HL Deb 27 May 1937 vol 105 cc266-8

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

LORD THANKERTON

I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Thankerton).

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time I think it would be only right for me to state that, in the course of the last few days, I and the other noble Lords who with myself do not consider that it goes nearly far enough have received ample confirmation, in our opinion, for the views which we have expressed. That something ought to be done in the matter of sheep stock valuations is certainly very true and our regret is that what has been done is quite inadequate to the exigencies of the situation. The Bill before your Lordships is a lawyers' and an arbiters' Bill, not a Bill calculated to appeal to the agriculturist. I should like to state in a very few words some of the principal objections to it as it stands at the present time.

First of all, there is no appeal so far as I can see on points of fact but merely on points of law. By Clause 1 (2) if the arbiter fails to comply with any requirements of subsection (1) his award may be set aside by the Sheriff. If, however, he does comply with these requirements, which are merely to show his basis of valuation, nothing apparently can be done to set aside that valuation no matter how absurd or how inflated the figures may be. On pages 9 and 10 of the Report of the Kinross Committee there are given one or two significant instances which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read as the quotations are very short: In one instance in Perthshire ewehoggs"— a hogg in this case is a sheep and not the animal usually known by that description— which were sold within two or three days of the arbiter's award, in May, 1932, realised less than one-third of the amount at which they had been valued. Then, later, on page 10: In another case in Perthshire where the valuation took place at Martinmas, 1926, it was provided that the sheep were to be taken over 'at the actual market value … no additional value whatever being allowed in respect of acclimatisation or of the stock … being hefted to the ground.' The valuations fixed in this case were such as to raise grave doubts whether sufficient regard had been paid to the terms of the submission. That was a very polite way of putting it, but unfortunately while most of the arbiters are men of undoubted integrity there are among their number a few whose decisions cannot be explained by anything which a reasonable man can possibly contemplate. There is unfortunately in this Bill nothing which will make it easier to render such decisions impossible in the future.

Furthermore, in Clause 2 (3), it is provided that in cases of appeal to the Sheriff it shall be lawful for the arbiter, pending the decision of such question, to make an order directing payment to the outgoing tenant of such sum, not exceeding that amount, as the arbiter may think fit. What the arbiter may think fit may be completely wiped out by other debts owing from the tenant to the landlord and, once such a payment has been made, if it should afterwards be found that there are various set-offs against it, it will be very difficult indeed in many cases to recover the money. Again we have the position of the arbiter being not only the jury but also the judge. It seems to be, as far as matters of fact are concerned, or what purport in the submission to be facts, that there is absolutely no control over the arbiter whatsoever.

Again, in Clause 3 (1), if there is any dispute it may if both parties agree, in lieu of being determined in the manner provided in the lease, he determined by the Land Court. Well, my Lords, if both parties were willing to agree to the Land Court it is probable that they would have been able already to settle their differences. We consider that it would be far better if the final decision could be transferred to the Land Court on the appeal of either party, whether or no the other consents. These are a very few of the lacuna in this Bill. I am afraid that your Lordships will find that it will not go very far to settle what has been for a good many years past a very burning question in Scottish agriculture, and I fear that before many years are past some further amending legislation will have to be introduced before the position will be in any way capable of providing justice for all concerned.

On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.