HL Deb 23 March 1943 vol 126 cc799-811

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 Norfolk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Extension of powers as to drainage schemes.

(11) Where the landlord of an agricultural holding has become liable to pay any sum in respect of the holding, either to a catchment hoard under subsection (4) of the said Section fourteen as so amended, or to any other drainage board under the corresponding provision of the said section as so set out, or to the Minister under the Third Schedule of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1941, as applied by Section six of that Act, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

This subsection shall not apply in any case where the arbitration has made an award, or an agreement has been made between the landlord and tenant, before the passing of this Act under subsection (6) of the said Section fourteen as so amended, or under the corresponding provision of the said section as so set out, or under subsection (2) of the said Section six, as the case may be, but save as aforesaid shall apply, in substitution for the said provisions, in all cases where any such sum has become payable by the landlord of an agricultural holding whether before or after the passing of this Act.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, at the end of subsection (11), to insert: Provided that the landlord may, if he so elect, recover from the tenant of the holding or any assignee or successor of the tenant the cost of the works attributable to the neglect of the tenant, in lieu of interest thereon.

The noble Lord said: The point with which this Amendment is concerned is somewhat difficult and obscure and I want to acknowledge in the first place that the Minister of Agriculture in another place and the noble Duke in this House have gone some way to meet the point at issue. If I may I will briefly describe the situation with which this Amendment deals. Under a previous Agriculture Act it was provided that an area could be formed and treated as an area for drainage purposes, in which case what is called in the Bill "a scheme … under Section 14 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940," would apply. The effect of Section 14 was from one point of view somewhat disastrous to landowners, who already have a sufficiently heavy burden to bear and who have had no lightening of that burden since this war began.

In effect, a Section 14 scheme means that the cleansing of water courses included in the scheme would fall upon the landowner—it is true with the benefit of a fifty per cent. contribution from the State. It would, in the great majority of cases, have been the duty of the tenant or occupying owner to keep these water courses clear. The ordinary farm tenancy agreement provides that a tenant shall maintain in order the water courses on his farm. Under the Section 14 procedure the water courses have to be cleared out and the expense falls on the landowner. It may be that the landowner has for many years past appeared to connive at the neglect of the water courses by his tenants. There are instances well known up and down the country where a given water course has not been cleaned out for perhaps thirty or even forty years. The great accumulation of that work makes it extremely expensive to undertake now and its does not seem altogether fair that the expense should in the first instance fall on the landowner. This situation has been partly met by the concession that, where the tenant and landlord agree, the sum which the landowner will have to disburse should carry interest as against the tenant and that that interest should be amalgamated with the rent. In other words, the suggestion is that Farmer X, having neglected his ditches for thirty years, shall now, if he has got to have the ditches cleaned out, pay for them being cleaned out only by plying interest on the outlay.

As those of your Lordships who live in the country will appreciate, it does not follow in the least that a particular farmer will continue in his tenancy for another thirty years. In fact the expectation is that he will only continue a very few years having had already a long farming life. Therefore the provision for the farmer to pay interest on the landowner's outlay, although advantageous at the moment, tends to have very little interest a few years hence. My Amendment, therefore, suggests that it be at the land owners option to enforce his tenancy agreement as against the tenant, in which case he would recover the whole of the outlay, or, alternatively, only charge interest on the outgoing. The matter has already been discussed in another place and there has been considerable misapprehension, I am afraid, as to the wording of the clause. That I will leave to the noble Duke to explain. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 42, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Phillimore.)

TEE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK)

I fully appreciate the point which the noble Lord has made in moving this Amendment. My right honourable friend has in effect already amended the clause. The clause as it stands does not in any way affect any agreement which may be made between a tenant and a landowner. It is hoped that, in these days, when a tenant is in the position to pay the costs of these schemes, these friendly agreements will be made. In that case this Amendment would not be necessary. If there should be an exception, and a bad tenant does take a different view, then the landowner is safeguarded by this clause as it stands, for in such a case he will be able to get interest on his outlay. It is because we hope that these agreements will, as I say, be made in a friendly way between tenant and landlord, that we trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. If this Amendment were adopted further amendment of Clause 10 would be involved.

LORD PHILLIMORE

As the noble Duke has pointed out, my Amendment does, or would, involve further amendment to Clause 10. In the circumstances, and in view of the statement by the noble Duke, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Acquisition of land for drainage works.

