Lords Sitting of 15 July 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Leconfield—Took the Oath.

ROADS IN ROYAL PARKS.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether their attention has been drawn to the progressive deterioration of road surfaces in certain of the Royal Parks, and whether it will be possible to undertake any repairs in the near future.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the roads in the Royal Parks are intended for the use of light vehicles only. Owing to the use of roads by heavy Service vehicles during the war, and to the shortage of labour and materials to carry out repairs, the resurfacing of a number of the roads is now overdue. Provision has been made in this year's Estimates for the Royal Parks for the re-laying of the road from The Mall to Storey's Gate, of the Marlborough Gate roadway, and of parts of Constitution Hill and the ring road in Hyde Park. The work will be carried out later this year, and a start, it is hoped, will be made at the end of the present month. This represents only the most urgent part of the work; there is considerably more to be done. The process of catching up with arrears will proceed as quickly as supplies of labour and materials permit.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his answer. I fully appreciate the difficulties to which he has referred. I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to bear in mind that the deterioration in the road surfaces is progressing, and the state of many vehicles, both public and private, which have to
632
use these roads is not what it was before the war. There is a great shortage of spare parts, and anything that gets broken is very difficult to replace. I am sure the noble Lord knows these things better than I do, and I hope they will not be allowed to be overlooked.
LORD HENDERSON: I think the noble Earl may take it that the points he has mentioned will be borne in mind.

FOOD CONTRACTS WITH COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of a prospective shortage in the supply of essential foods in Great Britain and on the Continent of Europe for at least another two years, they can give at once to primary producers in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere in the British Commonwealth and Empire such assurances with regard to the market for their output as are necessary to give them full confidence in augmenting as much as possible their production of food for export.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, there is not the slightest doubt that for a long time to come not only shall we require the maximum production of food by our own farmers but we shall also need from Australia and New Zealand and other parts of the Commonwealth as much as they can produce of all the main foods with which they supply us. The world shortage of such important foods as meat, grain, butter, cheese, condensed and dried milk, eggs, oils and fats, sugar and cocoa, is likely to continue for considerably more than two years. Our own demand for these foods as a result of the general increase in purchasing power since prewar days has risen to and is likely to remain at a substantially higher level than before the war.
We must, in present circumstances, satisfy this demand as far as possible from our own production and from non-dollar sources of supply. On the other hand,

633
both our interest as consumers and our international obligations require that we pay due regard to price and other commercial considerations if we are to take as much food as they and we would wish. As the noble Viscount is aware, it is the policy of the United Kingdom in order to give producers in the exporting countries the necessary confidence to maintain or increase their production for export, to enter into medium or Long-term contracts to purchase their exportable output of food on agreed terms. I propose to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT as an appendix to this answer a list of the

LONG TERM CONTRACTS WITH COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES.

Country.

Commodity.

Quantity.

Period.

(maximum each season)

Australia

Shell Eggs

1,000,000 boxes

Long term contract entered into to 30th June, 1950 covering maximum quantities to be supplied each season.

Frozen Whole Eggs

13,500 tons

Sugar Dried Egg

2,700 tons

Dried Whole Egg

450 tons

Frozen Albumen

50 tons

Dried Fruit

—

Long term contract up to 1948 the purchase on a Government to Government basis.

Butter and Cheese

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st July, 1950

Milk Powder

4,000 tons

Long term contract to 30th June, 1948, with option of extension to 1950.

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract until end 1949.

Meat—

Boef

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 30th September, 1948.

Lamb

Mutton

Veal

Pigmeat

Offals

Canned

New Zealand

Vitamin "A" Oils

We have 2 years contract to December, 1948.

Butter and Cheese

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31.7.50.

Canned Milk

500,000 cases

Long term contract to 30th July, 1949, with option of extension to 1950.

Milk Powder

15,000 tons

Long term contract to 30th July, 1948 with option of extension to 1950.

Meat:—

Beef

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 30th September, 1950.

Lamb

Mutton

Veal

Pigmeat

Offals

Canned

Canada

Bacon

Minimum 156,000 tons

1947.

