HL Deb 27 July 1926 vol 65 cc234-58

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Prohibition of muirburn at certain times.

1. It shall not be lawful to make muirburn or set fire to any heath or muir except before the sixteenth day of April or after the thirtieth day of September in any year: Provided that it shall be lawful for the proprietor of any lands, and for the tenant with the written authority of the proprietor or of his factor or commissioner to make muirburn or burn the heath thereon at any time during the period from the sixteenth day to the thirtieth day of April or, in the case of land in deer forests more than fifteen hundred feet above sea level, to the fifteenth day of May in any year; and provided further that, where the proprietor of any such lands or his factor or commissioner lute refused or has failed within seven days after written application has been made to him by the tenant of any such lands to give such written authority, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Board) may, on the application of such tenant, if they are satisfied that owing to the situation or altitude of such lands or for any other reason which they may consider sufficient it is expedient to do so by order authorise the tenant to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands or any portion of them during the whole or part of the period last mentioned in the year to which the order relates.

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND) moved to leave out all words after "Provided that" and to insert:—

  1. "(a) It shall be lawful for the proprietor of any lands, or for the tenant with the written authority of the proprietor or of his factor or commissioner, to make muirburn or burn the heath thereon at any time during the period from the sixteenth day to the thirtieth day of April, both days inclusive; and
  2. (b) Where the proprietor of any lands or his factor or commissioner has refused or has failed within seven days after written application for such authority has beer made to him by the tenant of such lands, being a tenant who is entitled under the provisions of his lease or by virtue of an order 235 made in pursuance of the immediately succeeding section of this Act to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands, the tenant may, after giving to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner written notice of his intention to do so, make application to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Board) and the Board may on such application, if they are satisfied that it is expedient to do so, by order authorise the tenant to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands during, the whole or part of the period last mentioned in the year to which the order relates, in accordance with the conditions contained in the lease or in the order under the immediately succeeding section as the case may be.
(2) In the case of a deer forest more than fifteen hundred feet above sea level, the foregoing subsection shall have effect as if the fifteenth day of May were substituted for the thirtieth day of April.

The noble Duke said: This Amendment is mainly drafting, designed to make the clause more easily understood. It makes it clear, first, that an Order by the Board authorising a tenant to burn during the period subsequent to the expiry of the ordinary time for burning on April 16 cannot be granted where the tenant has no right to burn at all, either under his lease or under an Order made under Clause 2 of the Bill, and secondly, that the burning during the extended period must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of the lease or the Clause 2 Order, as the case may be. The Amendment also provides that the tenant, before applying for an Order, must give his landlord notice of his intention to do so. I should like to call attention to the fact that all the other Amendments to be moved on Clause 1 will fall if this Amendment is passed. These other Amendments can, however, be moved as Amend meats to my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("that") to the end of the clause and insert the said paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and the said subsection (2).—(The Duke of Sutherland.)

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I should like to say one word, and that is to thank the noble Duke and the Government for re-drafting this clause. I drew attention on the Second Reading to certain defects, but I think the clause is now perfectly clear to everyone, where formerly it was ambiguous and likely to lead to disputes.

On Question, Amendment to omit all words in the clause after "Provided that" agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Question now is that the words on the Paper proposed by the noble Duke be there inserted.

THE EARL OF STAIR moved to substitute "twenty-fifth day of April," for "thirtieth day of April," in paragraph (a) of the proposed Amendment. The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I have placed on the Paper is to leave out the word "thirty" in order to insert "twenty-five." I do not know to what extent this alteration affects people in the North and East of Scotland, but so far as South-west Scotland is concerned I think it is extremely material. The whole of the moors in the South-west of Scotland are only now making some slight attempt to recover from the complete destruction caused by D.O.R.A. during the War. I think that practically the whole of the moors in the South-west were burnt absolutely bare, and moors which used to produce substantial bags now produce absolutely nothing. On my own property, where we used to kill anything from 2,000 to 3,000 brace of grouse, we have not killed more than 500 brace since the War, and properties which I have let in the past for sums up to £1,000 a year are to-day absolutely unlettable. Only those lands which have been let on long leases have remained let at all.

