HL Deb 07 March 1940 vol 115 cc776-95

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

Drainage of outlying land.

"14.—(1) Where the War Agricultural Executive Committee for a county or a county borough consider that any agricultural land within the county or borough, but not within any drainage district other than a catchment area, is capable of improvement by the execution of drainage works, they may request the catchment board for any catchment area wholly or partly within the county or borough to prepare and carry out a scheme for draining the land.

(2) After receiving such a request as respects any land, the catchment board may prepare a scheme for draining the land, if they are of pinion—

  1. (a) that the cost of preparing and carrying out the scheme will not exceed an amount equal to five pounds for each acre of the land; and
  2. (b) that the value of the land will be increased in consequence of the carrying out of the scheme:
Provided that…"

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in sub-section (2) (b), after "land" to insert "for agricultural purposes". The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. The Amendment is quite simple, and merely seeks to add the words "for agricultural purposes" as a definition of the land which is to be treated under this Bill; otherwise you may have very valuable building land included, and that, I imagine, would not be the intention of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 31, after ("land") insert ("for agricultural purposes").—(Lord Phillimore.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD DENHAM)

The Government are quite prepared to accept this Amendment, and I would advise your Lordships that it is perhaps an improvement on the Bill.

LORD ADDISON

Would the noble Lord give a further explanation of the reason for accepting the Amendment? It appears to me to have rather a limiting effect.

LORD DENHAM

The object of this Amendment, I think, is to ensure that catchment boards do not spend money on the draining of land which is not going to be used for the production of food. I think it is clear that that is the object of the Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, if he is of opinion that this is probably already implied in the clause, because it is only where a county war agricultural executive committee consider that agricultural land is capable of improvement that they can request the catchment board to do anything. On the other hand, if the noble Viscount who put down this Amendment thought that it improved the phraseology, I felt that there was no harm in making it, and that it would make the wording more clear than it otherwise was. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we should add those words to the Bill.

LORD ADDISON

On general principles, one objects to inserting words which appear to limit the intention, because the whole thing is conditioned by the use of the land as recommended by the county war agricultural executive committee for these purposes, and for no others. However, I accept the noble Lord's explanation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM moved, in subsection (4) (a), to leave out "it has" and insert "they have". The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting Amendment to correct the grammar of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 16, leave out ("it has") and insert ("they have").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM had an Amendment on the Paper, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection: (6) Where, on the termination of the tenancy of a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in respect of which any sum has been paid or is payable to a catchment board by virtue of a scheme under this section, the landlord proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under that Act that any works executed in pursuance of the scheme were rendered necessary by the neglect of the tenant to comply with any obligation relating to the maintenance or repair of a watercourse imposed on him by virtue of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award to the landlord a sum equal to so much of the net cost of the scheme as was attributable to the execution of those works. For the purpose of any arbitration under this subsection, a certificate by the catchment board that such part of the net cost of the scheme as may be specified in the certificate was attributable to the execution of works so specified shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

An alteration is to be made in this Amendment, to leave out the words "a sum" in line 12 of the Amendment and to insert the word "compensation"; and the Amendment will be moved in that form. A proviso is also to be added at the end of the first paragraph of the Amendment: Provided that where any agreement is made between the landlord and the tenant of such a holding as aforesaid for the payment by the tenant of any contribution in respect of the sum paid or payable as aforesaid, that contribution shall be recoverable from the tenant in lieu of compensation under this subsection.

LORD DENHAM

This is rather an important matter, and I should like to give a short explanation about it. The purpose of this Amendment is to meet in some part an Amendment which was moved in another place. In another place it was pointed out, with some force, that in many cases, and perhaps in most, it was the tenant who really ought to be liable and was liable to clean out his ditches, and who ought to have done so by the terms of the tenancy agreement; hence it was argued in another place that it was scarcely fair to expect the landlord and the State to pay between them the whole of the drainage cost. The Government in another place promised to look into the matter, and therefore this Amendment was put down.