Minimum 179,000 tons

1948.

Meat:—Beef

120,000,000 lbs.

Long term contract to 31st December, 1948.

Wheat and flour

1946/8 160,000 bushels annually.

Long term contract to 31st July, 1950.

1948/50 140,000 bushels annually.

existing contracts in so far as they affect Commonwealth countries. The noble Viscount will see from this that a large proportion of the foods produced by Commonwealth countries is in fact covered by contracts of this kind. We have every intention of continuing this policy and I do not think there can be any better evidence of our desire to establish in the minds of Commonwealth producers that confidence in the future market for their output which they naturally require.
Following is the list referred to:

Country.

Commodity.

Quantity.

Period.

Canada—cont.

Eggs, shell—

(Maximum each season)

Spring fresh eggs.

700,000 boxes.

Long term contract to 31st January, 1949.

Fall fresh eggs

450,000 boxes.

Stored eggs

600,000 boxes

Sugar dried egg

7,500 tons

Cheese

125,000,000 lbs. annually.

Long term contract to 31st March, 1949.

Canned milk

600,000 cases annually

Long term contract to 31st March, 1948.

Milk Powder

8,000,000 lbs.

Government to Government contract until end 1947.

South Africa

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract until end 1949.

Ceylon

Copra and coconut oil.

Exportable surplus,

Long term contract to 31st December, 1950.

British East Africa

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st December, 1949.

Copra and coconut oil

—

Long term contract to end December, 1950.

Coffee

24,000 tons annually.

Long term contract for 5 years.

Jamaica

Coffee

2,000 tons annually

Long term contract to 31st December, 1952.

Malaya.

Palm Oil

—

Long term contract to end December, 1950.

Fiji

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st December, 1949.

British Guiana

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st December, 1949.

Zanzibar.

Copra and coconut oil

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st December, 1950.

Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Bukoba.

Coffee

Fixed annual quantities

Long term contracts for 5 years.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Leader of the House for the answer which he has given. I am sure it will give great encouragement to those who intend to benefit us in the Old Country, and who farm in non-dollar countries. I suppose I may assume from the noble Viscount's answer that he does not anticipate any appreciable slump in the prices of the more essential foods raised in these countries, at any rate, in the next two years.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I must not be taken as saying anything confidently on the matter of prices. They will be subject to sensible negotiation.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
CITY OF WAKEFIELD ORDER.
COUNTY BOROUGH OF OLDHAM ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF CHESHAM ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF LEATHERFIEAD ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF LETCHWORTH ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF TRING ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walk den.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT BILL.
2.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, you have heard quite a lot from me in connexion with this Bill, and I shall not impose myself upon you at any length at this stage. I will formally move the Third Reading, and make some observations later on the Amendments printed on the Paper in my name. These are either drafting or correction Amendments, or Amendments in fulfilment of undertakings given during the Report stage. I will reserve what I have to say until the Amendments are reached. I, therefore, beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it would perhaps be convenient if I said a few words at this stage. I do not propose to deal with the Bill as a whole, because my noble friend Viscount Swinton will do that on the Motion that the Bill do now pass; he has a few words that he wishes to say at that stage. My purpose in rising is merely to mention one point which arose during the Report stage on an issue which caused difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government and which eventually led to a Division. That question is, of course, the question of the publication of the reports of public inquiries which are instituted under the Act. It has seemed to me—and I feel bound to say it to the House—on re-reading the debate in Hansard, that this difference arose materially and even mainly from the fact that those who spoke on this side of the House had rather a different conception from those who spoke on the Government side of the House as to the nature of these reports. We were not, as it were moving on parallel lines.
We on this side of the House had in mind a digest of the evidence which was given at these inquiries, and a statement of the broad conclusions for the benefit of the Minister, and even more the public and Parliament. That is what we wanted published. It seemed to me clear at the time of the Report stage—and I think this is equally true of my noble friend Lord Swinton and others who spoke—that reports of that kind ought very properly to be published, and that they would be of great value not only to Parliament but to the general public at large, because the issues to be discussed at the inquiry would not be limited issues but very wide issues. That -was the reason, of course, why we also pressed for an independent chairman. That gave art idea of the inquiry and report which we had in mind. The Government, on the other hand—and I want to be absolutely fair to them—as I understand it, had something entirely different in their minds. They had the idea of a confidential report by an officer of the Ministry to his own Minister. It is quite clear, of course, that a report of that kind could not possibly be published, and I do not think anyone in any part of the House would suggest such a thing.
It is necessary to say this, because I think this difference of conception in-
638
fluenced very much the course of the debate and the Division which took place. I still feel—and I am sure your Lordships will understand this—that a public report of a character we had in mind would be a valuable contribution to the machinery of the Bill. But in any case, what I rise to do now is merely to clear up what I regard as a regrettable misunderstanding before the Bill goes to another place.
On Question, Bill read 3ª with the Amendments.
Clause I [The Commission]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is only to correct wording which inadvertently found its way into the subsection relating to allowances. They are to be paid allowances, and therefore the word "grant" is not appropriate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page a, line 43, leave out ("or grant").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [The Executives]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this Amendment is in pursuance of an undertaking which I gave to make it quite clear that in the event of one of the Executives being wound up, there should be some body of persons appointed against whom an action could be brought if necessary. It was an omission in the Bill, or at all events a possible omission which was pointed out, I think, by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and this is the result of the undertaking I gave to make it good. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, leave out from ("Commission") to the end of the section and insert ("the scheme shall include, or, where there is no such scheme, the Minister shall by order make, such transitional provisions as to the parties by and against whom legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued, and such other transitional provisions, if any, as appear to the Commission and the Minister to be expedient").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Suspension of dividend payments, etc.]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, these two Amendments are the result of an undertaking given to cover the point whereby through inadvertence notice was