I was examining property yesterday which is just beginning to recover. Some heather is coming and there are some grouse. I do not wish to stress this so much on the point of the reduction in the number of grouse alone, but none of these moors carry a single sheep more than they did before the War. In many cases I think the death rate, if anything, is greater than before the War. The land is no good either for grouse or sheep in winter where the heather has been destroyed, and thousands of acres which used to produce quite passable feeding in the winter are now going steadily back to bracken. If these extensions go on to the extent contemplated by the Bill, of unlimited and uncontrolled burning by people who have only got a half interest in the land they farm, it is going to become exceedingly injurious to the rateable value of the whole district. Land cannot be let for game purposes, and ceases to have any rateable value. Yet our rates are going up, and it is absolutely essential that we should not lose one of our most valuable assets. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 6 of the proposed paragraph (a), leave out ("thirtieth") and insert ("twenty-fifth").—(The Earl of Stair.)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I think your Lordships will agree that the Board of Agriculture would never give permission for such laud as Lord Stair mentions to be burnt at all if it should not be burned. It will, no doubt, be argued quite fairly that the Departmental Committee recommended April 25 as the end of the extended period in the case of high and wet moorland. The date in the Bill, however—namely, April 30—is, I believe, a better compromise among all the different opinions expressed on this matter. Under the clause as amended by my Amendment it will not be possible to burn after April 15 against the will of the proprietor unless the tenant is permitted to burn in the terms of his lease or by an Order under Clause 2, which is granted by the Board of Agriculture only after very careful examination of the ground in question. A strong desire was expressed by a large section of members in another place that the time should be extended even to May 15 or May 30, but this was resisted by the Scottish Office and April 30 was agreed to as a general compromise. It seemed to meet the views of all parties as being the most convenient date.

I should like to assure both the mover of this Amendment and the Duke of Buccleuch that it is not the intention of the Board of Agriculture in any way to encourage late burning. Where an application is made for permission to burn late the Board will require to be satisfied that the applicant has not neglected reasonable opportunities of burning within the normal period and that an extension is really necessary. They will also carefully consider what period of extension should be allowed. In many cases the Board of Agriculture would not give permission to burn as late as April 30. It is only on very exceptional occasions that they would feel obliged to give that permission, in cases where it has not been possible to burn owing to bad weather or some other cause. I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I am very disappointed with the answer of the Government. The noble Duke admitted that his proposal is entirely contrary to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee. That. Committee had the whole of the evidence before them and heard a lot of experienced people, and they were strongly of opinion, as anybody will see who will look at their Report, that buntings should not in any circumstances continue on the sheep farms after April 25. My noble friend talks of a compromise between various people, some of whom wanted to burn up to the end of May. Anybody who wanted to burn up to the end of May would surely want to destroy the whole value of a large number of sheep farms in the South of Scotland, and probably in the North as well.

This is not merely a question of game. My noble friend behind me mentioned that aspect of the matter, but he also referred to the feeding of sheep. With this very late burning, when the ground is very dry, it often takes years before anything grows, and, as my noble friend stated, the ground is often rendered perfectly useless. I think it is recognised by every knowledgable sheep farmer that the heather plant is one of the most valuable plants on sheep farms and that it requires a great deal of care and cultivation to ensure a proper supply of food. I agree that people vary in their views as to how often it should be burnt and so on, but, generally speaking, I think that every experienced man who really knows anything about it would be opposed to this very late turning.

There is another very serious objection—and this recalls the great harm that was done under D.O.R.A. The ordinary lambing in the South of Scotland begins about April 15. During the lambing the hill shepherds have a terribly hard time; they get hardly any sleep at all and are tremendously busy; but they are the only people who can do this burning. They might be able to light a fire then, but they could not look after it and see where it went. I maintain that the Government are making a great mistake in this matter. I admit that in certain cases there may be some advantages in the extension of time, but I am strongly convinced that they will be greatly overbalanced by the disadvantages of late burning. I am bound to admit, however, that, if the Board of Agriculture act as the noble Duke says that they will and are very careful this removes a good deal of the objection. I should, however, like your Lordships to realise that you are giving the Department power to inflict considerable damage, and whether that damage will be caused or not depends upon whether that power is wisely exercised.

LORD LAMINGTON

The noble Duke who has just spoken has spoken of confidence in the Board of Agriculture, but the Board of Agriculture are not a permanent body. They are permanent in organisation but not in personnel, and we have no safeguard for the future that they will not be extremely anxious to carry out the Bill in its most severe form. I think the argument adduced by the noble Earl who has put down this Amendment is a very strong one. The noble Duke did not point out that the interests of the landlord are permanent, while those of the tenant are merely transitory, and that enormous damage could be done to a hill farm by extensive burning. It is most important in winter, if there is a snowstorm, that there should be plenty of old heather for the sheep to feed upon. A man with a temporary interest does not pay much attention to that. You probably do not get a severe snowstorm once in twenty years, and his interest is to make as much profit as he can immediately

by the burning of heather. I hope that this Amendment may be accepted by the Government.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I have already said that I am afraid that the Amendment cannot be accepted. The question has been gone into and, with regard to low ground, I feel quite sure that great discrimination will be exercised by the Board of Agriculture in considering the position of the ground and deciding whether heather should be burnt or not. I am quite certain that they would not give the same permission in regard to low ground as in regard to high ground. This is a matter which must be left to the Board.