The effect of the Amendment as it stood on the Paper this morning would have been this, that where under Clause 14 a catchment board has carried out a drainage scheme, and where the landowner has paid under Clause 14 (4) (b) his 50 per cent. share of the cost, the landlord may recover from the tenant on the termination of the tenancy the net cost of doing the work; that is to say, the balance after the Government grant has been deducted. There is, of course, nothing to prevent a landlord and a tenant coming to an amicable agreement between themselves, and this would always be the preferable course. I have no doubt that in the vast majority of cases that will in fact take place; but, since the original words of the Amendment were on the Paper, I have been approached from many quarters and asked to try to make it clear in the Amendment itself that recourse to arbitration should only follow a failure of the parties to agree. I can see considerable force in this argument, and therefore I have ventured to put this other form of words which has been read out before the House, because that does bring emphasis to bear upon the desirability that, wherever possible, the parties themselves, the landlord and the tenant, should come together and should decide between themselves what share the tenant should be called upon to pay of the sum which the landlord has already paid. I beg to move the Amendment in the amended form.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 6, at end insert— ("(6) Where, on the termination of the tenancy of a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in respect of which any sum has been paid or is payable to a Catchment Board by virtue of a scheme under this section, the landlord proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under that Act that any works executed in pursuance of the scheme were rendered necessary by the neglect of the tenant to comply with any obligation relating to the maintenance or repair of a watercourse imposed on him by virtue of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award to the landlord compensation equal to so much of the net cost of the scheme as was attributable to the execution of those works. Provided that where any agreement is made between the landlord and the tenant of such a holding as aforesaid for the payment by the tenant of any contribution in respect of the sum paid or payable as aforesaid, that contribution shall be recoverable from the tenant in lieu of compensation under this subsection. For the purpose of any arbitration under this subsection, a certificate by the catchment board that such part of the net cost of the scheme as may be specified in the certificate was attributable to the execution of works so specified shall be conclusive evidence of that fact").—(Lord Denham.)

LORD ADDISON

I think that the Amendment of the noble Lord is an improvement, and I thank him for those last words, because they do in fact limit it to cases where an agreement has been entered into, and no one would suggest that where an agreement has been entered into the tenant should not, like anyone else, be called on to fulfil the conditions of the agreement.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I am in a little difficulty. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has had the advantage of seeing this corrected Amendment in writing, but I have not, nor have my friends behind me, so far as I know. As far as I can judge from what the Minister has said, the points he has made meet with our concurrence; but I should like to reserve a certain liberty in view of the fact that we have not been able to see this altered Amendment in writing before coming into the House. I was led to expect that this Amendment would be withdrawn, and the new Amendment substituted on Report. Being left in that position, I should like to call the Minister's attention to two points which remain unsettled, so far as I can make out, by the Amendment now before your Lordships.

The first of these points relates to the difficulty of assessing—or shall I say allocating?—the expense made on improvements and the expense made on repairs at the termination of tenancy, which termination may not take effect for seven, thirteen, or any number of years after the passing of the Bill. Who is to be able to tell, at that distance of time, what proportion of the work was carried out with a view to improving the watercourse and what proportion of it was carried out with a view to keeping up with the cleansing of the watercourse which the tenant ought, under his contract, to have undertaken and carried out year after year? It seems to me it would be almost impossible to arrive at such allocation unless there is some duty laid on the catchment board to make a division of the expense, at the time when the expense is incurred, between improvements and cleansings. I would therefore ask the Minister to consider that question before the Report stage. I also understood that we were to have an Amendment, which I do not think is covered by the Amendment now brought forward, to the effect that the landlord could repay these sums out of settled moneys. I am not clear as to whether or not that point is covered by the noble Lord's Amendment. Again, if it is not covered, it may be possible to bring it up on Report. I hope we may have some explanation from the noble Lord as to these two points.

