AGRICULTURE BILL.

HL Deb 14 July 1947 vol 150 cc494-628

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Provisions for securing efficient agricultural production and proper agricultural conditions.

1.—(1) The following provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting and maintaining, by the provision of guaranteed prices and assured markets for the produce mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation is food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom, and of producing it at minimum prices consistently with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested.

(2) This Part of this Act shall extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

2.37 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "by the provision of guaranteed prices and assured markets for the produce mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act." The noble Earl said: This is a poor Amendment really, but I think that it is of some importance. It is quite true that it does not seriously alter the intention expressed in the Bill, but it does alter the emphasis. The Committee will notice that it has got to be read in conjunction with the fifth Amendment on the Marshalled List which is at page 1, line 17, proposing a new subsection. The Committee will realize that Part I really balances against the rest of this Bill. The Bill is in effect a series of balances. Therefore, I think that we can agree that the question of emphasis is of importance.

The purpose of the Amendment is to bring a power that is admittedly given in Clause 6 to the Minister—that is the power to add to the First Schedule—right to the forefront of the Bill. Members of the Committee are aware that there is a good deal of concern in the farming industry at the incompleteness of the First Schedule. Desire has frequently been expressed in another place, and in the country that horticultural products, wool and other commodities should be added to the First Schedule. These proposals have not been agreed to, and I think it would be some comfort to the industry if we could alter the emphasis here and bring the power to add to the First Schedule into the first clause of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("maintaining") to ("a") in line 10.—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)

I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment too far. The intention of the Amendment, as he admitted himself, so far as granting the Minister power to put further products into the First Schedule, is already met by Clause 6 (1). His Majesty's Government understand that some concern is felt in the various sections of the industry, particularly the horticultural section, because they have not been mentioned in the Bill. As members of the Committee will understand, it is very difficult, owing to their extreme perishability and the quickly changing fluctuations of the market, to include these other products and to give to them the same treatment as is given to wheat and other products mentioned in the First Schedule. But I can assure the Committee that we are giving very careful consideration to horticulture, and we are trying to work out some method which will satisfy those engaged in that branch of the industry and give them some security. In view of the fact that the substance is already in the Bill I suggest that it would be unwise and unnecessary to alter the Bill and put in a long subsection for what is already quite adequately covered by Clause 6 (1). Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I would like to support my noble friend Lord De La Warr in this Amendment. I quite see the arguments brought forward by the noble Earl who has just sat down, but when he talked about the efforts of the Government at the moment to see what could be done in ensuring a stable market for agriculture, he made what was, to my mind, a very serious omission. Although the Third Schedule covers 70 per cent. of our production it is vitally important, for the balance of agriculture, that other major products are included.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

In regard to the question of wool there is a further Amendment about that by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. On the general point, I may say that we do intend to examine this further. The wording of this introductory paragraph has been very carefully thought out and I think it adequately explains the intentions of the Government. I would strongly suggest to your Lordships that it would not be wise or necessary to alter it as the noble Earl suggests.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think it would have been wise from the Government's point of view to have accepted this as a better bit of drafting, but I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "desirable" and insert "most essential." The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will see that the object of this clause is to guarantee prices and assured markets for produce that is capable of being produced in this country, and deemed desirable to be produced in the United Kingdom. I suggest that there is great weakness in that word "desirable." If the Government really intend to carry out their professed intentions, the word "desirable" should be replaced with "most essential"—that is, essential from the standpoint of feeding the nation and at the same time promoting and perpetuating the stability of our British husbandry.

I am tempted to ask when I see the word "desirable," who is to decide what is desirable in this connexion, and from what standpoint is the desirability to be gauged. I suggest that under temporary diplomatic pressure in pursuance of some foreign policy objective, possibly with a view to appeasement of some foreign country, the two-fold aim of adequate food supply and the confident stability of British husbandry might be frustrated and possibly defeated by obtaining from abroad excessive supplies of food that can quite well be raised on our own British soil. I give 'by way of illustration, wheat from Russia or the United States, to the detriment of wheat growers in Scotland and in the eastern counties of England. Or barley from Czechoslovakia, where some of the most famous barley in the world is grown, hanna barley, producing the malt for lager and other light beers. Or beef from Argentina. I think I am right in saying that before the war seventy-five per cent. of all the beef consumed in London came from Argentina. But I hope that in days to come the graziers in Scotland and the English Midlands will provide a large portion of what in the old days came from overseas countries, with an element of considerable instability to the peace of this country. Or cheese from Holland, to the possible detriment of those who produce cheese in Cheshire and Somerset and other parts of Western England. Or bacon, eggs and butter from Denmark.

I only give these by way of illustration, but this does raise the question, about which I hope the Government will tell us, of the extent to which they do look to the soil of this country to provide more of the essential foods the nation requires. Before the war four-fifths of our breadstuffs and half of our meat came from abroad. Is that to continue in days to come; or is the stability of our own home husbandry to be brought up to supply a preponderance at least of breadstuffs and possibly also of meat from our own soil? Some of us have a lively and unfortunately unhappy recollection of what happened after the First World War. I was one of those who were instrumental for getting the Government to pass the Corn Production Act. Within a year that was scrapped, to the great disheartenment of the agricultural community, and to a reduction in the sense of security and stability on the part of the whole nation. Put quite shortly, the object of my Amendment is to prevent agricultural stability being sacrificed to temporary political expediency. I do not for a moment doubt the good faith of the Government in seeing that no harm occurs to our most vital industry in their operation of this measure, but after all, as we have been frequently reminded, this is, or is alleged to be, a charter of stability for British husbandry and as such will be operated by other Governments than the Government now in Office, who have shown themselves markedly sympathetic with agricultural production in this country. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, leave out ("desirable") and insert ("most essential").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)

LORD HASTINGS

I would like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in a few words. There is no great importance, we might agree between one word and another, but "desirable" is a poor word. It really implies that in the opinion of somebody in some office such and such should be done. If you have "essential," that is a commanding word with emphasis behind it. If you tell the people that it is essential to do so and so, they have the immediate feeling that, unless they do it, something is going to happen to them. But if it is merely "desirable," people might be excused for not taking very much interest in the matter. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is right in wishing to put in "essential" rather than "desirable," and I beg to support the Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I would like in a few words to support this Amendment. Clause 1 is a clause which is not at all satisfactory in general to the agriculturists of this country. It is very vaguely worded, and does not seem to give the idea of any real intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to ensure that our agriculture shall prosper. In the wording of the clause, "desirable" is the word which, more than any other word, contributes to that vagueness and insecurity.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

We sympathize with the intention of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in this matter. Naturally the Government wish to produce all the food that can be reasonably and satisfactorily produced in this country. In fact, your Lordships will remember the statement made by my right honourable friend, the Minister, on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place when he gave an assurance that we should need the maximum amount of produce. As regards the two words "desirable" and "essential," while seeing the point of the noble Viscount, there is a certain limitation which I think will be appreciated in the use of the word "essential." I think, if the noble Viscount would consent to withdraw this Amendment, he will find that "desirable" does cover the general intentions of His Majesty's Government in the matter.

LORD ROCHE

I never would have expected to find myself not agreeing with anything which my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe said, but I do suggest, as a lawyer, that his proposal cuts down the powers rather than extends them, and is really contrary to the cause he has advocated with so much success.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

After such a powerful legal advocacy of the Government's standpoint, I feel that I have no option but to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.54 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), before "capital," to insert "all." The noble Earl said: If your Lordships will agree, I should like to take the next two Amendments together, because they really go together. Their purpose is really quite simple. That part of Clause 1 which deals with return on capital reads: proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested. My two Amendments seek to make the last few words read in this way: "an adequate return on all capital invested in the industry." I think it is quite possible to interpret the words "capital invested" in this case, as applying only to the farmers' capital invested. It should be made quite clear that it applies to all capital invested in the industry. Goodness knows, little enough attention has been paid to the unfortunate landowners' economic circumstances throughout the Bill. I hope that I may have the assurance that His Majesty's Government do mean that it should apply to the landowners' capital as well as to the farmers, and perhaps they will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1. line 17, after ("on") insert ("all").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

May I be allowed to support very warmly this particular Amendment, on the footing, which many of the British public do not realize, that at least two-thirds of the whole of the capital invested in the agricultural industry, where the landlord and tenant system exists, belongs to the landlord. If I may say so, you do want now more than ever every incentive for landowners to bring their equipment up to date if you are going to have the maximum output of essential foods from the soil of this country.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I would like to support this Amendment. It seems to me that the present system of the review of prices taking into account all the expenditure in production of crops does and should include a factor for rents paid, which itself is a reflection of the capital invested in the industry. If it should turn out, as a result of this Bill or for other reasons, that there is an increase in capital investment, in the way of farm buildings, and so on, that will lead to a return.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

In the first place, I would like to give an assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that rents will be taken into account. There is no question of that.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Amendment is directed to capital, not rent.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The actual wording of the subsection is "return on capital invested," and what the noble Earl proposes is that "all capital invested in the industry" should be substituted. I should have thought that "all capital invested in the industry" is implied. The capital could not be invested anywhere else, having regard to the terms of this Bill. But the phrase "all capital," raises a rather difficult point, because it might be argued that if an individual farmer or landowner invested a small amount of money in a construction of some kind, and did not get a return on the small amount of capital invested, he might say that the intentions of the Bill had not been fulfilled. What we are trying to do is to guarantee an income to the whole industry. We cannot guarantee a return on each amount to each farmer in each case, but we can give an adequate return on the capital to the industry as a whole. If, however, it would meet the noble Earl's point, I think we would be happy to accept the words "in the industry" in the second Amendment, if he would be prepared to withdraw the first Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am very glad to accept that proposal, and beg leave to withdraw the first Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I beg leave to move the second Amendment to insert words at the end of subsection (1).

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("in the industry").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Annual and special reviews of condition of agricultural industry.

(3) In holding any review under this section the Ministers shall consult with such bodies of persons as appear to them to represent the interests of producers in the agricultural industry.

2.59 p.m.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to add to subsection (3): and where any substantial difference arises between the Ministers and the said bodies as to whether there has been or is likely to be such a change in the economic condition of the agricultural industry or any section thereof as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection or as to the effects thereof upon the industry or any section of it, the Ministers may, and if so required by the said bodies, shall, submit the difference to such independent person or persons as the Ministers may appoint who shall within a reasonable time report to them thereon and copies of such report shall be made available to the said bodies upon payment of a reasonable charge therefor.

The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to try to ensure that farmers in any economic change of prices, etc., should get a fair share of what is going. I think it is fair to say that very often in the past other industries, that are possibly more noisy and more excitable, have got quite a bit out of the Treasury, and what was left over has been given to the farmers, who have had to be content with what they got. The object of this Amendment is that if there is any dispute—not on the facts, but on the result of the facts—there should be an inquiry, conducted by independent people other than the Ministry, who can advise, and that their advice should be published. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I am afraid this Amendment is one which we cannot accept. The reason for that is that the ultimate responsibility for policy must remain with the Minister. When we get our reports on the industry we have figures and facts supplied by various economists which have been accepted without any possible question by both sides. Therefore, the only question which remains to be discussed and decided is what sort of price should be paid. The final decision must be left to the Minister, who will have to answer to Parliament for it. The effect of giving these separate and outside bodies further powers to examine and issue reports on the subject —which I think is what is proposed by the noble Earl—would merely delay the proceedings and would in fact put the Minister in rather a difficult position because he himself must be answerable to Parliament in respect of those matters. In regard to the question of facts—that is to say, actual figures which come to be decided—they are generally accepted by both sides and so far as I know there has never been any dispute.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

If I might interrupt the noble Earl, it is the result of the facts that I am speaking about.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

That is the point I was trying to make. The facts are not in dispute, but it is on the result of the facts that the noble Earl wishes further considerations and advice. I do not think there is anyone to state the case better than such bodies as the National Farmers' Union who know the conditions of the industry. Therefore, if it is in regard to getting information the information is there. If it is with regard to deciding on what should be done that, I submit, must be a responsibility of the Minister and His Majesty's Government. For that reason I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am not sure that the noble Earl has quite interpreted the real meaning of the Amendment. As I see it, it does not in any way affect or call in question the responsibility of the Minister for giving a final decision. I think there was an Amendment in another place which did in fact do so but which was not very well supported on either side of the House. But in questions like this there is always room for disagreement, not only about the possible results, but on the facts themselves. It is true, as the noble Earl says, that there has hitherto been no great dispute as to the facts on costings. But this system has not been operating very long and my experience of costings, and particularly farm costings, is that there is a vast amount of room for disagreement.

Further than that, I think we are gradually drifting along a road where we cannot quite see where we are going. We have these periodic increases in agricultural wages and everybody is very pleased to see those increases made in so far as the Ministry is going to be in a position to pay them. But the general assumption seems to be that all that has to be done when an increase is made, is to see exactly how much more will have to be paid out directly in wages and then compensate the industry more or less to that extent. What I believe nobody sufficiently realizes is the indirect effect of these increases in wages, and the fact that every other price goes up when the agricultural wages go up. Inevitably that that has an effect upon the price of every single thing the farmer buys, and the farmer is receiving no compensation for that whatsoever. I am speaking purely out of my head and without reference to facts and figures, but I think I am safe in saying that the price of tractors in the last six or nine months has gone up by something over 29 per cent. If you go and buy a spade or anything else you will find the price has increased, and that results indirectly from the increase in wages. I think the time has come when that sort of fact should be examined, and possibly examined by an outside disinterested expert. I should have thought it was not really unreasonable to ask the noble Earl seriously to consider this Amendment, which does not in any way impinge upon the unquestionable ultimate responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers for giving a final decision.

EARL STANHOPE

Might I make a further point on this? The Government say that they are eventually bringing in horticulture. There was a case not many years ago during the war period when a question arose about the price of strawberries. It was brought up to the Ministry of Agriculture, who pointed out to these farmers that they were getting a very good price for the early strawberries on the market and therefore should be content with the lower price afterwards. They were quite ignorant at the Ministry of Agriculture that those strawberries only came from one part of England, and that the strawberries grown elsewhere had not had that higher price. If that had been put before an independent body the matter would have been made clear to them and would have been put straight. That is exactly the kind of case which might happen in regard to agriculture, and still more with regard to horticulture. Therefore, I suggest that this Amendment is a safeguard to seeing that the whole thing is considered from both sides. In that way the facts will be put before the public who will be able to judge whether the Minister has been fair to the industry and whether the Ministry had had pressure brought to bear upon them by the Treasury and thus been induced to give way more than they should. I think there are cases where the Ministry of Agriculture would be glad to get a report of that kind in order to support the case they would like to make.

LORD O'HAGAN

I would like the noble Earl to reconsider this Amendment. If the Amendment is agreed upon I think it is one which would go a long way to help the successful working of this measure. There is undoubtedly a feeling, as has been described by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, of the sort of occurrences which have occurred and are more likely to occur in the future as the scheme is developed. In view of the satisfactory work which they have embodied in this Bill, I earnestly appeal to the Government that the measure should be more carefully looked into with a view to seeing if this Amendment, or something on these lines, could not be inserted.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

May I add just one very short plea in support of this Amendment? The noble Earl, when replying from the Front Bench, said that quite naturally a body such as the National Farmers' Union were the people to put their case with the greatest eloquence and force. That is obviously true, but in the eyes of the public the body that is going to get the increased prices may thus be suspected of arguing an ex parte case. In the case of a real dispute everybody would be far more satisfied if there was an independent body who could be expected to argue the case on its own merits.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I do not think noble Lords quite realize our full intentions. To take first the point of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, respecting the consideration of other things besides the increase in wages, that is already done, and I can assure him that as negotiations go on all the considerations which have been mentioned, such as the price of tractors, will be taken into account. In regard to the point concerning the price of strawberries, that seemed to imply a criticism of the National Farmers' Union for not putting their case with sufficient force. As a rule their horticultural experts take a great interest in these matters. But the fundamental point is the position in which the Minister would find himself. Here we have reviews going on, discussions between the experts, the Ministry of Agriculture, and other interested bodies. The results of the discussions are fully considered and it remains for the Government to decide upon the extent to which they shall act upon them.

Under this Amendment there would be an extra body which would have the right of reporting on these discussions. Either the Minister or that body would thereby be placed in a very difficult position. Suppose the report was adverse and said that so many more millions ought to be given, and that our decision was wrong. Then either that body is put in the position of being an arbitrator and the Minister has to submit, or the Minister would have to overrule them, which would make his position very difficult. He would have to justify himself, not only before Parliament, but before the public Press and a sort of public inquiry. I think it would lead to most difficult complications. For that reason I beg the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I can hardly say that I am at all satisfied with what the noble Earl has said. I cannot see that his argument is as good as anything that has been produced from this side of the House. I cannot see the point about the Minister being put in a difficult position. He can justify his reasons for any acts to independent boards. He would realize that the original calculations were not quite right and would accept that. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

3.12 p.m.

Clause 4 [Power to supplement arrangements]:

EARL STANHOPE moved, after Subsection (1), to insert: (2) Arrangements such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall not be deemed to be well adapted for securing their object unless they shall operate to secure that a producer who has, in pursuance of any direction under Part II of this Act or of any direction given in pursuance of an order made under Section ninety-five of this Act, produced any of the produce mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act is able to effect a sale thereof at the price specified in respect of such produce and where such a producer has failed to effect a sale thereof at such price through the ordinary means of trading in the said produce the appropriate Minister shall by order secure, that such producer shall be enabled to sell all the said produce so directed to be produce without limitation of quantity at the specified price to such person as may be so specified.

The noble Earl said: This is a comparatively small point, and I hope the Government will look into it. Under the Bill directions may be give to a farmer to grow a certain crop—either because he is under supervision or because of the provisions of a later clause. On the other hand, under Clause (4) (1) (b) your Lordships will see that the Minister is given power to secure specified prices, subject to no specified limits of quantity, but it may well be that in the future we may find that there will not be a payment made for wheat above a certain tonnage, or for oats or potatoes and so on.

On the other hand, the Government may say that that is not likely to happen for some years to come. That is quite true. But this Bill—and there may not be anything else for a very long period, for it is being looked upon as the Charter of farming—provides that where the farmer is told that he must grow a certain acreage of crops, and he carries that order out, he may not get the specified price for the whole of the crop he is ordered to grow. In the case of potatoes you may get an enormous surplus and if you submit the matter to the Minister of Agriculture, he may say that he will pay the specified price for a certain tonnage only. It may be unfortunate for the farmer if he is told to grow a certain acreage and then finds he cannot sell all he has grown. Therefore, it is only fair that when the Government give an order to a farmer to grow a certain crop, the farmer should get the specified price for the whole of the crop he has been ordered to grow. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD CARRINGTON

I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. It may have happened that a farmer has been told to grow a certain crop of produce for which he finds the land unsuitable. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, mentioned in the debate on the Second Reading that that was usually so in fact. Then, having grown it, the farmer may find that he must get rid of it, and it is only fair that he should be given the guaranteed price for what he has been ordered to grow.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This Amendment would only have effect in two different sets of circumstances. As your Lordships are aware, when this Bill becomes an Act no more directions will be served on any farmer except on farmers under supervision, or under Clause 95 in case of emergency. In regard to Clause 95, if the Minister does serve directions in a national emergency and requires certain foods to be grown, it is unthinkable that having served those directions he should then refuse to buy the produce which has been grown. I honestly think that there can be no reason for this Amendment. As regards the other question of the man under supervision a very difficult point arises. If this were inserted in the Bill and a farmer under supervision received a guarantee that his whole crop would be bought at a guaranteed price you would put him in a very favourable position in relation to all the farmers roundabout who are not under supervision.

EARL STANHOPE

A farmer under supervision would not necessarily get orders to grow a certain crop. But I say that if he is ordered to grow a certain crop he should get the guaranteed price for it.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

If he is ordered to grow a crop he can only be ordered to do so if he is under supervision; and if you guarantee him a certain price that puts him in a favourable position as compared with other farmers growing that crop who have no guarantee whatsoever. That is one of the difficulties of accepting such an Amendment as this. There is the other general point that in cases of farmers under supervision any directions which were served on them would be issued through the agency of the county committees which include very practical farmers, and it is unlikely that they would give directions to a man to grow any crop for which there was not a reasonable price. Your Lordships will remember that we are guaranteeing prices for the main crops for a considerable period ahead. I hope in these circumstances that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I hope the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will give further consideration to this matter. I am not suggesting that he should accept this Amendment now in its present form, but I hope that between now and the Report stage he will be able to give further consideration to the points that have been made by my noble friends. It seems to me that the machinery of this Bill does not provide for the case of a glut, which is always liable to occur in agriculture. It is possible—I do not say it will occur often—that farmers may be ordered to grow a particular crop, whether under Clause 95 or under the supervision clause is immaterial, and that there may be over-production, which is always liable to occur, when these farmers who have been so ordered will be involved in very great loss indeed. That is particularly liable to occur in the case of potatoes where, if you get all the favourable circumstances, the potato price may very seriously slump.

My noble friend would say, of course, that that is inconceivable in the year 1948, or even in 1949, but I do not think it is at all inconceivable a few years hence. It does seem to me that, if Parliament is going to take powers permanently to order farmers to grow certain crops, then Parliament at the same time ought to guarantee to those farmers the stipulated price. In so far as I do not think it will often occur, it does not seem to me to be a great concession to ask of the Government, because I would point out to noble Lords opposite that, though the actual sums involved may really be comparatively small, a crop of this sort which is unsaleable or can only be sold at a very low price may mean absolute ruination to individual farmers. It is extremely important to get confidence into the agricultural industry, and therefore I suggest that if my noble friend, between now and Report, could think of some other way, if necessary, whereby this principle could be given effect to, I believe it would be a gesture that would be a great deal appreciated by the agricultural industry.

LORD HASTINGS

I wonder if Lord Huntingdon realized when referring to Clause 95 that he spoke of it only being there in case of emergency. I do not see anything about emergency in Clause 95.

EARL STANHOPE

I should like to controvert what the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill has said. He says that it is most improbable that a farmer will not get a guarantee and a good price from crops grown in times of emergency. What about cabbage? I can tell him of farmers who during the war grew cabbage which did not pay the cost of transport to the market, because there was a glut. My noble friends know that cabbage was grown, and the only thing they could do with it was to feed it to cattle, if they had any, or throw it away. Therefore, so far as that being true is concerned, I think the facts that we already know controvert the argument. As regards the farmer who is under supervision being put in a better position than the farmers round about, surely that is exactly what we want to do. You want to get this man up to a high standard; you want to build him up again, to give him confidence, and make him realize that good farming pays. Therefore, if you put him ahead of the others, is there very great harm in that? It is going to make agricultural committees much more careful that the orders they would give to a farmer under supervision are the right orders, and that they realize that they have got to pay if they make a mistake.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I would like to make this comment on the two points that were raised. In practice the committees will be instructed as to what they will be required to do, and their function when a man is put under supervision will be to ensure that his farm shall be farmed according to the rules of good husbandry. It is very unlikely that he will be directed to grow a crop that would not command a reasonable price. Although you say when you put a farmer under supervision, you wish to make him feel that it is worth while improving his farm, and so forth, I imagine there will be a certain amount of disgruntlement among other farmers if they see a man who has fallen to C3 farming, being given this help. It may be that the others have had to work hard to keep their farms in A1 condition, and it would not be encouraging to them to see the C3 farmer being given a very favourable deal. I would like the noble Lord to consider those two points. Of course, it does raise certain administrative difficulties of extra grants and subsidies for these crops. I do not think they are insuperable, but they would make for great difficulty in working.

LORD CARRINGTON

The noble Earl has said that the other farmers will be disgruntled. Does the noble Lore visualize that the other farmers will not be able to get rid of their crop? In fact, it will only affect a very few cases, and it is a very small concession.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

Listening to the arguments of the noble Earl opposite, it struck me that if he wanted to avoid giving what he called a cause of disgruntlement, the right course would be never to give a direction except for the crops which had a guaranteed price. It was not clear whether that was the intention of the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

It is not laid down in the Bill, but I should think that would be the course followed by the committee.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

By the Minister, of course; the committee is only his agent.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Yes.

EARL STANHOPE

I do not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Good estate management.

10.—(I) For the purposes of this Act an owner of agricultural land shall be deemed to fulfil his responsibilities to manage it in accordance with the rules of good estate management in so far as his management of the land and (so far as it affects the management of that land) of other land managed by him is such as to be reasonably adequate, having regard to the character and situation of the land and other relevant circumstances, to enable an occupier of the land reasonably skilled in, husbandry to maintain efficient production as respects both the kind of produce and the quality and quantity thereof.

3.27 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), before "other relevant circumstances," to insert "economic and". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is small in size, but it is one which is very considerable in importance. Clause 10 deals with the rules of good estate management and, as your Lordships see, it defines good estate management as being "reasonably adequate having regard to the character and situation of the land, and other relevant circumstances." I want to dispose of one small point first of all, and that is the question of "relevant circumstances." As I understand it, those words were inserted in another place, and they are designed largely to cover such circumstances as shortages of material, inability to get a licence to do the work, or something of that sort; but they do not, I think, specifically cover economic circumstances, that is to say, the economic circumstances of the landowner himself.