THE EARL OF STAIR

I think I must press my Amendment, for the date is already a compromise of the most serious nature, particularly in the South and West. If we do get a dry time then the ground becomes so dry that in a very short time considerable damage is caused, not only to the heather but to the peat below it; and once a fire has taken hold of the peat is goes on for weeks, no rain will put it out and the destruction is permanent. I may add that in Wigtonshire I have frequently known nests containing six and eight eggs on April 10. As a rule we wait until April 10, but if we can allow another week it is quite enough.

On Question, Whether the word "thirtieth" shall stand part of the Amendment?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-contents, 28.

CONTENTS.
Balfour, E. (L. President.) Lucan, E. [Teller.] Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Onslow, E.
Sutherland, D. Russell, E. Ernle, L.
Stanhope, E. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller]
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) Latymer, L.
Allendale, V. Merthyr, L.
Cecil of Chelwood, V. Olivier, L.
Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Haldane, V. Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.) Sandhurst, L.
Beauchamp, E. Shandon, L.
Chesterfield, E. Peel, V. Stanmore, L.
De La Warr, E. Templemore, L.
Denbigh, E. Arnold, L. Thomson, L.
Eldon, E. Bledisloe, L. Treowen, L.
NON-CONTENTS.
Bute, M. Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Morton, E.
Ancaster, E. Halsbury, E. Askwith, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.] Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) [Teller.]
Cawley, L.
Crawshaw, L. Lamington, L. Redesdale, L.
Darling, L. Lawrence, L. Rowallan, L.
de Mauley, L. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) Sempill, L.
Erskine, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L. Strachie, L.
Fairfax of Cameron, L. Muir Mackenzie, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Howard of Glossop, L. O'Hagan, L. Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the proposed Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in the proposed paragraph (b), to leave out "seven" ["seven days after written application"] and insert "fourteen". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is that the factor or the owner should have a little longer period of notice from the tenant that he going to make application for an extension of time to burn. It seems to me seven days is a very short period to allow. Suppose the tenant wrote to the factor of an estate, stating that he wished to have an extension of time to burn. The factor very probably would like to communicate with the owner and consult with him as to whether the application was reasonable, whether it should be allowed or not. I think seven days is a very short period to allow the factor and the landlord to consult together and to decide whether they should allow this extra time for burning or whether they should write to the Board—which I understand they are entitled to do—to oppose the Board giving an extension. If the period is extended to fourteen days, which I understand was the period in the Bill as originally drafted, it would be more equitable for the owner. It may, of course, be argued that this period would be so long that the time would have gone during which heather might be bullied, but generally it happens that the time when the ground has dried up is during the month of March. If March is a wet month it would probably be known that it would be difficult to burn heather during the first fortnight of April. Therefore if the tenant found that March was very wet he would have plenty of time in that month to write to the factor or the owner, giving notice of his intention to apply for an extended time to burn. I think, therefore, my Amendment is quite reasonable, and I hope the noble Duke will see his way to restore the Bill as originally drafted.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 3 of the proposed paragraph (b), leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I am afraid the Government cannot see their way to agree to this Amendment, because after all an extension of the period for burning will in general be sanctioned only where the weather has prevented adequate burning during the normal period. That cannot be known until near the expiry of the normal period, and if the proprietor got fourteen days in which to consider whether he would consent or not the provision empowering the Board to make an Order would be practically useless. I think, on the whole, that seven days is ample for the purpose. After all, the proprietor gets seven days notice in writing. The tenant then writes to the Board on the seventh day, and the Board have to consider the matter carefully before giving the power. This would give the proprietor extra time, in addition to the seven days, before the Board actually granted the power. Another thing that your Lordships must remember is that if the procedure is made too lengthy the tenants will be apt to put in applications at a very early date, and that, I think, would be highly undesirable, because it would be very difficult for the Board to deal with applications at an early date, before they knew what sort of season it was going to be and what the weather was going to be like. I am afraid the Government cannot agree to this Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, in paragraph (b) of the Amendment, after "satisfied," to insert "after considering any representations made by the proprietor." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. The intention is only to make quite certain that the owner has fair treatment, and that any representation he wishes to make has been properly considered by the Board. I understand it is a provision that is put in most Bills of this character.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 15 of the proposed paragraph (b), after ("satisfied") insert the said words.—(Lord Lamington.)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

