCASTER

This was the agreement we came to on the Committee. I confess I was very pleased when we arrived at it. Naturally, everybody did not get what he wanted, and it rather surprised me that the noble Earl should get up now and be all for compensation being given, having done his best, up to the present time, to give the landlord further powers to turn the allotment tenant out.

EARL STANHOPE

But never without compensation.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I quite admit that. He no doubt belongs to the school which thinks that a tenant should be turned out, and should have very little security of tenure, but lots of compensation. The whole effect of our discussion in the Committee, and really the reason for this clause, was that the allotment holders stated that they preferred greater security of tenure to compensation; and there was a very strongly expressed opinion by representatives of landowners that undoubtedly the unknown amount they had to pay in compensation and the heaviness of the compensation they had to pay acted as deterrents in letting their land for allotments. The noble Viscount behind me (Lord Long) really put his finger on the spot. This is a Bill to try to get land made more available for allotments, and we believe more landlords will be willing to enter into an agreement with local authorities and will allotment associations if they know that they are to be less embarrassed by this burdensome question of compensation than they are at the present time.

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, raised a case which we considered in Committee, and it is a hard one. He quotes the case of a man ploughing in a green crop and having to go out before Lady Day without getting compensation. It is a hard case, but this is a question not referring to allotments but to allotment gardens, which is a much smaller affair, and cases of ploughing in green crops are not frequent.

LORD BLEDISLOE dissented.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Then perhaps the noble Lord knows; if so, I give way to his better knowledge. But I have seen many plots, and I have never seen one where green crops were ploughed in. The evidence we had before us was that most of the work was done between March and May, and that is the view we took, and I think it is a common-sense view. If noble Lords wish to introduce all these questions, and tiling in the discussion of compensation, and say that the allotment garden tenants art to get greater compensation than is allowed for by this Bill, and they are successful in inserting their Amendments, I have no doubt when we get to the Report stage that the other people who are supporting the side of the landowners will instantly insist on having further Amendments providing for security of tenure.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I deprecate the distinction which the noble Earl has made between the landowners on the one side and the allotment holders on the other. I do so all the more because the Central Landowners' Association, of which I have the honour this year to be the President, have definitely decided that they are sympathetic with the allotment holders, particularly the urban allotment holders, and are desirous, subject to safeguarding the ordinary rights of property, to give them as large a measure of stability of tenure as they can, coupled with compensation for disturbance. The noble Earl purports to speak in the name of the allotment holders of the country.

THE EARL or ANCASTER

No, I do not claim to speak for the allotment holders.

LORD BLEDISLOE

The noble Earl at any rate claims to speak of a bargain to which the allotment holders, through their accredited representatives, have been parties. As a matter of fact, the Agricultural Organisation Society, whose Amendment I am moving, represents a large proportion of the allotment holders of this country, and represents very particularly that urban centre not very far from the home of the noble Viscount (Lord Long) with whom, as he rightly said, I have ploughed many a furrow in another place—the City of Bristol, where all the allotment holders' societies, of which there are many, are affiliated with the Agricultural Organisation Society. They themselves, as my noble friend, Lord Strachie, will be able to testify, object to this clause as at present framed because, in the event of notice being given during

a certain period of the year, it would deprive them of any compensation and deprive them at the same time of that security of tenure which the noble Earl has suggested is being furnished as an alternative. He has said that they ought to have either security of tenure or full compensation. In this particular they have neither.