Right through this Bill many burdens are put upon the landowner and, indeed, it is not going too far to say that there are plenty of ways by which the ordinary individual landowner, who is dependent upon the income from his land for his living, can be made bankrupt by order. He can be made to spend money in this or that direction at the behest of the Minister, without any regard anywhere in the Bill to his own personal economic circumstances. He has only one remedy, and the remedy is, presumably, to raise his rents so as to make his estate economical; but he cannot just raise his rents like that. The only way in which a man can raise his rents under this Bill is by going to arbitration. He has no other way. He cannot get rid of his tenant without the permission of the Minister and farm the land himself. He can only go to arbitration in order to improve the economic position of his estate, either as it is now or in the face of orders to spend money by the Minister. So he has only got arbitration as a means of saving himself from financial ruin. Possibly this is a small irrelevant point, but if the noble Lord has knowledge of eminent land agents who are experienced in land, they may well have told him, as they have told me, that arbitration is a very chancy thing, particularly with regard to a remedy.

There have been many, apparently, on the face of it, excellent cases put up to arbitration for the raising of rent where it either has not been raised or it has even been lowered, and the more experienced land agents are extremely shy of going to arbitration. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, the arbitrator rather takes upon himself something in the nature of a Government Department: he gives decisions and does not give his reasons. Nobody knows what he bases his decisions on and he does sometimes produce rather curious results. It is no use blinking at the fact that 60 per cent. of the land of this country is still farmed by the landlord-and-tenant system. The days when a country estate could be financed, and was very often financed, from other sources are gone. We have very nearly finished with a Bill which has dealt the final death blow to those extra sums of money brought from the towns to the country to help our country estates, and, therefore, a landed estate has to be on an economic basis.

I want to get the word "economic" into this Bill as some sort of safeguard to the owner of land. Not only is 60 per cent. of this country still being managed under the landlord-and-tenant system, but every acre of agricultural land is owned by somebody, and the man who owns that land is a landowner who will be susceptible to this. If His Majesty's Government at some future date as they think fit do nationalize the agricultural land of this country, they will have to run it on economic lines, too. I think the arguments for putting the word "economic" in here are absolutely overwhelming, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will feel disposed to accept this small but very important Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 8, after the second ("and") insert ("economic and").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

LORD HASTINGS

I would like to support the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in his Amendment which he rightly describes as small but extraordinarily important. We did in some degree debate this matter on Second Reading, and it was then I think explained to the House by more than one speaker that the objective is not to bankrupt landowners but to discover means whereby defective maintenance can be made good. That surely must be at the back of everybody's mind in this matter. It is a fact that maintenance can be made good out of borrowed money; there is not really any shortage of available funds, provided always that the rent which either the sitting or the new tenant is prepared to pay will cover the loan charges. That is, after all, what every local authority always has to deal with; it is the basis on which they have to deal with these matters. If this particular word "economic" is accepted and is inserted in the Bill, it provides a standard whereby the agricultural land tribunal may gauge the capacity of the landowner to meet the charge which this new or improved maintenance is to impose upon him. It immediately gives to the arbitrator, who will be called in to deter- mine the question of rent arising out of the determination of the Minister, a standard by which to gauge the rent.

I am certain that the noble Earl has not in his mind, any more than I have in my mind, any idea of giving the land-owner a method of escape from a reasonable and proper obligation, but a means of enabling him indirectly to accept that obligation and to recover the cost thereof. It actually goes considerably deeper than might appear superficially. That is the objective which we have in mind: to provide standards for land tribunals and arbitrators and others who have got to determine these things when they come to determine them and to endeavour, as well as they may, to achieve the objects of the Bill. I greatly hope that the Government will see their way open to accept this Amendment, which is of tremendous importance and will make for efficiency. I beg to support the Amendment.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

With regard to this Amendment, I think that the principle which we have adopted all through is not that we can decide—at least in cases of this kind—on the merits of the actual financial capabilities of the individual owners. I do not know if I quite understood the Earl of Radnor aright on this point; if I have not I hope he will correct me. The reason for the insertion of the word "economic" is that he wishes to take into consideration, I think, the personal financial position of the landowner in question. We have taken in "other relevant circumstances" which covers increased expenses or difficulty all round. We do not think we can go into the status of his finances and say "It is a great pity that this particular man has no money; he is bankrupt; therefore, we cannot expect him to pay so much money now." We cut out the individual, but by putting in "relevant circumstances" we have embraced all the relevant factors which will come into play.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

"Economic circumstances of the land concerned": I do not mean to say that you are to take into account the fact that the landowner has spent his money on riotous living and is therefore bankrupt. It is simply the "economic circumstances of the land concerned," that is to say, the rent of the land in relation to the outgoings on that land. In my own case, my rents are less than my outgoings anyhow.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

In support of this Amendment may I point out that the Amendment says nothing at all about "economic circumstances" of the landowner? It is relating the standard of maintenance to the economic circumstances of the land. That surely is of fundamental importance. I cannot conceive that there can be any objection to this Amendment.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

If the noble Earl feels strongly about this, without in any way committing the Government to accept his Amendment, I will examine it again before the Report stage.

EARL DE LA WARR

Did I understand the noble Earl to say he would reconsider this matter?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Yes, without committing ourselves in any way to accepting the Amendment, I will look at it again. If the noble Earl would accept that from me perhaps he would withdraw his Amendment now.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

With that assurance I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment, and I will put it down again on Report in order to give the noble Earl an opportunity of giving us the result of his reconsideration, unless of course he puts down the Amendment himself. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Good husbandry.

(2) In determining whether the manner in which a unit is being farmed is such as aforesaid regard shall be had, but without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, to the extent to which—

1. (e) the necessary steps are being taken for the protection and preservation of crops harvested or lifted, or in course of being harvested or lifted;
2. (f) the necessary work of maintenance and repair is being carried out.

LORD CARRINGTON had given Notice of two manuscript Amendments to paragraph (f) of subsection (2)—namely, after "(f)" to insert "every effort is being made to carry out" and to leave out "is being carried out." The noble Lord said: This is a very modest Amendment. The object is that paragraph (f) should read "every effort is being made to carry out the work of maintenance and repair" instead of "the necessary work of maintenance and repair is being carried out." At the present time when it is very hard indeed to get a building licence and when building materials and labour are very short, it is quite proper that the necessary work of maintenance and repair should be carried out. I feel therefore that it would be just and it would possibly make misunderstanding less easy, to say that "every effort is being made" and not that "the necessary work…is being carried out."

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

May I ask on a point of order what exactly the terms of this Amendment are?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

It is a manuscript Amendment to page 8, line 16, after "(f)" insert the words "every effort is being made to carry out" and leave out the words "is being carried out."

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 16, after ("(f)") insert ("every effort is being made to carry out"). —(Lord Carrington.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I do not really think that this is quite as necessary as the noble Lord seems to think, because I would draw his notice again to the phrase "relevant circumstances." In this respect everything would be considered. "Relevant cirsumstances," after all, has an exceedingly wide meaning. I think that the noble Earl's point is thoroughly covered, and I hope, therefore, that he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

It undoubtedly is true that what the noble Earl has said should be so. But surely the wording in the Bill does impose the obligation to see that the work that is necessary is being carried out, and not simply work which is desirable in the circumstances. It seems to me that the words of the Bill impose the obligation to see that the work which is being carried out is necessary. What the noble Earl has said, I think, is quite right, but it is not what the Bill says in fact. We all know, and I need not labour the point, that it is extremely difficult to get building materials to do maintenance repairs whether necessary or not. There is bound to be a time lag of months or even longer during which it would be true to say that necessary work, maintenance, repair work and so on, is not being carried out, not because anyone thinks that it is unnecessary, but because it is not possible to do it. I think, therefore, that there is rather more point in what my noble friend Lord Carrington has urged than might appear at first sight.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I appreciate what the noble Viscount has said, but I do submit that when you have, as we have in this clause, the words "reasonable" and "relevant circumstances," in this connexion, then this point is covered. No one could reasonably expect someone to carry out repairs when he could not get the necessary material, labour or licences or whatever it may be. I repeat that in my view the words to which I have referred cover this very fully.

LORD CARRINGTON. Although he says that my point is covered, the noble Earl does not seem to have any great objection to the words which I want to insert. Therefore, I should have thought that he could have accepted the Amendment. I will have this considered again and see whether, in fact, my point is covered. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.43 p.m.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection: (3) The Minister shall use his best endeavours to secure the production or importation of such supplies of phosphates and potash as are essential to the maintenance of soil fertility. The noble Viscount said: Clause 11 (2) provides that in determining the manner in which a unit is being farmed, regard shall be had inter alia to the extent to which— (a) permanent pasture is being properly mown or grazed and maintained in a good state of cultivation and fertility and in good condition. I hope that the noble Earl will do me the courtesy of listening to this carefully, as it is rather a precise point which I wish to put to him.

Members of the Committee probably know that there are three manurial ingredients which are essential fertilizers in agriculture in this country. They are nitrogen, phosphoric acid, which is sometimes called phosphates, and potash. So far as nitrogen is concerned we have, fortunately, at Billingham, in the hands of Imperial Chemical Industries, provision for the manufacture from the air, with the help of electricity, of abundant supplies of nitrates; but that does not apply to either phosphates or potash. As matters stand, and as your Lordships probably know, the bulk of the permanent pasture in this country to-day, to which we shall in the future again have to look to provide to the fullest extent for the output of milk and meat, is suffering from phosphate starvation. As matters stand, the farming community are unable to get anything like adequate supplies of phosphates to maintain fertility in this regard. A year ago, and so far as I know it is true to-day, a very large proportion of the North African rock phosphates upon which we depend, after treatment with sulphuric acid, for the supply of our phosphates, was sent by Government edict to Central Europe. That may or may not be a desirable thing to do; but it is not providing the farmers of this country, especially those who have permanent pasture, with the requisites to enable them to maintain the fertility of their land.

The same thing applies more or less to potash. The bulk of the potash hitherto employed upon agricultural land in Europe has come from Germany, something like 80 per cent. coming from Stassfurt and other neighbouring deposits. There, again, the supplies are not obtainable within the borders of this country; they have to come from abroad. Anyone who crossed a good part of England in attending the Royal Show the week before last will have realized what a serious deficiency of potash is obvious in the crops that are to be found, at any rate, in the East Midlands to-day. It was evident in the shortage of straw which results more from lack of potash than from anything else, and the very poor crops of potatoes—for which potash is so eminently an essential fertilizer.

That being so, the matter is very much in the hands of the Government, and I ask in this Amendment—and I do not think it is asking too much—that: The Minister shall use his best endeavours to secure the production or importation of such supplies of phosphates and potash as are essential to the maintenance of soil fertility. I would remind the Committee that where there is a phosphate deficiency there will be a serious hampering of the output of milk as well as of meat. Phosphates are essential to the supply of milk, and they are essential to the bones and the formative structure of every animal upon a farm. Speaking, if I may say so, to some extent as an agricultural scientist and one who has presided in his day over the chief agricultural research station in this country (an office which my noble friend the Earl of Radnor now occupies), I do hope the Government will be good enough to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Bledisloe.)

LORD MORRISON

I have been asked to reply to this Amendment, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not think it is presumptuous of me to reply to him upon a subject upon which he is so well recognized as an authority. As the noble Viscount knows, I have been interested in this subject for some time, albeit not to the extent to which he has. I agree almost entirely with what he has said as to the shortage of phosphates and potash and the evil results arising therefrom. My difficulty is that I cannot see how the adoption of the noble Viscount's Amendment would make any difference. If I may say so—and I am sure the noble Viscount will recognize that I am not seeking to be disrespectful—it is a declaration and not an Amendment. He asks that the Minister shall use his best endeavours to secure the production or importation of supplies of these fertilizers. I think it would be somewhat novel in an Act of Parliament—and it is questionable if it would be setting a good example—that we should select certain things in the Act and state that in respect to them the Minister should use his best endeavours. That, I am afraid, would be interpreted as meaning that in other parts he should not use his best endeavours. All I can say is that it is expected that the Minister will use his best endeavours to increase the supplies of these much needed articles, but it is also expected he will use his best endeavours in all other direc- tions as well, and if he does not he ought not to remain Minister much longer. I hope the noble Lord will realize that his Amendment does not meet what he and the Minister and the Government are anxious to do, and I regret I am unable to accept it.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

I am not altogether convinced by the logic of my noble friend's reply. I would point out that here you have an obligation laid upon every farmer to maintain his grassland in a good state of fertility. If the poor man cannot maintain it in a good state of fertility owing to the action of the Government, surely it is not illogical or indeed unusual to insert a declaration that to protect the interests of those who have permanent pasture the Government should do their best to see that supplies of these essential fertilizers are forthcoming. I appear to be wholly unsupported in regard to this Amendment and I feel I have no option but to ask leave to withdraw it, but I want to express the earnest hope that what has been happening during this last year will not continue in years to come. It is really quite impossible to carry on when supplies of raw materials are not forthcoming although it is in the power of the Government to see that they are.

Amendment, by leave, with drawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Power of Minister to supervise estate management and husbandry.

12.—(I) Where the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Minister") is satisfied that the owner of agricultural land is not fulfilling his responsibilities to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management, or that the occupier of an agricultural unit is not fulfilling his responsibilities to farm the unit in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, the Minister, after affording to the owner or occupier, as the case may be, an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, may by order (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as a "supervision order") place the owner under the Minister's supervision so far as relates to his management of the land, or the occupier under the Minister's supervision so far as relates to his farming of the unit, as the case may be; and while such an order is in force—

1. (a) any person authorised by the Minister in that behalf may at all reasonable times enter upon the land to which the order relates for the purpose of inspecting the way in which it is being managed or farmed, as the case may be;
521
2. (b) the Minister shall have the powers of direction and dispossession conferred by the following provisions of this Part of this Act.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "times," to insert "after due notice." The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to require the Minister's servants to give notice of entry when they propose to inspect. It is unreasonable to expect notice in ordinary cases of inspection, such as, for instance, those for subsidy payment, but it is of vital importance that notice of entry should be given when the inspection may ultimately lead to a supervision order or the dispossession of a farmer or landowner. It is largely a matter of common courtesy that the servants of the Minister in cases of inspection should be obliged to give due notice. I understand that that is being done by a large number of agricultural committees at the present time, so it will merely be incorporating in the Bill what is already a prevalent practice. Another point is that if the owner or farmer is present when the inspection is about to take place, he can be asked questions directly and a great deal of time and paper can be saved. We ought to deplore the tendency to perpetuate in permanent legislation the wide powers of entry which were granted during the war and the emergency period, and I can see no reason why the Government should not accept this perfectly simple Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 43, after ("times") insert ("after due notice").—(The Duke of Rutland.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I hope the Government will be able to meet us on this Amendment. It is quite true, as the noble Duke said, that this is not a tremendous question, of policy, but it is a matter of courtesy that before you go on a man's land, particularly with a view to examining it for a supervision order, you should give him notice. When an officer of a committee or a member of a district committee inspects land, it might, occasionally, be somewhat embarrassing for him to feel that he had not given notice and ought not to go on that land. It will create a great deal of trouble if we break up what has hitherto been an excellent relationship. The Amendment does not necessarily mean that a committee man passing by a farm and noticing something he thinks he should inspect, is prevented from going upon the land if he has not given notice. He can quite easily go on and ask the farmer if he can look round, and in 95 per cent. of cases that would be perfectly all right. What we want to see in the Bill is that the occupier should have notice before anyone comes prying on his land. The noble Earl opposite has tried to help us on many points and we are anxious not to get into the spirit which arises out of a number of divisions. We are having a very useful discussion, and I ask him seriously to consider this Amendment. I suggest that it might possibly help him if the Amendment were to read "either in company with the occupier or after due notice"—it would loosen it up a good deal from his point of view, and I think he should give consideration to some such words.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I hope the Minister will be able to meet the noble Duke's Amendment. I do not see how an inspection can be officially carried out unless there is somebody there to answer questions. There are reasons for everything that is to be seen, and the real question is whether it is a good reason or a bad. All sorts of unnecessary trouble might be caused if a Government official can go wandering over people's land and form his own deductions without first ascertaining all the relevant facts. The noble Earl stressed the importance a few moments ago of taking the relevant facts into consideration. I think the relevant facts are very germane to an inspection of this sort, and there may be a perfectly simple, good explanation why a certain thing is in the condition it is, which would satisfy the inspector at once. I suggest he should be under the obligation to try to secure the presence and co-operation of the owner or occupier when he makes an inspection. If he is to be encouraged to come in secretly, all sorts of bad feeling, misunderstanding and perfectly unnecessary friction might be caused. It seems to me also an opportunity for other people to enter upon land, claiming to be representatives of the Ministry, and that means a great deal of unnecessary trouble. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give this matter his sympathetic consideration.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

I venture to hope that the noble Earl will see what he can do to meet what seems to be reasonable criticism of this clause as it stands. After all, when someone suddenly appears on a farm, it is going to be very difficult to know whether that person is really authorized by the Government, or whether he is a suitable person to express an opinion upon the matter upon which he has been commissioned. I cannot help thinking, for the sake of peace and harmony as between the agricultural populalation and the Government and their officials, that it would be worth while for the Government to accept such an Amendment as this. My only doubt is as to whether the word "due" is sufficiently precise. I cannot help thinking, if you were to indicate the minimum notice that would be fair and proper—say, after at least forty-eight hours' notice, or words to that effect—there might be no quibble hereafter as to what constituted "due notice."

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I would like to support this Amendment. As I understand it, the Amendment applies to a case where a supervision order is in force. One can well imagine that an owner or occupier who knows that he is under a supervision order would be very nervous and bothered in not knowing when somebody might turn up; and he might misunderstand what is being done to carry out the supervision order. I do think it is important for the committees, on behalf of the Minister, to have the enthusiastic co-operation and friendliness of the farmers and landowners. If people are afraid of sudden invasion by an official, or by one of their friends or neighbours as a member of the district committee, they would not feel that they were being treated with the confidence which is needed in order to get them to co-operate. For those reasons, I hope that something on the lines suggested by the Amendment may be included in the Bill.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I appreciate the point of view of the noble Duke who moved this Amendment. As the noble Viscount who has just sat down suggested, our whole object is to get accord and good feeling between the county committees and the landlords. We intend to use the committees as the linchpin of the whole policy, and every effort will be made to get them to work in the best possible relations with the farmers, the landowners, or whoever it may be with whom they have to deal. At the same time, we are anxious to avoid too much "red tape," which has often been criticized by noble Lords on the Benches opposite. The case might arise where an officer was out in the country visiting farms, and he might find that his journey had taken a little shorter time than he expected, or that there was less to see. He might then have time to go and look at an extra farm, but he would not be able to do so because of the limitation put down by this Amendment.

The answer to that—no doubt the noble Duke has thought of it—would be that one could send out several notices, and then go and see farm after farm. But then would arise the difficult position of farmers being kept waiting to see the man who may never turn up, and they would probably get extremely irritated. In practice, we always instruct committees to give reasonable notice and, whenever possible, they do so. However, I must say I have been impressed by the feeling which noble Lords have shown on this matter, in suggesting that it would not work, or that it would be better to amend the clause. If the noble Duke would withdraw the Amendment, we would be glad to consider this matter between now and Report stage, and see if we can agree on some Amendment to suit the case.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Before the noble Duke withdraws the Amendment, I would like to say in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, that I do not think that in his example he really visualizes the situation correctly. The example he gave was that one of these inspectors might find he had more time than he expected, and would want to go on to another farm, and that he could not do so unless he had given due notice. That, surely, would be solved by the inspector going to the farmhouse and asking for permission as a matter of courtesy, as was suggested by my noble friend Earl De La Warr. At the present moment I have not the right to go walking over the noble Earl's land without saying a word to him, but I would hope that if I called at his house and asked if I might go into a field he would not be unreasonable.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Delighted at any time.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am most grateful to the noble Earl. The point is that the Government are taking statutory power for these inspectors to walk about these fields as much as they like, and that is a different position from that obtaining to-day. If you are going to take statutory power—which I agree is necessary—then you must surely take trouble to ensure that the common courtesies of life are observed.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am very glad that the noble Earl is prepared to reconsider his decision. I am only wondering what sort of position the House is getting into, because, so far, the noble Earl has not accepted any Amendment. He is virtually postponing the whole of the Committee stage to Report. I would suggest to the noble Earl that it is time he accepted an Amendment, with the full understanding that the Government will examine it between now and Report stage, and see whether they have any suggestions to make as to its redrafting. Whether we should move it in the form I have suggested, of a manuscript Amendment, or in its original form, I really do not mind. I leave that to the noble Earl to say. I do think the time has come when perhaps, in addition to all his beneficence, the noble Earl might actually accept an Amendment.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

I thank the noble Earl for his assurances, but I feel that this is one of the few nonpolitical Amendments which the noble Earl could accept without getting into trouble in another place.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I very much regret that this position should have arisen. We now have the original Amendment, and there have been further words suggested by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. Obviously I cannot accept these new words without examining them more fully. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that one word out of place in a Bill may produce endless complications. I will gladly look at it again, and discuss the matter before Report stage, but I cannot commit myself to accepting the Amendment straight away.

EARL DE LA WARR

I realize that what the noble Earl says is right; that a word wrong in a Bill might do permanent harm; but he will appreciate that that is really the purpose of having a Report stage after Committee. If, therefore, he will be good enough to accept this Amendment, we shall appreciate that he does so on the full understanding that he is free to redraft it for Report stage.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I do not pretend to lay down the law constitutionally, as there are many noble and learned Lords here who know better. I do not think that I can accept an Amendment which would need redrafting, but we do intend to look into this and be as helpful as we can.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

I thank the noble Earl, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, after subsection (4) to insert: (5) A supervision order shall not take effect until the expiration of a period of one month after the date upon which notices thereof have been served as provided in the last foregoing subsection and if within the said period either the owner or the occupier of the land in question so required the matter 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: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Savile. I think that all your Lordships will recognize that supervision is a very serious first step in control of the owner or the farmer. In fact one might also say that supervision is the first banana peel on the path to dispossession. Because it is so serious I feel certain that your Lordships will agree that it should not be entered into without the individual concerned having the fullest opportunity to seek justice on his case at this stage.

It is perfectly true that 999 times out of 1,000 no committee—in this case the Minister's agent—would put a man under supervision without very serious reasons. On the other hand, there may be that odd case. Apart from that, there is quite another side to be looked at. The owner or occupier, the man who is going to be put under supervision, will probably receive orders which will involve him in the expenditure of money. That will mean that his credit will be most searchingly looked into by the bank, the mortgage corporation, the merchants and everybody with whom he may have an account. It is going to place him in an exceedingly difficult position unless the supervision order can be shown to his own satisfaction to be justice, with the possibility of an appeal to a tribunal if necessary. Of course, one can see the difficulties. First of all, there is quite clearly the difficulty of the committee not wanting to be passed over at this stage. There is also a danger—though I think it would vanish very quickly—of the overloading of the appeal tribunals themselves. But consider the very serious position in which the owner-occupier is placed. If he receives a supervision order as a farmer his credit will be looked into as an owner, and if he receives a supervision order as an owner his credit will be looked into as a farmer. With all those difficulties in view, I think it would be only common justice to allow to the person affected the chance of an appeal to a tribunal.

LORD SAVILE

I should like very briefly to support what my noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth has said. I do not see any reason why under this clause a farmer under supervision should not have power to appeal to the land tribunal. After all, the county agricultural executive committee are a very able body, but they are not judges as well as assessors. They are not trained legal people, and I think it is only right that if this supervision order should eventually lead to dispossession, the man concerned should straight away have an appeal to the land tribunal. In Clauses 17 and 19, the farmer is able to do this. But there are no provisions at all under the clause we are now discussing, and I do hope that this will be looked into.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

May I add a word upon this, because I think it is important that we should get this question of supervision in its right perspective? I know, of course, that the intention of supervision is that either a farm or estate placed under supervision should be guided back into the paths of either proper estate management or proper husbandry. That is all very laudable and an excellent intention, and one hopes it will take place. But there is another intention inherent in supervision. It is the first step to dispossession. You cannot dispossess a man of his farm or estate until he has been under supervision. The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, too, has explained what effect it may have upon their credit.

I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to another point—that of the man who is vis-à-vis a tenant who is put under supervision. Once that tenant is under supervision he is completely out of the control of his landlord for so long as he remains under supervision. That landlord cannot give notice under any circumstances whatsover; therefore, from the point of view of the owner of land who lets his land to other people, it is a very important step to take, and one in which I think he should have the right of appeal to a more impartial tribunal than the Minister. After all, an appeal to the Minister is making him judge in his own case, as has so often been said in this Rouse in other connexions.