LORD DENHAM

Perhaps the best plan would be if all the points raised by my noble friend Lord Philimore were carefully considered by me and my Department, and we might go into this matter more fully, perhaps, when the Bill reaches the Report stage in your Lordships' House, more especially because then we shall have the full form of words in the Bill. I feel I ought to apologise to your Lordships for having made this eleventh-hour manuscript Amendment to-day. I only did it to try to meet the many approaches which have been made to me within the last forty-eight hours. Perhaps it would have been better if I had withdrawn this Amendment, which it was in my mind to do, and brought in a new Amendment on Report. But on Report we can reconsider the matter, and I promise the noble Lord that all the points he has raised will be carefully gone into.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

Clause 17:

Control of sluices.

17.—(1) Where a drainage board are of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of preventing or arresting injury to any agricultural land, they may, by notice in writing served on the occupier or person in control of any dam within their district, require him, during such times and in such manner as may be specified in the notice, to keep open or closed any sluice forming part of the dam: Provided that—

  1. (a) in exercising their powers under this section in relation to any sluice, the board shall have regard to any purpose for which the occupier or person in control of the dam uses or desires to use it or any water thereby impounded and shall so exercise the said powers as to interfere as little as may be practicable with such user;
  2. (b) a drainage board shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section in relation to any sluice which is vested in or controlled by a navigation, harbour or conservancy authority; and
  3. (c)......

4.24 p.m.

LORD DENHAM moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to insert the following paragraph: (a) no such notice shall require anything to be done before the expiration of forty-eight hours from the service of the notice unless it is stated in the notice that in the opinion of the board immediate action is necessary to meet an emergency; The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 17. This is a clause which deals with the control of sluices. When this Bill was being discussed in Committee in another place, an Amendment was moved with the object of providing that definite notice should be given when an occupier of land is ordered by a board to do something to a sluice in accordance with this clause. An assurance was given in another place that such an Amendment would be moved in your Lordships' House. Accordingly this Amendment is moved, providing for forty-eight hours' notice being given unless it is stated in the notice that in the opinion of the board immediate action is necessary to meet an emergency. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 9, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "dam," to insert "or any other person interested in the water controlled by the sluice." The noble Lord said: This Amendment should be taken in conjunction with the three following Amendments on the Order Paper. In the other House, a series of Amendments was moved with the object of affording protection to various types of water users, and it was pointed out that the clause, as it was then drafted, might affect the water supply of public authorities for the purposes of towns or electricity companies and such like. Again an assurance was given that the matter would be dealt with in your Lordships' House, and these four Amendments do give adequate protection for all persons who feel in need of it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 13, after ("dam") insert ("or any other person interested in the water controlled by the sluice").—(Lord Denham.)

LORD ADDISON

I sympathise with the purpose of the noble Lord, but I think his words are very wide indeed. I can understand that regard should be had to the interests of local authorities and others, and if it is not clear in the Bill, it should be made clear, but these words will make the Bill read like this: In exercising their powers under this section…the board shall have regard to any purpose for which the occupier or person in control of the dam or any other person interested in the water controlled by the sluice.… I can imagine a very large number of persons may contend they are interested in the water controlled by the sluice, and if we are to wait until all these potentially interested parties are dealt with and satisfied in some way or other, it may gravely prejudice the exercise of the powers. The wording is very wide indeed. I do not want in any way whatever to object to the inclusion of the legitimate interests of local authorities and others, but I would ask the noble Lord to have another look at these words and see if he cannot make them more in consonance with his own explanation and rather less wide.

LORD PHILLIMORE

AS far as those who support me on this side of the House are concerned, we are fully content with the Amendment as moved, and I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Addison, that, although perhaps unfortunate, it is inevitable that there should be in many cases more than one person or set of persons interested in the regulation of the water. There are, for instance, the fishing people, who have large and very important rights, and the sluice which affects the fishing may affect electric power being provided for some small, possibly private, plant. It may affect a flour mill or some interest quite dissimilar from fishing, but at the same time of considerable importance. Therefore I do not see how we can very well escape enlarging the wording of the clause to cover those persons without inflicting an injustice, which I am sure the noble Lord would not desire to inflict.