May I ask the noble Earl and the noble Viscount behind him who will be made to suffer by the adoption of the proposal I am now putting forward. Apparently, if notice is given during the growing season none of those who are undertakers of these great public projects have any objection whatever to paying compensation to the unfortunate dispossessed allotment holders. If notice is given by September 24 instead of September 25, why should they object—and I do not suppose they do object—to paying for any loss which the allotment holder may be found to have suffered? There is in and around the City of Bristol, where no less than 1,060 acres are devoted to allotments of not more than 20 perches in extent, a very large measure of autumn cultivation with the object of reaping larger summer crops. Moreover, there is much ploughing in of green manures and other fertilizers during that season, in respect of which the allotment holders would be fully deprived of compensation unless this Amendment was adopted, I propose to ask your Lordships to carry this matter to a Division.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)	Allendale, V.	Erskine, L.
	Hood, V.	Kenyon, L
Salisbury, M.	Ampthill, L.	Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Abingdon, E.	Barrymore, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Grey, E.	Bledisloe, L. [Teller.]	O'Hagan, L.
Kilmorey, E.	Brownlow, L.	Raglan, L.
Morton, E.	Carson, L.	Rotherham, L.
Mount Edgeumbe, E.	Clinton, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Selborne, E.	Denman, L.	Strachie, L.
Stanhope, E. [Teller.]	Deramore, L.	Sumner, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Bradford, E.	Lucan, E.
	Chesterfield, E.	Malmesbury, E.
Devonshire, D.	Clarendon, E.	Onslow, E.
Rutland, D.	Dartmouth, E.	Plymouth, E.
Lansdowne, M.	Derby, E.	Portsmouth, E.
Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) (L. Chamberlain.)	Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Stamford, E.
		Bertie of Thame, V
Ancaster, E.	Eldon, E.	Churchill, V.
Devonport, V.	Clwyd, L.	Ludlow, L.
Goschen, V.	Colebrooke, L.	Newton, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Cottesloe, L.	Redesdale, L.
	Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Romilly, L.
Knollys, V.	Dewar, L,.	Roundway, L.
Long, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Saltoun, L.
Novar, V.	Faringdon, L.	Somerleyton. L. [Teller.]
Peel, V.	Gorell, L.	Southwark, L.
Ullswater, V.	Harris, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Durham, L. Bp.	Hylton, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Armaghdale, L.	Joicey, L.
Bearsted, L.	Lawrence, L.	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Bellew, L.	Lee of Fareham, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (2), after "landlord," to insert "and." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is of a drafting character.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 29, after ("landlord") insert ("and").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "twenty-fifth day of March" and insert "sixth day of April." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, leave out ("twenty-fifth day of March") and insert ("sixth day of April").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3), after "shall" to insert "in addition to that provided in Section 11of the Agriculture Act, 1920." The noble Lord said: My sole object in moving this Amendment is to elicit from the noble Lord information as to whether, from the allotment holders' point of view, this is an enabling Bill or a disabling Bill. It is clear, I think, as he has himself pointed out, that they lose a very large measure of the compensation which would have been paid to them under Section 11 of the Agriculture Act, an extremely ambiguous Act, difficult to understand; for that reason I, for my part, should like to see the last of it. But the tenants do lose a very large measure of compensation, which may amount to two years' rent, quite apart from compensation for improvements of crops. What is not [...]y clear to my mind—and I really[...] down this Amendment to get[...]made perfectly clear—is whether, on balance, the average allotment holder does gain in the matter of compensation when you bear in mind that the compensation which he at present enjoys is on the one hand for disturbance, with which the Agriculture Act provides him, and, on the other hand, for unexhausted improvements. It looks to me as if the two compensations had been rolled into one, and somewhat attenuated by this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 33, after ("shall") insert ("in addition to that provided by Section 11 of the Agriculture Act of 1920").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

In reply to the question which the noble Lord asks, it is true that this part of the Bill is against the allotment garden holder. He gives up a good deal. I do not say that everybody agrees with it, but we thrashed this out with the representatives of the National Union of Allotment Holders, alai the representatives of the Agricultural Organisation Society, and those representatives all signed this Report. We all came to the conclusion that the compromise in Clause I on the part of the landowners and Clause II on the part of the allotment garden holder was a fair compromise. The noble Lord asked whether this is a disabling Bill for the allotment holder. I know the noble Lord is very anxious to further the interests of the allotment holder; I recognised that when he gave evidence before the Committee. I do not wish always to thrust the opinion of the Departmental Committee down your Lordships' throats, but I put it to your Lordships' own judgment: Do you not think that landowners will be more likely to let their land for allotments when they know they can resume possession in the non-cropping season without having to pay the very doubtful compensation under Section 11 of the Agriculture Act of 1920?

I know it has deterred me sometimes from willingly letting my land for allotments, because, when you want your land back again, it is almost impossible to tell what compensation you will have to pay. It is my own opinion, and I think it is also the opinion of a very large number of noble Lords in this House, that, if you know exactly where you stand in regard to compensation, such of you at least who own land in the vicinity of towns, and perhaps elsewhere, would be much more willing to let your land for allotments knowing that in certain circumstances you could get possession of it again without having to pay compensation, the amount of which it is impossible to surmise. I think that is an answer to the noble Lord, and I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("where under") and insert ("to")

Page 2, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("by which").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Viscount said: I move this Amendment partly in order to obtain some information from His Majesty's Government, and partly to make a definite proposal. I am not conversant with the procedure of this House, and therefore I do not know how far I am entitled to refer to the new powers which I propose, in the form of a new clause, to put into the Bill in substitution for the power here, which is limited to the compensation payable by the owner, and which proposes to set up a particular machinery in order to arrive at the amount of the compensation where there is a difference of opinion.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am sure it is quite convenient, when the noble Lord proposes to omit provisions and to insert other provisions, to have a debate on the whole question.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