The Government cannot agree to this Amendment. Under the clause, as amended by the first Amendment on the Paper, the tenant before applying for an Order must give the proprietor notice of his intention to do so. The proprietor can then make representations to the Board, which in the ordinary course would be considered by the Board. In any case a time limit would have to be fixed within which such representations would require to be lodged, if this Amendment were agreed to. It would, I think, be unfortunate to complicate the clause by the addition of such a provision when it is totally unnecessary.

LORD LAMINGTON

I should like to know why it is totally unnecessary and what objection there can possibly be to the insertion of these words. If they are unnecessary, they are very harmless.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

The reason why they are unnecessary is that the proprietor, when receiving notice of their intention, will make representations to the Board, which in the ordinary course will be considered by the Board. The words would complicate the clause very considerably, and cause a good deal of re-drafting.

LORD LAMINGTON

Could some legal luminary give us a little light on this point, and tell us why the words are objectionable? They seem very ordinary precautionary words to insert. I am told that they are usual in Bills of this character.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF KINTORE

had on the Paper an Amendment to insert at the end of the clause: Any such Order may specify the lands on which and shall prescribe the conditions subject to which muirburn may be made or the heath may be burnt and a copy of the Order shall be sent to the proprietor or his factor or agent. The noble Earl said: It is a little difficult to draft Amendments before you have seen the clause as amended by the noble Duke. His Amendment certainly has improved the clause enormously, but perhaps there are one or two points which might yet be added to it. I should like to vary the Notice on the Amendment Paper, and to move at the end of paragraph (b) of the noble Duke's Amendment, to add: A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner. I can only express a pious hope, from what I know of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, that their action in so doing may be somewhat speedier than it sometimes is.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Paragraph (b) of the proposed Amendment, at end insert ("A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner").—(The Earl of Kintore.)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

We are very glad indeed to accept the Amendment.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Regulation of muirburn by Board of Agriculture for Scotland.

2.—(1) Where the tenant of any lands is precluded by the terms of his lease or otherwise from making muirburn or burning the heath thereon in such manner or to such extent as to him seems necessary or expedient, he may, after giving to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner two weeks notice of his intention to do so, make application to the Board for an order regulating muirburn on such lands.

(2) On any application under the foregoing subsection if the Board, after such inquiry as they think fit and after considering any representations by the parties interested which may be lodged with the Board within a period fixed by them (including any representations as to the manner in which and the extent to which muirburn or the burning of the heath has been or is being carried out by the proprietor) are satisfied that it is expedient to do so, the Board may make an order regulating muirburn or the burning of the heath on such lands. Any such order may specify the lands on which, and shall prescribe the conditions subject to which, muirburn may be made or the heath may be burnt in any year during the currency of the lease: Provided always that such order shall not authorise any muirburn or burning of the heath at any time when such burning by the tenant would be in contravention of section one of this Act. In making any such order the Board shall have regard to the interests of the proprietor, of the tenant, and of any other person whom they may deem to have an interest. When any such order shall hove been made the tenant shall be entitled to make muirburn or burn the heath in accordance therewith, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the terms of the lease or tenancy.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (1), after "lands," to insert "who has been in occupation thereof not less than the preceding four years." The noble Lord said: A tenant who may have just signed his lease for fourteen years then goes, or threatens to go, to the Board of Agriculture and ask for permission to burn heather as specified in the Bill. That is, he is able to get a third party to come in and improve the terms and conditions of his lease. That seems manifestly unfair, and it is the object of my Amendment to secure that at least for a period of four years he should not be able to obtain these more favourable terms. It is only a very minor instance of the iniquity of breaking contracts which have been freely entered into. I trust that English as well as Scottish landlords will recognise that there is a very big principle here. It is breaking into freedom of contract. I would ask noble Lords opposite of the Liberal Party also to consoler this. They should support the general principle that two men are perfectly able to enter into a fair bargain.

The Amendment would inflict no hardship on the tenant. He ought to know the exact condition of the ground of which he is going to acquire the tenancy, and he signs the lease accordingly. The only reason for opposition to this Amendment that I can imagine is this. It was mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill that its object was to improve the food production of the country. That is one of the most specious cries of the day If this Bill were passed I do not think it would secure £500 of additional value in the feeding stock to the country. If the Government want to conserve food why do they not stop all the waste of food that goes on in London day after day? I believe more food is wasted in London hotels and restaurants every night than will be saved by passing a Bill of this character. Therefore I do not believe in this Bill as a Bill for safeguarding the food production of the country. That is mere nonsense.