639
not given with respect to the payment of interim dividends before the end of July, in the event of the Bill receiving the Royal Assent before that date. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("or")
line 38, at end insert ("or

(c) of any dividend in respect of a period falling wholly or mainly before the date of the passing of this Act declared after the said date with the previous consent in writing of the Minister ").—(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Certain road transport undertakings to be acquired by Commission]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this Amendment and the next (to Clause 52) are to carry out an undertaking given to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, to omit the words mentioned there which did restrict the scope of operations of the vehicles concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 19, leave out ("from the site of felling").—(Viscount Addison.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for this concession. It does not give us quite what we asked for, but I do recognize that the noble Viscount has made a substantial concession and I am extremely grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Additional restrictions on carriage of goods for hire and reward]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 26, leave out ("from the site of felling").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Sums which are to be chargeable to revenue]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 30, leave out ("expressed") and insert ("to be deemed").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule [Orders giving effect to schemes]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment, arising out of the decision we came to, and I believe it is going to be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 157, line 19, leave out from the first ("Minister") to the end of line 22.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is to make English of the Amendment to which we took exception last time to which the noble Marquess has referred and about which I will have a word to say later on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do pass. I have nothing much to add except to say that we have reached, I am happy to feel, the concluding stages of a very complicated and difficult Bill which has given rise to very prolonged and, I am sure, not only animated, but sincere discussions. I think that although there have been marked differences of opinion, on both sides of the House on certain issues, it would be right to say that, apart from those which I naturally regard as blemishes mistakenly inserted in the Bill, it is a considerably improved measure. Many improvements have been effected and I should like, if I may, to pay tribute to all those who have spent so much time and trouble trying to master an exceedingly difficult and complicated Bill. The Bill represents a gigantic adventure which will require and call for far-sighted and competent administration. As one who is enthusiastically in favour of it I feel confident that in due time—not rapidly, because it is a gigantic undertaking which will necessarily involve years of effort—as a result of this measure, this country will be supplied with the best transport service of any country in the world. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Viscount Addison.)
2.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the Leader of the House has said that this is an appropriate time to review how the Bill has fared, what changes have been