In that case I would say that my object was twofold. In the first place, I suggest that there should be a form of compensation payable to the owner of the land in the event of serious deterioration or waste. My object in making this proposal is, I frankly say, not so much to protect the owner in this case, as it is to make it as probable as is possible that these allotments will be provided by private operation rather than by the machinery of the law. Unless we are going to be swamped by procedure and law expenses and other consequences of these complicated Acts of Parliament, our only chance lies in amicable agreement. The experience of all those who have had to do with allotments points in this direction that the good landowner, the landowner who exercises his privileges and rights with due regard to the comfort and convenience and happiness of his neighbours, has nothing to fear from this Act of Parliament, or from any other Act of Parliament dealing with allotments in which at all events, have been interested. Those who suffer are much more likely to be limited to those who refuse to recognise their obligations, and do not use their property for the benefit of their neighbours in this particular respect. Therefore, I am not frightened for the landlord. I believe it is essential to make Your Acts of Parliament so fair to all concerned that you will remove any reasonable anxiety or fear as to the consequences of the provision of allotments.

Like my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, I confess myself in considerable doubt as to the interpretation of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament if it retains its present form in regard to several matters, but particularly in regard to this question of compensation. This question of compensation is dealt with under more than one section of existing Acts, and under more than one head, and it is provided for in more than one form. I have been quite unable to satisfy myself as to what will he the result of passing this Bill in anything like its present form when it has to be read and construed, as I imagine it must be, with other. Acts of Parliament dealing with the same question. Therefore, it is really more for information than with any very strong desire to see it passed that I propose the first of my substitutions—dealing with compensation to landlord for deterioration. I would point out that, unless I am entirely wrong in my interpretation, the tenant in this case could not be the small person occupying the allotment. Very often half a dozen tenants out of the ten would be cultivating their allotments very well, and waste and dilapidations would only be on the part of the others. The real tenant, of course, will be the corporation who take the land from the landowner and sublet it. It is reasonable that there should be some protection of these cases for the actual owner of the land

If the Government disagree with me, and think that it is sufficiently provided for, I will not press it. At the same time I hope they will accept the change I propose. Your Lordships will remember that the subsection says that the compensation shall be "determined by a valuation made by a person appointed, in default of agreement, by the Minister." I say this without any disrespect to the Ministry of Agriculture. On the contrary, I have the highest regard and respect for that Department. I had the honour to be President of the Board of Agriculture years ago, and I know how conscientious and high-minded and capable they are. But this is not a case in which the Minister has the necessary machinery. He would have to look about for someone, and the probability is he would select a name from the list contained in the Department. What we want is the simplest, quickest, and cheapest procedure possible.

You have a County Court Judge, thoroughly familiar with every one in the neighbourhood and with the circumstances that may arise, and I think it would be far better to put this power into the hands of the County Court of the district, rather than into the hands of the Minister. In nine cases out of ten there is no machinery by which the Minister can exercise a power of this kind and do all round justice. As a practical proposal I think my suggestion will reduce the cost of working this Bill when it becomes an Act, and most likely produce the most satisfactory machinery. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 4 to 15, leave out subsection (5).—(Viscount Long of Wraxall.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

The effect of this Amendment, and the later Amendments referred to by the noble Viscount dealing with assessment and recovery of compensation, is that the valuer, in default of agreement, shall be appointed by the County Court Judge instead of by the Minister. I presume that the noble Viscount means that the Judge is to deal with the matter in open court that there should be an application in the ordinary way. I think it would be more expensive and less convenient to the allotment holder.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

I do not propose that there should be an application in open court. I want to use the machinery of the County Court for making the appointment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

That the Judge should be invited by the parties to appoint an arbitrator; that they should go, say, to his private residence?

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

No. That is not the way in which it is done. The two parties disagree; they write to the Judge—so they would do in this case.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I do not think the suggestion of the noble Viscount is more convenient than writing to the Minister and asking him to appoint the arbitrator. The cases where an arrangement cannot be come to will be very few, and the reason for putting in the Minister is that at the present moment the authority to appoint an arbitrator under the Agriculture Holdings Act, where the parties cannot agree, is the Minister. We are only following the line of existing Acts. I do not think that there is any particular object gained by introducing the Judge of the County Court.