The Bill is really a political measure and not an economic measure at all, and I earnestly hope that those of your Lordships who hold the views I have expressed regarding this expected increase in the food supply will support my Amendment. I move it not so much because of my objection to this particular Bill as on the broad principles that I have mentioned. The operation of the Bill will not affect me very much personally. I have not a very large extent or ground and I take care to farm most of it myself. It may be that some of your Lordships think that the sheep farms will be hard hit, but I should say that no branch of agriculture has been more prosperous in Scotland during the last twelve years than sheep farming. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 7, after ("lands") insert ("who has been in occupation thereof not less than the preceding four years").—(Lord Lamington)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

The noble Lord who moved this Amendment referred to the question of increasing the food supply in Scotland. I do not pretend to be an expert on this question, but in this Bill we are following to a certain extent the Report of the Duke of Buccleuch's Departmental Committee. Although in some respects we am proposing not to follow it exactly, there is no doubt that the Committee in general reported definitely that by a reform of the system of heather burning, the broad lines of which we are following in this Bill, an increase of food and wool in Scotland would certainly be facilitated. I do not know whether I am exaggerating it, but that is how I read the Report of that very valuable Committee, which consisted of the greatest experts that could be got together and which heard the very best evidence that could be brought before it. It is really that, and that alone, that we are following to a certain extent in this Bill.

I am afraid His Majesty's Government cannot agree to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, although it is understood to be designed to meet the case where a tenant signs a lease which precludes him from doing the burning and soon afterwards goes to the Board with a view to getting rid of the stipulation to which he has just agreed. If a lease containing such a stipulation had been recently completed, that is a matter which the Board would be bound to take into consideration in determining the case. But if they were satisfied that burning was not being adequately carried out, they ought not to be precluded from exercising their powers merely because the tenant has recently made such an agreement. The main question the Board have to consider on any such application is whether, having regard to the interests of all concerned, adequate burning is, in point of fact, being done.

The clause as it stands contains adequate safeguards for the interests of the landlord and I believe that this Amendment would not be an improvement upon it. After all, if the landlord did adequate burning, and did it himself under the lease, the tenant would never get power from the Board of Agriculture to do any burning at all. Therefore, taking everything into consideration and having regard also to the fact that the Amendment would take away very materially from the operation of the Bill and cut away a great deal of the ground the Bill is meant to cover, I think your Lordships will see that it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept it as it stands.

LORD LAMINGTON

I regret the answer of the noble Duke. He said that the Amendment if accepted would take away the operation of the Bill to a great extent. I am willing to try to meet him part of the way by reducing the term from four years to three I might even go to two; but I think there ought to be a limit to the time. Even if a tenant did not get the acquiescence of the Board he might put his landlord in a difficult position, and the landlord ought not to be exposed to the possibility of such treatment. As I say, I should be content to reduce the term of years from four to three, or even two, if the noble Duke would accept my Amendment. If he will not accept it I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships to go to a Division upon the question.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

His Majesty's Government really cannot accept an Amendment of that kind because, as I explained, if a lease containing such a stipulation has been recently completed the Board of Agriculture are bound to take that fact into consideration, and the Board must be left with a discretion in order properly to exercise the powers conferred by the Bill in regard to these points.

THE EARL OF STAIR

I hope the noble Duke will reconsider the answer he has given. I wish to support the Amendment on totally different grounds from those on which it was moved. Apart altogether from the question of freedom of contract, no farmer in Scotland can know what a particular piece of hill land in Scotland is like until he has lived on it for two or three years, and he will not know very much about it, until he has lived upon it for a dozen years. No two pieces of land will grow heather or grass or anything else at the same rate or recover as quickly after fire. You may have a piece of land and get a crop of a certain amount from it in the same year if you burn it properly, whereas on another piece of land within a few hundred acres you might burn and get nothing that year. A tenant coming from land of a totally different type might easily be led to think that his farm was either over-burnt or under burnt and be unable to judge until he had been there a few years. I trust, therefore, that the noble Duke will change his mind about this Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not like to intervene in a Scottish debate, but the principle enunciated by the noble Duke has filled me with dismay. I have been brought up to believe that the sanctity of contract was a vital principle of the Conservative Party. The noble Duke says now that this Bill is going to break contracts, but that they will not be broken if a Minister or a Department says they shall not be broken. What has a Minister or a Department to do with that? Why should they be set up to judge as to whether or not a contract should be maintained or broken? The right principle is that a contract made between two grown men, neither of whom is in a lunatic asylum, is a contract which ought to be binding and that has been the principle of the Conservative Party from time immemorial.