(2) Nothing in this section shall authorize the acquisition of any land which is, or forms part of, a metropolitan common within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or which is subject, or might be made subject, to regulation, under an order or scheme made in pursuance of the. Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, or under any local Act or otherwise, or which is or forms part of any town or village green, or of any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden or pleasure ground, or for use for the purpose of public recreation, or of any land the fee simple absolute in possession of which belongs to, and is held inalienably by, the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the National Trust Act, 1907, whether subject to any tenancy or not.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), after "recreation," to insert "or of any land which is Green Belt land within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938." The noble Earl said: Since I tabled this Amendment on behalf of the L.C.C. negotiations have taken place between the Ministry and the Council, and those negotiations have resulted in an undertaking which satisfies the requirements of the Council. With your Lordships' permission I will read what I think is the material passage in this undertaking: Obviously before using this power there would be the fullest consultation with the authorities concerned; and I should expect that on the very few occasions on which the Minister may himself wish to do drainage work in the Green Belt, it will be possible in practically all cases to reach a satisfactory settlement with the authorities concerned. I think that this implies that the power which the Minister is seeking will be used rarely, if ever, and that it the Minister wishes to use it he will take the local authorities into consultation. In taking them into consultation, he will use every effort to reach amicable agreement before resorting to compulsion. I think that a good deal of credit is due to Lord Latham for the success of his diplomatic venture, and also to the Ministry for their evident willingness to meet the desire of the County Council to protect its Green Belt from any possible encroachment. I beg formally to move my Amendment in order to give any noble Lord, who wishes to do so, an opportunity to speak on it, but I shall not press it.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 24, after ("recreation") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

EARL MANVERS

I feel rather like a fish out of water in rising to support my natural enemies the Earl of Listowel and Lord Latham, in pressing any course on the Government. But I, too, am a member of the London County Council, and I cannot help thinking that in this matter the view of the County Council is reasonable. Those noble Lords who own land, which has not yet been taken from them by Lord Justice Scott, Mr. Justice Uthwatt or the famous Sir William Beveridge, will perhaps regard the whole Green Belt idea as somewhat of a Cockney conception of bliss. The vision of the weary town-dweller, his eyes sated with the sight of bricks and mortar, enjoying a prospect of green fields, flowing streams, and standing corn, will perhaps be regarded without enthusiasm. You will reflect that corn does not always stand, that farmyards have a tendency to breed rats, that dung heaps engender flies, and that agriculture within the confines of a large city is not an unmixed blessing.

But that is not the point to-day. That position has long ago been abandoned. Parliament in its wisdom has passed the Green Belt Act of 1938, and I am not aware that the execution of drainage work on the Green Belt will improve the position as regards flies or rats. Your Lordships will remember the old rhyme: The law is hard on man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common, But lets the greater felon loose Who steals the common from the goose. We thought we were in the presence of an attempt by the noble Duke to steal the Green Belt from the London County Council, but now that we have his assurance—if we have his assurance—that that is not so, we shall all be quite satisfied.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

I fully appreciate the noble Earl's view and also the fact that the statement which he read will result quite definitely in any negotiations which may be contemplated being discussed freely with the County Council. But I would like to emphasize that it is no object of the Ministry to try and purchase any of the land in any shape or form in the Green Belt unless, in connexion with some large drainage scheme, it was vitally necessary to have a certain drain passed through a certain part of that land. In order to do that it would be necessary to come to some agreement or otherwise to purchase that small strip of land in order that the large drainage scheme should not be held up. However, such a thing is so unlikely to happen that I hope the noble Earl will stand by the arrangements which have been reached.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am extremely grateful to the noble Duke and to the noble Earl, Lord Manvers, for what they have said, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Amendment of provisions relating to dams and sluices.

Provided that an owner from whom any sum is so recoverable may, by notice in writing served on the board within the said three months, elect to pay the said sum together with the 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. (a) the first instalment shall be payable within one year from the said date; and
    2. 805
  2. (b) the rate of interest shall, in default of agreement between the owner and the board, be fixed by the Minister.

(3) Where the landlord of an agricultural holding has become liable to pay any sum under the last foregoing subsection in respect of the repair or maintenance of a dam, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say: (a) if the landlord and tenant agree, or in default of such agreement the landlord proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, that any of the works in respect of which the sum is payable were rendered necessary by the neglect of the tenant to comply with any obligation relating to the maintenance or repair of the dam imposed on him by virtue of the contract of tenancy, the landlord shall be entitled to recover from the tenant or any assignee or successor of the tenant such amount as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant, or in default of such agreement determined by the said arbitrator, to be such part of the said sum as was attributable to the execution of those works;

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved, in paragraph (b) of the proviso in subsection (2) to leave out "Minister" and insert "Treasury." The noble Duke said: This is drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 6, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Treasury")—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK had given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (3)—namely, in paragraph (a), after "tenant," where that word occurs for the third time, to insert "interest on," and, after paragraph (a), to insert: (b) the interest shall be payable at such rate as may, in default of such agreement, be fixed by the Treasury, And shall be payable as from the date on which the landlord became liable in respect of the said sum, and shall be payable at the same times and be recoverable in the same manner as the rent payable under the tenancy.