641
made, and the form in which it emerges. We have spent a long time on the Bill—nine days in Committee and two days on Report—but I do not think our consideration of it could have been concluded in a shorter time, both because of the importance of the measure and because so much of the Bill reached us without there having been any Parliamentary discussion at all. As the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has said, a very large number of Amendments have been made in this place; and the great majority as the result of frank discussion, have been carried by agreement and without a Division. If I may say so, I should like—and I am sure the whole House would join with me in doing so—to pay a tribute to the Leader of the House for his courtesy throughout and for the care he has taken in going into every single point that was raised. It is a better Bill; we all took some share in making it so; but a great deal of its improvement is due to the noble Viscount himself and to the way in which he led the House in its long debates.
I shall refer only to the more important of the Amendments which have been passed, but a very great many more, running into many scores, of Amendments have been passed which have modified or clarified the Bill in matters of detail, some proposed by the Opposition, some by the Government, and passed as the result of discussion and agreement. There is hardly a clause or schedule in the Bill which does not bear the marks of the constructive criticism made in this House; and there alone, I think, if there were not greater instances, is a great tribute to this House as a revising Chamber.
May I review very briefly the more important? Here again, the great majority have been passed by agreement. First there was the question of the Commission. There we have agreed that the numbers as presented to us were too small for this great adventure, and now we have agreed in place of a chairman and four that there shall be a chairman and eight. That is a great improvement; it enables some to be whole-time and two or three to be part-time members. We have also agreed that the salaries of the officers of the Commission shall be published.
We dealt at great length with the powers of the Commission, and perhaps the most difficult point in that regard was the
642
question of the power to manufacture. There I think a very satisfactory solution has been reached. We have made a very satisfactory arrangement limiting the Commission's power to manufacture chassis, bodies, composite vehicles, and major components. Another wise Amendment, introduced I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made it clear that the Commission would not deal in a lot of things which they ought not to be meddling with, such as garages, dealing in cars and secondhand vehicles, retailing petrol and so on. Then there was the question of the duties of the Commission in the matter of operating road transport services: that the Commission must give notice where they intend to discontinue a regular goods transport service.
Then there was a point, raised by the great legal authorities, of great interest: What ought to be the liability of directors and officers for offences committed under the Bill? There the legal wisdom of the House has produced, I think, the right solution, which makes people liable if they ought to be liable, and on the other hand, relieves them of liability if they have taken all the proper steps to ensure that the Act is properly carried out. Then there was one of those points which I suppose the noble Viscount would call a blemish, though we came very near together on that. It concerned Clauses 39 and 52—undertakings which are to be acquired and the right of independent people to operate. We did come to a certain measure of agreement on that. On the question of exempted traffics, we have agreed that felled timber ought to be added; we have agreed to add special vehicles which are ancillary to the exempted traffics. Then there was what the noble Viscount, I think felicitously, called the "escape" clause, by which the Commission has a power to exclude any undertaking if they are of opinion that, by reason of its special character or of the goods carried or the locality served, that undertaking should be excluded.
On passenger road transport, very considerable Amendments were introduced to deal fairly by them as regards the inclusion of passenger road operators in a scheme and for their representation on the body of management, and also for satisfactory and fair compensation for existing operators who are injuriously affected in other parts of their business which are not taken over