I would put it is high as this: Appeal against supervision orders is more important than appeal against disposssession orders. Supervision comes first, and every effort will be made, presumably by the county committees, to ensure that the man under supervision will be made a better man. It will be only after the most tremendous efforts, and in the clearest possible cases, that a man will be dispossessed of either his farm or his estate. They are cases which are not really very susceptible to appeal because they are generally so clear, whereas in the case of supervision it is much more shady; it is much more a matter of opinion. In the case of supervision, I think that it is very important that there should be an appeal to some impartial body. I do not want unnecessarily to overload the land tribunal —or whatever body is responsible—but I do think that this question of appeal against supervision is one of the vital points.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

There is another point I would like to add on this. We speak about the county agricultural executive committee, but we must remember that there is always a danger of certain county agricultural executive committees being in the hands of their permanent officials. It is a danger attaching to all such committees—a danger against which the committee have to guard, and against which everybody concerned has to guard. We all know from our experience in public life, however, that it does from time to time happen. Therefore, if you have a weak or over-worked committee it may quite well be that decisions of this sort pass too much into the hands of their permanent officials, especially if those officials happen to be of a masterful character. Under those circumstances, an individual error of judgment by one official might bring about the most serious consequences, such as the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment has described. It does seem to me of very great importance indeed that there should be a right of appeal at this stage.

I do not know how many of your Lordships read the judgment of Mr. Justice Wrottesley in the Odlam case. That occurred during the war. I do not profess to know anything about the facts of this case, except what I read in the long and detailed judgment of which I received a verbatim copy, but certainly the impression conveyed to the impartial lay mind was that a very great error of judgment had been made. In view of the extremely serious results it may have to individual farmers I think we should not be safeguarding the liberties of the subject properly unless there were a right of appeal at this particular stage.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

This question of impartial tribunals has been raised on other Bills recently before your Lordships' House. The impartiality of a tribunal depends to a large extent upon its remoteness from the scene of the dispossession or supervision. The further away it is, the more likely are its results to be received in good part by everybody concerned. One of the difficulties of the proposed procedure is that the authority is too close to the person who is supervized. The further the decision is taken away from the county the more likely is it to be well received. If we are to have this procedure let us try to arrange matters so that everybody will feel that they have had a square deal. I believe that this Amendment is one way to make people feel that.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

It has been a great satisfaction to me that we have had so much accord on this Bill; but this is one of the questions on which there is a serious division of opinion. I should like to make this point: that supervision should be looked upon as a helpful action. It is not a punishment or a penal or frightening gesture. This is a question of a had "C/" farmer, who should be dispossessed of his land unless he can improve it, but in order to mitigate the sudden blow this procedure will help him by providing a stage during which we can give assistance. It will help the farmer on the road to recovery. It will show him how he can be a better farmer, how he can manage his estate, if it is an estate, or grow his crops better if it is a farm. Therefore, I do not want, and I do not wish your Lordships, to look on this supervision as anything but an intermediate stage in which we try to rescue what appears to be an extremely bad, or possibly a hopeless case.

EARL STANHOPE

You would not be helping the farmer if he is not given a guaranteed price for what he is ordered to grow.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I admit the noble Lord's point, but it would be very unlikely that any committee would in practice order him to grow anything for which he would not receive a reasonable return. We must remember that the order to appear before the Minister's representative will not be a sudden blow. He will be warned, and he will have the right to be heard. But if in spite of this representation, the committee were still of the opinion that it was necessary to put a man under supervision, it would be done. It has been said that there should be a further appeal. It was suggested, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, that a farmer's credit or landowner's credit might suffer through supervision. That is possibly true; on the other hand, it is possibly true that it might increase the man's credit. If people can see that a man is being helped and guided, his credit might improve.

I said on the Second Reading of this Bill that our criterion was efficient production, and that land should be properly managed and farmed. That is what we set out to do in this Bill, particularly in this Part of it. It is a final step to turn a man out from his holding or his estate or farm, and it is obviously an important and serious step—although in practice during the war I do not think we ever had or at any rate, we very rarely had—any suggestion made that dispossessed farmers were wrongly dispossessed. In fact, if anything the criticism has been rather the other way. Yet, in order to ensure that no injustice can possibly be done we are providing this final appeal to a Tribunal. It would be a great mistake to pile appeal on appeal. In the first place it would interfere enormously with the machinery of the Bill so far as the tribunal were concerned, and it would not do very much good. I think that in questions of fact it would be quite undesirable. Therefore, I do earnestly suggest, although I know there is feeling on this subject, that in view of the final appeal to the tribunal, supervision should be allowed to take place without appeal. If we do not allow this I feel that the responsibility of the committees will be seriously impaired. We must have the very best men we can get on these committees, and if at different stages they are not allowed to exert their authority we shall find we shall not get them at all.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

In view of what the noble Earl has said, I should like to withdraw the Amendment, not with a very happy heart or a very good grace. The argument which my noble friend has put forward is an argument on workability rather than on reasoned principle. On the justice side I do not think that perhaps the matter is so arguable; but on the workable side there is a very strong argument in its favour. This is just one of those times when it may be necessary, though against one's sense of just values, to withdraw. I should have thought that committees which had been backed up once or twice by the land tribunal as having given just decisions would be in a much stronger position in the future. Be that as it may, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

Directions to secure good estate management and good husbandry.

(3) Any direction requiring only the doing of one or more of the following things, that is to say, the provision, improvement, maintenance or repair of fixed equipment, which could be given under subsection (1) of this section while a supervision order is in force may be given notwithstanding that no such order is in force.

4.2q p.m.

EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (3), at the end, to insert: Provided that no direction shall be given either while a supervision order is in force or otherwise which shall alter the character of a holding from that which existed when the contract or tenancy agreement was made. The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with what I think is a rather important point. It is in regard to the erection of buildings which may change the character of a holding altogether. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, may say that it is essential to keep this power; if so, I must ask the noble Earl why it was not found essential to have the power during the whole of the war period, when it was vital that we should grow every scrap of food we could.

I think a good many people do not realize that a tenancy agreement is a contract between two parties. I know of no industry in which the State takes power to break a contract for the benefit of one of the partners; yet that is what is being proposed under this clause. You may take the case of a mixed farm where, after some years, the farmer says: "I wish to go in for pig breeding," and he applies to his landlord to put up the necessary buildings for pig breeding. That is supported by the officials of the Ministry, including the agricultural committee who are also agents for the Ministry, who may be pressed very hard to increase our supply of fats in this country. Very well then, the landowner is compelled to put up these buildings. After a year or two the tenant fails, he gives one year's notice, which he is entitled to do at any time, and out he goes at the end of the year. He finds that, as probably a good many people might have told him, there is no bacon factory near at hand, and therefore he cannot rear pigs at a profit, the profit being swallowed up in transport charges.

You may take a man who has a mixed farm, and has decided to go in for milk entirely. Then he asks for a very large increase in cattle sheds, a very expensive building to put up in these days under the health regulations. He finds after a period that milk production is not quite so simple as he thought it was and out he goes, having failed to make good at it. Then the next tenant, who comes along recommended by the Minister, says that he thinks that the character of the land, and so on, is such that it ought to go back to being a mixed farm, as it was before. Meanwhile, the unfortunate landowner has been called upon to erect these expensive buildings, and he cannot get any return on his capital because the tenants who then come into the farm say that they do not require those buildings, that they do not think them necessary or desirable and, therefore, they refuse to pay any interest on them. I suggest that where a farm is let as a particular kind of farm, whether milk or mixed, or whatever it may be, the contract shall not be altered by order of the Minister unless the landowner approves and give his consent. Therefore, I suggest that it is right to put into the Bill that you cannot give an order to erect buildings which shall alter the character of the farm. It seems to me that it is only a fair provision to put in, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Stanhope.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I would like to take this opportunity of supporting the Amendment. This is a thing which may well arise very often in practice. I refer back to Clause 10, which specifies the rules of good estate management, and deals with the providing, improving, maintaining and repairing of fixed equipment, and so on, so that the occupier may maintain efficient production. That I understand to mean that he may continue to farm the land in the same way as it was when he took it over; whereas, if it was possible to make an order specifying an entirely different type of building, it would be not a question of maintaining the production as it was, but of altering it.

This question of alteration in buildings can frequently arise, as in the case mentioned by the noble Earl who has just sat down. There are many cases where it is decided between the parties to the contract that it is a wise and sensible thing to do, farms are altered and additional buildings are built, and so it goes on. Even in these cases there is, of course, the risk that the tenant may decide to give up whatever he is doing and the buildings may be wasted. It is his fault if he has agreed to pay so much extra rent on account of getting extra buildings. The next tenant also may very well take the farm on and say that he will not pay so much rent for it, because the buildings are not suitable to what he thinks is the right kind of farming to be carried out on this land. So, in relation to that, a direction to alter the type of land in that way without the agreement of the two primary parties is a thing which may very well be quite wrong, and do a lot of harm. Of course, if this Amendment were adopted it would be perfectly possible for the thing to go on as it does at present. Additional buildings can be put up in cases where it is agreed by all parties that it is a wise and proper thing to do.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I should like very briefly to support my noble friend, especially from the point of view of one particular aspect, and that is beef versus milk. I ought to say that I come from a milk-producing county, where I have some farm land and I manage my own property. There is all the difference in the world, as the noble Earl who sits opposite knows, between the fixed equipment of a stock-rearing farm and that of a dairy farm. In the last ten years the tendency has been all towards dairy farming, and landlords have had to do everything they can in order to provide the very much more expensive equipment to produce milk. It is thought now that the milk policy will go on for some time; but one never knows, there may be a sudden swing back towards beef, and these directions will have to have a background in the Government agricultural policy at any given time.

One is very likely to be faced with directions of this sort which will be in conformity with the agricultural doctrine of a particular person, but which will represent a dead loss to the landowner who puts up these buildings. Are we altogether free from the possibility that we may get two directions one alter another in a relatively short space of time compared to the life of the buildings, as for instance to fit the buildings up for milk and then to fit them up for beef? It does seem to me, for all those reasons, that some sort of precaution is needed more than is given in the Bill for that, and in fact that is provided for in this Amendment.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

May I support this Amendment and put a point which might arise, to take the case of the cowshed in particular? If a landlord and tenant between them agree, then it is their joint responsibility, but it is quite possible to visualize a situation where, owing to modern developments, in a couple of years these expensive cowsheds will be quite redundant and unnecessary, and that is a very unfair thing if there is no agreement.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This Amendment has been put very forcibly by many noble Lords, but there are certain difficulties which I should like to try to explain. In the first place it has been suggested that these buildings might be put up at a great expense, and that the landlord would not be able to recover compensation or, at least, the equivalent in rent; in other words that he would not be able to get increased rent for the extra value of his holding. That particular point is covered by Clause 35, which is an arbitration clause. The landlord can increase the rent of his holding and, should the tenant object to that, he can go to arbitration, and the arbitrator must take such things into account as would give the landlord the remuneration for the extra improvements.

However, there is the question which is a much more fundamental one: the possibilities of the committees, who would be the actual people in these cases, trying to put over an individual opinion; that is to say, if they believed for the time being in dairy cattle, or in beef cattle, they might swing on to that side, and try to give permission to the tenant to erect a very expensive building which, in later years, would not have quite the same value. But we must consider this point, that if the Amendment were accepted it would put the committees in an extremely difficult position, because in many cases the character of a holding would have to be altered. It might be that there was an excessive amount of permanent pasture which had been laid down and which was quite unwarranted in the circumstances. If this Amendment were passed it would put them in a position where they could not place a farmer under supervision or issue directions at all. Alternatively they could not, even if the farm was not under supervision, make any suggestions to a landlord or give consent to a tenant in respect of something that was obviously important and wanted, perhaps quite reasonably, by the tenant.

I think that the noble Lords have rather taken the attitude that the committee will consist of very unreasonable people and, although we cannot guarantee that every member of a committee will be reasonable, the committees do, on the whole, act with a certain amount of reason and consideration. In this case—that of altering the character of a holding—I cannot conceive of a committee taking the responsibility of the Minister or the Minister actually taking the responsibility of ordering a man to alter the whole character of his holding at enormous expense, unless it was a very reasonable thing to do. They must err on the side of conservatism in that respect. I think for that reason it would be such a limiting force to alter the character of the holding that we could not accept the Amendment as it stands.

EARL STANHOPE

I am afraid I do not accept the noble Earl's argument in reply. Of course, the landowner can get interest from the sitting tenant for an improvement to his buildings. The important point is that when the sitting tenant, having given a year's notice, leaves the farm, the new tenant says: "This landowner was perfectly right. This farm is not fitted to be a dairy farm and it ought to go back as an arable farm. Therefore I am not prepared to pay interest on those buildings because they are perfectly useless to me." The noble Earl says that one must expect agricultural committees to be reasonable. Of course we do, but there are people who are unreasonable in all walks of life and in all sorts of professions, and we shall not find exceptions amongst agricultural committees. Sometimes they will be unreasonable, and an Amendment of this kind will secure that they cannot do the unreasonable thing. It seems to me that it is only fair and just to the landowner. In regard to any improvement of the buildings, that, of course, is already provided for in Part III, under which a farmer can make improvements to his buildings and can get compensation for them. If he fails and goes out he will have to pay for compensation in addition to dilapidations.

EARL DE LA WARR

The only thing I really liked about the noble Earl's reply when he said that he could not accept this Amendment were the words "as it stands." Those words offer us just a small crumb of comfort, and if the noble Earl will say he will consider the point again before Report, he will give a great deal of comfort to your Lordships, because I do not suppose there is really one of us who has not been caught on this point at some time in his own individual estate management. I do ask the noble Earl to believe me that it is not merely a question of submitting that the committees are going to be unreasonable; there are times, when the case for an agricultural development looks absolutely unanswerable, when the very best committee might be tempted to order some developments. In a few years' time, maybe five years or maybe as long as ten years' time, that particular development may be found to be utterly out of date and not wanted.

The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, mentioned cowsheds; he was thinking of the modern development of cowshed construction now. Some other noble Lord mentioned the question of possibly the whole development in increased milk production not going on for ever. My own personal view is that, with the very slight increase in the cow population at present going on, if our present cows were free from disease and had plenty of feeding-stuffs and the management were all the better, we could have all the milk needed in this country. Before that takes place, some landowners might have been asked to put in a new cowshed at immense expense. They cannot get out of their interest charges by giving a year's notice, as the tenant can. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl in using those words that he could not accept the Amendment "as it stands" really meant what he implied, that there was some other form that we might perhaps be able to discuss. I quite recognize that there are two or three points that are quite valid which will have to be met; it might be possible to come to some agreed Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

I earnestly hope that before the Report stage is reached, the noble Earl and his advisers will give very serious consideration to the arguments which have been adduced in support of this particular Amendment. It may be that the Amendment is not framed in such words as would be acceptable to the noble Earl, but speaking quite frankly, there is no provision in the whole of this Bill that I regard with more alarm than that which would encourage or induce or permit a farmer to alter the whole character of his land at the ultimate expense of his landlord. The same difficulty, as it seems to me, arises over Part II of the Third Schedule. There the Minister apparently, on his own motion, can authorize buildings and equipment to be provided, altering, possibly, the whole character of the farm, with the ultimate detriment to the landowner, as is quite possible, the successor of the farmer may decide to revert to that system of agriculture which tradition has proved to be most suitable to the area and which probably, in accordance with much sound agricultural tradition, is the best mode of management or cultivation. I was very much impressed by the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, and indeed I do not quite see what answer can be given to the submissions which be has made except by accepting at least the principle of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, used an argument, in rebutting the Amendment, which I thought was a very remarkable one. He suggested that it might be necessary to convert a part of an arable farm and, therefore, obviously the character of the holding would require to be changed; the buildings required for that holding would have to be put up, and it would be wrong so to limit the power of the Minister as the Amendment proposes. He forgets that we are dealing with men who are under supervision. Is it seriously suggested that a man who is under supervision has been put under supervision because his farm is a pastoral farm and ought to be arable? If he has been put under supervision as a pastoral farmer and has been found to be inadequate as a pastoral farmer, he would have been put under a supervision order with the intention of making him a better pastoral farmer. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, quoted a very curious analogy in that respect. The noble Earl has already mentioned it twice, and it really is the crux of this matter. The tenant farmer is under no obligation to do more than one years' notice. He is a free agent; the landowner is not. The tenant farmer, under the new Bill and under the present law, is entitled to give his year's notice and get out. The landowner stands an enormous risk of being left with a converted holding at his expense and against his judgment when that particular tenant for whom the conversion was made has gone, and the new tenant finds that the buildings required by his predecessor are not suitable for his purpose.

I suppose that every landowner has had the same experience as I have had. At this present moment, I have two farms both converted at my personal expense into dairy farms. Both have been deserted by the dairy farmers, and they are now occupied by stock farmers. The whole of the money spent on those two dairy farms has, therefore, been completely wasted. It is true that part of the dairy buildings still stand, and it may be that in course of time they will be again occupied by dairy farmers, but not without rehabilitation, and not without practically as much money being spent on them again as was spent on them originally. I have not only these two farms, but also two others which were converted at great expense into pig farms. Now the piggeries are nothing but great heaps of rubble. Considerable sums were spent on adapting those places for pig-keeping, but pig-keeping became impossible, and the buildings fell into a derelict state.

Those creations, of course, were of my own folly, and I have to bear the penalty. It would be a different thing, however, if I had to bear that penalty at the behest of the Minister. What would I be saying about that Minister? Something very different to what I am saying about myself. It would be a gross hardship if the Minister could do this sort of thing and I hope that my noble friend Earl Stanhope will press his Amendment. It will certainly not do any harm if he does. It will certainly not hurt any tenant farmer, and it will not have an adverse effect on efficiency. I think that it would be likely to save many an unfortunate landowner from grave and unwarrantable expense, and I trust that the noble Earl will press this to a Division if need be.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I recognize that a very strong case has been put up on this. But there might reasonably be a case where, say, a Welsh hill sheep farmer, thinking that milk production was profitable, had converted his farm, had got himself into serious financial difficulties and the whole farm had gone down until it became quite uneconomic to work. Would anybody, I ask, suggest putting that farm as it stood under supervision? It might well be that the county committee would say that they must get this man to take either to rearing beef cattle or to some other form of farming which they deemed suitable. That might mean scrapping the dairy equipment, and installing fresh equipment. That would be completely prohibited by the Amendment, for the Amendment would not allow the committee to order anything which would alter the character of the holding. Your Lordships will therefore see that the Amendment could work in a way opposite to that already suggested. It would impose far too serious a limitation on the activities of the committee, and might well result in their not being able properly to carry out their duties of advising farmers under supervision. In certain circumstances they could not adequately carry out their duties unless there were an alteration in the character of the holding.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I have listened to the noble Earl's argument and it seems to me that he is not going to make a farmer into a good farmer that way. The noble Earl proposes to alter the landowner's property in order to make the farm into a good farm, but of another kind. That is what the noble Earl's argument amounts to. I think that is entirely wrong. I think the purpose of supervision is to make the farmer farm that land in accordance with what that land requires, and not to some other purpose.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Would the noble Earl suggest that where a farmer had taken on a completely impossible undertaking he should be allowed to stick to it? How could a committee, by directing or giving instructions under the provision, encourage the man to continue a form of farming which would be absolutely uneconomic to him?

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we have had a useful discussion on this Amendment. I did at one time make an offer which I thought might afford the Minister an opportunity of giving us some assurance on this, being encouraged by some words which he had used either advertently or inadvertently. This is a point on which the Committee feel extremely strongly. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, feels now that it is impossible to meet us on this point. It is a point on which there is genuine disagreement in the Committee, and I think that the best thing would now be to submit it to a vote.

EARL STANHOPE

I feel that this is a matter of principle. It is a question of the Government interfering in a contract accepted readily between a landlord and a tenant and saying that they are justified—at any rate, in their own

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

Supplementary provisions as to directions.

15.—(1) The Minister shall not give to the owner of land consisting of or comprised in any agricultural unit a direction under the last foregoing section to provide fixed equipment on that land until, after affording to the owner an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, as required by subsection (1) thereof, the Minister has given to the owner notice in writing of the proposal to give the direction, specifying the nature of the direction which the Minister proposes to give. The references in this and the next following subsection to the provision of fixed equipment include references to any improvement of fixed equipment by the enlargement of buildings.

(2) An owner to whom notice of a proposal is given under 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 of the said Part V shall apply accordingly, in any case in which the owner proves to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that—

view—in tearing up the contract. I am not prepared to submit to that kind of thing so long as this is a free country. Therefore, if your Lordships' will support me, I am going to press this Amendment.

On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 7.

CONTENTS.
Rutland, D.	Stanhope, E.	Grenfell, L.
		Hastings, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Bledisloe, V.	Hatherton, L. [Teller.]
Reading, M.	Bridgeman, V.	Hazlerigg, L.
Salisbury, M.	Cowdray, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Townshend, M.	Elibank, V.	Mancroft, L.
	Lambert, V.	Middleton, L.
Beatty, E.	Ridley, V.	Oaksey, L.
De La Warr, E.	Wimborne, V.	O'Hagan, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]		Rea, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Amherst of Hackney, L.	Roche, L.
Howe, E.	Ashburton, L.	Rochester, L.
Lucan, E.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Savile, L.
Munster, E.	Bingley, L.	Sinha, L.
Onslow, E.	Brassey of Apethorpe, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Portsmouth, E.	Carrington, L.	Teynham, L.
Radnor, E.	Courthorpe, L.	Trevethin, L.
Selborne, E.	Craigmyle, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Selkirk, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Jowitt, V. (L.Chancellor.)	Holden, L.	Rusholme, L. [Teller.]
	Kershaw, L.	Walkden, L. [Teller.]
Huntingdon, E.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.

(b) the cost borne by the owner of any other work for providing fixed equipment on the agricultural unit carried out within the two years immediately preceding the service of the notice, being work requisite for compliance with the owner's responsibilities to manage in accordance with the rules of good estate management,

together exceed the annual value of the land owned by him and comprised in the agricultural unit.

5.5 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (1) after "provide" to insert "or improve." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, the Earl of Portsmouth, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. The purpose of the Amendment is that the Minister shall not serve direction upon a landowner to provide fixed equipment or improve fixed equipment without there being an opportunity of making representations to the Minister. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 39, after ("provide") insert ("or improve").—(Lord Carrington.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I realize that this is another matter upon which your Lordships feel very strongly. We have considered it carefully and I think in principle we could accept the Amendment, but the words need to be altered. I propose, if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, to move the following Amendment: Clause 15, page 13, line 4, leave out from "to" to "by" in line 5 and insert "the provision thereof by conversion of existing equipment and improvement thereof. I do not know if that would satisfy the noble Lord, but, if so, I would be pleased to move it.

LORD CARRINGTON

I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I cannot say at such short notice whether these words will or will not cover the point, but I beg leave to withdraw the original Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 4, leave out from ("to") to ("by") in line 5, and insert ("the provision thereof by conversion of existing equipment and improvement thereof").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice of two Amendments to paragraph (b) of subsection (2), the first being to insert at the beginning "one third of" and the second to substitute "six" for "two." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to spread somewhat the period during which there may be judgment as to the capital expenditure incurred by landowners. It stands together with the next Amendment. In order to get a fair idea of capital expenditure, it is desirable that the period of time over which you can judge should be spread to this extent. The effect in cases where capital expenditure is going on year by year might not be very great, but in some estates where expenditure is rather spasmodic the effect might be very important. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 15, at beginning insert ("one-third of").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, for the last Amendment; I had not the opportunity of thanking him before. It is important that, in the ordinary course of events, expenditure should be taken over a period of years, and not over the first two. On the other hand, I quite realize that, from the landowners' short-term point of view, the last two years might be more important than the last six, owing to the shortage of material. But, on the whole, I think the period of six years is better than the period of two.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said, this is a small point. It seems to me that what is spent on the swings is gained on the roundabouts! I think the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, indicated that it was more or less evenly balanced. There is, however this point. It would be more difficult to go back and take into consideration accounts for the longer period than for the shorter period, and it would quite possibly increase the number of appeals. In view of that, and as it is not really a vital point, I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I think it is a very narrow point. It is only a question of which is the best way of doing it, and if the Government are not disposed to accept the Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HAZLERIGG moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section where the Minister has given to the owner notice of a proposal to give a direction under subsection (1) of this section the effect of the carrying out of which will be to alter the character of a holding the owner may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act and the provisions of the said Part V shall apply accordingly and the said Tribunal shall determine any question as to whether or not the effect of the carrying out of proposed direction will be to alter the character of the holding.

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, which stands in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Savile, I would like, if I may, to refer for one moment to the debate on the Second Reading, when I could not be in attendance owing to pressure of business. I would like to add my thanks and congratulations to those of other noble Lords, to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, for the way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It is very pleasing for anyone coming from Leicestershire to find someone, even on the Government Benches, who takes such an interest in agriculture. The noble Earl's name is very well known and respected. I gather that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, says that Lord Huntingdon now lives in the south, but I can assure him that if he is ever placed under supervision and dispossessed there will be a very warm welcome for him in Leicestershire. We have another member of this House who is a very great friend of agriculture—the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who is not here to-day. When I was reading the debate which took place in your Lordships' House the other day, however, I was very much shocked to see that he said that he thought the Bill had done a lot for good landowners. It appears to me that it has not only done nothing for good landowners but that the whole Bill has been drafted with the idea that most landowners are bad.

In this Amendment there again arises the question of the alteration of the character of a holding. The object of the Amendment is to secure that, in any case in which the character of the farm will be altered, there should be a right of appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. I gather from what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, says that he thinks there will be a great amount of work for the agricultural appeal tribunals. I take the opposite view—and I hope I may be right—that there will be extremely little work for them, because the county agricultural committees, having found their way about when they were war agricultural committees, will not have to do a great deal of supervision, dispossession, or anything else. Therefore, I feel that we are justified, in this case of the alteration of the character of the holding, which is of fundamental interest to the landowner, in asking that there should be an appeal to the land agricultural tribunal. That appears to me to be far better than to let it go through the county agricultural committee only.