The noble Duke said: I would like to take the Amendment respecting line 20 on page 9, together with the Amendment to line 24 as these two things are interrelated. They are intended to bring this clause as regards the recovery of sums from a tenant into line with subsection (11) of Clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 (11) enables the landlord who is required to pay a certain sum of money to recover interest thereon from the tenant whose negligence has made it necessary for the landlord to pay the cost of this work. The clause as drafted enables the landlord to recover the cost, but it is thought right that the same principle should apply here as applies in Clause 4, and this Amendment therefore enables the landlord to recover interest. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 20, after ("tenant") insert ("interest on").—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

I beg to move the second Amendment standing in my name, for the insertion of a new paragraph.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 24, at end insert the said Paragraph (b).—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

In the proviso to Clause 10 (2) there are these words: Provided that an owner from whom any sum is so recoverable may, by notice in writing served on the board within the said three months, elect to pay the said sum together with the interest thereon from the said date by such number of equal annual instalments, not exceeding five, as may be specified in the notice.… So far as I can see, under this Amendment the tenant is under no such obligation to refund to the owner the capital outlay. I think that there should also be some time limit within which the tenant has to repay the lump sum expended by the owner, and in the case of the tenant giving notice I think that the lump sum should become payable immediately. There is another point to which I should like to direct the attention of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. In the case of bankruptcy of the tenant, would the owner have priority as to the repayment of the capital? I do not wish to rush the noble Duke into an answer now, if he does not wish to give it. If he will consider the point between now and the Report stage, I shall be satisfied.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

The noble Viscount has put a question to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor as well as to myself. I should therefore like the matter to be dealt with on the Report stage.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I shall be quite satisfied as long as the noble Duke moves an Amendment to meet the point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Relief to tenants from liabilities and loss of compensation resulting from directions under Defence Regulations.

15.—(1) Where the occupier of any agricultural land has, in pursuance of directions given under Defence Regulations, ploughed up any land consisting of permanent pasture, and is thereby under any obligation or liability arising by virtue of any contract of tenancy or instrument affecting the land, any custom of the country or any rule of law relating to waste, to sow it again at his own expense or pay any sum by way of increased rent, damages or penalty or suffer any forfeiture by reason of the ploughing up of the land or of the failure to sow it again, the said obligation or liability and any guarantee given with respect thereto shall be extinguished; and for the purposes of any provision of any contract of tenancy or instrument aforesaid, any custom of the country or any provision of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, the land shall thereafter be deemed to be arable land and to have been arable land at all material times:

Provided that no tenant of agricultural land shall he entitled to claim an away-going crop, or compensation from the landlord assessed on the basis of an away-going crop, in respect of a greater acreage of land than that which would have been permissible under the contract of tenancy or custom of the country if this subsection had not passed

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "extinguished," to insert "save in cases in which obvious and substantial deterioration in its fertility shall have occurred since it ceased to be permanent pasture." The noble Lord said: I rise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe to move the Amendment standing in his name. This is an important clause in the Bill and deals primarily with the relief of the tenant from the various covenants and obligations which he undertook and signed against the ploughing-up of pasture. It often seems a little odd, on looking at a tenancy agreement, to find that a man is penalized so much per acre for ploughing up pasture. The truth of the matter is that, in the long history of farming in this country, the only way in which fertility could be conserved to the soil was by the reservation of a certain portion of that soil to pasture. When this Bill was read a second time there was a considerable debate, in which my noble friend Lord Addison played a part, as to the effect on fertility of the ploughing-up of pasture. I want to make the point that although, as was pointed out in that debate, it is quite possible in these days to restore pasture and to restore a better herbage than existed before, it does not at all follow that the fertility of the soil has not been diminished by the process of ploughing-up, even though grass is restored subsequently.

This particular clause protects the tenant against the penalties enforcible by the landowner under the agreement. Since this clause as a whole has been accepted, and since the principle has been sacrificed by the landowners, my noble friend, I think quite rightly, seeks to deal with the very worst possible cases, where there really has been an abuse of the land, where the pasture has been broken up and the land cropped excessively, and it is a notorious and easily observable fact that the land has suffered. He therefore wishes to insert a protecting proviso, which I hope that the noble Duke will accept.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 36, after ("extinguished") insert ("save in cases in which obvious and substantial deterioration in its fertility shall have occurred since it ceased to be permanent pasture.")—(Lord Phillimore.)