On the question of deterioration the noble Viscount has taken Section 19 of the Agriculture Act, 1920, for his new clause. He suggests that this section has proved to be an unmixed blessing—which is by no means the case—but it is hardly appropriate to allotment gardens. For the expression "Rules of good husbandry" an elaborate definition was required in the Act of 1920 in order to explain what are the rules of good husbandry; but that is hardly appropriate to allotment gardens. The noble Viscount also desires to insert a provision "that compensation shall not be payable under this section unless the landlord has, before the termination of the tenancy, given notice in writing to the tenant of his intention to claim such compensation." I am quoting from the words of his Amendment, which also appear in Section 19 of the 1920 Act. I hope the noble Viscount will not think it necessary to press this particular Amendment, and in that case I will undertake to consider before the Report stage whether some provision should be inserted providing that any rent in arrear, or damages to contract, should be set off before any compensation that would otherwise be payable to the tenant is paid. If the noble Viscount's words were inserted it would weaken the landlord's position.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Without considering the merits of this Amendment I utterly fail to understand why the noble Earl suggested that a County Court Judge must exercise this discretion in court. He already has a precedent in the case of the Corn Production Acts, where it is specifically provided that the Lord Chief Justice of England shall appoint the Panel of Arbitrators. He does not go into court in order to make appointments, he does it on his own initiative, possibly at his own home. The only possible objection I see to the noble Viscount's Amendment is that in certain cases it looks as if the County Court Judge would have to hear an appeal against the decision of his own appointee. That might possibly cause some little personal difficulty, but I am bound to say that as between the two methods of adjudication I would infinitely rather see dealing with these matters someone well acquainted with the locality and the habits and prejudices of the local population than ask the head of a Government Department to do so.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

I am very reluctant to trouble the noble Earl, but as regards the second of my proposed new clauses, I do not consider that my noble friend has really, if he will forgive me, dealt with the question at all. His suggestion that I want the County Court Judge to deal with this matter in an open court is quite imaginary. I take the County Court Judge as the best representative of local opinion in a small area. He knows his area very well and the right people to employ for certain definite tasks. I want the most friendly and the cheapest possible method of dealing with this matter. My noble friend referred to me, and, if he Wants to answer me out of my own mouth, I have not the least doubt that he could quote from me a reply to almost every argument I have advanced on most of these questions, but that does not move me or disturb me. I plead guilty to my noble friend's suggestion. I go further and say that it is not merely precedent that affects me, it is experience that guides my opinions.

In this case it is true that my noble friend has the argument on his side when he says that this is taken out of an old Act of Parliament, to which I was a party, which I probably spoke for, and so on, and that here I am going in its teeth. I dare say my noble friend looks upon me as a very stupid person, and I do not object, because that is the common lot of most of humanity. What I feel is that if experience points in one direction and precedent points in another, we ought to follow experience, and, for the time being, to ignore precedent. I feel very strongly that the proper tribunal is a County Court Judge, and I can think of no better. I do not think that the future appeal need trouble us; we can deal with its effects if they prove to be serious. But I must ask your Lordships to express your opinion on the one question of the appointor, because it really is a serious one. If this measure is to be successful it must be made as simple as possible. As regards the compensation clause, I do not move.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

The only objection to the County Court Judge appointing the arbitrator was the reason I gave to the House at the time, that we are following the precedent that the Ministry appoints the valuer. If the noble Viscount thinks that the County Court Judge is the best authority, and if that is the general view of your Lordships, I am prepared to accept the Amendment, subject to reconsideration on Report.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (8), after "time" to insert "not in any case longer than three months." The noble Lord said: This is to make clear the meaning of that very indefinite word "reasonable." I think your Lordships will agree that it is in the best interests both of the landlord and the tenant that the exact period during which fruit trees or bushes can be removed should be made clear, and that he should know what a "reasonable" time is. I live amongst fruit growers, and I am sure none of them could tell you. If you put the period specifically at three months it seems to me a fair opportunity to the allotment holder, and the owner of the land, or the local authority, as the case may be, knows when he will have his land free for any other purpose.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 30, after ("time") insert ("not in any case longer than three months").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I see no objection to this Amendment. Indeed, I am making inquiries to ascertain whether there is any necessity to allow removal at all after the tenancy is terminated.

