PART III.

HL Deb 12 May 1931 vol 80 cc1174-80

Improvements in respect of which Consent of or Notice to Landlord is not required.

(24) The eradication of bracken, whins, or gorse growing on a farm at, the comcencement of a tenancy and in the case of arable land the removal of tree roots, boulders, stones or other like obstacles to cultivation.

(27) Laying down temporary pasture with clover, grass, lucerne, sainfoin, or other seeds, sown more than two years prior to the termination of the tenancy, in so far as the value of the temporary pasture on the holding at the time of quitting exceeds the value of the temporary pasture on the holding at the commencement of the tenancy for which the tenant did not pay compensation.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved to add to paragraph (13) "but excluding the removal of stone walls and growing hedges." The noble Earl said: I have been asked by my noble friends Lord Lamington and Lord' Sinclair to move this Amendment which stands on the Paper in their names. The reason is that stone walls and hedges are of such a permanent nature that the tenant should hardly be given the right to remove them.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 35, at end insert ("but excluding the removal of stone walls and growing hedges.")—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I should like to point out that this particular matter is dealt with in Part II of the Bill and if the noble Earl looks at that he will see that the landlord has a right of appeal to the Department. Therefore, if this particular work was not likely to improve the holding—and I think that we should all admit that in some circumstances that might be so—he would be able to put his case before the Department. I think there is no doubt that in some cases it may be very desirable to carry out the work, and I would suggest that full provision is made for the statement of both sides of the case in the Bill as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in paragraph (15), to leave out "Making" and insert "Repairing or renewing." The noble Lord said: This Amendment was moved on Report stage in another place. If you make a new embankment to prevent flooding from a fast-flowing river you never know what the result will be as regards other people's property or what litigation may arise. If embankments already exist their effect is known and there is far less objection to their renewal or repair. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 27, leave out ("Making") and insert ("Repairing or renewal").— (Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Here again the actual making of an embankment may be a very important work and it may be very desirable that it should be carried out. I would point out to your Lordships that, as in the case of the last Amendment, the landlord has the right to appeal here also under Clause 26 of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

That may be so, but as every one knows making an embankment is a very dangerous thing. The law is very strict about it and you may have a very large claim against you by other parties. I think it is dangerous to leave in the word "making." "Repairing or renewal" is all right, but to make a new one does not merely concern the man whose property it is made on; it concerns others. He would be entirely responsible for all damage done. I think this is a very important Amendment and one that is most desirable. It is very seldom that a new embankment would be wanted.

EARL DE LA WARR

That consideration would be one of the first considerations the Department would have to take into account when appealed to by the landlord.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Yes, but you cannot tell until afterwards.

EARL DE LA WARR

As to the question of liability that is a legal point of which I should like to have notice. Speaking off-hand, if the landlord is not in favour of the making of the embankment I cannot conceive that, he would be held responsible for damage from it. It rather takes us back to the Amendment we had on the Public Health Act. It was made quite clear there that if a landlord was not responsible for carrying out work he would not be liable for any damage or expense that might arise as the result of carrying it out. I think really the noble Lord's point is covered by the right of appeal to the Department.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

Suppose the bank gives way and the landlord has to take over when a new tenant comes in: the new tenant will not be held responsible, but the landlord mill. Therefore he has that responsibility with which he might be faced afterwards.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I appeal to the noble Earl. I do not know whether my noble friend is going to press the Amendment but, if not, I hope the noble Earl will go into the matter a little further before Report.

EARL DE LA WARR

I will.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

Then I beg leave to withdraw, reserving the right to move again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, at the end of the last paragraph in Part II, to insert "provided that the installation complies with the conditions prescribed by the Institution of Electrical Engineers and by the fire insurance companies." The noble Duke said: I think this is a point of great importance. I quite admit that the Government may find better words for the purpose, though it is difficult to do so, but there is no doubt that electrical equipment is coming into use on farms to a considerable extent. I have had several cases in which certain compensation may be necessary, and I have been considering the general scheme to cover this. There is likely to be a large increase of this equipment, and on three occasions already I have had people putting in equipment, not with any bad intention, but quite ignorantly, of an extremely dangerous kind. Probably the houses would have been burnt down if it had remained. The farmer would lose his house in the meantime, the landlord would suffer and the farm would go to the bad. I think there must be some words of this kind as a general guidance, and they would provide help for the tenant, who often has no idea what to do. Unfortunately many people know very little about these matters and think that it is perfectly safe to do anything that they see their neighbours do. I do not know whether my actual wording is satisfactory, but I am certain that some Amendment is needed.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 30, at end insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

VISCOUNT NOVAR

Let me point out that this is not merely a landlord's question. As director of an insurance company, I should rather call it an insurance company's question. Any check that can usefully be applied to diminish the risk of fire is very much to be desired. I hope that this point will not be overlooked.