LORD DENHAM

Any criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, with his long and vast experience of these matters will be treated with the greatest seriousness, not only by myself but by my Department. I can promise the noble Lord again that before the Report stage we shall once more go over these words and see whether they are too wide. I should like to say that it was only after the most prolonged discussion and consultation that this form or words was devised. Nevertheless, we shall go into it, and see whether there is anything in the contention the noble Lord has brought forward.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line: 14, leave out from ("use") to ("and") in line 15 and insert ("the water so controlled").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

The next Amendments also are consequential, I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 13, line 20, after ("by") insert ("a local authority or") Page 13, line 22, after ("authority") insert ("or any undertakers authorised by under any enactment to supply water electricity.")—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

Provisions as to requisitioned land.

(5) When possession of the land is given up, the owner thereof shall be liable to pay to the Minister on demand a sum equal to so much of the value of the land as is attributable to anything done on the land either—

  1. (a) by the Minister or the Committee; or
  2. (b) in a case where such a contract as aforesaid has been made, by the person occupying the land by virtue of the contract;
for the purpose of enabling the land to be properly farmed, or of securing increased efficiency in the farming of the land:

Provided that an owner by whom any sum is so payable may by notice in writing served on the Minister within one month after the date of a demand in writing by the Minister for the payment thereof elect to pay the said sum, together with interest thereon from the said date, by such number of equal annual instalments not exceeding five as may be specified in the notice, so, however that—

  1. (i) the first such instalment shall be paid within one year from the said date; and
  2. (ii) the rate of interest shall, in default of agreement between the owner and the Minister be fixed by the Treasury.

LORD DENHAM moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "on demand" and insert "within one month after the date of a demand made in writing by the Minister." The noble Lord said: This is the first of three drafting Amendments to bring the words of this subsection into line with the wording of subsection (4) of Clause 14. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("on demand") and insert ("within one month after the date of a demand made in writing by the Minister").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

The next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 17, line 14, after ("within") insert ("the said"). Page 17, line 14, leave out from ("month") to ("elect") in line 15.—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ADDISON

I should be glad if the noble Lord will answer me a question which I have been asked to put to him specifically on this clause. I feel sure he will give me a satisfactory answer, but I am putting the question in order Hint his answer may be on record. In the case of the land dealt with here—land of which possession has been taken for the purposes of food production, etc.—the Minister or the committee can take possession of the land, or they can make a contract with a person for the occupation of the land. As a matter of fact this land—which will be largely disused land bought often for building purposes and such-like things, but the development of which has been held up owing to the war—is now very often either neglected or let on a grazing tenancy, and no tenant under these terms could be expected to incur the necessary expenditure which cultivation requires. The period of the occupation provided in the Bill, which I think we are indebted to the Ministry for, is to enable the tenant to, shall I say reap where he has sown? and give a sufficient length of tenure to enable him to do so; but in this case, where the Minister has taken possession of the land or a committee have done so in his name, they may remain in possession for the period in question: The question I want to ask is this. Is it quite clear that a person with whom a contract has been made will be enabled to continue in possession for the period, because in the vast majority of cases what will happen is this? The committee will not undertake to cultivate the land themselves, but they will find a neighbouring farmer, a competent person, who will do so, and they will make a contract with him for the purpose. He should be entitled to remain in possession for the requisite period, because he will have spent his money and done work and the committee will have entered into a contract with him. I want an assurance from the noble Lord that the governing words of subsection (7) "the Minister or the committee may", etc., and those, again, in subsection (4), do not in any way limit the right of the person with whom the Minister or the committee has made a contract to remain in possession for the requisite period.

LORD DENHAM

I quite understand the case the noble Lord refers to, and I think I can give him without reservation the assurance for which he asks.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25:

Expenses of Minister in providing goods and services required for agriculture.