LORD CLINTON

I should like to point out to the noble Lord that this may mean that the tenant is in occupation of the land for six months after he receives his three months' notice; that is to say, the three months of the notice and another three months while he is removing his trees and fruit bushes. That would be objectionable in the case of land required for building purposes. I do not know whether the noble Lord has considered that side of it.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (8), to leave out "planted" and insert "provided and planted by the tenant." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, leave out ("planted") and insert ("provided and planted by the tenant").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

The three following Amendments in my name are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 3, line 33, after ("made") insert ("by the tenant")

Page 3, line 35, leave out ("an allotment garden") and insert ("land")

Page 3, line 36, after ("tenancy") insert ("to which this section applies made").—(The Earl of Amager.)

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (10), after "tenancy" to insert "which is terminated by re-entry for breach of the contract of tenancy." The noble Lord said: The intention of this is specifically to exclude paragraph (c) of Clause 1. Paragraph (c) refers to reentry for breach of contract of tenancy or upon the tenant becoming bankrupt or compounding with his creditors, and this is with the view of excepting that particular condition.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 1, after ("tenancy") insert ("which is terminated by re-entry for breach of the contract of tenancy").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

This raises a rather difficult point. It is, I think, one of the Amendments handed in very shortly before the discussion commenced. I would suggest that the matter should be raised again on Report in a more appropriate place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (10), to leave out "passing of this Act" and insert "twenty-fifth day of March, 1922." The noble Lord said: This Amendment involves a matter of principle. I propose that instead of the words "date of the passing of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "twenty-fifth day of March, 1922." I would point out that if this scheme of compensation is really intended to pro vide some benefit to the sitting tenants it is obviously unfair that the whole scheme of compensation should be defeated by notice given between the time of the introduction of the Bill and its passage into law. It is clear that that can take place under the clause as drafted, and therefore I suggest that we should fix some period like March 25 of this year, which is before the definite introduction of this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 3, leave out ("passing of this Act") and insert ("twenty-fifth day of March 1922").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I do not think that there is any necessity for making the clause retrospective. Owing to the existing provisions as to the payment of compensation by a landlord there is no temptation to serve notice to quit before the Act passes. I will, however, reconsider the matter before Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

My next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 5, leave out ("or") and insert ("of")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL moved to insert the following new clause— .The compensation under the two preceding sections of this Act from the tenant and from the landlord respectively, and such further compensation (if any) as is recoverable under the contract of tenancy shall, in default of agreement, be determined by a valuation made by a person appointed in default of agreement by the judge of the county court having jurisdiction in the place where the allotment garden is situated, and if not paid within fourteen days after the amount is agreed or determined, shall be recoverable upon order made by the county court as money ordered to be paid by a county court under its ordinary jurisdiction, is recoverable.

The noble Viscount said: This new clause establishes a new procedure in the place of that which has disappeared from the Bill in consequence of my earlier Amendment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Long of Wraxall.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

It is consequential.

Clause 3:

Application to Crown lands.

3. The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to any land of which possession was taken by or on behalf of the Minister under the enactments relating to the Defence of the Realm or the regulations made thereunder and possession of which has been continued by virtue of any such enactment; but save as aforesaid the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply to land vested in His Majesty in right of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster, and to land forming part of the possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall, and to land vested in any Government department for public purposes.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL moved to leave out "The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to any land of which possession was taken by or on behalf of the Minister under the enactments relating to the Defence of the Realm or the regulations made thereunder and possession of which has been continued by virtue of any such enactment; but save as aforesaid." The noble Viscount said: I need not trouble the Government for more than a moment or two. I am really moving in order to ascertain what is the justification for these words in Clause 3; why there is this distinction between land taken over under what we call D.O.R.A. and land vested in other branches of the Government.

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 7 to 13, leave out from the beginning of the clause to ("the") in line 13.—(Viscount Long of Wraxall.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Since the determination of the war land which was taken over under the Defence of the Realm Regulations has gradually been restored, and one of the chief reasons for the introduction of the Bill is to try to provide these people who have been dispossessed with other land. The Ministry find that they are going to give up all this land on March 25, 1923, and between this time and then a very large number of these small holders will be dispossessed. Great urgency exists in trying to find alternative land for these men.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments moved—

Page 4, line 9, leave out ("the Minister") and insert ("any government department")

Page 4, line 12, leave out ("such").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The new clauses which stand on the Paper, and Clause 4, bring your Lordships to a different series of problems, and I would suggest that the House do now resume in order that we may make progress with other measures.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Do we resume the discussion to-morrow?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I must put down a Notice that I desire to take this Bill as the first Order to-morrow.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I understand that the noble Earl is very anxious to get this Bill some time tomorrow, and I think it should take precedence of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, which was introduced a good deal later.