643
Then there were the harbour schemes, where it looked at first as if we could not reach an agreement. But pursuing the matter, it appeared that there was a great deal more common ground between us than had appeared in the first instance. The Leader of the House played a great part in these discussions, both in your Lordships' House and outside. I think we arrived at a very satisfactory compromise. This raised the question of the Port Trusts and the local administration. There is no chance now that the great trusts will be interfered with. I do not think any of us believe that the Commission would want to do that. We are in agreement on that point. In preparing a scheme a proper latitude is allowed to the Commission. Indication is given that they must consider the desirability of including the users, and—this is equally important—that local management is to be carried out on the spot or close to the harbour or group of harbours. Those are the essentials of the well-established trust scheme.
Next were the charges schemes and Transport Tribunal. There again I think we had complete agreement. We were convinced that the Minister must have the power to make the interim increases in charges. It would not be possible to have for those the very long inquiries which a final scheme has to go through. At the same time it did seem unreasonable that the Transport Tribunal should not be brought in, and the Government have agreed—it is in the Bill—that, before he makes an interim increase, the Minister will consult with the Tribunal. Then, when the Tribunal comes to its big work of reviewing the final scheme presented to it by the Commission, I must say that I think the House has done very good work. Clauses 78, 79 and 80 deal with representation and the right of audience and appeal. We have established the right of all interested persons, whether users of transport or providers of transport, to have the right of objection and audience when a charges scheme is considered by the Transport Tribunal. I am not sure on which side of the House this particular Amendment was proposed but, very rightly, the consultative committees are to be entitled to consider charges.
When we came to the question of accounts, which was barely discussed in
644
another place, we again reached complete agreement. It is agreed that the accounts shall be in the best possible form, but also—and this is most important I think—shall distinguish the financial and operating results of all the different activities of the Commission, and, in addition to that, that the Commission shall publish, or present their accounts for publication, with regular operating statistics. It seems to me to be altogether admirable to have accounts in the right form and operating statistics in the right form.
Then we considered the very difficult questions about compensation to displaced officers and servants and pensions. There again it looked as if it was going to be difficult to reach an agreement, but we all really wanted very much the same thing. We came to the conclusion, I am sure rightly, that we could not put masses of meticulous provisions into the Act of Parliament. On the other hand, Parliament wished to be quite sure that the right people were included, and that they were included in the right way; and we have adopted what was the practical solution, that this matter shall be dealt with by regulations, but that those regulations shall be laid in draft so that they can be considered in detail. I believe that may be a very valuable and useful provision.
On the further matter as to how disputes about pensions should be dealt with, once more we reached agreement, and we reached the agreement that that should be in the nature of an arbitration. That means two things. That means that there will be a complete hearing where a claim is made and where there is a dispute; that both sides will disclose their hands completely, and also that there will be an appeal on a point of law. Then the House, always anxious to see that fair is fair, if I may so put it, and to see that there is no discrimination, has inserted a clause drafted by the Leader of the House that there shall be equal treatment for travel agencies; that is to say, that there shall be no preference given by the Commission to a travel agency which they own as against an independent travel agency outside.
Then there was the question of the compensation for passenger road transport. As your Lordships will remember, when the Bill came to us there was a very