25. If, at any time before the end of the war period, arrangements are made by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury, with a view to increasing the production of food in the United Kingdom or any part thereof, for providing goods or services to persons requiring them for agricultural purposes, any expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the provision of goods or services in accordance with the arrangements shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

LORD DENHAM moved to add the following new subsection: (2) Particulars of any such arrangements shall be laid before Parliament by the Minister as soon as may be after they are made. The noble Lord said: We now come to a subject which occupied some time in the discussion in your Lordships' House on Second Reading, and in Committee in another place. The point was made that it would be desirable that particulars of the arrangements contemplated under Clause 25 should be laid before Parliament, and an assurance was given that an Amendment to that effect would be inserted in this House. The Amendment which I now move is to carry out that pledge.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Denham.)

LORD STRABOLGI

When the subsection says that particulars of such arrangements shall be laid before Parliament does that mean that they have to be passed by both Houses?

LORD DENHAM

No, I understand that is not so. If the noble Lord asks me whether particulars of every assistance scheme that comes under the ægis or ambit of Clause 25 has to be laid before Parliament, my reply is, that is not so. The promise made was that a typical scheme of what is to be done under Clause 25 shall be laid on the Table of this House and on the Table in another place, and that promise is being fulfilled by this Amendment.

LORD ADDISON

I would like to put in a plea to the noble Lord. I know what is in contemplation here, but I do hope that in drafting these conditions the Minister of Agriculture will be No. 1, and not the Treasury. If we are going to be enabled to give real help to men who need help and who deserve help in the interests of food production under this clause, it cannot possibly be done if we are going to be flint-hearted or close-fisted. If that is the case you will not get anybody to help. The man who can pass through the mesh which I can quite imagine the Treasury could readily weave could get plenty of help already from a bank or elsewhere. The people we want to help are the men who are really hard up and need help. I know the Ministry is well aware of this. I am only entering a plea that the Minister will, to put it in popular language, keep his end up when these regulations are framed, so that they will be really effective and not be a dead letter.

LORD DENHAM

I think the words actually used by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in his Third Reading speech in another place, to which the noble Lord might well refer, completely meet the point he has raised. I would like, in addition, to assure him that the Ministry of Agriculture really mean to make this clause function and to make it a success. I would like to tell him one other thing, and that is that even now we are having very good evidence at the Ministry of Agriculture that this clause is going to be utilised and is going to be a very great success as far as we can judge at present.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26:

Exclusion of certain holdings from Agricultural Holdings Act.

26. Nothing in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, shall apply to a contract of tenancy of land for a term not exceeding four years beginning after the commencement of this Act and before the end of the war period, if—

  1. (a) the contract of tenancy provides for the cultivation of the land as arable land and, in a case where immediately before the beginning of the said term the land consisted of permanent pasture, for the sowing by the tenant of permanent grass seeds along with the last or waygoing crop; and
  2. (b) immediately before the commencement of this Act either—
    1. (i) the land was not being used for agricultural purposes; or
    2. (ii) the land was being so used in pursuance of a letting not being a contract of tenancy within the meaning of the said Act.

4.40 p.m.

LORD DENHAM moved, in paragraph (b), after "Act" where that word first occurs, to insert "and thereafter until the beginning of the said term." The noble Lord said: This Amendment should be read in conjunction with the next two Amendments. The matter is a little complicated, but I think I can give an explanation which will make it fairly simple. Clause 26, which is sought to be modified by this Amendment, follows on similar provisions which were contained in Section 12 (7) (f) of both the English and Scottish Agricultural Holdings Acts of 1923. The clause provides that in three classes of cases which are specified in paragraphs (a) and (b), the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, shall not apply to a contract of tenancy of the land for a term not exceeding four years from the commencement of the Act and before the end of the war period.

I would call special attention to the words "commencement of this Act." The necessity for this provision is that a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, can only be determined by twelve months' notice to quit and, except in certain cases, on payment by the landowner of compensation for disturbance. There are, particularly in the North of England, and in Scotland, lands which are let to farmers for grazing only and since some of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act are not appropriate to such lettings it is customary, as some of your Lordships may know, for the lands to be let on 364 day tenancies or shorter periods, and they do not therefore come within the Act. The owners of these lands have no objection to their being used for ordinary arable production in time of war in order to make their contribution to the food production campaign, provided that, at the end of the war, the tenant agrees to sow the land down to grass with the last waygoing crop and that the owner does not render himself liable for compensation for disturbance. Paragraph (b) of the clause deals with a different type of case, when the owner has purchased or owns agricultural land with a view to developing it for building purposes. In order to do so he may have got rid of the existing tenant by giving him notice to quit and by paying him compensation for disturbance. Pending the development of the land, however, he is in the habit of letting the land on 364-day tenancies or shorter periods which are outside the Agricultural Holdings Act, and in this way avoids having to give another twelve months' notice to quit when he requires the land for development, and also avoids having to pay further compensation for disturbance.