I hope that neither the noble Earl nor anyone else will think that when I propose this I am showing any mistrust of the Minister in this matter, because I respect and admire him very much indeed, as I do all the servants in the Ministry. I have known a great many Ministers of Agriculture in the last forty years—I think I may go back to the Flood (not Noah's flood, but Sir Francis Flood), one of the best Permanent Secretaries we ever had. I think we have at present an admirable set of officials at the Ministry. However, we must realize that no Minister is permanent, and there may be other Ministers in the future. It might be much better, on all sides, if when the character of the holding is going to be altered there can be this appeal to the agricultural land tribunal, rather than that it should be settled by the Minister. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hazlerigg.)

LORD SAVILE

I would like to support this Amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hazlerigg. I, too, have found creeping into these debates a certain tendency on the part of the Government to regard the agricultural land tribunal as being cluttered up. I do not think it is being cluttered up at all. However, I do think that the work of the committee is going to be cluttered up, if we do not watch it. No farmer wants to go to a tribunal just for the sake of going. Farmers do not like litigation, and it is going to cost them a good deal of money. At times the committees are very over-worked, and that may have some effect on the advice given to the farmer about the general policy of the farm itself.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I should like to preface my remarks by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hazlerigg, very much for the kind words which he said, and by assuring him that, should I be put under supervision and turned out, I will take him at his word and retire to Leicestershire. However, I hope that will not happen. With regard to the Amendment, I should like to point out to the noble Lord that there is already very considerable machinery for the landlord to appeal against a direction to provide expensive equipment for buildings. In Clause 15 (2) the noble Lord will see that the owner is given the right to appeal to the tribunal, in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are that:

1. "(a) the estimated reasonable cost of the work involved in the proposal, and
2. (b) the cost borne by the owner of any other work for providing fixed equipment on 547 the agricultural unit carried out within the two years immediately preceding the service of the notice… together exceed the annual value of the land owned by him and comprised in the agricultural unit."

The point of those two paragraphs is to limit the amount that can be put on an owner in regard to buildings or fixed equipment. I have here one or two figures which we have collected which illustrate the point that it is unlikely to be a very considerable amount. According to the Farm Survey for 1941, the average rent of a holding from 5 to 25 acres was 52s. an acre; and of a holding of 100 to 300 acres, 25s. an acre. This means that the rental value of a small farm of say, 25 acres would be about £65, while in the case of a larger farm of, say, 300 acres it would be about £375. Having regard to the costs at the present time of providing any buildings or equipment, it is very unlikely that anything would come within that figure at all—it would be much greater. What we have tried to do is to base the criterion of the appeals so that there will never be a crippling amount forced on the landlord. Therefore, we have on the whole, as your Lordships will have noticed, arranged that whenever the amount can be considerable there is the right of appeal. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a better criterion than the one of altering, the character of the holding. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lord may think fit to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD HAZLERIGG

Of course, I was well aware of those two provisos in subsection (2) (a) and (2) (b), but I see the noble Earl's point, and I am perfectly willing to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CARRINGTON moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section where notice of a proposal to give a direction has been given to any person under subsection (1) of this section and the land in respect of which such notice is given is land which is designated under any public general or local Act as land subject to compulsory acquisition the owner of the land may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act, and the provisions of the said Part V shall apply accordingly. The noble Lord said: I think this is a very important Amendment. When, during the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill, your Lordships were discussing the designation of land for compulsory purchase, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, admitted that he thought designation would adversely affect agricultural land. Under this Bill the county committees have powers to serve orders for the maintenance and provision of fixed equipment on farms, and it is their duty to see that the land is farmed according to the rules of good husbandry and that the estate is managed according to the rules of good estate management.

If they do that job properly they will undoubtedly serve orders for all these things. It can hardly be said that there is much incentive for the owner whose land is designated to carry out very expensive repairs or to provide fixed equipment when he knows that ultimately—in fact, within a period of seven years—his land will be purchased compulsorily. If, however, he does not carry out the orders served upon him he can be dispossessed within a period of one year. If he does carry out the order it is unlikely that he will get back his capital outlay when his land is compulsorily purchased at its existing user value. Therefore, I recommend this Amendment. We are not proposing that no directions should be served upon designated land; only that if the owner thinks that the orders are too severe he should have a right of appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Carrington.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This is a very involved question, and I congratulate the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment on the extreme clarity with which he has explained it. We have examined this carefully and I am pleased to be able to say that we can accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD CARRINGTON

I am very grateful to the noble Earl.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Dispossession on grounds of bad estate management.

16.—(1) Where a supervision order is in force in relation to the management of land, and the Minister is satisfied that the manage- ment thereof does not while the order is in force show satisfactory improvement, and certifies accordingly, the Minister shall subject to the provisions of this section have power to purchase compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf the land to which the order relates or any part of that land.

(2) Where the Minister proposes to purchase any land under the last foregoing subsection and is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of securing the proper management thereof that he should acquire any other land which is being managed by the same person, and certifies accordingly, the Minister shall subject to the provisions of this section have power to purchase that other land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions aforesaid.

(3) Where any person having an interest in land, by notice in writing served on the Minister within six months of the giving by the Minister of a certificate under the foregoing provisions of this section relating to any other land, represents to the Minister that the first-mentioned land was at the time when the certificate was given being managed in conjunction with that other land and that it is not reasonably practicable to manage it except in conjunction therewith, and requires that the Minister shall purchase the said interest, then unless the Minister is satisfied that the representation is not justified and certifies accordingly before the expiration of the prescribed period, the Minister shall be deemed on the date on which the said period expires to have been authorised to purchase the interest compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf and to have served a notice to treat in respect of the interest on that date.

(4) The Minister shall not give any certificate under subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section until, after affording to any such person as is specified in subsection (6) of this section an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, the Minister has given to any such person as is so specified notice in writing of the proposal to give the certificate.

(7) No certificate under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be given before the expiration of twelve months from the coming into operation of the supervision order in question, except where the person who for the time being is the owner to whom the order relates has failed to comply with any direction under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act given to him as the owner—

5.25 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) after "behalf" to insert: "the interest in that land of the person managing." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a series of four all directed to the same point. There is this Amend- ment on page 15, line 18, and three other Amendments on the same page at lines 23, 24 and 26. They are all directed to the same end and if your Lordships agree I will speak to all four. The point is that during the Report stage in another place there was a discussion as to the position of a man who was in the position of managing the land to the extent that he might be considered the owner. I would like to quote from the Solicitor-General's speech on that occasion. He said: In order to manage land within the meaning of the words I have quoted, a person need not actually be the owner. He may be a long leaseholder. He has to be a person whose relationship to that land is such that one can fairly say of him that he is managing it; that is to say, his relationship is that of a landlord to the land. That would obviously include the case of a freeholder, but it also includes a long leaseholder. Then a little later on he said this: For the purpose of Clause 16 (2) we want the word 'owner' to apply automatically to a long leaseholder.

In this connexion that means that the land can be taken over by the Government. The argument I would put forward to His Majesty's Government is that there will be a certain number of cases where you have a long lease of agricultural land which will come within the meaning of this clause. In that case, supposing that it is badly managed, the owner of the land, the leaseholder, can be dispossessed, and at the same time the man from whom he leases his land is deprived of his land without having had any say in the matter. In fact, what His Majesty's Government propose to do is to take over something which they are not really entitled to take over. The so-called manager of the land—that is to say the leaseholder—has complete control, and the owner will have no control over him so long as the lease lasts. But he is still the freeholder of that land, and if he is dispossessed of it he is dispossessed without a chance or right to say or do anything. That does not seem right, and the words that I propose should be inserted in the Bill make it quite clear that His Majesty's Government cannot take over more than that interest on which there has been default—that is what it amounts to—and of which they are complaining. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 18, after ("behalf") insert ("the interest in that land of the person managing").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This again is a difficult point which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has raised. I think the point of principle at issue here is that you have the owner in fee simple, or the complete owner of the land who lets that land out to a long leaseholder. By doing that he temporarily gives away, until the lease is over, his right in the land, usually without any right of interference whatsoever. The problem we are up against is that here the long leaseholder is de facto the owner of the land for temporary purposes and is mismanaging to a considerable degree. Can we limit those powers of supervision and of ultimate dispossession because of the final interest of the original owner? I must say that His Majesty's Government are inclined to take the view that if an owner lets his land for an indefinite period completely to a long leaseholder he is really getting out of his responsibilities, and does not deserve to be considered on the basis that he cannot control the estate. He has no say in it, and, therefore, if the land is so badly managed that it has to be taken over and the owner dispossessed, we do not see why he should be considered.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I would like to ask the noble Earl a question before he sits down. First of all, does he realize that a leasehold is not for an indefinite period? The second point is this: What objection is there to His Majesty's Government taking over the remainder of the lease and managing the property?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

That is a point I have not considered, and if the noble Earl feels very strongly about it we will look at it again, but we cannot commit ourselves in any way. If he would like us to examine it again and put another Amendment down in the Report stage I will consider it.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I hope the noble Earl will reconsider this very carefully, because it is an important point. Nobody is going to give a lease in the future if this sort of thing is going to happen. In the past leases have been given in good faith because a man had every promise of being a good manager of land. He may have turned into a bad manager after a period of years, or perhaps the property was situated at a distance. Anybody whose land was cut off by distance but who was not trying to get out of his responsibilities might be in a very difficult position.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

As a matter of fact this is an entirely reasonable Amendment. I hope the noble Earl will examine it rather more carefully before the Report stage, and that he may find it in his heart to give us something on these lines. I feel strongly that it is a question of justice that you should not take away from the land a greater interest than that which the defaulting individual has at the time. I am quite certain that His Majesty's Government do not mean to do injustice to the freeholders of the land; and if they will look at it in that way and possibly put down an Amendment of their own on the Report stage to make the matter clear, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I will certainly give an undertaking to examine it, but I cannot commit the Government to acceptance of it or even to move another Amendment. But we will certainly look at it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.33 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert, after subsection (1): (2) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister in relation to any land to which the foregoing subsection applies, or to the owner thereof that the circumstances hereinafter set out prevail, the Minister shall before exercising the powers conferred by the last foregoing subsection, afford to the persons hereinafter described in relation to each of the said circumstances, the opportunity, if they so elect, of assuming the management of the said land, and if they do so elect, the Minister shall entrust the management thereof to them. The circumstances and persons hereinbefore referred to are:—

1. (a) where the land is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, the trustees of the settlement;
2. (b) where any child of the owner of the age of twenty-one years or over notifies the Minister of his desire to avail himself of the provisions of this subsection such child, or, if more than one, children, or, where there is no child surviving to such grandchild, or grandchildren being of the age of twenty-one years or over, as shall notify the Minister as aforesaid;
3. (c) where there is no child of the age of twenty-one years or over or, there being no child whether of that age or less, there is no grandchild of the age of twenty-one years or over, to such persons as may on an application to the Minister for the purpose satisfy the Minister that they are fit 553 and proper persons to be entrusted with the management of the said land for and on behalf of any child who has not attained the age of twenty-one years or, if there is no such child, of any grandchild who has not attained the age of twenty-one years.

For the purposes of this subsection a person's step-child, adopted child (whether adopted in pursuance of any enactment or otherwise) or illegitimate child shall be treated as a child of his."

The noble Earl said: This is a matter of vital importance. I assure the noble Earl who speaks for the Government that it does not raise the general principle of heredity—a principle on which, I have no doubt, he has his own views. This Bill does not in any way touch that principle. I say that in the sense that the vast amount of estates in this country, which I think it is agreed are well managed, are left untouched as regards inheritance. Where an estate is well managed, it is left under this Bill that the son or the natural heir inherits. But the Bill as it stands does this; it lays down that an heir can be disinherited by virtue of the action or inaction of his father or whomever he is going to succeed. I think we shall all agree that that is really a monstrous injustice, and I cannot believe that the Government have really given full consideration to the principle that they are laying down.

Take a case that any of us can easily call to our imagination. The case is of an old estate, possibly very well run up to a certain time; the owner may have a stroke, or he may lose his interest and enthusiasm, and the estate may for the time being go back. But there may be a young man coming on who is just living for the day when he has an opportunity to put that estate straight. He may be training himself in methods of farming and estate management, he may have gone to the city and made some money with which to recoup his family fortunes. And then the estate is put under supervision. According to the operation of the Bill, within twelve months—I do not myself think it likely within the period of twelve months—of the application of the supervision order, the family can be permanently dispossessed.

The Amendment that I have put down attempts to correct this injustice. There are two points, which are related but distinct. One is the right of the father—there may be some awkward family relationship—who is not willing to hand over to the son; and this Amendment attempts to deal with that point. There is a further point which to my mind is much more important, and that is the portion of the Amendment that makes it mandatory on the Minister to give the heir an opportunity of putting that estate right before his family is dispossessed. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 13, dealing with changes of ownership, you will see that there can be no question of this Amendment being used as a means of evading a great purpose of the Bill which is to dispossess a landowner who is not managing his estate as it should be managed. Your Lordships will see that the heir to whom the estate is handed over will be laid under supervision and if he does not put the estate right, then he will be turned out.

I have put the matter as briefly as I can, because the case is, I think, so clear. I do hope that the noble Earl will consider this Amendment really seriously, and that he will be able to give us a favourable answer. The drafting of an Amendment of this character is exceedingly difficult, raising as it does very difficult technical and legal issues, and needless to say we shall be quite happy to discuss the matter of drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 19, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

EARL BEATTY

I wish very briefly to support the Amendment, because I think this is a most important and almost vital Amendment to the Bill—which on the whole has been accepted very favourably throughout the country. But I feel that if people realized what this clause means without the insertion of this Amendment, many of them would receive quite a shock. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, this really affects the small landowner more than the large landowner; and for that reason alone I should have thought that it might commend itself to noble Lords opposite. When one reads, as I have, the debate on the Report stage in another place, one finds that the basis of the Government's reason for not accepting this Amendment was entirely that of efficiency in farming. In fact, it was said that there was no guarantee that the heir or the trustee could manage the estate better than the father or the previous owner who was dispossessed.

But surely it is a fundamental basis of law and justice in this country that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty, and therefore he should at least be given the opportunity. That is my first point. The second point is: what positive guarantee is there that the Land Commission would be any more efficient than the heir in this case, who, as Lord De La Warr has said, might be a man who had his interests in this estate for a long tiny, but was not able to be there, and who worked in another place, perhaps in the City, looking forward to the day when he could return to that farm? What guarantee is there—which is the argument of noble Lords opposite—that the Land Commission will do it any batter than this man? Surely, he should be given an opportunity. With those few remarks I beg to support this Amendment.

LORD HASTINGS

I feel that this clause has probably given a greater shock to the agricultural community generally than anything else to be found in the Bill, because of its lack of necessity. There would be, if not universal, at any rate very general, opinion that a landowner who has proved himself conclusively to be unfitted to manage his estate should, in the general interest, be removed. That is quite a large statement to make, but I believe it to be true. But on what conceivable grounds of justice or of expediency can it be proposed that, because an individual landowner has proved himself to be inadequate to his job, the succeeding member of his family, whether it be a son, a nephew, a brother or whoever it may be, is also going to be inadequate to his job? It does not make sense. The probabilities are exactly the contrary. Lord De La Warr has explained that in all probability, in such circumstances as those, the heir is merely awaiting the happy day when he can step into his defaulting parent's shoes and rectify the default of that defaulting parent. That would be quite natural.

During the Second Reading debate, both Lord De La Warr and I held that there was no provision in the Bill whereby the heir could enter, or retain possession of the property of a dispossessed parent or relative. Both the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and Lord Huntingdon referred us to a clause in the Bill, not in regard to dispossession but in reference to supervision. There is nothing in the Bill whatsoever to protect the heir from dispossession unless an Amendment of this character is included. I purposely use the words "of this character," because I put down an Amendment of an exceedingly simple kind, which, when I came to see Lord De La Warr's Amendment, seemed to be inadequate to meet the case. And, now that I look at Lord De La Warr's, I am not sure that that is entirely adequate to meet the case. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to draft an Amendment which does implement the intention, and yet does not vitiate in some way or other the other intentions of the Bill. It really is a matter for a Government draftsman, and not for a private member of the House to do.

But I cannot bring myself to believe that this, or any other, Government can seriously desire to break a link in a long and well forged chain, and break it permanently, because one of those links has proved to be a weak one and has failed, where a long line of predecessors have succeeded, and where it is reasonable to suppose that a long line of successors may also succeed, because they have a greater incentive. Anybody who has association with the love of the land, and is imbued with the traditions and sense of duty which attach to love of the land, must know perfectly well that the man who is in default in his ownership is a rarity, and that the more common case is the one where a man wishes to do his best by it. One can see the anger of the family whose head at the moment well deserved the dispossession which would fall on him almost certainly justly under this Bill, because it really is inconceivable that a man should be dispossessed unless he thoroughly deserved it. It is really quite incredible that any agricultural committee should recommend such a thing to the Land Tribunal unless it was deserved.

I greatly hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us some encouragement in this matter. Something clearly has got to be done. We do not necessarily desire to press this particular Amendment to a Division, and force it upon the Government. We would infinitely prefer an assurance that they would look into this matter, with the idea of drafting it in a form which will fit into the Bill, and a categorical assurance that the heir shall be protected. I take encouragement from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Addison, who said "We do intend to protect the heir." I brought a copy of Hansard with me, but somebody has taken it away and I am not able to quote from it, but I am very conscious of what was said. The noble Viscount said "We have taken careful steps to protect the heir." That, presumably, means that the Government really do mean to protect the heir, and do not mean to expose him to this order of dispossession. So, I think that the noble Lord will surely have very little difficulty in giving us an assurance that something in the nature of this Amendment will be accepted and embodied in the Bill. I beg to support Lord De La Warr.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

I earnestly hope that the noble Earl and His Majesty's Government will do something to respond to this appeal on behalf of the heirs to agricultural landed estates, because I am perfectly certain that it will be in the public interest so to do. The old land-owning families of this country are proud of their traditions. They are intensely fond of their family estates. As the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, they are deeply imbued with a sense of public duty, and, if I may say so, never more than they are to-day, realizing as they do that there is a great responsibility now resting upon their shoulders to do all in their power to increase the output of essential food from the land of this country.

I would add one other point, and that is this. To my knowledge there are quite a considerable number of what are described as heirs to landed estates who are, at the present time, receiving education at one or other of our agricultural colleges, thereby, of course, making themselves fit to carry out the duties which they expect will devolve upon them. Surely it would be unfair to displace them because their father, let us say, turned out to be an unsatisfactory person, by not pulling his weight, as we all hope that landowners now will do. In carrying out the objects of the Bill, surely it is not only unfair, but it is not in in the best interests of the country, that in such circumstances an heir should be displaced. I would only add this. I am not myself satisfied with the actual wording of this Amendment, and noble Lords on all sides of this House are anxious that nobody but competent landowners and competent farmers should own and occupy the agricultural land of this country. I for my part should like to see, at the end of that first paragraph, words which appear later on: "The Minister shall entrust to them if, in the opinion of the Minister, they are fit and proper persons to be entrusted with the management of the said land." I think that proviso ought to be inserted, if only to carry out the alleged objects of the Bill.

VISCOUNT WIMBORNE

I do not mean to repeat the arguments that have been adduced in favour of this Amendment; I think they speak for themselves, Personally I think it is a matter of common justice. I would like to associate myself with the noble Lords who have supported this Amendment.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I should like to add a few more words in support of the Amendment, but only on the points mainly not touched upon. The first thing is that if an owner—through old age, or disease, or failure, is a weak link in the chain, as Lord Hastings has described it—is liable to be dispossessed, the effect of the insecurity that will come to all the people who dwell on the estate should be considered. The other side of it, as the noble Earl, Lord Beatty, touched on at the beginning, is the fact that we are trying to legislate not only for the heirs of broad acres whose fathers may in the popular imagination have their feet up with gout wrapping round them, but also for the very small man. I have been many times to farmers' meetings on general farming policy and I have got myself into hot water, because the truth of the barbs has gone home, urging farmers who are getting on in years to "give the boy a chance." How many times one has said that even to one's own tenants!

The desire among the people who serve the land is always to hang on too long and not give a competent younger man a chance. That is a very frequent failing, and it can so easily prevail to the extent of not seeing the red light until the dispossession has actually taken place. I think that is a very great danger which we have to face, especially with the owner-occupier who may have had just as long a line behind him of successes in owner- ship and farming of the land. If the principle of this Amendment was incorporated into the Bill, I feel certain it would be very much more easy to deal with a recalcitrant owner who would not listen. If he knew it was possible for his son to take over by law, he would be much more amenable to argument in the first place.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The case, as I understand it, put up by the noble Lords who have spoken is that, in the case of an owner of an estate or farm or whatever it may be being put under supervision and coming to the point of being dispossessed, his heir should be given by the Minister the right of taking over and managing that property with a chance to see if he can pull it round and so get the land out of the danger of acquisition. I say at once that His Majesty's Government have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view but, when we come to look at the problem, certain difficulties arise. In the first case, you have the ordinary heir of the man who has just willed his estate to his son or brother or whoever it may be. This man gets put under supervision. There is nothing to stop that man handing over or selling his estate to his heir. Further, while he is under supervision, it is possible under Clause 14 for the Minister to require the man under supervision to appoint a manager to look after the property. The intention of that clause is that the owner actually under supervision should appoint his heir to look after the property.

LORD HASTINGS

May I interrupt for a moment? The weak part of that argument is that the kind of owner who is qualified for dispossession is just the kind of owner who would have fallen out long since with his heirs; it is the heir we want to protect.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I recognize the point raised by the noble Lord, and I am coming to it later on in the course of the discussion. That is one question which might arise. Then, we come to the question of the settled estate, the estate that is settled from one man to his son or to his next-of-kin, or whoever it may be. There again, should the owner be a reasonable sort of person, he can either hand it over to his heir or the Minister can again require him to appoint a manager who, presumably, would be the heir. As Lord Hastings has pointed out, there are men who would not be reasonable and who might be quarrelling with the heir. This is not only an extremely unpleasant but also a difficult situation in regard to the settled estates because, while His Majesty's Government have every sympathy with the thesis that you should allow the heir to be appointed, the solution to the problem is not so easy as it looks.

Supposing that under the Bill the Minister required the owner to hand over to his heir for management, and that this was a settled estate which had been handed down from father to son or brother, as the case may be.The heir, or it might be the trustees acting against the owner's wishes, takes on the estate. Who actually will be responsible for providing money for running the estate? Will it be the owner? If the owner is of the unreasonable type, he will be the last person to provide the funds. Who can borrow money from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation or raise mortgages? The owner has the right, but he will be averse from doing it. Once one gets down, to the complicated question of investing for temporary rights of the heir, one gets into difficulties of legal procedure, and they form one of the big problems facing us on this particular issue.

However, we want to meet the noble Lord's point, if we possibly can, and I would like to suggest that we meet it with something on these lines. In an Amendment which could be discussed we would be prepared to give to the trustees and to the heirs (either or both) the right to appeal to the Tribunal at the same time as the owner appeals. If we allowed this appeal to the Tribunal at the same time as the owner, the Tribunal would be enabled to take in all relevant circumstances —which presumably would involve the question of the entail of the estate as much as anything else—and help them to decide whether in all those circumstances the Minister should dispossess the man or take other action. I appreciate that that does not go to meet the whole point of noble Lords, but it is an extremely difficult point. We are prepared to discuss it and to do what we can to meet it. So far we have not seen any further than we can go in that we can give an appeal to the heir and the trustees against the dispossession order as well as to the original owner. Would that meet with the noble Lord's approval?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I intervene only for a moment on this question. I think it is one of those cases where there really is no difference between the two sides of the House as to the object which it is desired to achieve. Obviously, if a firm or an estate—because this applies equally to landowners and farmers —has been the property of a single family for a considerable time there would be likely to be great advantage, if it is in any way possible, in its remaining in the ownership of that family. They would clearly have greater interest in the land than anyone else, and could be expected to go to greater lengths to keep it in the best possible condition. But it is true that in the best regulated families you get, I am sorry to say, a generation now and then in which there is a representative who is not so good as his forbears or, perhaps, as his successors. You have to get over that very awkward period, and the question is how is it going to be done. That is the purpose of this Amendment.

We feel that at any rate the heir ought to be offered a chance; that he ought to be offered a chance, if necessary, let us say, of pulling round an estate with which perhaps his father has not done very well. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, clearly was anxious to help, but, if I may say so with respect, he made rather heavy weather of it. He adduced a number of examples of extremely awkward situations which might conceivably arise; he spoke of cases of settled estates where the heir had no money and might find it difficult to get any. He said that in such cases it would be no good offering the estate to an heir, as he would not be in a position to deal with the property if he got it. Now that seems to be a case in which the heir must be allowed to judge. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, he must be a fit and proper person. That means that he must be mentally equipped to take on the task and he must also be financially equipped for it. If the position were that there was an heir who was offered the estate and he had to say to the authority: "I am very well equipped mentally, but unfortunately I have no capital," that would be very bad luck. It might, probably, mean that his father had behaved extremely badly. But I am afraid the estate or the farm would have to pass. That would be a very unhappy situation that could not be dealt with at all.