645
detailed provision in the Schedules in regard to how the road hauliers were to be compensated, but there was nothing about how the passenger transport people, who would be brought in under a scheme would be compensated, beyond this: that they were to be treated as nearly as possible in the same way as the road hauliers. We have now inserted—and the Government draftsmen are responsible for producing them, and producing them in a very convenient form—detailed provisions for the compensation to be payable for the passenger road undertakings which are taken over so that they figure in the same way as the road hauliers.
I have run through these matters very quickly, and I have only taken some of the more important on which we have agreed. I believe that it is a very remarkable range of agreement. May I now say a word or two about those matters on which we did not agree? The noble Lord thinks they are blemishes; we think they are virtues. I hope we shall all come to a common mind on them. We can say, I think with absolute sincerity, and I am sure the Leader of the House will agree, that we have only divided where we considered that the interests of the public—that is the travelling public or the users of road transport—would be seriously affected or endangered, or where we considered that an important principle of justice or sound administration was involved, and very often the two things went together. There was the power of the Minister to give directions. I am not sure that we really differed very much about that. An Amendment has been put in, that the Minister shall not give directions which would render the Commission insolvent and unable to pay their way, taking one year with another, unless he had to do so in the interests of national security. I do not really think there was very much between us on the merits of that. I do not think the Leader of the House dissented from that as a proposition. The only question was whether it should or should not go into the Bill, and really that was the measure of the difference.
There were matters on which the difference went deeper, and to those I think I must refer. There was the question of the Executives. Your Lordships have decided that the appointment of the Executives should be by the Commission,
646
and not by the Minister. I am bound to say that that was very reasonable. These Executives are the agents and the managers for the Commission; they are, in effect, departments of the Commission, which is responsible for policy and which has to treat the whole of this great adventure as a whole. All canons of business and sound administration support that decision. It is, indeed, the principle the Government themselves adopted in the Coal Act; and, honestly, I do not think any argument, or any effective argument, was advanced against that. Indeed, there is the power, as is common ground, to change these Executives about, to amalgamate them or to mix them all up. That really must be, I think, in the Commission, and the Government made it clear that it was unnecessary to amend the Bill in this respect, because we were informed that there was no doubt about it, under the Bill as drawn, that there is power in the Commission to appoint regional executives.
There was a Division about Scotland, which we felt ought to have its own Executive. I have little doubt myself that any Commission would, not only for its peace of mind but for sound administration give a separate Executive to Scotland. How reasonable we were. My noble friends the Earl of Selkirk and the Earl of Airlie were extremely reasonable in their requests. The widest discretion was left to the Commission as to what powers should devolve on the Scottish Executive. We only asked that there should be effective delegation.
I come back to the exempted traffics, on which we could not agree, and the question of what should be the test. The avowed object of the Bill is to take over long-distance road haulage, and to leave non-long-distance road haulage with the existing operators. The question arose as to what test should be applied. Can anyone, looking at this impartially, that the fifty-mile radius is not a fairer test than the twenty-five-mile radius? If you apply the twenty-five-mile test, on such a radius you could not carry traffic across Greater London; you could not carry traffic between Liverpool and Manchester, or between Edinburgh and Glasgow. It really is hardly reasonable. Surely these are short distances and not long distances. We added two more to the exempted traffics. We added what is called the Contract A licence, which is

647
really equivalent to the C licence. Contract A licence is that under which a particular trader employs a man solely to carry his goods. Surely, that is, as nearly as you can come to it, the equivalent of the C licence, under which a man uses his own vehicle. If that is not accepted, I have not the least doubt—and I do not think anyone in any part of the House can doubt—that the only result of excluding contract A licences will be that everyone who used a Contract A licence will become a C licence holder and have his own licence. Then there was milk, regarding which everything is already co-ordinated by the Milk Marketing Board. In both these cases, the Contract A licences and milk, we were considering much more—and I am sure this is true of all of us—the interests of the user than the interests of the road haulier himself.
On the question of the onus of proof, it seemed to us that it was an elementary principle of justice that the plaintiff should prove his case, and that it would be a very odd new principle to introduce that a man must show cause why he should not be dispossessed, put out of business and have his livelihood taken away. On the same plane of fair and equal justice, we put the maintenance of the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities in passenger and goods road transport. These licensing authorities, regional authorities, have long experience and wide local knowledge, and have served the public well. We inserted a provision that they should, in exercising their jurisdiction, always act in accordance with any charges scheme approved by the Transport Tribunal, or any passenger road transport scheme approved by Parliament. Subject to that, your Lordships said that there should be the same law for the Government monopoly and for the permitted operator. Why should the Government monopoly be outside and above the law? On the question of the public inquiry I will say nothing, for it has already been dealt with by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition.
Those were matters on which we differed. They were important, very important, but they were far fewer than the matters on which we agreed. Opinion is greatly divided on this Bill. The majority of your Lordships, and it may well be also the majority of the people of the country,
648
consider it the wrong way to secure coordination, that the experiment—I agree that it is a great experiment—is fraught with danger, and that the time is ill-chosen. But our task in the eleven days which we have spent on this Bill was to try to make it a better Bill, and, divided as people are in their opinions as to its merits, and on the question of the expediency of such a measure at all, I think few will challenge—indeed the noble Viscount the Leader of the House himself has endorsed this—that it leaves this House a better and a fairer Bill than it was when we received it.
3.16 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to say that we, as Liberals, could receive it with only small enthusiasm, although it did contain some principles for which we had stood for years—in particular that of the unification of the railways. But I am bound to admit that, as the noble Viscount who has just preceded me has said, it is a very much better measure now than the one which reached us from another place. Again, perhaps, I may follow the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in congratulating your Lordships on having done an extremely good piece of work. I should like, if I may, also, to associate myself with all he said in thanking both the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the courtesy and the desire to meet us which they have shown throughout the consideration of this Bill. Indeed, I am not at all sure that I have not seen considerable traces in both of them of their old upbringing in the good old Liberal tradition, and I suspect that they would have gone to greater lengths to help us to turn this into a really good measure, if it had not been for the crippling restraint of some of their colleagues in another place, and of the trades unions behind them.
I feel that this House can also take credit for having improved and not destroyed this measure, to which, frankly, the majority of the members were completely opposed. Possibly I may be allowed, as one of the survivors of the struggle of forty years ago, to congratulate your Lordships on the success with which you have realized and justified the ideals which we set up forty years ago, that this House should become a revising