EARL DE LA WARR

There is no objection to this Amendment in principle. The only question is whether the Department would provide the best protection or whether the noble Duke's Amendment is better. Perhaps we might discuss the matter again on Report. I would only add that there are a number of fire insurance offices, and they might have different ideas. That would have to be provided for.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Since we are in agreement as to the necessity of some such words, I will bring the point up again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, at the end of Part II, to insert "(18). The eradication of bracken, whins or gorse growing on a pastoral farm at the commencement of a tenancy." The noble Duke said: I think this is a very important Amendment, and one on which I desire to insist. I do not want to talk too much about myself, but I think I have probably had as much experience as anybody of trying to eradicate bracken, and in some cases I have been successful. I do not think this provision ought to be in Part III. It should be in Part II. It is not a matter about which a great deal is known, and experiments are still being made. A lot of money might be spent with very little effect. I am afraid I must press for this provision being taken out of Part III and put in Part II. In regard to the eradication of whins and gorse, if anyone has been successful in finding a remedy I should be very glad if he would tell me what it is.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 30, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

VISCOUNT NOVAR

The only point on which I differ from the noble Duke is that I do not think this should be in the Schedule at all. I think it should be left as a matter of agreement. There is, no certainty as to eradication, and I should be very glad if the noble Earl could enlighten me as to what "eradication of bracken" means. I know how it is done, like the noble Earl, but I do not find that my method is usually followed. I believe it is quite simple to eradicate bracken if you switch the young shoots when they come up in spring several times over, and continue doing so for a year or two, but that is not the method usually followed. I have seen a Scottish agricultural college pursuing a series of experiments which were absolutely useless. If it has to be in some part of the Schedule, then the noble Duke's proposal is certainly desirable.

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not think we need debate the various methods of getting rid of bracken. I have my own opinion on that. In my own county it is perfectly possible by various methods. On the question of which is the most appropriate part of the Schedule, I think Part III is the most suitable. Supposing a man wants to adopt the method of switching young shoots, as suggested by the noble Viscount, he may just have a week, or a few days, when his men are free to do this. Under the proposed Amendment he would have to write to his landlord for permission, and by that time probably his men would be doing something else. The noble Duke has referred to the question of cost, but I would remind him that it is not so much a question of cost as of the value to the incoming tenant. If a man does it unprofitably or unsuccessfully, the valuation is so much the less. I think the reason why the noble Duke made his observation was that he was thinking in terms of cost, and not of the value to the incoming tenant. If he looks at it in that light, I think he will see that there is no grievance on the part of the landlord if he allows the tenant to have full freedom for dealing with bracken in any way he likes. The only further point is that the Amendment brings in the words "pastoral farm." I think that is a pity, because, although bracken is not usually found on arable farms, it may be growing fairly extensively on any high-lying grassland attached to an arable farm, which would still be called an arable farm. It would be a great pity to insert these words. I hope your Lordships will not press this point, but will leave the Schedule as it is.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I should like to support my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch on this question. I do not know what experience the noble Earl opposite has had in the eradication of bracken, though he indicated that he had some experience, but I think he has really missed the point, in so far as this question affects the compensation payable upon the tenant going out. If the farmer is to be allowed to spend money on the eradication of bracken in such a way as he may think fit, and then come up for compensation with a claim that bracken had been eradicated, it would be very difficult to adjust or size up such a claim. I very strongly support my noble friend's Amendment, and I hope that he will press it to a Division. If he does, I shall go into the Lobby with him.

Amendment moved— Page 15, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("the eradication of bracken, whins or gorse growing on a farm at the commencement of a tenancy, and").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD CLINTON had on the Paper an Amendment, in paragraph (27), to leave out "temporary pasture with clover, grass, lucerne, sainfoin, or other seeds sown more than two years prior to" and insert "with clover, grass, lucerne, sainfoin or other seeds temporary pasture more than two years old at." The noble Lord said: Unless the noble Lords who have also put down this Amendment wish to move it, I should prefer that it should not be moved, because I see certain objections to it as it stands on the Paper.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

It deals with a point put forward by certain arbitrators. It is a technical point, and might be looked into.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.