You must not do evil that good may come, even if the breaking of a contract will aid the food supply of the country, though on that I do not venture to do more than express an opinion. I do not believe it. I do not believe that these nostrums that are going to add to the food supply of the country are worth anything at all. But leaving that entirely out of question, you must not break a contract simply because you think that somebody will get some benefit out of it, and that is a vital principle. This may be only a small alteration, but once a precedent of this sort is set up it may be followed. It is proposed in the Mining Industry Bill to break contracts, and if once we begin to do that we shall never know where we are going to stop. I hope my noble friend will go to a Division and that we shall beat the Government upon the point.

LORD SEMPILL

. It seems to me that this Bill is a departure from the law of Scotland in regard to leasing. Our leases in Scotland are made as a rule with a break in them. That is not the case in England, where many leases are made annually. The break in Scottish leases is purposely made so that the landlord or tenant may have an opportunity of reviewing any of the provisions. The whole object of this Bill is to cast this principle upon one side and to enable the tenant to secure different to ms from those in the lease he originally signed. If your Lordships go to a Division I shall support the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I have an Amendment on the Paper to omit Clause 2. The object of the Amendment is, of course, to maintain existing leases and existing agreements between tenant and landlord. Lord Lamington's Amendment lays down the law and says that the contract may not be broken immediately; for four years the contract must stand, but after that, if the tenant has contract ed for more than four years.

then, after four years, he may go to the Board and try to get out of the contract. That is the effect of Lord Lamington's Amendment. He says that for four years the contract shall not be broken, but after four years then the contract may be broken. I have an Amendment down which says that two people who have entered into a contract should keep to their contract. I do not think I can support Lord Lamington's Amendment saying that a contract, can be broken after four years. The matter raises a far bigger point than the more breaking of a contract to burn heather. It is a very common thing throughout Scotland, when a farmer takes a farm, to have a clause put in the agreement referring to heather burning and, in addition, there is also a clause in regard to the number of the sheep stock. When the noble Duke gets up and says this Bill will add greatly to the amount of mutton—

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I stated that the Committee said that.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

But the noble Duke takes the same view, I understand, as His Majesty's Government take, that this Bill will add largely to the amount of mutton which will be produced in Scotland. The noble Duke probably knows a great deal better than I do that in the case of a large number of sheep farms in Scotland there is a term in the lease stating that the number of sheep to be kept on the farms is strictly limited. I know plenty of cases of that kind. It is done, no doubt, for a good reason. The landlord is protecting his own interests and protecting his land. As a general rule it is not a good thing to overstock farms, because it generally ends in great mortality among the sheep. If a farm is covered with innumerable sheep for a year or two, not only does that kill all the heather, but it probably does not do the farm as a whole much good from any point of view. Therefore, in a large number of leases in Scotland, the number of sheep that can be placed on a farm is strictly limited. In addition there is the question of the valuation of sheep stock. I am sorry to have to introduce these matters, but the whole question of breaking contracts has been brought in and I only bring forward these matters because it seems to me that this Bill goes a good deal further ban the mere question of heather burning.

One of the reasons for putting in this restrictive clause as to the number of sheep that can be maintained on a farm is this. In a large number of eases, when the tenant leaves his farm the landlord is bound to take over the sheep at what is railed the acclimatization value. Acclimatization value invariably means that the landlord has probably to take over the sheep at one-third more than they are worth. The market value of the sheep on a farm may be, for instance, £4,000 and the valuers come in and almost always the landlord has to give £6,000 for sheep stock whose market value is not more than £4,000. I think this largely arises because it is said that if you brought in a new flock of sheep they would not be so healthy and also owing to the fact that, before the days of wire fences, if you brought new stock into the hills, they would be all over the place. You are proposing to break that clause in agreements. How, in a large number of farms, can the number of sheep be increased without breaking this special clause in the lease that limits the number of sheep that can be kept on a farm?