649
and not a wrecking Chamber. Incidentally I might remark on the disappointment that seems to have been caused to some of the more extreme supporters of noble Lords opposite, who were looking to this Bill to give them a battle cry, of which they stand in such dire need at the present time.
Nevertheless, I cannot say that this is a good Bill. We support the nationalization and unification of the railways as, on the whole, desirable, though we do not view it with any great enthusiasm, because we realize that these enormous amalgamations carry with them very considerable dangers. I regret that the Government have not laid before us any plan to break down this great organization into smaller and more manageable units. Indeed the matter is urgent, as we can realize in view of the experience which we have had of the Coal Board. I am told that centralization, under that Board, is forcing managers to spend more and more time in making returns, and less and less time down the pits in touch with the men working under them, and that it is partly to the loss of this intimate contact, which used to exist, that the fall in output is due. And, indeed, the danger if it is great in the coalfields, is much greater in the far larger organization which is being set up under this Bill to cover the whole field of transport.
On one point, again, following Lord Swinton, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the concession he has made in leaving possible the local control in our great ports. That I do regard as a very great concession. On the other hand, I do not see much sign of leaving scope throughout the scheme for individual enterprise and initiative to assert itself against what is a little unfairly called the dead hand of Whitehall. And indeed we had an instance of this at the end of the Committee stage which shows the Government's affection for monopoly. When they agreed to give a similar opportunity to private tourist agencies so that they should not be squeezed out by those owned by the Government, they carefully limited that concession to tourist agencies already in operation, and so made it quite impossible for any enterprising ex-Service man to set up in that business.
On a wider survey this constant absorption of an ever larger proportion
650
of workers seems to me to be disquieting, and if an industry is to be more and more in the hands of the Government and the trade unions, to get the closed shop, I think that is bound to result in an ever-rising spiral of costs at the expense, first of all of the community, and then of our industries, because the ever-rising costs would cripple them in their capacity to compete in the world markets on which we depend for our very existence.
To return to the Bill, while we agree to the unification of railways, we have always intended that the monopoly thus set up should be kept in check by road competition. The Government have rendered this almost impossible by sweeping all the road hauliers into their net. The C licence people, it is true, are outside, but if they are not allowed to carry return loads the cost of running will be so high as to almost put them out. I suppose that is inevitable now, but I would ask the Government to take a reasonable view and temper the wind to the shorn lamb by accepting the Amendment we put in here to raise the mileage limits to eighty and fifty miles, respectively. That is not a fair compromise but it is at any rate a compromise we could accept.
I have one further point, a large and important one, on which compromise has failed completely. In this regard the Government have shown themselves to be not only hard and unyielding but I venture to think grossly unfair. I refer to the price that is being paid to all for being taken over. I am not prepared to argue about the total sum, but thousands of smallholders and trustees have invested in senior railway stocks and, although the junior stocks may very likely have been speculative, as I frankly admit, the debenture and senior stocks were regarded as a safe source of income for trustees and charities, and the gravest hardship of a sudden and undeserved loss is going to fall with special severity on some of the most helpless and perhaps most deserving members of the community. I am afraid it is too late to alter this, but I regret that the Government refused our suggestion of arbitration, and that they should put up a global sure, as in the case of the coal mines, and leave it to the Commission to decide between the different classes of stocks as to a fair share of remuneration, for that would indeed have, helped the trustees. As it is, there are many thousands of holders