When the clause was discussed in Committee in another place, two defects—glaring defects really—were pointed out. The first defect is that the clause as drafted only applies to certain tenancies beginning after the commencement of the Act. In many cases, particularly in Scotland, we know landlords and tenants have already entered into contracts in anticipation of legislation of the kind being introduced, and accordingly it is proposed by this and following Amendments that the provisions of the clause which I have explained shall be made retrospective to the date of the commencement of the war and applicable to any case where the landlord satisfies an arbitrator that the contract of tenancy would otherwise have come within the provisions of this clause. The second defect pointed out was that, whereas the clause applies when an owner of land had been in the habit of letting it for grazing, it does not apply as at present drafted when an owner had himself occupied and grazed the land. The second Amendment puts that right. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("and thereafter until the beginning of the said term").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 11, at end, insert— ("or (iii) the land consisted of permanent pasture and was occupied by the landlord").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 11, at end, insert— ("(2) Where, as respects any contract of tenancy made before the commencement of this Act and after the second day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the landlord satisfies an arbitrator appointed under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923—

  1. (a) that that Act would not apply to the contract by virtue of subsection (1) of this section if references to the said second day of September were substituted in that subsection for references to the commencement of this Act; and
  2. (b) that the parties to the contract intended, notwithstanding anything in that Act, that that Act or any provision thereof should not apply to the contract;
then that Act or that provision thereof, as the case may be, shall not apply to the contract of tenancy.").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27:

Extension of land fertility scheme to gardens.

27.—(1) Any land wholly or mainly cultivated for the production of vegetables or fruit shall, notwithstanding that it is not included in the definition of "agricultural land" contained in Section thirty-two of the Agriculture Act, 1937, be deemed to be agricultural land for the purpose of the following provisions of that Act, namely—

  1. (a) Part I of that Act (which provides for contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the cost incurred by occupiers of agricultural land in acquiring lime or basic slag); and
  2. (b) paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section twenty-nine of that Act (which provides for the inspection of any agricultural land in respect of which such a contribution has been applied for or made);
and accordingly paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Section three of the said Act (which enables certain associations to be treated as if they were occupiers of agricultural land) shall have effect as if associations of occupiers of any land so cultivated were included among the associations mentioned in that paragraph.

4.47 p.m.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "Any land," to insert "being a garden or allotment and." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe. It may be that there is an explanation why cottage gardens are not separately dealt with. In any case I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister and the Government for at last including cottage gardens in the scope of the Land Fertility Scheme. It is an inclusion for which my noble friends and I, and I think also the noble Lord opposite, have often pressed, and we are really grateful for it. I will reserve my decision as to whether I should press this Amendment until I have heard from the noble Lord whether there is any specific reason for cottage gardens not being included.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 12, after ("land") insert ("being a garden or allotment and").—(Lord Phillimore.)

LORD DENHAM

I think I can give your Lordships an explanation which you will regard as satisfactory. I submit that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. The object of it is to extend to cottage gardens the type of land in respect of which grants may be paid under Section 1 of the Agriculture Act of 1937, so as to enable cottage gardeners to have the same facilities as are offered to allotment holders in respect of lime and basic slag. May I read the definition of "agricultural land" in Section 32 of the Agriculture Act, 1937? It is as follows: 'Agricultural land' means any land used as arable meadow or pasture ground, or for the purpose of poultry farming, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards, or allotments, including allotment gardens within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922. Therefore, my Lords, I would submit that the word "allotment" in the Amendment is quite unnecessary. As to the proposed insertion of the word "garden," that word is not denned for the very good reason that it is almost impossible to define a garden. I am advised that the word "garden" is never used alone in any Statute. It is always qualified in some way. A tennis court is often part of a garden, but it is not that part of a garden with which we are concerned this afternoon. It is better to deal with gardens in terms of user, and the words "any land wholly or mainly cultivated for the production of vegetables or fruit" are used so as to include gardens, and above all little gardens, because big gardens are already included in the definition. For these reasons I hope your Lordships will think the proposed words are unnecessary and will not accept the proposed Amendment.