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

Clause 15 (1) provides that where, in pursuance of directions under the Defence Regulations, for the purpose of maintaining and increasing food production during the national emergency brought about by the war, an occupier of agricultural land has ploughed up permanent pasture, he is relieved of the pains and penalties which would otherwise be imposed upon him. An example of such a case was given by the noble Lord in moving the Amendment. Further, the occupier is relieved of any liability to sow down again at his own expense to permanent pasture, for the reason that, if there has been any diminution in the annual value of the land due to the ploughing up, the landlord will be able to claim compensation at the end of the war. The Amendment would do away with the relief to the occupier where obvious and substantial deterioration in the fertility of the land occurred after it ceased to be permanent pasture; but such deterioration may have been due to the necessity in wartime of the fertility of the land being temporarily drawn upon in order to produce more food. In so far as the tenant has failed to cultivate the land as arable in a proper manner, the landlord will, on the tenant quitting, be able to counter-claim; but, apart from this, there is no justification for penalizing the tenant for what he has been called upon to do in the national interest, especially as the position of the landlord is safeguarded, as I have already stated. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.

LORD PHILLIMORE

In view of the noble Duke's statement, and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Amendment of Corn Returns Act, 1882]:

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved to add to the clause: (2) This section shall not come into operation until the first day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-three.

The noble Duke said: This is merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 [Application to Scotland]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert in paragraph (a) "for any reference to a contract of tenancy there shall be substituted a reference to a lease." The noble and learned Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Alness, I beg to move these Amendments standing in his name. Clause 19 deals with the application of this Bill to Scotland. The particular application that is involved in this Amendment is the application of Clause 15, to which I think my noble friend Lord Phillimore made reference just now. Clause 15 was, I think, somewhat changed in the course of the passage of the Bill through the other House, and it is found necessary therefore slightly to vary the expression of the application of the clause to Scotland. The position to be dealt with is that which arises when a tenant towards the end of his lease has, under war Regulations, under the direction of a county agricultural committee, ploughed up permanent pasture and sown it, contrary to his lease or to the custom of the country. The Common Law of Scotland, as I understand, would lay it clown as a principle that, notwithstanding that the tenant's agreement has come to an end, and that the tenant has left the farm before the crop matures, he none the less has a right to go back and himself harvest the crop which he has sown. Scots lawyers have a pleasant habit of putting most of these propositions into the Latin tongue, and I understand it is a commonplace in Scots Courts to say messis semina sequitur, or, perhaps in more biblical English "What a man sows that shall he also reap."

That being the Common Law, it is necessary, therefore, to have an adjustment which is expressed in this Amendment by saying: any growing crops sown, as a result of compliance with directions given under Defence Regulations, otherwise than in accordance with the lease or the custom of the country or to an extent exceeding that provided by the lease… now this is the variation— shall pass to and become the property of the landlord, and the landlord shall pay to the tenant in respect thereof such compensation for the tenant's services and expenses in laying down the crop or, as the case may he, the excess part thereof, as may be determined by arbitration. That is the natural way of applying Clause 15 in the case of Scotland and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 24, after ("owner") insert ("for any reference to a contract of tenancy there shall be substituted a reference to a lease").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (d) after "Section fifteen shall have effect as if," to insert:

  1. "(i) in subsection (1) the proviso were omitted;
  2. (ii) for subsection (2) the following subsection were substituted—
'(2) Where any directions under Defence Regulations have been given to the tenant of an agricultural holding affecting during the last twelve months of the tenancy the cultivation, management, or use of the holding, the tenant shall on the termination of his tenancy be entitled in respect of any tillages or manuring carried out for the purpose of complying with the directions otherwise than in accordance with the lease or the custom of the country or to an extent exceeding that provided by the lease or custom to such sum by way of compensation as fairly represents the value thereof or, as the case may be, of the excess part thereof to an incoming tenant; and any growing crops sown, as a result of compliance with directions given under Defence Regula- tions, otherwise than in accordance with the lease or the custom of the country or to an extent exceeding that provided by the lease or custom shall pass to and become the property of the landlord, and the landlord shall pay to the tenant in respect thereof such compensation for the tenant's services and expenses in laying down the crop or, as the case may be, the excess part thereof, as may be determined by arbitration.'

The noble Viscount said: This is purely consequential. I am afraid I spoke of the two matters together. This really follows the explanation I have endeavoured to give to the Committee, and it is the same thing.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 35, at end insert the said subparagraphs.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 3, leave out from ("Court") to the end of paragraph (d).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Third Schedule [Amendments of Corn Returns Act, 1882]:

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

There is a drafting amendment here.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 22, leave out ("if").—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.