Our point is simply that the heir ought to have the offer. It is a simple proposition, and we are not unreasonable about it. We most certainly do not want to do anything which would be to the detriment of farming or to the detriment of estate management. We think that the heir should have the offer and that it should then be for him to prove that he is a fit and proper person. I know that the Government are sympathetic on this, and I suggest that in the light of the discussion which we have had they might think the matter over a little further. It is possible that, in the light of that consideration, they might find themselves able to go a little further than the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, did and that in that case we should be very near together and might even get an agreed solution.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

I think that I can respond to that suggestion. I am sure that we should all like to see an heir given a chance, always provided that he was a fit and proper person in every sense of that term. That I gather is what is wanted on all sides of the Committee. I will not make any promise now, but I will look at this again, and, if necessary, have discussions with noble Lords opposite, in order to see if there is anything we can do. I must point out, though, that the offer which the noble Earl has made giving an heir a separate right of appeal does go some way towards meeting the difficulty.

EARL DE LA WARR

May I just ask this question? Am I right in thinking, in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said, that this only applies to heirs under the Settled Land Act?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Yes, I think perhaps that is so.

EARL DE LA WARR

Then I think it would be useful to enter a caveat at this point. A great deal of the land of this county is not settled. Some of the best and oldest estates are not settled. There is also an immense class, a very valuable class—indeed I might call them the salt of the earth—the yeomen who own their land, but whose land is not settled. I really do not think that we could contract out on the basis of settled land only and leave these other men completely alone. In view of the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.6 p.m.

LORD SAVILE moved, in subsection (2), after "managed" to insert "and is owned." The noble Lord said: I feel that this is a very important Amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that land which is occupied by a lessee cannot be compulsorily acquired from the owner because of defaults of the lessee when the owner is unable to prevent him from committing those defaults. I think that I can best illustrate this by taking an example. Supposing, for instance, that I am an absentee landowner for five years. The reason is unimportant—perhaps I may be in London doing too much work in your Lordships' House, or it may be that I have to be abroad for five years on some job. But I have a group of farm properties in Yorkshire, and I entrust that group to someone, a qualified agent, or an owner-agent, who is also the occupier of land which is very adjacent to this particular group. The man to whom I have entrusted it manages it badly. I am unable to prevent him from doing so and to make him do it better. The Minister comes along and acquires the piece of land which has been managed badly, including land of which I am the legal owner but which is being managed by this man. That, I think, does seem rather unfair on an owner who has had absolutely nothing to do with the way in which it has been managed, having been precluded from having a say in it by quite reasonable absence.

I have no doubt that when I sit down I shall be referred to a further Amendment which is being moved by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, himself, to Clause 21. I may be told that this will cover my point and that it should give me complete satisfaction. As a matter of fact, it does not cover my point at all, it really confirms my worst fear, which is that acquisition can take place of any piece of land which has been owned by me but managed by someone else. I think that I must be right in assuming that and that the noble Earl's Amendment would still enable an owner's land to be compulsorily acquired when managed by a lessee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 24, after ("managed") insert ("and is owned").—(Lord Savile.)

LORD HASTINGS

It very often happens that an owner with a rather scattered property is under the practical necessity of letting two, three or four fields to an owner of adjoining property, in order that his few fields may be efficiently farmed in connexion with the buildings of his neighbour. It was rather assumed both by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, when Lord Radnor was moving his series of Amendments, that this particular matter would be in all probability governed by lease. I agree that there is reasonable inference in that regard. But, of course, it is by no means necessary that it should be governed by a lease. It would be more usual for the owner of the detached fields to let them year by year to the owner of the farm with which they could be most conveniently farmed. He would be just an annual tenant of these few fields.

There are four or five cases of this nature that come to my mind, and no doubt others will readily occur to the minds of other noble Lords. The owner of the property who has hired from, shall we say, myself, these three or four fields, defaults, and he quite properly goes into the bad books of the local county committee. Matters go from bad to worse and he qualifies for dispossession. Of course the owner of the three or four fields is aware of what is going on. He would like to take away these fields, but how is he to get them away? Both under existing law and under this Bill he cannot get these lands away unless he is able to persuade the Minister to act through the county agricultural executive committee, and the land tribunal release his land. He is unable to extract that land from the tenant who is rapidly going into default. And so he has to put up with the inconvenience and humiliation, and also the loss of a piece of land to the ownership of which he attaches value, perhaps not by reason of any fault of his own but by reason of the fault of another. That is really not justice. The matter was being dealt with as if these lands were always leasehold. It was pointed out, I think by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that there could be no obstacle to the Minister, implementing his powers in respect of a defaulting owner continuing a lease which had been given the defaulting owner or, failing a lease, from continuing the annual tenancy.

Under the existing law he might be enabled to do that; in fact unless the owner gave him notice to quit, he would be entitled to remain as tenant of those lands. Why should he not be allowed to remain either leasehold or annual tenant of these lands? There is nothing which makes for efficiency in this clause which we are endeavouring to amend. If there were anything in it which aided better farming, then we would have a difficult case to make. In the clause the Minister has taken arbitrary power, which is not in the least necessary, in order to improve farming; but it will not be improved. My noble friend Lord Savile has moved the inclusion of the words "and is owned." If the Government would agree to that, they would not be the loser thereby, and efficient farming would not be the loser thereby, and owners would be protected from the default of others which they had been unable to stop. I support the noble Lord, Lord Savile, and hope that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will be able to accept this.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have been asked to deal with this Amendment. The noble Lord who just sat down said in a very clear speech that if this were a question of efficient farming he would not have so much to say. I think we all agree that our first aim in this Bill is efficient farming. The national interest demands this, and all sides agree that it is necessary. I agree that our first aim is efficient farming, and our second is: the less we interfere with existing ownership the better. I think, therefore, we approach this problem from the same angle. I resist the Amendment simply because it seems to me that it is a plain question of efficient farming.

May I point out what subsection (2) is doing? It is rather a narrow scheme. There is a composite farm being managed as a whole, one part being owned by a man and the other part being managed by him. You have a farm whose owner has immediate use of one portion, of which he is the owner, and use of the other part of which he is not the owner but not a mere manager or agent or factor; he is farming it on his own behalf as a lessee or tenant. The provision can operate only if it can be predicated that the use of one part, of which he is lessee, is essential for the proper farming of the other, of which he is the owner. It applies only in that case: where the Minister proposes to acquire land under the last foregoing subsection and is satisfied that it is necessary for the purposes of securing the proper management thereof that he should acquire any other land which is being managed by the same person.… The only case in which this subsection comes into play, in my opinion, would be the case where by reason of acquisition or drainage, or considerations of that sort, the tenant really cannot run one half of his land without the other. If that is the case, and the Minister has the right to acquire one half, is it not absolutely essential that he should have the right to acquire the other half, since we started from the proposition that you cannot manage one half without the other? That is a rare and exceptional case, however.

If you have to acquire a holding because it is badly farmed, it is important to make sense of the whole thing by having the right to acquire the other half. That is the case. I stress the importance of the word "necessary," in contradiction to the next clause, line 35, where you find "it is not reasonably practicable to manage it" without other land. Here you have a stronger word, "necessary." It is not a case which need alarm your Lordships unduly; it is not a common case. Although it may be frequently convenient to have adjoining lands thrown together, it is not often that you can really say it is necessary to do it. Where the rare case does come, and it is established that it is necessary, then it seems to me that you cannot ask the Minister to buy something which is no good by itself. You must give him the right to buy part two. That is why it is impossible to accept the words "and is owned."

The noble Lord, Lord Savile, will find, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has found from his experience, that he will frequently meet this sort of case. A man owns some land. He rents other land adjoining; and you have got to acquire the land which he owns, although it by no means follows that you cart acquire the land which he rents. The only case in which you can acquire the land which he rents is if it can be certified that it is necessary in order to make possible the farming of the part which he owns. In that somewhat rare event, we maintain that the Minister must have the power to acquire both. There may be hard luck in certain cases, but if we accept—as I think we all do accept—the criterion with which I started, that efficient farming must come first, and that everything must be subordinate to that, then the very hypothesis is that this is necessary for efficient farming. That being so, I hope that I have made it plain to the noble Lord why I cannot accept the words "and is owned."

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I would like to say a few words on this. The noble and learned Viscount, in his extremely persuasive and logical explanation of this Amendment and the clause to which it relates, talked about it being absolutely necessary to farm the land in question with the other land. I think he ought to have qualified that remark by adding "the land in the condition in which it was then placed." There are plenty of possibilities. When you have land at present worked with another farm, and while that land is worked with the other farm, it is necessary that it should be worked with the other farm because it cannot be farmed in any other way. But given the time, possibly by the building of roads or drains, or something of that sort, the owner could marry it up to a farm other than the one which is in default. I still do not see why in a case like this the Government cannot content themselves with taking over such rights as the defaulting occupant has, and not taking over the rights of the free farm.

LORD HASTINGS

There is one other point to which the noble and learned Viscount might turn his mind. "Acquisition," as he said, means buying. The owner who has let these lands to the defaulter will have to be bought out. But why? I would agree that, if it is absolutely necessary that those lands should for the purposes of efficient farming be permanently married to the lands of the defaulter which the Minister is about to acquire, there is very good reason why the Minister should have the power to remain in occupation of those other hired lands. But that does not mean that he has to buy them. Why should he not have compulsory powers of hiring?

It might seem a small point, but it is rather more than that. Let us suppose for a moment that those fields form part of a property which was in mortgage. The compulsory acquisition by the Minister of those lands might—and almost certainly would—involve the owner from whom they were compulsorily acquired in very great trouble with his mortgagee, with whom he would have to enter into negotiations. It might be that the mortgagee would refuse to accept the repayment of a portion of his mortgage. Such things are often done. It might well place the owner in very great difficulties. Whereas, if the Minister merely had the power to continue the hiring of those lands —that is to say, to take over the interest the defaulter had in them—then the Minister's purpose, which would be to see that the land was efficiently farmed, would be met, and the inconveniences which might so easily accrue to the owner would be avoided. I wonder if the noble and learned Viscount would think well to give a reply to that.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is only a power we are giving to the Minister; the Minister need not exercise that power to the full extent. I think a reasonable Minister would certainly look—if I may take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, first—to see if there was any other way in which he could do it. He might say: "I might put down an accommodation road, which is wanted for other purposes. Once the accommodation road is there, I do not want this extra land." Or he might consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that it is sufficient to acquire the use of the land for a period of years, or something of that sort. But we are dealing here with what is an odd lot —a piece of land which really cannot be efficiently managed by itself. Therefore, it seems to me that the Minister must have the power (and that is all we, are asking for), when he is confronted with that situation, to buy that adjoining land which is necessary for proper development. Although he must have that power, if he is a wise man he will not always exercise the power, but will see if he can find some other way round which will not cause any heartburning. While I must ask for this power, I can assure your Lordships that it is not the sort of power that a Minister would exercise without very careful consideration.

LORD SAVlLE

The noble and learned Viscount has given a very clear explanation of this matter—clearer than anything I have read about it before. I am disappointed that the Amendment cannot be accepted, but I do not wish to press it any more, and beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (3), after "Where any person having an interest in land," to insert "as the owner thereof." The noble Earl said: This is a very simple Amendment. Some of us have been trying for years to get everybody, man, woman, and child, interested in agricultural land and what grows on it. When you look at the first line of this subsection, it says: "Where any person having an interest in land," does this, that and the other. I suggest that some modification or limitation is required and, therefore, I have put down the words of the Amendment. I am not particularly wedded to those words, but I do feel that some limitation is required. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 28, at end insert ("as the owner thereof").—(Earl Stanhope.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. What Clause 16 (3) is dealing with is this: "Where any person having an interest in land"—and I call attention to the phrase, "an interest in land"—

EARL STANHOPE

I hope that everybody has, or will have, an interest in land.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know about "will have," but everybody has not at the present time; I certainly have not. It is dealing with an interest in land. Where the Minister is acquiring land on the ground of bad estate management, the person possessing that interest can say: "Well, my land was being managed in conjunction with the land you are now acquiring, and it is not reasonably practicable to manage it separately." The person having the interest in the land may then require the Minister to buy it. What I am not quite certain about is whether the noble Earl has appreciated what the "it" is. The "it" is not the land, but the interest in the land.

For instance, if a man has land which has been used in conjunction with other land, and he has five years of a lease still to run, he may say: "Look here, you are buying that other land, and these two lands used to be run in conjunction with each other. It is not reasonably practicable for me to carry on without that other land. I want you to buy my interest." The Minister then has to buy out the five years' lease. It is not a case of buying the land. I think the noble Earl is under a misapprehension in putting down the Amendment. What the Minister can be called upon to buy is the interest in the land which the person calling upon him holds, and nothing more. Therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment.

EARL STANHOPE

I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I was mistaken. I thought it did refer to land, and not to interest. Therefore, I must withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.30 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN moved, to insert at the end of subsection (4): and of the grounds upon which the Minister is satisfied that the management of the land to which the proposed certificate is to relate does not show satisfactory improvement. The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it. As will be seen, it deals with the point that the landowner or occupier should be told of the grounds upon which the Minister is satisfied that the management of the land to which the proposed certificate is to relate does not show satisfactory improvement. In the case of farmers who are required to be dispossessed I know that it is always customary to give them the grounds upon which the dispossession order is founded, so that if they wish they can appeal against the order. It seems only common justice to the owners and occupiers of the land who may be dispossessed under these terms that they should be treated in the same fair way, and that they should be given an opportunity of knowing the grounds upon which their dispossession may be founded. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 11; at end insert the said words.—(Lord O'Hagan.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This seems a very reasonable Amendment. I would like to discuss slightly different wording, but if the noble Lord will agree to that we will accept it in principle.

LORD O'HAGAN

In those circumstances I am only too pleased to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE moved, to insert after subsection (5): (6) Any person may within twenty-eight days of receiving the report of an agricultural land tribunal lodge an appeal to the High Court. The noble Earl said: This is a question in regard to dispossession. I usually agree with everything my noble friend the Earl of Radnor says, but I do not agree with him in regard to this particular question. He said earlier in the debate that he thought dispossession was not so important as being put under supervision. I entirely disagree. I ventured to point out on Second Reading that with regard to a landowner dispossession means that he has his property taken away—perhaps property which has been in his family for many generations.

When it comes to farmers and, above all, to farmer-occupiers, that is a very serious thing. After all, the landowner may have to cease to be a landowner—many of us are being made to cease to be landowners. You find an unfortunate farmer who is reported upon by officials of the Ministry, and reported upon presumably by the agricultural committee, who it must be remembered are agents of the Ministry. He is then brought up before an agricultural land tribunal. If that tribunal gives a verdict against him he loses his means of livelihood, because quite obviously, once that man is dispossessed, the Minister is not going to accept him as a farmer anywhere else. As regards the owner-occupier, he loses his means of livelihood and his home as well. Therefore, I cannot imagine anything more serious.

What is this tribunal to which these unfortunate people may have to apply? It consists of a solicitor or barrister of seven years' standing recommended by the Lord Chancellor, a representative of the landowners, and a representative of the farmers, all of whom are appointed for a very long period. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is quite happy about the matters on which his legal representative will have to adjudicate. If the noble and learned Viscount will turn to the top of page 63 he will see that the proposal shall be referred accordingly. Subsection (2) reads: On any such reference the tribunal shall determine—

1. (a) whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking the action are fulfilled."

That merely means that the place has been inspected, that a report has been made, the individual has been warned, suitable opportunity has been given for making representations and the various provisos referred to in the Act have been carried out. Then you get paragraph (b): whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph and to all the circumstances of the case, the Minister should or should not take the action proposed. I am quite certain that the noble and learned Viscount will not pretend for one moment that that is legal procedure.

I am personally—as I think are a good many people in this House, and certainly a very large number in the country—becoming more and more opposed to Ministers being set above the law, and to the principle that they and their officials should not have regard to a court of law where the ordinary individual can get justice and be seen to get justice. It is not only a question that justice may be done, but that it shall be seen to be done. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill may say, "Of course, these rules of procedure for the court are going to be drawn up by order, and that is laid down in a previous subsection of the Bill." Why by order? If the noble Earl looks a little further on in the Marshalled List of Amendments he will see that under Clause 44 he himself is making provision that county court rules shall apply in regard to arbitrations—a much less serious point. Yet you are not having anything whatever laid down in the Bill as to what the procedure of these land tribunals should be. Mark this: there is not to be one land tribunal, but one for each area—I understand something like eleven. One land tribunal may act in one direction and another may take a different view on the whole thing. I may be told that these county agricultural committees are composed of experienced men and do not make mistakes. That is all very well, but some of us remember a case reported widely in the Press which took place in the West of England and which eventually came before the court as a libel action. That was the famous case of Odlam v. Stratton. The learned judge who decided that case not only gave a verdict in favour of the plaintiff and very strongly against the agricultural committee, but he made some very severe animadversions against this committee, its chairman and officer. That case occurred during the Coalition Government, and I am not making any sort of personal attack on this Government.

That will not do. I wondered what was to be done about it. I admit quite frankly that I put this Amendment down knowing very little about the High Court and how it works. I recognize now that my Amendment will not do. What I really want to provide for is that there shall be a rehearing of the case, and I have not said so in my Amendment. I understand that a Judge of the High Court may be very competent in regard to dealing with cases of law, but he is not inclined or does not wish to deal with cases of fact. What I want to deal with are cases of fact. I recognize that there is another method of doing this. It might be that it would be better to have a separate court to deal with all these cases rather than an agricultural land tribunal. Under the Bill—and still more if some of your Lordships' Amendments are accepted—there are a whole series of appeals that may be made to this agricultural land tribunal. For a great many of these cases I think rough and ready justice will do, but I submit that it will not do in regard to questions of dispossession. They are too serious and, therefore, I think you must have some separate court or some separate method for them. I might have covered it by saying that the agricultural land tribunals should have specific terms of procedure, as my noble friend in charge of the Bill proposes for the arbitrations, and that that should be put into the Bill. But you do not want it for all these other cases. For these other cases you do not necessarily want to be able to summon witnesses to have them put upon oath and cross-examined. But I submit you do want to have that kind of thing done in regard to disposses- sion. It has been suggested that I might redraft this Amendment in this way: Any person if dissatisfied with such report "— that is to say, the report made to the agricultural land tribunal— may within twenty-eight days lodge an appeal to the High Court for a rehearing. Rules of Court shall be made providing for such rehearing including provision for assessors. That is one way of dealing with it. Another way would be to deal with it in regard to the procedure, but there again I do not want to burden these tribunals with too difficult a procedure for the ordinary cases. Therefore I am in this dilemma; I have either got to provide for an appeal from the ordinary land tribunals to some sort of court, or have a different kind of procedure for all land tribunals, whatever the cases are.

I have, I am sorry to say, spoken at considerable length, really to develop the general principle. I recognize that my Amendment will not do, and I do not propose to press it. But I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the subject, and to see that a court is set up which shall deal with this very important matter in a proper legal way, with proper witnesses, cross examination, and so forth, and dealt with as law courts are accustomed to deal with their business. I am certain that it is no use our talking about the liberty of the subject, when clauses like this are put into Bills which provide that the Minister and his officials shall be put outside the Courts of Justice of this country. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Stanhope.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I should like to make it clear that I did not mean to suggest that I thought dispossession was less important than supervision. What I suggested was, that an appeal against dispossession was even more important than an appeal against supervision. Dispossession is a more important matter, for the individual landowner's or farmer's career is ended for good and all by dispossession, and it may be that he will lose his home and his money. I hope that the underlying principle of this Amendment will receive very sympathetic consideration from His Majesty's Government.

I foresee the difficulty that the county committees—and I have had considerable experience of them, having had dealings with six of them—work in very different ways. They generally work very well, but they have very different views. Sometimes they are prejudiced with regard to what is or is not good management. I knew of a case of what was called bad management in one county which might, quite easily, in some other county have been overlooked altogether, or, indeed, almost commended. In the same way, with your agricultural land tribunals you are liable to get a certain variation, a certain inconsistency, because of the varying nature of the personnel and experience of the individuals who compose the tribunal. If there were some means of appeal to a properly constituted court, where the whole matter could be considered without any prejudice and in a proper legal form, I think it would create a confidence which is not there yet and may well never grow because of the variety of agricultural land tribunals and the differing views of the various agricultural committees.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I should like to support the principle of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. Before every election, and indeed, upon every public platform, people go about talking of our "hard-won liberties" and dating them from Magna Charta. As soon as the election is over they then immediately go and dissipate all the hard-won efforts that have grown from Magna Charta.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If I thought that there was a question of our liberties being trodden under foot, as the noble Earl has suggested, I would undoubtedy feel more sympathetic towards this Amendment than I do; but as I think no such thing, I will tell your Lordships how this Amendment strikes me. I have said before that I have an immense admiration for the work done by His Majesty's Judges, but human nature is frail and we are bound to make mistakes. Yet I believe that our judicial system is about as good as any system you can construct. Mistakes have been made and will continue to be made by human institutions, but on the whole we have cause to be very thankful for the work of our Judges.

But I would like to differentiate at once between two different considerations; the consideration of law, and the consideration of fact. At one time in my life it used to be necessary for me to go down to the London Corn Exchange a good deal for arbitrations on the sales of cargoes of grain. There was often some controversy as to the construction of a charter party or something of that kind. There were a vast number of arbitrators. Grain sold from The Plate to Europe generally used to provide for an arbitration clause for the London Corn Trade. The way these men worked was that two or three experts would go up and take the corn in their hands, "mess it about" a bit and say: "I think there ought to be an allowance of sixpence" or something of that kind. The thing was over in five minutes.

Imagine a case like that being tried by a Judge. You would have to have expert witnesses and you could be certain that the expert witnesses on one side would be countered by those on the other side, and the unhappy Judge would have to chance his arm and try to say which were the best of the expert witnesses. That is an extreme case, but perhaps I may give it as an illustration. Obviously the practical man is the better; and if a practical man may make mistakes he is less likely to make mistakes than the Judge in a case like that. I am certain that arbitration would be much cheaper and speedier than a law suit.

As regards practical farming, so far as there is any law in this at all, it is quite plain that the matter can go before the courts. Clause 16 refers to the fact that this is to be done "in accordance with the provisions of this Act" and Clause 92 makes it plain that purchase of land shall be "in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act of 1946." Part IV of the First Schedule of the 1946 Act makes it quite plain that the court has complete control over any legal question or consideration at all. So that we are not trying to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts or to say that the Courts are not to have control. The Court has complete control. But then you have this question: Is this farm being farmed well or not? Under this tribunal there will be three members. I appoint one, and I assure your Lordships that I shall try to find a thoroughly competent lawyer who is a countryman, who knows the difference between wheat and barley. There are a number of distinguished lawyers who know a good deal about these things. The Minister appoints the other two, and rules have to be made —and do not forget, my Lords, that these rules have to be laid before Parliament. This is in Clause 73. So that I really think Parliament has a pretty good control over this thing.

In regard to an appeal, the noble Earl himself realizes that that is not the right idea because, where you have got practical men, very often these people would go to see the farm, and seeing is worth a lot of evidence in this sort of case. You go and look at it yourself, if you are a practical man. Then by all means, and if the rules provide, and I think they should provide, for a proper hearing where a witness is called, you have the evidence, and you can follow it much more easily if you have seen what they are talking about. You can have a witness examined and cross-examined. The rules will almost certainly provide for this sort of thing, and those rules will be laid before Parliament. I do not believe that you would get any nearer the truth by taking this thing away from that very eminently practical tribunal to the Judges and to the atmosphere of the expert witness. The Judge would undoubtedly do his best, and the matter might go to the Court of Appeal, and it might come to your Lordships' House. I am sure we should do the best we could, but I very much doubt if we should be able to do as well as a practical man who had gone down there and spent a day walking round that farm.

I quite agree that this is a serious matter, and it is not a thing which wants to be done lightly or ill-advisedly, yet I ask your Lordships to agree with me about this, that so long as the Courts have complete control of the matter so far as the legal side is concerned, on the pure question of fact—Aye or No, is this farm being efficiently farmed?—I believe that it would be better to trust to this tribunal, who will have a chance of investigating for themselves, rather than to bring this matter up to the Courts, and for the Courts, although they would do the best they could, to decide, as it were at secondhand, on the basis of evidence which other people give them, without an opportunity of looking at the matter for them- selves. Whatever the tribunal may be, be it a Court or an agricultural tribunal, any tribunal ought to be slow to dispossess a man of his property. But, on the other hand, in the times in which we live, we all agree that we must see that farming is adequate and good, and it would be wrong to make people hesitate about taking this decision for fear of the fact that they were going to be afterwards brought up and held up to execration, for a time at any rate, in the Law Courts. Therefore, I honestly believe that it would be better to leave this thing where we have got it, for the reasons I have given.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I would like to ask one question which does arise on this clause which deals with dispossession on the grounds of had estate management. It is a question which I raised on Second Reading, and which concerns the personnel that the committees are to use for making the estimates in these cases. I feel that they should have, not only amongst their own members but in a position to advise them, people who have special training and experience in the management of land. The lack of any provision of that kind in the Bill may make many of your Lordships feel a little bit nervous about the actual decisions of the committees and, following them, the tribunal themselves. It is a question of fact more than the legal situation which I would not dare to speak about after the noble and learned Viscount has spoken. But I. think there is some room for anxiety as to the actual facts, opinions and experience, on which these judgments will be based, and I, for one, would feel a good deal more certain about this part of the Bill if there was some prevision, perhaps at a later stage, to say what the opinions and advice were to be on which both the directions for estate management and orders for dispossession were based.