LORD ADDISON

I rise to express the the hope that, as it has now been laid down that the benefit of cheap lime and basic slag will be made available for small cultivators, the Ministry will bear in mind the necessary accompaniment of this provision: to make sure as far as they humanly can that the allotment-holders will be able to get the basic slag.

LORD DENHAM

I can assure the noble Lord that that point has not escaped the notice of my right honourable, friend and the Ministry.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I am much indebted to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for his explanation, and I feel that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe will in all probability be satisfied with his answer. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after subsection (1), to add the following new subsection: (2) For the purposes of this section, the term 'associations' shall be deemed to include parish councils and other local authorities controlling gardens situate within their administrative areas."—(Lord Phillimore.) The noble Lord said: This is to some extent consequential on the previous Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 34, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Phillimore.)

LORD DENHAM

My noble friend obviously wishes by this Amendment to extend the list of associations in Section 3 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, to which grants may be made under the Land Fertility Scheme, on the ground that it may be difficult for the owners of gardens within their area to form associations and so bring themselves within the terms of the Scheme. Since the Amendment was put on the Paper I have had the privilege of consulting with my noble friend Lord Cranworth, the Chairman of the Land Fertility Committee, and have ascertained that they are in favour of the extension proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. They think there is a good deal to be said for allowing local authorities, who have power to spend money on buying requisites for allotment holders under Section 21 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, to function under the Land Fertility Scheme without waiting for individual cultivators to form themselves into special associations for this purpose. Such parish councils, and other authorities, would have to be approved as "approved associations" under the Land Fertility Scheme, but I am informed that there is no difficulty about that and that it can be done very quickly. The Amendment, however, is not in a convenient form: the words are not suitable; so I have put an Amendment down on line 34, and if the noble Lord who moved this Amendment on behalf of the noble Viscount would either move his Amendment in that form or would withdraw his Amendment and let me move the Amendment which I have down on the Paper, I think that all that his Amendment is seeking to do would actually be carried out.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I think it might be best if he moved his Amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw mine.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DENHAM

I beg to move the next Amendment on the Paper.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 34, at end insert— (2) Provision may be made by the Land Fertility Scheme made under the said Part I for enabling any such council as is mentioned in Section twenty-one of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919 (which empowers certain councils to purchase fertilisers for resale to the cultivators of allotments) to be treated in such cases as may be provided by the scheme as if they were the occupiers of agricultural land."—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 31:

Application to Scotland.

31. This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications— (1) In this Part of this Act— (4) For the purpose of determining any appeal to them under Section twenty-nine of this Act or of any question under subsection (6) of Section twenty-three of this Act the Scottish Land Court shall have the like powers as they have under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, for the purpose of the determination of matters referred to the said Court there-under, and those Acts shall apply accordingly subject to any necessary modifications.

LORD DENHAM

The next is a consequential Amendment, and makes what we have already passed applicable to Scotland.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 27, at end add— ("(d) for any reference to such a council as is mentioned in Section twenty-one of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, there shall be substituted a reference to a local authority within the meaning of Section twenty-two of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919.").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

The next Amendment is consequential also.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 14, at end insert: (3)"Section twenty-six of this Act shall have effect as if for any reference in subsection (2) to an arbitrator there were substituted a reference to the Scottish Land Court."—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

This also is consequential; I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 17, leave out from ("them") to ("this") in line 19, and insert ("or any question required to be determined by them under").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Fifth Schedule: