HL Deb 06 August 1947 vol 151 cc1026-9

Page 26, line 3, at end insert— ("(3) Any person to whom notice of a proposal is given under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act, and the provisions in that behalf of the said Part V shall apply accordingly.")

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment and the preceding Amendment for the following Reason:

Because the interests of the landlord of a holding are sufficiently protected without the appeal provided by the Amendments.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist upon this Amendment.

Moved, That the House doth not insist upon the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

2.47 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR had given Notice that he would move the following Amendment in lieu of the Amendments at page 25, line 22, and page 26, line 3, not insisted upon:

Page 26, line 3, at end insert— ("(3) The Minister shall not grant his approval under the last foregoing subsection of the carrying out of an improvement consisting of the erection of buildings or the making of roads until lie has given to the landlord notice in writing of the proposal to grant the approval and the landlord to wt ors such a notice of a proposal is given may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part. V of this Act, and the provisions in that behalf of the said Part V shall apply accordingly.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment in lieu of the Amendments the omission of which we have just accepted, but I think it may perhaps be for the convenience of the House if we first heard the noble Earl's comments on the Amendment in lieu rather than make my remarks.

Moved, That this House doth propose the said Amendment in lieu of the Amendments at page 25, line 22, and page 26, line 3, upon which the House doth not insist.—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

My Lords, in answer to this Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, your Lordships will remember that we debated this very fully in both the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. The question is one of compensation, and as I understand it the intention of the Amendment is to give the landlord the right of appeal to the Land Tribunal in the event of the Minister agreeing to an improvement such as the erection of buildings or the making of a road which the tenant, desires to undertake. I submit that there really is not a great deal of substance in this Amendment.

It can be looked at either from the tenant's point of view or the landlord's point of view. If we look at it from the landlord's point of view we may assume that the tenant wishes to erect some buildings for new cowsheds or whatever else it is he wants to do. The landlord, for his own reasons—perhaps he disagrees with the tenant's ideas or otherwise disapproves—refuses to give consent. Now there is nothing in the Bill nor, so far as I am aware, in the law of the land, to prevent that tenant carrying out the improvements. The question is whether the tenant will have the right to claim compensation. In other words, he can carry out the improvements, but unless he gets the landlord's consent he will not be able when he leaves the farm to get compensation in respect of the various improvements which he has carried out.

Originally the landlord had to give his consent, but now the Minister can step in, which means, in practice, that the local agricultural committee will be empowered to examine the project and if they think it is sensible and workable they can say: "We agree that the tenant should go ahead." The tenant then carries out the project, whatever it may be, and at the end of his tenancy the tenant—and this is the point I should like to make particularly clear to your Lordships—can claim compensation not for the amount of money which he has spent on the buildings, but solely for the amount by which he has improved the value of the holding to an incoming tenant. That is the criterion on which the compensation is judged, and if there should be a difference of opinion on it, the landlord can go to arbitration on the question as to whether the compensation offered is fair or not. In view of that I earnestly suggest to the noble Earl that there is sufficient protection for the landlord. I do not think many would dispute the rightness of the argument that if the landlord's holding has been improved in value he should pay reasonable compensation; and I think he is protected by the fact that it is based on the increased value of the holding and that in the event of a dispute the matter can be referred to arbitration. I think that there is not a great amount of substance in the Amendment and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Earl to one particular aspect of the question. A tenant may spend considerable sums of money. The landlord is bound to pay to the tenant at the termination of his tenancy whatever in the ultimate issue the arbitrator may say he should pay. The tenant could give notice within a year of building work and it would naturally be a strong assumption in the arbitrator's mind that the work was necessary and that he was improving the holding, because it was done with the consent of the Minister. It is once more proof that consideration for the landlord is very nearly non-existent in this Bill. I do not suppose there is any chance of His Majesty's Government retreating from the position they have taken up over this, but I feel I must register the opinion that in this particular case the Government are once more being very unfair to the owner of land.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, it seems to me that if the landlord were ever let in for what might well be extremely heavy compensation at the end of a lease, it would be an improvement in the Bill if the landlord in such circumstances were given a right of appeal. However, we have conducted this Bill with great amity, particularly towards the latter stages, and I think it would be a pity to finish up on an unhappy note. Therefore, whilst in no way withdrawing my opinion that the Bill would be improved if the Government were to give greater justice to the landowner than is given at present, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion proposing an Amendment in lieu of Amendments not insisted upon, by leave, withdrawn.