The orders and so on for bad husbandry are, as is well known, well supported by a large number of practical farmers who are able to help on this. There is not only the constitution of the tribunal themselves, but the committee as well who will largely be composed of farmers, so I think it is a little bit different, and I hope that we may get some idea of the intentions of the Government in administering this part of the Bill. Clause 74, was mentioned, I think, by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. There again there is a point which has some bearing, because under subsection (2) the tribunal shall determine: (a) whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking the action are fulfilled. That seems to indicate that the Minister must have followed out the instructions in the Bill. He must have done what the Bill said he was to do, and, of course, it would be quite easy for that to be done through a series of formal proceedings. But the point is whether in this connexion paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Clause 74 means that the judgment of the Minister's officers must be right. It says: whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph, and to all the circumstances of the case, the Minister should or should not take the action proposed. If that means that the tribunal must be satisfied that the Minister, through his advisers, has, in fact, made a right judgment, it seems to me to have a considerable effect on the reception which the decision of the tribunal will have. But if, on the other hand, it means that the tribunal should say, that generally speaking, the Minister might just as well take the action proposed without giving an opportunity for the tribunal themselves to express their opinion, I think it would carry less weight. I do not think there is any Amendment down on either of those two points, and I would very much like to know what is the Government's interpretation of them.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

One point occurs to me that I should like to ask on this dispossession matter. Supposing a man is dispossesed of his farm, and the man who is put in afterwards can do no better because the land will produce no better, is there any right or chance —I can find nothing in the Bill at the moment—for the dispossessed man to claim reinstitution?

EARL STANHOPE

Perhaps I might raise another conundrum for the noble Lord to answer. I agree very largely in regard to his idea that the tribunal may be a better method than an appeal to a Judge of the High Court; but there was another point which I raised, which I thought he perhaps rather evaded answering, which was whether he was satisfied that this tribunal, as described in the Bill, will be able to look at this matter from a proper legal point of view, and whether they will be able to summon witnesses and all the rest of it. The noble and learned Viscount says that there are rules of procedure which Parliament has to agree, but when he looks at the clause to which I refer he may say: "That is all very well. There is a limitation under this Bill, which has now become an Act, and, therefore, it is no good talking about rules of procedure. All that they have to do is what is laid down in the Act."

An exact case illustrating my point happened very recently, which I believe came before the Lord Chief Justice. There it was merely a question of the Lord Chief Justice saying, "I have not got to try what are the facts of this case. All I have to decide is whether the Minister carried out the procedure which is laid down by law. That he did, and I am not concerned whether he is right or wrong." From the evidence in this case I say, entirely on my own responsibility, that it looked very much as if the Lord Chief Justice, if he had had the opportunity, would have said that the Minister was wrong. But the noble and learned Viscount must realize what may happen if you get a limitation of the kind made in Clause 74, subsection (2). The question arises whether any rules of procedure that you make are going to cover the point and whether you ought not to have some kind of appeal over the land tribunal. I agree that the legal side is safeguarded, but I am not satisfied that justice will always be done to the unfortunate farmer or owner-occupier who may be dispossessed because officials have got the wrong idea.

[The sitting was suspended at three minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I was asked a series of questions, and I will do my best to remember what they were. I have not consciously, either now or on a previous occasion, avoided dealing with any of them, but sometimes one forgets something amid the multiplicity of questions which one is asked. First, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked me what happens supposing, having dispossessed a man and put in someone else who is a very good farmer, you discover that the state of things is no better than it was at first, and you ultimately draw the conclusion that it is the fault of the land and not the farmer. The noble Earl pointed out that there is nothing in the Bill about that. I am afraid that is true, and all I can say is that it would be just too bad. If it should ever happen that someone is hanged for murder and it turned out afterwards that he was innocent (it never has happened, so far as I know), well that would be just too bad. You could canonize him or something of that sort, but there would be nothing else to be done. No doubt if what the noble Earl has suggested did happen, we should remember that the farmer had had a very rough deal, and I am afraid that is all.

The noble Viscount Lord Ridley asked what is the position about the Tribunal. What exactly is it that they have to decide? He will find that the matter is really dealt with in Clause 74. At the top of page 63 your Lordships will read this: On any such reference the Tribunal shall determine—

1. (a) whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking action are fulfilled."

Your Lordships will remember that there are numerous clauses which begin: "If the Minister is satisfied that this, that or the other." The tribunal have to look to see if the Minister ought to have been satisfied. Then the next paragraph, paragraph (b), reads: whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph and to all the circumstances of the case, the Minister should or should not take the action proposed. That would cover cases like this. Suppose that there has been neglect but that the unfortunate farmer, over a period of time, maybe over a period of years, has had some illness from which he has now recovered. The tribunal might well say: "It is true the conditions were fulfilled. The place had been let down, but it was due to hard luck on the farmer's part. He is all right now, and there is no reason to suspect that the neglect will go on." They can report to the Minister, and it is laid down in subsection (4) of clause 74 that: Where such a reference is duly required the Minister shall act in accordance with the report of the Tribunal and not otherwise. So he is bound to do what the tribunal tell him. I think that has answered the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and that it shows quite plainly that, even more than he realizes, the tribunal have a function to perform which he said would be satisfactory.

Then the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, asked me some candid questions as to whether I should be satisfied about certain things. I should not be satisfied unless the tribunal, in a case of this sort, dealing with dispossession, had, at the request of any party to it, the right and indeed the obligation to hear evidence in the proper way, evidence formally given and tendered, and to see that that evidence was cross-examined, because evidence in chief is of no value unless it is tested by cross-examination—so far the provisions are in the Bill—and, I think I would add, to see that in proper cases they have the right to subpoena witnesses. I do not pose as an expert. I must be cautious about saying this—I have not, indeed, read it through—but if these words are not in the Bill, I shall use my influence to see that they are included, either in the Bill, if that is necessary, or in the rules. I hope that that satisfies the noble Earl and gives him the answer he requires. I should not be satisfied unless in a matter of importance like dispossession there were procedure for taking solemn and serious steps on such a serious question.

EARL STANHOPE

I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for what he said. I do not think the words are in the Bill. I am out to ensure, as I think is the noble and learned Viscount, that the tribunals shall act judicially. I think we shall have to consider on the next stage whether something like that shall be put in the Bill, and not merely left to rules of procedure. I recognize that the Amendment I have put down will not do, and in view of what the noble Viscount has said I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "twelve months" and insert "three years." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one on which I know the argument may be advanced that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: in other words, that a man under supervision for bad farming has a mimimum of twelve months and therefore it is right that a man under supervision for bad ownership should have a minimum of twelve months under supervision before his case is reviewed. I am perhaps rather like Doctor Johnson. I feel that "gastronomy is a particular care of myself." I feel that sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander, if I interpret the proverb correctly, is not quite correct. It is really sauce for the goose and sauce for the vegetables!

There are two entirely different points in actual fact, if not in appearance. It is quite possible to get a fair idea of what a man who is under supervision for bad farming may do to correct himself in the course of twelve months, but so far as the landowner is concerned there are a hundred and one other considerations, of which I have no doubt the noble Lord who will answer is fully aware, such as inability to get the necessary materials in time; or, if you have the necessary materials, you cannot get a licence to use them in time. There is not only the use of materials to demonstrate that one is fulfilling a certain programme; there may be the fact that, while you are under supervision, there has been a bad storm which has taken tiles off half a dozen different farms and by putting men on this work you have had to neglect the farm under supervision. It is that particular sort of point which makes it impossible to judge in twelve months whether the owner is fulfilling his duty in a proper way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 32, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("three years'').—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I do not for a moment suggest that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this case, because obviously the two cases are completely different, in what is to be done, the length of time required, and in various other considerations. I would like to point out to your Lordships, however, that the essential thing in this particular clause is that twelve months is the minimum. I think it is clearly put under subsection (7) of the clause, where it says: "No certificate under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be given before the expiration of twelve months." I think that makes it clear that it is a minimum period.

The reason why we use the same period of twelve months for estate management and farming is that, although in many cases it would be obvious that a landlord might need a good deal longer than twelve months to improve his estate, there might well be cases where it was quite obvious to the committee that he was an utterly incompetent landlord, or a landlord in such financial straits that clearly he could not even start putting his estate in order. In those extreme cases, I think it would be a great mistake to allow the estate to go on for three years before taking steps for dispossession. I would point out that probably in normal circumstances we would give a great deal longer than twelve months, but we do wish to have the power in extreme cases to be able to take proceedings in that time. With those assurances, I hope the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL DE LA WARR

With a good deal of what the noble Earl has said it is hard to disagree. One can quite see that there may be cases in which certain instructions should be carried out in twelve months. Perhaps the noble Earl could help us, though, if he inserted in the Bill something to make it clear that twelve months is in fact a minimum. He said that it is clear in the Bill as at present drafted, but I am not quite sure that that is so. If the noble Earl can tell us that before Report he will think up a form of words that will make it quite clear that twelve months is a minimum; it will help a great deal, and will give a considerable amount of reassurance.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I still think that it is very clear in the Bill, but if noble Lords feel that it is not, and would like some form of words to make it absolutely clear that twelve months is the minimum, I will be happy to consider it and put down a form of words on the Report stage.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I thank the noble Earl for that assurance, which makes me feel easier. I do think it is necessary that it should be quite clear to all future Ministers of Agriculture, of whatever colour they may be, that they have to consider the matter in the light of reality, and not in the light of what is printed in the Bill now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

8.43 p.m.

CLAUSE:17.—(Dispossession on grounds of bad husbandry.)

EARL BEATTY

In view of the acceptance of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan to Clause 16, the next Amendment in my name becomes consequential, and I presume that the Government will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 36, at end insert ("and of the grounds upon which the Minister is satisfied that the farming of the said land does not show satisfactory improvement").—(Earl Beatty.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I should like to say that we shall be happy to accept the Amendment in principle, but it will require slight alteration in drafting, if the noble Lord will agree.

EARL BEATTY

I will be glad to accept that, and withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE had given Notice that he would move to insert after snip-section (3): (4) Any person may within twenty-eight days of receiving the report of an Agricultural Land Tribunal lodge an appeal to the High Court. The noble Earl said: This is a similar Amendment to the one which I moved on the previous clause. I do not propose to repeat the arguments which I used on the previous Amendment, although they do apply, and I will not move this Amendment.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 20:

Service of notices on agents.

20.—(1) Without prejudice to the general provisions of Part V of this Act as to the service of notices, any notice required or authorised to be served on an owner or occupier by the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the making of supervision orders and the giving of directions shall, where an agent or servant of the owner or occupier is responsible for the control of the management or farming, as the case may be, of the land in question, be duly served if served on that agent or servant.

8.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH in subsection (1), moved, to insert at the end: provided that where the cost of a direction to provide, improve, maintain or repair fixed equipment is more than one-half of the net annual value of the agricultural unit or where a direction required that the management of land to which the direction related shall be entrusted to any person the notice shall in addition be served on the owner.

The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Radnor. It may seem at first sight that this is not at all an important point, and it would not be an important point if this were an ideal world in which land agents, who had been appointed a good many years ago, carried on until their dying day exactly as they did for the master who appointed them. It may very easily be argued that no landowner worth his salt will have appointed a land agent who would not automatically keep him informed of the events with which this Amendment deals—namely, of major alterations, costing more than half the net annual value of the agricultural unit, or a direction requiring that the management of land shall be entrusted to any person.

As a trustee and in connexion with long and varied jobs related to the land, I have very often seen agents who, not quite realizing what they were doing, accepted responsibilities which were indeed the landowner's responsibilities, without informing the landowner until the time was rather too late. May I take two obvious instances in which this might apply? There may be a man who has been an agent to a tenant for life for a good many years. The succeeding tenant for life is either a minor just about to come of age and knowing very little for the time being, or is a woman who again knows very little. The agent may think that he knows all and it is not worth while consulting the owner in question, and therefore it is too late before the owner learns what has happened. That is the case of the inexperienced owner. Another case, which I think is even more important, is the case of the young owner who may nave gone abroad. Again the agent has not kept him informed, because he thinks he knows so much better than anyone else.

I am aware that the drafting of this Amendment may present considerable difficulty in that the words in the last line, "served on the owner," come into consideration. It is my own view that "served" is the wrong word and that it inadvertently crept in there. In the case of an owner who is abroad it would especially involve considerable difficulty. However, I think it of very great importance that an owner should be posted with the results of these findings. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 39, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, who moved this Amendment put his finger on what is perhaps the most difficult feature of it when he pointed out that it requires that notice should be served on the owner. In the event of an agent managing a property the owner of that property might well be abroad, and as the noble Earl admitted it would be difficult to serve the notice upon him. It might even be impossible. At least it might take a long time and would defeat the object in view. That is the main reason why I suggest that this Amendment is not an acceptable one. But there are two other points. It has been suggested that an agent is not responsible if he has been installed by the owner of the estate. One would readily admit that there are many cases, unfortunately, of agents who have turned out to be not only unsatisfactory but in some cases fraudulent, and who have involved their employers in much trouble and loss. But as regards the legal side, it would lead to many complications if we did not accept that the agent was chosen and installed by the owner to be responsible for the estate. I think we must insist that that is the man who must be regarded by the Government as the responsible person.

The other point is that if we tried to get round the question of serving, which is a very difficult one, by posting, a letter sent to the agent for forwarding would, if he were an incompetent or fraudulent agent, probably not be forwarded and one would not be much better off. In all these circumstances I should be glad if the noble Lord would withdraw this Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

This is one of the Amendments which show the difficulty that we get into when we interfere with the ordinary work as between man and man and the ordinary organization of an industry, in this case the agricultural industry. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said on the difficulties of the owner of land in appointing an agent who is responsible for his actions. But if the noble Earl will look at the last part of the Amendment, he will see that it deals with cases where the Ministry are going to insist on someone else running the property. The Ministry are going to serve the agent with notice and say that he is sacked and that someone else is taking his place. Is it not right, in the circumstances, to serve that notice also on the owner of the property? Is it not only human to expect that the agent who is sacked in that summary fashion will probably not communicate the subject matter of his sacking to his principal? This is a human question as much as anything else. In these circumstances, is it not unfair on the unfortunate agent who is going to be so disposed of, not to serve the notice on the owner, even if it were fair on the owner to be told that someone else has taken his right out of his hand and is sacking his agent? That is the important part of this particular Amendment.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The noble Earl has not dealt with the most difficult point, which is that of serving the notice. It is not so much the principle of letting the owner know—we should be only too glad if he did know. Unless the owner is very far away, which of course might well be the case, he is almost bound to get to hear of it. I do not see the agent's motive in not letting him know if he were going to be sacked anyway. The fundamental difficulty is the serving of the notice, which might be quite impracticable and hold up the proceedings.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Here we get to a fundamental difference of opinion. His Majesty's Government are proposing to pass laws which they find are against justice, and if they are going to do justice they cannot carry out the laws. Which are they going to do? Are they going to do justice, or are they going to pass laws which are against justice, in order that their machinery may work properly?

EARL STANHOPE

If an owner is abroad, or cannot be got at, he must have given a power of attorney to somebody else. Why should not the notice be given to whoever holds that power of attorney, almost certainly not the agent?

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

Surely the point would be met if after the words "in addition" there were inserted the words "where practicable," so that it would read: "and in addition where practicable be served on the owner."

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I think that suggestion is a very valuable one, and, if the noble Lord will agree, I will look into that before the Report stage. I think it is quite a possibility, but I cannot go so far as to say that I can accept it now.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I am very grateful to my noble friend, Viscount Bledisloe, for making the point which has led the noble Earl into a more receptive frame of mind about accepting it. It is difficult to get justice in administration but, because that is so, there is no reason why you should not try; and after all, if, as I originally suggested, a notice posted to an owner went sometimes through a recalcitrant agent as a forwarding agent, that is not so every time. It is a matter of luck which you get in the rub of events. Merely because it may go through the agent is no reason for not posting it, when the odds are perhaps that it goes through the agent 25 times out of 100, and that 75 times out of a 100 it passes through a bank or somebody else who may forward it on. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21:

Interpretation of references in Part II to "owner" and "manager."

(3) References in this Part of this Act to the person by whom land is being managed shall be construed, where the management is under the control of an agent or servant, as references to the person by whom the agent or servant is employed.

LORD CHORLEY moved, to leave out subsection (3) and to insert as a new subsection: (3) Any question arising under this Part of this Act whether two parcels of land are being managed by the same person shall be determined, if the management of either or both of the parcels is under the control of an agent or servant, by reference to the person by whom the agent or servant is employed and not by reference to the agent or servant. The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this, Amendment. It is a mere drafting Amendment, in order to put into better shape the clause as it stands in the Bill. A promise was given in another place by the Solicitor-General, and I accordingly beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 29, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

Compensation to tenant for improvements, etc.

(2) The Minister may by order vary the provisions of the Third and Fourth Schedules to this Act, and an order under this section may make such provision as to the operation of this Part of this Act and the said Schedules in relation to tenancies current when the order takes effect as appears to the Minister to be just having regard to the variation of the said Schedules effected by the order.

An order under this subsection shall be of no effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (2), after "may" where that word first occurs, to insert: "after consultation with such bodies of persons as appear to him to represent the interests of landlords and tenants of holdings." The noble Lord said: This subsection deals with orders to vary the Previsions of the Third and Fourth Schedules of this Bill which I think your Lordships will agree will materially affect the relationship between landowners and tenants. The object of this Amendment is merely to put into the Bill an assurance which was given during Committee stage in another place, that there would in all cases be such consultation. Though there is no doubt whatever that this assurance will be honoured to the full, I think that many of those who are most concerned think that something on these lines should be inserted in the Bill. The objection was that the inclusion of these words would limit the power of the Minister to consult other bodies, such as land agents and valuers. The words in this Amendment are, however, those used in Clause 37, subsection (I), when the Minster has to make regulations for the terms of liability to maintenance and repair. If the noble Earl will agree to put something in the Bill later, but feels that these words might be too limiting, I would have no objection if the noble Lord would include something on the lines of the words in Clause 25, subsection (2), which would include also land agents and valuers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 10, after ("may") insert the said words.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD MORRISON

I have been asked to reply to this Amendment which the noble Lord has stated very fairly and clearly. It is true that objection was taken in another place to accepting this Amendment, and a statement was made which I am quite prepared to repeat. The noble Lord quite rightly asked: Why not put it in the Bill? An assurance was given in another place that the effect of putting in the Amendment might be to prevent other classes of people who it was desirable should be consulted from being consulted—land agents, surveyors and valuers for example. But there is another reason. If a specific mention of consultation is made in this clause, a similar provision will be necessary in many other clauses when action by the Minister should obviously be preceded by consultation with the interests concerned. It is the intention to consult the different sections of the industry on all matters where their interests are concerned. I am sure that this course will be followed not only by the present Minister but by all future Ministers, of all political Parties. In point of fact, as the noble Lord probably knows, before this Bill reached its present stage extensive consultations took place with all interests likely to be concerned. The noble Lord has suggested that perhaps words might be introduced in a later clause to cover that. That is a new suggestion, so far as I am concerned, and I am quite prepared to consider whether anything can be done in that connexion. On this particular clause, I hope the noble Lord will not desire to press the matter.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I think I said "at a later date" and not "in a later clause;"

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

Before the noble Lord decides what he is going to do on the Amendment, I would like to say, if I could have the attention of the noble Lord opposite, that I found his reply rather hard to follow. There seems to be a difference between this question here and some other instances that he brought up. The difference is this. Here you have a case where the landlord and the tenant, whose terms of agreement can be varied by these orders, are two parties to the agreement. The land agents and valuers and other people may be experts, but they are not parties to the agreement between landlord and tenant and, therefore, in this matter they should have a very special status, as should all associations representing landlords and tenants There are plenty of other occasions in the Bill where the Minister has a duty to consult, but I think that those are all general cases where the industry as a whole is being consulted. This is a case where the Government are being asked to make provisions in the Bill for consulting the representatives of the two contracting parties to the agreement which it is desired to vary. Therefore, I hope the matter can have a little further consideration.

EARL DE LA WARR

I hope we can persuade the noble Lord to reconsider this point. We have had an assurance that in fact this will be done, so perhaps it would be better if it were in the Bill.

LORD MORRISON

There is no difference of opinion as to its desirability. The, only difference of opinion is as to whether it should be in the Bill or whether it should not. I am prepared to say, as I indicated to Lord Amherst of Hackney, that we will consider at a later stage—at any rate on the Report stage—whether it should be inserted in the Bill.

VISCOUNT SIMON

May I just point out to the noble Lord, not as one who takes part in the discussion as an agricultural expert, but merely as one who is accustomed to reading words in Acts of Parliament, that really the objection he raises—with all respect to him—seems to me to be quite illfounded. If these words were put in here the result would be that in this connexion the Minister would be under the duty to consult the persons mentioned. He would be under the duty; it would be in the Statute. With great respect to the noble Lord and those who advise him, this has nothing in the world to do with whether the Minister chooses in other cases to consult people or not. The two things have nothing to do with one another. If it is desired in this clause to say that it is the duty of the Minister to consult, that does not affect his view as to whether it would be right to consult in other cases. Therefore I hope that on reflection it will be felt that the argument which has been presented in support of this should be given its proper force. The Minister's power to consult is not affected at all by putting in the words which it is sought to insert in this clause.

LORD MORRISON

I can only say in reply to the noble and learned Viscount that we are quite agreeable that consultations should take place between now and the Report stage in order to see if words can be devised which will make that plain.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I intervene to ask the Government if they will accept this Amendment? We are not wedded to this wording particularly. It is clearly the right thing to do. The Amendment only asks the Minister to consult; it does not bind the Minister in any way. It is clearly right that he should consult. If it is thought that the wording is not the best that can be devised for the purpose it can be reconsidered and put right in the Report stage.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, authorizes me to say that he is prepared to accept that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I thank the noble Earl very much.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I also thank him sincerely.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24:

Consent of landlord or approval of Minister required for long-term improvements.

(2) Where, in the case of any improvement specified in Part II of the said Third Schedule, a tenant is aggrieved by the refusal of his landlord to give his consent under the last foregoing subsection, or is unwilling to agree to any terms subject to which the landlord is prepared to give his consent, the tenant may, after giving notice in writing to the landlord of his intention so to do, apply to the Minister for approval of the carrying out of the improvement, and on any such application—

1. (a) the Minister may, after affording to the tenant and to the landlord an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, approve the carrying out of the improvement, either unconditionally or upon such terms, whether as to reduction of the compensation which would be payable if the Minister approved unconditionally or as to other matters, as appear to the Minister to be just, or may withhold his approval, and in either case forthwith after coming to a decision on the application shall notify his decision to the landlord and to the tenant;

9.8 p.m.

MARQUESS TOWNSHEND moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after the third. "Minister" to insert "give notice to the landlord that he proposes to." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment links up with the one following it on the Order paper, and I think that with the leave of the Committee it should be taken with it. I therefore beg leave formally to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 22, after ("Minister") insert ("give notice to the landlord that he proposes to'').—(The Marquess of Townshend.)