The noble Duke says that if this Bill is not passed in its present form, and if the existing leases are exempted, the scope of the Bill will thereby be greatly reduced. Undoubtedly that will be so. Those tenants who have a yearly agreement or who have already had permission to burn the heather on their moors, can apply for the extra extension and can do what they like. Where there is an existing lease and the landlord and tenant have come to agreements that the land shall be managed and the farm farmed in a certain way, I do think there is absolutely no excuse for interfering with them by means of this Bill and saying that existing contracts shall be

overridden. My opinion is that this Bill will produce very little more food and that it will cause a very considerable amount of friction between landlord and tenant. When an agreement has been reached, not between one rich man and a poor man or in face of great competition, but in a number of cases between men of substance and considerable wealth, who knew quite well what they were doing when they entered into the agreement, there is no justification or excuse for interfering with that agreement by this Bill. When two parties enter into an agreement with their eyes open there is not a shadow of excuse for interfering with that agreement in this way.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I should like to be allowed to say one word in regard to this before we go to a Division. The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, seems to think that the Board of Agriculture are going to do all they can to damage the farms. Some people may think that, but I can assure them they are quite wrong. The earnest wish and endeavour of the Board is to improve the value of the farms and they are not going to damage the farms by reducing the number of sheep stock upon them. On the contrary, their desire is to issue Orders which will have the effect of producing the largest amount of mutton. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, said that he would divide against the Bill on principle, but I would remind him that if he is against the Bill on principle he had an opportunity of dividing against it when the Second Reading was taken.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am so afraid of voting against the Government.

On Question, Whether the said words be there inserted?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents,23; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.
Bute, M. Banbury of Southam, L. Lawrence, L.
Crawshaw, L. Merthyr, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) de Mauley, L. Montagu of Beaulien, L.
Erskine, L. Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Fairfax of Cameron, L. Redesdale, L.
Morton, E. Howard of Glossop, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Mount Edgeumbe, E. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) Sempill, L.[Teller.]
Lamington, L. [Teller.] Strachie, L.
Askwith, L. Latymer, L. Wharton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) Eldon, E. Cawley, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Desborough, L.
Balfour, E. (L. President.) Onslow, E. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Stanhope, E.
Sutherland, D. Ernle, L.
Allendale, V. Gage, L.(V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) Cecil of Chelwood, V. O'Hagan, L.
Haldane, V. Olivier, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more) Parmoor, L.
Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Sandhurst, L.
Peel, V. Shandon, L.
Beauchamp, E. Stanmore, L.
Chesterfield, E. Arnold, L. Templemore, L.
De La Warr, E. Bledisloe, L. Thomson, L.
Treowen, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, on behalf of Viscount Novar, in subsection (1), after "notice" to insert "in writing." The noble Duke said: I think it is only a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, after ("notice") insert ("in writing").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE

had on the Paper an Amendment to move, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "Act," to insert: "A copy of the Order shall be sent to the proprietor or his factor or agent." The noble Earl said: I understand that my Amendment will be agreeable to the Government in a rather different form than that in which it appears an the Paver—namely, "A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner."

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, after ("Act") insert ("A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "interest," to insert "and (b) the protection of woodlands and plantations." The noble Duke said: I understand that this Amendment is agreed to. It is designed to meet Lord Lovat's representation regarding possible danger to areas under afforestation.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 35, after ("interest") insert ("and (b) the protection of woodlands and plantations").—(The Duke of Sutherland.)

THE EARL OF KINTORE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:— In the event of the tenant contravening the Order or failing to comply with any of the conditions thereof the Board shall have power to rescind the Order. The noble Earl said: I hope that this Amendment is likely to be accepted by the Government. It is obvious that the proprietor ought to have some remedy in case of the tenant contravening the Order, and the proposal that I have to make is that it shall be in the power of the Board, on representations being made to them, to withdraw the Order. Of course, they have power to make the Order under the Bill, but I can find no power to withdraw it.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 39, after ("tenancy") insert ("In the event of the tenant contravening the Order or failing to comply with any of the conditions thereof the Board shall have power to rescind the Order").—(The Earl of Kintore.)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I agree.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Question is that Clause 2, as amended, stand part.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: I have already said what I have to say on the question of doing away with existing contracts and I shall now formally move the omission of Clause 2.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out Clause 2.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I think that this Amendment must be resisted. The clause is the main provision of the Bill, and without it the Bill would not be worth while. The Amendment, therefore, is not very consistent with the decision to give the Bill a Second Reading. The power conferred on the Board is amply safeguarded, and will not be exercised where the proprietor is himself carrying out adequate burning. The recommendation of the Departmental Committee for schemes by agricultural committees to be put in force failing agreement by the Board, could not of course receive effect after the disappearance of agricultural committees. This clause takes its place, and the Government cannot agree to the proposed Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