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND had given Notice that he would move, at the end of the clause, to 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 noble Duke said: The Amendment which stands in my name and that of Lord Portsmouth seeks to provide for an appeal to the land tribunal where the Minister desires to override a landlord's objection to a Third Schedule, Part II, improvement, as he has power to do under subsection (2). The improvements under Part II of the Third Schedule could very easily alter the character of a holding. Part II of the Third Schedule deals with the erection of buildings, the renewal of fences and the making of roads. All these are large improvements and we consider it is of vital importance to the owner that in a dispute on this matter he should be given the right to appeal to the independent land tribunal. It may ultimately also impose on the owner a considerable expenditure. In similar circumstances an appeal to the indepedent land tribunal is actually allowed in the Bill, and therefore I feel there should be no great objection to the Amendment. Under Clause 24 (2), paragraph (a), the Minister has the power to override the owner if he refuses permission. In actual fact it will possibly not be the Minister who does the judging, but an officer of the agricultural committee. I consider that the landowner is far more likely to be able to judge whether this extensive improvement should be allowed on that farm or not. He is far more likely to judge fairly than is an officer of the agricultural committee. It is elementary justice that the landowner should in disputes such as this, be given the right of appeal to the land tribunal. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

With the permission of the Committee, I will speak on these two Amendments together. The noble Duke said that the landlord would be a better judge of whether these improvements should be allowed than possibly the Minister's agent. Perhaps the good landlord would, but unfortunately not all landlords are good landlords, and not all of them would be good judges. But the real difference of opinion on this Amendment is the question of the amount in value of the improvements made or the buildings put up, not by the landlord but by the tenant. If a tenant puts up the buildings, the landlord is forced to pay compensation, and when he rents them to another tenant the question is, can the landlord charge the tenant an additional rent to reimburse him for the compensation he has paid? I submit to your Lordships that he undoubtedly can. He can put up the rent accordingly, and, if there should be any difference of opinion on that, he can take it to arbitration. I do not think the landlord suffers any great risk. These improvements will be sanctioned by a responsible agricultural committee, and when they are carried out the landlord may benefit by an increased rent.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

This again is the problem we were discussing in another form about two hours ago, as to whether structures can be erected on land which may entirely alter the character of a holding and the landlord be bound ultimately either to pay compensation which in the light of subsequent occupation may not be justified, or actually lose all advantage of the so-called improvement. You are establishing impliedly a dual ownership, and in the light of past history, particularly in regard to Irish history, I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate than establishing a dual ownership, especially in a so-called improvement which in the long run may turn out not to be an improvement at all. In other words, as has already been argued in this House this afternoon on a previous clause, these erections and so-called improvements may so alter the character of the holding that in the hands of a subsequent tenant they may not prove to be an improvement at all.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I admit the noble Viscount's point, that in the hands of a subsequent tenant they might not be what he wants. I think the person who stands to lose in that case is the tenant. He obtains permission to make the improvements, and carries them out; but when he demands compensation the arbitrator says, "No. This was a special idea of yours, but the works do not necessarily increase the value of the holding. Therefore, you will not receive compensation." I think it is the tenant who loses through his own misguided conception, and not the landlord.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, the danger of dual ownership is very real. But, apart from that, can we always be certain that even if you ask for an arbitration you will get anything more than a purely ephemeral arbitration? I have known people go to arbitration about water meadows, and I have known the arbitrator to reduce the rent as the water meadows had not been kept up by the tenant, because, he said, water meadows had gone out of fashion—or words to that effect. That can happen again and again. This Amendment may not be quite rightly drawn, but I would like to have some sort of safeguard that where there is any very substantial improvement being put up by the tenant, against the owner's wishes but with the Minister's consent, there should be some hearing upon which it could go to arbitration.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

There are one or two points in the answer of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, on which I am not clear. One was that he said, in the event of such an improvement and the payment of compensation by the landlord to the tenant, if the tenant went out and a new tenant came in the landlord could put up the rent by going to arbitration. That is not what happens. If a farm is vacant it is let at whatever rent it will fetch. It is no good saying that the rent is up so much, when no one will pay that amount. It is not the usual thing to go to arbitration soon after letting a farm, and it is not likely that the rent would be increased beyond that accepted a short time ago. The noble Earl also said that in such a case the tenant would be likely to suffer, as he would not be awarded the costs of his compensation under the terms of the arbitration.

I think it is implied in the Third and Fourth Schedules, and also in other parts of the Bill, that those are matters for which the tenant is entitled to compensation in the same way as in similar matters under the 1923 Act. And I would assume that the arbitrator deciding that compensation must give him the cost of these improvements, less, of course, the depreciation for the number of years it may be reduced. Those various difficulties seem to show that there is something missing in this. It is clear that the Third and Fourth Schedules make a considerable difference to the terms upon which tenancies are operated. Although such an order as we are speaking of must be laid before Parliament before being confirmed, it is a thing that should be thoroughly threshed out among all the parties interestd.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we must ask the noble Earl if he will reconsider this matter. He appears to find it difficult to realize that the landlord has to take a very long-term view on a question such as this—a much longer view than the tenant. It may be, for instance, that a new agricultural idea has about ten years' currency. Take something that I happen to be very keen about at the moment, the grass driers. It is probable that if a tenant said he wished to erect buildings for a grass drier the permission might well be granted, because there are many others who feel about the subject as I do. But it is quite possible that there may be new ideas coming along which will prove us wrong and make it possible to deal with the drying of grass in a much cheaper manner than at the present time. It may be that the tenant who has erected this building may see the red light just a little ahead of public opinion. He gets his future value out of the landlord, and in about two or three years the local agent has that farm vacant and has to face the problem of letting that farm with nobody believing in that particular system. Therefore all that capital is standing out against him, and he will receive no return.

I suggest to the noble Earl, therefore, that he should look at this carefully, and in connexion with our Amendments to the Third Schedule. There are many noble Lords who think that we should in fact move the word "erection" (on page 93, line 4), and the words in paragraph 12 "making or improvements of roads," from Part II to Part I. We appreciate that there will be negotiations on this point and that it might be difficult, but we feel that if the landlord were given the simple right of appeal—which is all we are asking—to the agricultural land tribunal, then the point might be met.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I have a feeling that there is some misunderstanding between us on this point, and I should like to clear it up before it goes further. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has quoted the question of grass driers.

EARL DE LA WARR

I said, "buildings for grass driers."

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I recognize the point of the noble Earl. He takes a tenant who has an idea for building an elaborate grass drier which may or may not be good. He wishes to put up the buildings and he applies to the Minister for permission to do so. The Minister gives him that permission; a year later the tenant gives notice and the landlord is left with the building for grass drying. The tenant claims compensation and says, "It cost me so many pounds and I had the permission of the Minister to put it up. Therefore you must pay me compensation." But I would suggest to the noble Earl that two points come into the question.

In the first place, one wonders whether the Minister's agent would give permission, because it would be doubtful whether such an extensive addition of that kind would be permitted. He would be more likely to let the tenant do it at his own expense. But suppose that that is the question; what is the final result of it all? When the compensation is demanded by the tenant from the landlord the question will be, not whether that tenant enjoys those advantages but what rent will the incoming tenant pay? In other words, it will be based on the rentable value of the holding; on what is the increase in the rentable value due to the erection of the grass-drying building. If it has been merely a fanciful scheme, there will be no compensation due. I should like us to be clear on that point.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is certainly a moot point. But the position is that the existing tenant makes an improvement and the two people who are jointly responsible for this so-called improvement—and possibly it is a very real improvement—are the tenant and the Minister. Those are the two people concerned. Now the tenant comes in and claims compensation from the landlord. In his first speech to-night the noble Earl suggested that the landlord could unload his responsibility on to the succeeding tenant by charging him an increased rent; but it might not be an improvement that the new tenant wants. Therefore it is very unfair for a landlord—we are looking at this not from the point of view of the landlord, but from the point of view of agriculture as a whole—to put up the rent and unload on the tenant a responsibility which he did not want—a grass drying apparatus, or whatever it may be, which he did not need.

Under the Bill as it stands the only people on whom the obligation lies are the landlord and the succeeding tenant, and the only two people responsible are the original sitting tenant and the Minister. If there is any compensation due, it should lie at their door and not at the door of the other people. That is the point of the Amendment. I think the Government ought to consider the matter further. If the improvements which were put in with the good will of the Minister were real improvements the situation would not arise. Everybody would be satisfied. The new tenant would come in for an increased value only when a "bloomer" has been made and the people who made the "bloomer" are the sitting tenant and the Minister. That is a clear case which the Government ought to consider. I suggest that if the Government are willing to consider that sympathetically the matter might be postponed; otherwise we shall be obliged to press it, because there is obviously an injustice.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The noble Marquess has put the case eloquently and I see his point quite clearly. At the same time I should have thought it was safeguarded. When a legitimate value has been created the landlord does not object to paying compensation for that legitimate value; it is where a mistake has been made that the position arises. And I would have thought that that was covered by Clause 23, which governs the amount of compensation.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is rather hard on the sitting tenant. If the improvement goes wrong, why should he be saddled with the whole responsibility? That is obviously a matter which should go before arbitration or tribunal. I do not want anybody to suffer by this—the sitting tenant, the succeeding tenant, or anybody else.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I do not fully appreciate the noble Marquess's point, but I think it is covered if it is the tenant who blunders. If, however, noble Lords feel very strongly about it, I would be prepared to consider it again before the Report stage, though I cannot commit myself that the Government will accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Perhaps the Government would be prepared to discuss it before the Report stage, otherwise we shall be in a difficulty to know whether to put it down or not.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Certainly.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Would the Government be willing to put it in, and then we will consider it?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I would point out to the Leader of the House that no answer has been given to this matter at all—none.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

The only point is the amount of compensation which the landlord would be required to pay, and it relates to the provisions under the preceding part, where the Minister gives consent to the making of these improvements. The amount of compensation under this part of this Act is defined in Clause 23, and the words there are: "having regard to the character and the situation of the holding and the average requirements of tenants." If it is not in accordance with the average requirements of tenants, then the amount of compensation would be trivial or nothing. I think the point is met.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But the sitting tenant has paid something, and it may be a very considerable amount. Who compensates him, if anyone? Under Clause 23 he does not get any compensation. The point is that he has got the approval of the Minister to do this work. The Minister and the Ministry are involved in this.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

May I point this out to the noble Marquess? The tenant has not been directed by the Minister to put up a grass drier. He has said to the Minister, "May I put up this grass drier, which I am convinced is a good thing? "and, if he has made a mistake, surely the tenant should pay the penalty.

EARL DE LA WARR

No. Surely the real trouble is, as I ventured to say before, that the noble Earl will not take a sufficiently long view of this subject. It may be that the sitting tenant gets out while the particular stunt, if I may so term it, is still in vogue, and the landlord will have to pay the full compensation. Then the land is let to a new tenant to whom the landlord is able to pass the land on while the stunt is still proceeding. But that new tenant may go in three years' time—there is nothing to prevent his doing so at twelve months' notice—and then the landlord, having paid the sum in capital compensation to the first tenant, is left with the land which he has to let for a sadly decreased rent, and he will lose the whole amount.

EARL STANHOPE

The Government are taking all sorts of powers to compel owners to do this, that and the other, because they think it is necessary, and now they take away the power from the owner to say "I do not think it is necessary"; they take on the powers of the landowner and say that the thing shall be done. Lord Hastings told us of cases where he put up buildings and matters have not worked out as expected, and he has had to stand the racket. He made a mistake, and he had to grin and bear it; but the Government are going to do these things, and they do not want to grin and bear it.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

There is one matter which I think bears on the noble Marquess's point. Not only will the Minister and the local agricultural committee give their cachet to the improvement, but the valuer himself will be specially influenced by that cachet having been given. He cannot ignore it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do hope that the Government will put this Amendment into effect and then consider the matter further, and we would be very ready to negotiate then if they do not think it is in its proper form. Really, the fact has emerged from this debate—and it is a very significant fact—that, of the four people who might conceivably be responsible, the only person who could not conceivably have to pay is the Minister who has given approval to the scheme! It is impossible for them to unload some of their responsibility on to the Minister. I have no doubt the Government would not accept that that should be done, though I think it would be a very proper course for them to take. The minimum that should be done is that the matter should go to an appeal tribunal, and the one who has the most responsibility should bear the burden. If the Government will not accept that, we shall have to put it in the Bill. We do not do it with a view to inflicting a severe reverse on the Government, but to enable them before the Report stage to consider the matter further. If we do not put it in now, we shall have the Report stage and then a discussion, and we shall be in a difficulty. I suggest to the Committee that we should put this in now, not with a view to defeating the Government, but with a view to giving them a further opportunity for considering the matter.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

There are two points I should like to make. The first is, why does the noble Marquess think that the appeal tribunal, which it is suggested should be used as the machinery here, would he better informed and less likely to fall info error as to what is the fashionable thing to do? Why would they not be influenced the same way as everybody else?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Because the Minister made the original "bloomer"!

LORD HASTINGS

This surely can only be a matter of time. There will be so many of these cases of Ministerial "bloomers" in the many clauses of the Bill, and it will only be a matter of time before a short amending Bill will be introduced to enable them to pass the cost of the "bloomers" on to the Treasury. This will give the appeal tribunal their first and very necessary opportunity, for it is perfectly obvious that there are going to be cases coming before the appeal tribunal in which the appeal tribunal will be in a fix, as Lord Huntingdon says. They will not know who will pay. They will say to the Government of the day, "We cannot possibly saddle any of these parties with these things. Who is going to pay?" Finally, it will be the taxpayer

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 3, at end insert— ("(3) Any person to whom notice of a proposal is given under paragraph (a) of the last

who will pay, and we may just as well start a precedent at once and establish that in the Bill there is an appeal tribunal to see that the "bloomer" is paid for at the right counter. Therefore, I think this should be in the Bill.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

We cannot accept the Amendment, but I will be quite prepared to discuss the point with the noble Lord opposite before the Report stage if he thinks that will serve any useful purpose.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think we had better put it into the Bill. We are very ready, as always, to consider with the Government in a most friendly fashion any way of making the point more generally acceptable, and we do not do it with a view to inflicting a reverse on the Government, but merely for practical reasons.

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.
Rutland, D.	Bridgeman, V.	Hatherton, L. [Teller.]
	Elibank, V.	Hazlerigg, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Hailsham, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Salisbury, M.	Ridley, V.	Llewellin, L.
Townshend, M.	Simon, V.	Lloyd, L.
		Luke, L.
Beatty, E.	Amherst of Hackney, L.	Middleton, L.
De La Warr, E.	Ashburton, L.	Oaksey, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Howe, E.	Belstead, L.	Roche, L.
Onslow, E.	Bingley, L.	Savile, L.
Portsmouth, E.	Carrington, L.	Soulbury, L.
Radnor, E.	Courthope, L.	Teynham, L.
Selborne, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Trevethin, L.
Stanhope, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Tweedsmuir, L.
	Grenfell, L.	Wardington, L.
Bledisloe, V.	Hastings, L.	Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Ammon, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
	Chorley, L.	Marley, L.
Huntingdon, E.	Dukeston, L.	Morrison, L. [Teller.]
	Holden, L.	Rochester, L.
Addison, V.	Kershaw, L.	Shepherd, L.
		Walkden, L. [Teller.]

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 Duke of Rutland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

Reduction of compensation where grant received by tenant.

26. Where any grant out of moneys provided by Parliament has been or will be made to the tenant of a holding in respect of an improvement specified in the Third Schedule to this Act or Part I of the Fourth Schedule thereto, the grant shall be taken into account in assessing compensation under this Part of this Act for the improvement.

9.47 p.m.

LORD SAVILE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: Provided that where the tenant of a holding has refused or failed to apply for any such grant as aforesaid in respect of an improvement to which this section applies the landlord of the holding shall be entitled to apply to the County Agricultural Executive Committee established under Part V of this Act for the County in which the holding or any part thereof is situated to assess the amount of the grant which would have been made to the tenant in respect of the improvement if the conditions precedent to the making of such grant had been fulfilled and the amount so assessed shall be taken into account in assessing compensation under this Part of this Act for the improvement as if a grant of that amount had been or would be made to the tenant in respect thereof. The noble Lord said: My purpose in moving this Amendment is to prevent landowners from being involved in unreasonable expense in the event of a tenant wanting to carry out certain improvements as specified in the Third Schedule and Part I of the Fourth Schedule for which grants are available. Tenants do not always claim grants to which they may be entitled, and they may lose a grant to which they would otherwise be entitled by carrying out works before they actually make a claim. It might also happen that a tenant, through neglect or ignorance, might fail to apply for a grant which would largely cover the expense. The landlord has to foot the bill, whereas it is the tenant's responsibility. The clause as it stands completely shields the tenants from their own shortcomings at the expense of the landlords or the incoming tenants—that is an important point. I hope the Government will change their feelings about this and right a wrong. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Savile.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I think there is a certain substance in the noble Lord's case, but it needs thinking over again. If the noble Lord would accept this, I am quite prepared to discuss it before Report stage with a view to putting something in. I do not commit the Government to accepting it but I will gladly examine it.

LORD SAVILE

In that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28:

Compensation for continuous adoption of special system of farming.

28.—(I) The following provision shall be substituted in Section nine of the Act of 1923 (which provides for compensation to a tenant for increasing the value of a holding by the continuous adoption of a standard of farming or system of farming which has been more beneficial to the holding than the standard or system (if any) required by the contract of tenancy) for so much of subsection (1) of that section as precedes the provisos thereto:— Where the tenant of a holding shows that by the continuous adoption of a system of farming which has been more beneficial to the holding—

1. (i) than the system of farming required by the contract of tenancy, or
2. (ii) in so far as no system of farming is so required, than the system of farming normally practised on comparable holdings,

the value of the holding as a holding has been increased during the tenancy, having regard to the character and situation of the holding and the average requirements of tenants reasonably skilled in husbandry, the tenant shall be entitled, on quitting the holding on the termination of the tenancy, to obtain from the landlord compensation of an amount equal to the increase, and in proviso (c) to the said subsection (1) for the words "value to an incoming tenant" there shall be substituted the words "value of the holding for the purposes of this section".

9.50 p.m.

LORD MORRISON moved to insert after subsection (1): (2) In proviso (a) to the said subsection (1) (which excludes the operation of the section where no record of the condition of the holding has been made, or in respect of matters arising before the date of the record so made) the reference to the said date shall be construed, where more than one such record has been made during the tenancy, as a reference to the date of the first such record. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to clarify the existing provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, with a view to its consolidation with Part III of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am afraid that I do not quite understand the object of this Amendment. The noble Lord was very brief in his explanation. Could he explain a little further what is the object?

LORD MORRISON

What I said was that this Amendment is designed to clairfy the existing provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, with a view to its future consolidation with Part III of the Bill. Section 9 of the 1923 Act, as amended by Clause 28 of the Bill, provides that where a tenant farmer has adopted a special system of farming which has resulted in an over-all increase in the value of a holding he may claim compensation for that increased value on quitting the holding. Under proviso (a) of subsection (1) of Section 9 of the 1923 Act, he is able to claim that compensation only where there is a record of the condition of the holding. This is clearly necessary, as otherwise there would be no datum line from which to assess whether or not the holding had increased in value. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that where during a tenancy there has been more than one record of the condition of the holding, the first record should be taken as the datum line rather than any subsequent record.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am obliged to the noble Lord. What he has just said has made the point clear, but I must confess that I did not gather the point from his original speech.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30:

Compensation for disturbance.

30.—(1) Where the tenancy of a holding terminates by reason of a notice to quit given by the landlord, and in consequence of the notice the tenant quits the holding, then, subject to the provisions of this section, unless—

1. (e) the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made had died within three months before the said date: 608 and unless the notice to quit states that it is given by reason of one or more of the matters aforesaid, specifying it or them, compensation for the disturbance shall be payable by the landlord to the tenant in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(3) Where the tenant of a holding has sublet the holding, and in consequence of a notice to quit given by his landlord becomes liable to pay compensation under this section to the sub-tenant, the tenant shall not be debarred from recovering compensation under this section by reason only that, owing to not being in occupation of the holding, on the termination of his tenancy he does not quit the holding.

9.55 P.m.

LORD HASTINGS moved in subsection (1), after paragraph (e), to insert: (f) the tenant had refused to sign an agreement in respect of the hire of the holding. The noble Lord said: In the 1923 Act the refusal on the part of a tenant to sign an agreement constituted one of the several reasons which enabled a landlord to give notice to his tenant to quit, without accepting liability or compensation. That particular casus has been omitted from this Bill. It is quite clear from Clause 38 that it is the intention of the Bill that written agreement should exist in all cases; indeed, it would be difficult for the machinery of this Bill to work unless such written agreements did in fact exist.

It can be maintained, of course, that technically no tenant ought to be allowed to enter the occupation of a form until after he had signed an agreement. But in point of fact that is too often not the case, and a tenant once having got into a farm without having signed an agreement is frequently a most troublesome person to deal with. The difficulties of the landlord, and through the landlord the difficulties of operating this Bill, would necessarily be very considerable unless there were some means of coercing a tenant into signing a reasonable agreement. Up to date this condition in the 1923 Act has been extraordinarily useful. It is not that it has had to be put into operation, but that it is there; and a tenant knows that if he carries to too great a length the process of delay and a refusal to sign an agreement, the landlord has up his sleeve the proviso of the 1923 Act which enables him in the last resort to give the tenant notice and get him out without paying compensation.

It may be held that Clause 38 does supply the need which I think is universally felt, but it would make the Bill more shapely and more comely if it were put into the place where it was before, which was amongst those other conditions in respect of which the consent of the Minister to giving notice was not required. I would like to see it come into this clause in the right place. In Clause 30 the Minister is not going to give his consent to the giving of a notice to quit unless certain defaults have been committed—I think that would be the best word to use—by the tenant. I want to add to those defaults a default which is in the 1923 Act, and I can see no reason why it should not be there, since it is the intention of the Government that agreements should be in writing and should be signed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 14, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD MORRISON

To the best of my knowledge the noble Lord has described the position fairly and accurately. As he says, this provision was contained in the 1923 Act, but has now been deliberately omitted from this Bill because of the powers contained in Clause 38. Under Clause 38 a landlord who wishes to have a written tenancy agreement can, if the tenant refuses—and that is the point, of the noble Lord's Amendment—take the matter to arbitration and get the existing terms of the tenancy reduced to writing. It does seem to me that if, as the noble Lord has said, there is a great deal of trouble with tenants who refuse to sign any agreement, under Clause 28 it is possible for the landlord to take the matter to arbitration and have the existing terms of the tenancy reduced to writing. There seems to me, therefore, nothing to prevent the landlord getting an agreement in writing if he so desires.

LORD HASTINGS

I entirely agree. I am quite conscious of that fact, but what I do hold is that it is a very untidy way of trying to perpetuate a straightforward action, and that it would be very much better in the right place than in the wrong place, and the Bill would be much improved thereby. The noble Lord speaks of a landlord's opportunity of going to arbitration as if it were a light matter. Under the 1923 Act all the landlord or the agent had to do was to write to the tenant and say, "I cannot put up with this any more. You must sign an agreement, and if you do not you must go." That cost a 2½d. stamp—that is all. If you go to arbitration, just to see how many 2½d. stamps that will cost! Arbitration is very cumbersome and expensive, and I would like to see the little Amendment that I have suggested put in its proper place. I hope the Government will give way about this.

THE EARL OF SELDORNE

I should like to suppose what my noble friend has just said. After all, the principle which he is advancing has been admitted by the Government in the Bill and is a principle which it would be difficult for anybody to gainsay. If the principle is in the Bill surely it ought to come into this clause, because this is a clause where that condition of affairs would have effect. I do not see any reason for amending Clause 38. There is no reason why it should not be in both parts of the Bill. But if it is part of the scheme of the Bill, as it must necessarily be, then clearly it ought to be in this clause. This is where the matter becomes of importance. I hope my noble friends will agree that this Amendment could usefully be made at this juncture. If they can agree to that, the result will be, as the noble Lord has said, that you have a tidier Bill—and a more workmanlike Bill, and that is an important matter in a measure that will have to be administered by landlords and tenants and county committees throughout the country.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

It is quite true that arbitration is provided for in Clause 38. But I have studied Clause 38 and there is nothing in it which says that tenants have to sign the agreement which the arbitrator awards. I am no lawyer, but I have a belief that the signature on an agreement is a necessary part of the agreement. I do not know what a lawyer would say if a landlord went to law over the terms of an agreement which had been arranged by an arbitrator, but which had not been signed by the tenant. I think it is a point that the noble Lord ought to consider. Quite apart from the question of tidiness or of a more comely Bill, there is the question of legal interpretation, which he ought to consider most carefully.

LORD MORRISON

I do not think that we could accept this Amendment, because, in addition to the reasons I have given, I have previously pointed out that if the tenant has refused to sign an agreement the landlord can take the matter to arbitration. It seems to me that it is a serious matter for a tenant, because if a tenant refuses to sign a written tenancy agreement the landlord would be able to serve notice to quit without payment of compensation for disturbance.

LORD HASTINGS

That is the present law.

LORD MORRISON

In all the circumstances, frankly I hope the noble Lord will not desire to pursue the matter further at this stage.

VISCOUNT COWDRAY

Does the noble Lord not think it would be right for a tenant to sign the agreement? Does he think it right to go on indefinitely refusing to sign an agreement?

EARL DE LA WARR

What will happen if the landlord goes to arbitration and wins his case, and there is nothing in the Bill to say that the tenant should in fact sign the agreement?

LORD MORRISON

He can then give him notice to quit.

LORD HASTINGS

There is nothing in the Bill. The noble Lord may think so, but I do not think that would carry any weight in the court.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The real point is the fact that if the tenant refuses to sign an agreement then the landlord can force the tenant to go to arbitration; and if the tenant will still not sign on the dotted line the arbitrator's award becomes compulsory.

EARL DE LA WARR

Can the noble Earl point to the words in Clause 38?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I think they will be found in subsection 2: On any such reference the arbitrator shall by his award specify the existing terms of the tenancy…

EARL DE LA WARR

There is nothing mandatory there.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I think the noble Earl will find that the arbitrator's statement is binding on the tenant.

EARL DE LA WARR

Where?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I cannot find it at the moment—

LORD HASTINGS

I do not think the noble Earl will. It is rather untidy. The intention of the Government and that of the noble Lords on this side of the House is the same, but it is in rather an untidy state at the present time and it would be better put in proper form. But I should like to make it clear that under the present law—the Act of 1923, under which we are operating at the present time—the tenant who refuses to sign his agreement can be given notice to quit, and forfeits his right to compensation. I think it will be universally agreed that he thoroughly deserves it. That is the present law.