If I may be permitted one word in answer, the noble Duke has said that the Board of Agriculture in Scotland will not put this into operation if there is adequate burning by the landlord. My only answer is that I think most landlords in Scotland are just as good judges whether moors are adequately burnt as any official of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. I also wish to add that on the Second Reading, when I raised doubts as to the people likely to go and inspect these hill farms, and see whether more heather was to be burned, the noble Duke assured us that not only would officials of the Board be employed for the purpose but other people would be employed who, I understood, would be excellent men. I only wish to ask the noble Duke if he includes among these men prominent members of the Farmers' Union in Scotland, who, I believe, are chiefly responsible for this Bill. If he would assure me that most of these people who will be sent round to investigate will be owners of moorland in Scotland who know something about

the matter and are not, perhaps, entirely prejudiced, I think that I should have some faith in the proposal, but, when he tells us that Orders will not be made without adequate reason, I confess that I am alarmed. I am still of opinion that the owner himself would be just as good a judge of how the moor ought to be burnt as any official of the Board of Agriculture, and I confess that I am very much frightened that some of these outside people will be leading members of the Farmers' Union in Scotland, who, as I say, are said to be chiefly responsible for this Bill.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

Let me take this opportunity of assuring the noble Earl that whoever is sent round to investigate will, of course, be completely unbiased. The Board would never select these men from one Party or another, or as representing one side or another. They will be obtained from a completely unprejudiced source and will be men who have no interest in farming or in any particular trade.

THE EARL OF STAIR

I should like very much to know what sort of men the noble Duke indicates. Either a man knows what he is talking about or he does not, and, if he knows, he is certainly prejudiced.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

He would not be interested in that particular case. He would not be in any way biased.

On Question, Whether the Clause, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-contents, 18.

CONTENTS.
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) Stanhope, E. Ernle, L.
Faringdon, L.
Balfour, E. (L. President.) Allendale, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Cecil of Chelwood, V. Latymer, L.
Sutherland, D. Haldane, V. Lawrence, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.) Merthyr, L.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) O'Hagan, L.
Peel, V. Olivier, L.
Parmoor, L.
Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Arnold, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Bledisloe, L. Sandhurst, L.
Beauchamp, E. Cawley, L. Shandon, L.
De La Warr, E. Crawshaw, L. Stanmore, L.
Eldon, E. Darling, L. Templemore, L.
Halsbury, E. Desborough, L. Thomson, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) Treowen, L.
Onslow, E. Wharton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Bute, M. de Mauley, L. Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Erskine, L. Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) [Teller.]
Ancaster, E. [Teller.] Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Morton, E. Howard of Glossop, L. Redesdale, L.
Lamington, L. Sempill, L.
Churchill, V. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) Strachie, L.
Montagu of Beaulieu, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Banbury of Southam, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 2, as amended, agreed to accordingly.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL had given Notice to move, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:—

Regulation of muirburn on common grazings.

".The making of muirburn or the setting fire to any heath or muir on any grazings held in common under the Landholders Acts shall continue to be regulated by the Land Court and the provisions of sections one and two of this Act in so far as they relate to applications to the Board of Agriculture shall not apply."

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I was asked to move this Amendment on behalf of ray noble friend the Duke of Atholl, but if the Government prefer the Amendment to Clause 5 that stands in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, my noble friend does not wish to press it.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

The Land Court, no doubt, make regulations affecting muirburn on common grazings, but they have no power to extend the ordinary period, and there is no reason why such extension should not apply to common grazings. Nor ought the provisions of Clause 2 to be excluded from common grazings. The Land Court, however, are of opinion that the matters dealt with in these two clauses should be in the hands of the same authority in the case of all land, and an Amendment accordingly stands in my name on Clause 5 to make clear what otherwise would be doubtful—namely, that Clauses 1 and 2 apply to common grazing. The Land Court prefer that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland should deal with it. The Land Court themselves, as your Lordships know, have no local officers moving about for inspection purposes. Therefore they are very anxious that this Amendment should not be pressed.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Do I understand that the Amendment is not moved?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I do not move the Amendment.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Construction, short title and extent.

5.—(1) In this Act the expression "tenant" means a tenant for agricultural or pastoral purposes.

(2) This Act may be cited as the Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, 1926, and shall extend to Scotland only.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert and in the case of a common grazing includes the committee appointed under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, and the expression 'lease' in relation to such common grazing includes regulations made or approved by the Land Court under the said Acts. The noble Duke said: This Amendment, as I have already indicated, is to make it clear that Clauses 1 and 2 apply to common grazing.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.