EARL DE LA WARR

Perhaps the noble Lord will look into this.

LORD MORRISON

It is contained in the Bill at page 41. Subsection 5, of Clause 39, says: The award of an arbitrator under section thirty-seven or thirty-eight of this Act shall have effect as if the terms and provisions specified and made therein were contained in an agreement in writing entered into by the landlord and the tenant, and having effect as from the making of the award or, if the award so provides, from such later date as may be specified therein.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord wins!

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved in subsection (3) after "has" to insert "lawfully." The noble Lord said: I think this short Amendment is self-explanatory. It is designed to discourage the unauthorized sub-letting of farms. I think your Lordships will all agree that a tenant who has sub-let without permission should not be entitled to compensation. There is an added danger that, without this Amendment, unscrupulous tenants might be encouraged to collect premiums on sub-letting, a practice which I am sure all your Lordships would wish to discourage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 3 after ("has") insert ("lawfully").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD CHORLEY

I have been asked to reply to this proposed Amendment, which I am sorry we cannot accept. The object of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment is, as he said, to discourage tenants from unlawfully sub-letting, that is to say, in contravention of the covenants of their leases or agreements. That is clearly dealt with in the first subsection of the clause in two places—namely, under paragraph (b), and also under paragraph (c), which really deal with the same problem from two different aspects. The clause, of course, deals with compensation for disturbance. It says that where the tenancy terminates by reason of a notice to quit, the tenant shall be entitled to compensation except in a number of cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred a moment ago on a different issue. The two cases dealt with under paragraphs (b) and (c) are as follows: (b) at the date of the giving of the notice to quit the tenant had failed to comply with a notice in writing served on him by the landlord requiring him within two months from the service of the notice to pay any rent due in respect of the holding, or within a reasonable time or within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice to remedy any breach by the tenant which was capable of being remedied of any term or condition of his tenancy which was not inconsistent with the fulfilment of his said responsibilities. That would cover the breach of a covenant not to sub-let. The next paragraph says: (c) "at the said date the interest of the landlord in the holding had been materially prejudiced by the commission by the tenant of a breach which was not capable of being remedied of any term or condition of the tenancy which was not inconsistent as aforesaid. That again would cover this point of a breach of a covenant not to sub-let.

The subsection of the clause to which the noble Lord has moved this Amendment really deals with quite a different matter, if I may say so. It deals with a tenant who has sub-let and who is therefore not in a position, so to speak, to be dealt with on this basis and would not be entitled to the compensation. This subsection is put into the clause in order to safeguard his position. It is a misconception, if I may respectfully say so, to put in the words "lawfully sub-let" in this particular case. The remedy is under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of the clause. It is quite true that there is, in a sense, a certain alteration of the law as it stood under the 1923 Act, because it is just conceivable that there might be a case where it was held that sub-letting, although it was in contravention of a covenant in the lease, did not actually prejudice the landlord and, therefore, would not carry with it the right to substantial damages. I would suggest to the noble Lord, however, that the case he has in mind is quite clearly met under the first subsection of the clause, and he should be content with that and withdraw his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I say a word on this? I gather that the case of the Government on this Amendment is that it is already covered, but that does not really seem to be a reason for refusing this single word which makes the position under the law clearer. If the noble Lord will look at page 30, line 3, he will see that it reads: Where the tenant of a holding has sub-let the holding, and in consequence of a notice to quit given by his landlord becomes liable to pay compensation under this section to the sub-tenant, the tenant shall not be debarred from recovering compensation. Obviously, the position is made clearer if it says "lawfully sub-let." We all know of cases in the countryside where in fact a tenant does, without consulting the landlord, sub-let; we have all had cases of that kind. It is very important that the tenants should be warned against a practice of that kind which is obviously unsuitable and harmful. Therefore, if you put into this clause the one word "lawfully," which I do not suppose would be very expensive from the point of view of printing, it would make the position absolutely clear. So far as I can see, the Government have no argument against it. They just say it is unnecessary. If it gives an absolutely clear meaning, even. if it is not necessary, it is at any rate desirable.

LORD CHORLEY

The noble Marquess did not quite follow the latter part of my argument, which was to the effect that there was here a slight alteration of the previous law. The noble Lord's Amendment goes too far because it would enable the landlord to proceed against the tenant where in fact the breach of the covenant had not led to any material prejudice to the landlord. It is that case that we want to cover. In ninety nine cases out of a hundred, there would, of course, be a material prejudice to the landlord as a result of that breach, and that is covered in the earlier subsection of the clause. If the noble Lord's Amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that even in cases where there was a purely technical breach which did not in any sense materially affect the landlord and give rise to any damage, the landlord could, as a result of that technical breach, proceed against the tenant. We are not prepared to accept that position. There are two reasons why I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment. The first is that ape substance of the case which he puts before your Lordships is already covered in subsection (1); and the second is that the Amendment which he has proposed goes further than the Government are prepared to go, and would give the landlord a right in a case where he was not materially prejudiced.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do consider it would be desirable to put it in, but I do not think we shall press it any further, if the noble Lord assures me that any case of real danger is safeguarded.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

In view of what has just been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31:

Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings.

31.—(1) Where notice to quit a holding or part of a holding is given to the tenant thereof, and not later than one month from the giving of the notice to quit the tenant serves on the landlord notice in writing requiring that this subsection shall apply to the notice to quit, then subject to the provisions of the next following subsection the notice to quit shall not have effect unless the Minister consents to the operation thereof.

(2) The last foregoing subsection shall not apply—

(3) Without prejudice to the discretion of the Minister in a case falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of this subsection, the Minister shall withhold his consent under this section to the operation of a notice to quit unless he is satisfied—

1. (a) that the carrying out of the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of efficient farming; or

10.17 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to insert at the end of subsection (2): (d) Where the notice to quit affects part of the holding and the holding as proposed to be diminished is reasonably capable of being farmed as a separate holding. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to exclude from the compass and provision of this clause a notice to quit where the amount of land involved is very small. There are several reasons for which a small piece of land might be required. Possibly it might be wanted for a gravel pit, for a smallholding or for an allotment. Doubtless there are other purposes of which your Lordships can think. The whole point is that there is here no threat to the security of tenure of the farm which is left, as it is reasonably capable of being farmed as a separate holding. The fact that there is no threat to the security of tenure is shown quite clearly by Clause 30 (4) (b) which states that if the farmer as a result of a notice on the small piece of land decides to quit his farm and that farm is still reasonably capable of being farmed as a separate holding he is not entitled to compensation for disturbance. If he is not entitled to compensation for disturbance, there can really be no threat to his security of tenure. This Amendment is designed merely to enable landlords to obtain small pieces of land for special purposes without all the cumbersome provisions of this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 45, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I do not quite see why there should be a differentiation drawn between a small part of a holding and the main holding. Surely the principle of security of tenure ought to be valid for part. There are, of course, certain special cases, as the noble Lord has pointed out—I think he quoted that of allotments. Actually, as regards smallholdings or allotments the Minister's consent would have to be obtained, and he has discretion to give this under subsection (3) (b). As regards afforestation in special cases, the Minister's consent would have to be obtained and he has discretion to give that under subsection (3) (d). Most of these matters are covered, and I fail to see, as a result of the argument put forward by the noble Lord with regard to these special circumstances why, since they are covered, one should differentiate in regard to security of tenure for a small part of a holding.

LORD HASTINGS

There is one particular case which has, perhaps, escaped the attention of the noble Earl, though I think that Lord Amherst mentioned it. That is the case of a gravel pit. I cannot imagine that the case of a gravel pit comes under subsection (2) (c) which makes an exception in the case of land required for a use other than for agriculture, for which permission has been granted on an application made under the enactments relating to town and country planning… It might be possible for a difficult tenant to prevent the landlord from opening up a gravel pit in his holding which might be of great assistance to other parts of the estate. It is one of these small matters which one wants to avoid if one can. I do not know whether words may be found which are preferable to those of Lord Amherst but his words certainly do meet a need. The gravel pit is one of the most likely examples. Could the noble Earl think that out and possibly find a way out of that difficulty? I do not think he would wish to prevent an estate from opening up a gravel pit or allow any tenant to stop what would be good estate management.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

In that case I think planning would be necessary to establish a gravel pit.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

May I deal more generally with the matter than the case which Lord Hastings has given? One danger expressed on all sides is the danger of overloading the county agricultural executive committees with small detailed work; this Amendment is designed to stop that overloading when it is not necessary. The question of putting down a small shelter belt, which may or may not be agreed, is a matter which they should not have to consider.

May I tell a story which has always affected me as to the way the bureaucratic mind works? In the middle of this war there was an owner of land who had a few cottages and a house in my own county. He was a serving sailor who was retired in the middle of the war. He had twenty-four dependants between the cottages and the house relying on him for food and sustenance. Out of a 500-acre estate he had only one acre on which he could do anything about growing food for them. So when the lease of the tenant was being renewed he asked leave to have three acres taken out so that he could keep a little more stock and break up a little more to feed his dependants. The answer came back from the district agricultural committee to our committee, through one of our most excellent civil servants—who worked himself to the bone night and day, but who was influenced inevitably to take the utterly official attitude—" I do not recommend this request. The man only wants to grow food for his family." I do not want to betray any secrets but very few people on my own committee thought that was either funny or tragic. Until it was pointed out that there could not be a better reason for growing food than for your own family, they were inclined to take the view of the official. This is a situation which this Amendment is designed to avoid. If a man wants to grow food, he should be able to do it without having to go through a rigmarole which may or may not be sympathetically observed.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The noble Earl has told us a very moving story of the unfortunate man who wanted to grow more food for his family. I sympathize with him, but in a Bill of this kind we must look more to the general intention of the Government for agriculture. One thing the Government have in mind is to try to preserve the big farm and to prevent little parts being cut off except in regard to allotments and other special cases. With regard to committees, I am sorry if the committee on which the noble Earl has served took a rather distant view of this subject, but on the whole I think we must allow that committees will be reasonable people, and that the red tape and bureaucracy pictured by the noble Earl will be exceedingly rare.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

May I, in defence of my committee, say that they are the most reasonable committee that I have ever met?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I am glad to hear that, and we hope they may be an example to all other committees. As the committees will be administering our policy, we hope we can look to them not for bureaucratic Whitehall control, but for individual and reasonable judgments as given by agriculturists who know the situation. I hope the noble Earl will admit that point. Apart from such very special cases I do not see why the principle of security of tenure should not be followed. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

Surely the whole point of this Amendment arises in cases where the security of tenure is not seriously broken. The noble Earl is prepared to admit the case where there is a nice label attached to it. He can call it an allotment, or a smallholding, but if it is an acre or two for a man to keep a few chickens, some untidy scheme like that which does not fit into the noble Earl's tidy picture of the countryside, it cannot be allowed. This is not a vital matter, on which one feels one wants to divide the Committee, but I do feel that in the interests of reasonableness the noble Earl ought to look into it. It may be that we have not quite the right words, but they can easily be redrafted. There is a point here, and I think the noble Earl should undertake to look into it,

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

May I commend to His Majesty's Government the old adage de minimis non curat lex?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I sympathize with noble Lords in their feelings, but I think this strikes at one of the principles about which we feel very strongly. Although there may be deserving individual cases, we want to avoid little bits and pieces, unless there is some very consistent reason for them. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has said, it is not a vital point, but it is a point of principle about which we on this side of the House feel strongly. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I do not know whether it would be better to break off bits and pieces for allotments, or anything else. There are other things which it is essential should be broken off. There are a lot of things which are happening all the time which do not involve breaking up the farm into small units, but which are a matter between landlord and tenant. It would save a lot of time if they did not have to refer to the committees who have to send someone to look at the details. It is a small matter, but a lot of people have to waste a lot of time over it. I suggest it would be better avoided by something such as this Amendment.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am sorry that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment. I think they are probably putting a lot of unnecessary work on their committees in the future. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr said, it is not a vital matter and, therefore, I do not intend to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.30 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY had given Notice of two Amendments in paragraph (a) of subsection(3): to leave out "shall" and insert "may"; and to insert after "farming" "or good estate management." The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward Amendment, the substitution of the word "may" for the word "shall." Generally the criticism is that the Minister assumes too great powers of discretion. The usual argument advanced for these powers is that it is difficult to foresee exactly how things will work out, and that it is necessary to retain a certain amount of flexibility. Here the Minister has perhaps tied himself down too rigidly. There are only these three places where he has even the power of discretion. I think it would be rash to say that these cover all the possible cases which might arise in the future, and we feel that the Minister should have a little more discretion to meet cases which may turn up and which have not been foreseen in this Bill. It is with the object of giving the Minister this discretion that I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 3, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I do not know if the noble Lord quite realizes what would be the effects of the Amendment if it were carried. One of the principal aims of this Bill is the provision of security of tenure; we want to give the tenant farmer the greatest possible measure of security which is consistent with efficient agricultural production. This is contained in Clause 31 which restricts the occasions when notices to quit may be given. It goes further than that in limiting the Minister's power to certain cases where he may give his consent to a notice to quit. These are specified in subsection (3). Of course, if we insert the word "may" it gives the Minister complete discretion. He may be bound—he may not. It does, however, completely undermine the purport of this whole subsection. I think if the noble Lord appreciates that, he might be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I realize the difficulties here, but after all this is only permissive and the Minister need not use those powers. They are there if he wants them, and if he finds that in the future there are any other reasons other than those laid down in this Clause he could use them. But as this Amendment is not supported I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ASHBURTON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), to leave out "desirable in" and insert "in conformity with." The noble Lord said: I think we all agree that the clause we are now discussing is of vital importance to the landlord and that it is of equally great importance to the tenant. Somewhere between their two interests a balance has to be struck, and I feel that we should approach all the Amendments on this clause in a spirit of great reasonableness. The background, as we all know, is that this Bill pre-supposes the continued existence of the landlord and tenant system. If that system is to operate successfully I submit to your Lordships that it is absolutely necessary that each party should be able to play his part, and that he should be given a fair chance of doing so. I think it would be perfectly possible, under the Bill as it now stands, for a landlord—anyhow, if he has some resources behind him—to become completely negative towards the production of capital when required to do so for his repairs. He could receive his rents and play no active part. I do not believe that is what we want. To make the Bill a success he has to take his part as much as the tenant. To do that there must be circumstances in which he should be allowed to give reasonable notice to quit—circumstances other than those covered by the more penal clauses of this Bill.

This Amendment concerns the substitution of the words "in conformity with" for "desirable in" in line 6 on page 32. We believe that the word "desirable" implies that the landlord must prove that the notice he gives and the arrangements he is making consequent on that notice, are going to result in better farming than has gone on before. We believe that that is not reasonable, and that he should have to prove only that the farming is not going to deteriorate from its present standard. In fact, what we really want by the Amendment is to make it easier for the Minister to assist a reasonable landlord giving a reasonable notice to quit, while the Minister is quite satisfied in every other respect. The Amendment in my name which stands next on the Order Paper aims at rectifying what seems to have been an omission or an oversight in drafting. Perhaps I may say a word on that at the same time.

The whole way through this Bill the farmer and the landlord have been given more or less equal attention, in that each has to do his bit. Yet here we have a case where no notice at all is being taken of the interests of good estate management. I believe that that should be inserted here. I could cite many instances, but it is getting late and I do not want to detain your Lordships with them. But perhaps I may give one instance. No good landlord can possibly treat his estate as a lot of detached little pieces; he has to look at it as a whole picture, and, among many other things, he has to ensure not only that the tenants do their job properly, but that they do not injure each other in so doing. Look at the case of a man who perhaps is a perfectly good farmer—I expect we have all come across him—but who finds it constitutionally impossible to get on with any of his neighbours. He is a perpetual nuisance. He sets up almost a murderous feeling in the breasts of the other tenants. He may take things to such an extent that a good landlord might reasonably say "This cannot go on; I have a number of good tenants. I know this one fellow to be a perfectly good farmer, but he just will not get on with the others. I cannot put up with it any longer and I must give him notice to quit." This is a quite simple example of what I mean. The landlord must take his estate as a whole and a good estate can be spoilt by one bad tenant, even if that bad tenant is not necessarily a bad farmer.

I hope that my Amendment, which is not a very considerable one, will commend itself to His Majesty's Government, be- cause it cannot possibly interfere with the working of the Bill. The Minister has ample discretion in other ways to refuse to consent to the giving of notice if he wishes, but this would make it easier for him to do so in perfectly clear circumstance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 6, leave out ("desirable in") and insert ("in conformity with").—(Lord Ashburton.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

If I may say so, with great respect to the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, in his speech he treated the two Amendments as part of one whole. But they really deal with quite different and distinct points. I hope that the Committee will debate them separately, because I think we should be confusing the issue if we try to deal with two distinct points at the same time. The first point is whether the landlord should have the right to give notice to a tenant if no improvement in farming would result but if it could be assured that good farming would be continued. That is quite a separate point to the estate management point—which is an important point—and I suggest we ought to discuss it first. I hope very much that His Majesty's Government will be able to agree to this Amendment, because I think it would be fair to the two parties concerned. I confess I am not very hopeful that they will agree to this, after what the noble Earl has said, but I think it would be the fair thing to do. But when we get to the second Amendment, that seems to me to raise a very important principle which should be discussed separately.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Before the noble Lord replies I would draw his attention in regard to this Amendment and the following one in my name, that in the beginning of this clause it says at line 2, to start with: The Minister shall withhold his consent under this section to the operation of a notice to quit unless he is satisfied "— so that whatever is put into this part of this Bill the Minister himself still has the discretion of his own satisfaction. Therefore in putting anything, or suggesting that anything should be put, into this part of the Bill, we are merely widening the discretion of the Minister.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I am not quite clear whether we are discussing both Amendments or only the first.

LORD ASHBURTON

I think we should take them one by one.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

With regard to the first Amendment, I feel that we are edging on to the circumference of a rather stormy sea, because in approaching Clause 31 we come up against a big question of principle. Admittedly this was a problem in the drawing up of the Bill, but as your Lordships will remember we consulted from the first all the interested parties in the industry, and we tried to get as great a measure of agreement as possible on what were, in certain cases, completely divergent views. I must say, in all due modesty I feel that to a great extent we succeeded. Although we secured agreement, however, I realize that when we come again to this question of security of tenure there is still a considerable divergence of opinion and rather strong feeling.

I would like, if I may, to give the Committee a little idea of His Majesty's Government's point of view. It is as I said before, to give security of tenure to the farmer, and thereby give him confidence. It has been suggested under this Amendment that all that is being done is to give more power—more discretion—to the Minister. I suppose that personally my right honourable friend would not object to that, but one knows, as has often been pointed out, that Ministers come and go; and the question is whether the tenant farmer would be satisfied to allow these wider powers on behalf of the Minister. I think they would be more satisfied and would have more confidence in the industry if we laid down very definite views which will show them exactly on what grounds they can or may be dispossessed or be given notices to quit and on what grounds the Minister might consent to such notices. We admit that this clause is an agreed compromise. It is a compromise between conflicting points of view, but we have done our best to try to meet the two points: to help the landowner so that he can manage his estate efficiently, and at the same time to give security of tenure and confidence to the farmer.

I began with these introductory remarks because I think they are appropriate now that we are discussing this very important clause. With regard to the first Amendment of my noble friend, although we are using words without much apparent significance, they do in fact alter the emphasis very considerably. The noble Lord said that he would like it to be shown that farming was not less efficient whereas we say it must be shown that it is more efficient. I think those words "desirable in" and "in conformity" draw the line purposely between those two meanings. In other words, the notice to quit may be valid where the landlord or estate owner can show that a notice to quit would give rise to more efficient farming, and not only because the farmer could show there would be no deterioration. It is a big question at issue and I suggest to your Lordships that as a large measure of agreement—a compromise—has been reached, it would be highly desirable to leave these words as they stand.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I want to make one thing quite clear before this discussion goes any further. Many of your Lordships may have gained the impression from Lord Huntingdon that the provisions of this particular clause were discussed, and to some extent agreed, beforehand in the discussion which we had and were glad to have in the very early stages of the inception of this Bill. In this particular case, however, this particular subject of security of tenure was not cussed. I remember very clearly myself saying that we disagreed with the clause, the representatives of the Farmers' Union said that they liked the clause, and officials who were present said "It is a political matter and we cannot discuss it."

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

In the remarks which the noble Earl opposite has just let fall, there seemed to be two distinct threads of argument. One is the security thread and the other is the efficiency thread. We are to suppose, I think, that to give the maximum amount of security to the tenant would produce the maximum amount of efficiency in farming—at least, that was the impression which, perhaps quite wrongly, I gained from what the noble Earl said. I suggest to your Lordships that those two things do not necessarily go together. Too much security—I am not throwing stones at anybody—might conceivably produce too little efficiency. That is the first point want to make. The second point is that the noble Earl said that, in order to produce security and peace of mind, which I agree are conducive to the best farming, the tenant should know exactly the reasons for which he might receive notice to quit.

I could not agree, if I may say so, that all the cards should be on the table—no matter whose cards they are. But it strikes me, as an argument in favour of my noble friend's Amendment referring to the interest of good estate management, that surely it is right that the tenant should know that if good estate management is one of the considerations that the Minister is to have in mind, he should be told that; it is a perfectly fair thing for him to be told. After all, this Amendment I imagine—and I certainly hope—is not seeking to further the interests of any particular section of the community. Here is a Bill in which His Majesty's Government have clearly tried to aim first and foremost at the general good of the whole farming industry, whether landlords or tenants or whoever the parties may be, Here is a clause in the Bill where, it seems to me, it should be laid down quite clearly that the Minister is under the obligation to take his decisions for the general good. If that is so then "good estate management," I feel, should be included as part of the wording of this clause.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

May I say one word here, following what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has so carefully said? The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, seemed to indicate that the confidence of the farmer—and, I think, we would all agree with his in this—in the future of British agriculture was of first rate importance. We all want to see the confidence of the farmer enhanced. We want to see him have every reason for that confidence. But I thought the confidence of the farmer was bound up in Clause and not in Clause 31 of this Bill. Why should the landlord be asked to give the farmer confidence in the future, when the farmer's confidence should be in the capacity of British agriculture to carry on under Government action? It is important that we should clear this up on this clause before we proceed to any other discussion upon it. If you look at the tenure which has gone on, I think you will find that under an assessment made only two or three years ago the average number of years of tenure was found to be approximately twenty-two per tenant. After all, the tenant has the right to vacate his holding without any trouble at all. I cannot conceive that the confidence of the farmer in the future of British agriculture should necessarily be bound up in Clause 31 and not in Clause 1 of the Bill.

EARL DE LA WARR

We have all such strong feelings about Clause 31 that it is really rather difficult, I know, to restrict oneself to the terms of the Amendment which we are now discussing. We are not discussing the general principle of security at the moment; that, I think, is going to come before us at a later stage. At the moment we are discussing the perfectly simple point as to whether the landlord is to be put into the position, if he wants to get control of a holding, of proving that the farming of himself or of the new tenant is going to be better than the farming of the old tenant, or whether he has merely to prove that the farming will not deteriorate. It is really almost impossible, until you are in a farm, to prove that your farming, in fact, is going to be better. You can, of course, put up elaborate schemes and statements of your intentions, but there is no proof in those whatsoever. Therefore we are inclined to feel that as the clause is at present drafted the landlord is having an absolutely impossible task placed upon him. It is upon this simple point that we want clarification from the noble Earl. I am not particularly in love with the words "in conformity with" but some of us felt that these words made it clear that it was the negative side rather than the positive side that ought to be put in this clause. We thought that the landowner ought not to be put in the position of having to prove better farming, but that it would be fair and just that he should be required to show that the farming as a whole should not deteriorate. I ask the noble Earl to give careful consideration to that point.

The EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I should like to answer two questions which have been raised. The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, maintained that what ought to give confidence to the farmer is Clause 1 and guaranteed prices, and I certainly hope they will. At the same time, however, I would like to suggest to him that good prices will not be of much help to a farmer if he should lose his holding. Security of tenure is necessary to give that complete confidence we all wish to inspire. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, pointed out it was exceedingly difficult to discover in advance if a certain farmer would do better in a farm than the farmer who had been dispossessed as a bad farmer. When you have a certain tenant who has been a first-class "A" farmer, you do not want to turn him out. It is only when a farmer is a "B" or a "B-minus" or a "C" farmer that consent would be given to the notice to quit.

LORD ASHBURTON

I do not want to speak too frequently about this. I would like to hear from the noble Earl how a landowner whom the noble Earl wishes to encourage to give notice to a "B" or "B-minus" tenant, is going to prove that the next man is going to be an "A" tenant. It seems to me practically impossible to prove it, and, what is more, it seems to me that the whole of this clause revolves round this one subsection. In whatever circumstances a landlord gives notice to a man to quit his farm, the moment the Minister comes to this stumbling block he has to ask, "Is this new man going to farm better?" What can the landlord say but, "I hope so"?

The EARL OF RADNOR

Before the noble Earl replies, I wonder whether he can give us any evidence that tenant farmers of this country are suffering from a feeling that they lack security of tenancy.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I would like to answer the noble Lord who has just spoken, but it is getting late; and we are discussing an important issue. I should therefore like to suggest that the House do now resume.

House resumed.