651
directly or indirectly through trusts who will be cruelly hard hit through no fault of their own. By this little bit of meanness, the Government are laying up for themselves a quite unnecessary resentment and destroying the atmosphere of Good will which would have gone far towards making a success of this experiment. We do not regard this Bill as wholly meeting our views, but when it becomes law it will be the duty of all of us to try and make it a success.
3.25 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, my noble friend Viscount Swinton mentioned the long and complex nature of the Amendments to this Bill. That was absolutely true and when I first saw the formidable list I had to spend five or six hours at home with a towel round my head trying to understand them, much less argue them across the floor of the House. What has been the result as regards these Amendments in the course of the passage of this Bill through the House? I am glad to say a large proportion have been settled by agreement and I should like to add a personal word of thanks to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the courtesy with which he has tried to meet me and other noble Lords dealing with Amendments on behalf of the passenger road transport industry. I feel sure I shall be voicing the feelings of the whole of the passenger road transport industry in expressing their thanks in this House. I should only like to say one thing more: as a very small travel agent, I thank the Government for the insertion of Clause 116 and their efforts to protect the small independent travel agent.
3.27 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before we say goodbye to this Bill—or perhaps, who knows, the right phrase may be "au revoir"—I feel impelled to say a word not on any of the technical aspects, but on a point referred to on Second Reading of which I think there is a danger of losing sight. On Second Reading, if I may be forgiven from quoting two sentences from my own speech, I said:
"Then there is the whole question of Civil Service administration. I do not desire to develop that, but your Lordships know that the saturation point of good administration has already been reached and passed."
652
I went on to suggest at the end of my speech the course I would like the Government to take, which was to withdraw the Bill and think again. I am afraid that after the eleven days we have spent on it and all the hard work we have put in, that is perhaps at this stage a counsel of perfection, but nevertheless I think the question of the burden on the Civil Service is one which we have to have in mind, perhaps more with reference to the future course of events than to the actual fate of this Bill.
Before going further I would like to pay a humble tribute to the great British Civil Service. I suppose no one knows better than a Minister—and I have never had the privilege of being a Minister—how much he is dependent on the Civil Service and particularly on the head of his Department. The responsibility on the head of one of the great Departments is a colossal one. He is the channel through which all recommendations about policy have to go up to the Minister; to some extent the responsibility which is carried by our senior civil servants is heavier than that carried by some individual Ministers, because Ministerial decisions have to go to the Cabinet and are the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, but in the Department the senior civil servant is responsible. If I had to name the three qualities which have made our Civil Service the admiration of the world, I would say, first, loyalty to the Minister; secondly, thoroughness; and thirdly, the wisdom brought to the consideration of all problems. I say with the utmost regret that under present day conditions only one of those qualities can in the nature of things remain unimpaired: that is, his loyalty to his Minister. I am quite certain that no matter what Government may be elected by the people of this country, the Civil Service will remain as loyal as they are and always have been. But in to-day's circumstance it is not possible for this great Civil Service to bring the thoroughness to which we have been accustomed to bear on their task, and for that very reason it is not possible for them fully to apply the wisdom which in days past they have been able to use.
There has been a great expansion of Government Departments, and for the head of a Government Department we need a first-class man. The supply of

653
first-class men even in the Civil Service is not inexhaustible. And, in passing, we must remember that we are suffering greatly from the aftermath of the 1914–1918 war, when a great destruction of the best people who would now be in these responsible posts took place and whose loss never can be made up. What is happening? The heads of Departments to-day do not have time to think. Matters are rushed, but in spite of that decisions are delayed. It is common knowledge that it takes a long time to get a decision on high principle. Correspondence is delayed; people writing to Government Departments have to wait a long time for an answer. But what is worst of all is—and it is quite undoubted—the health of the senior civil servants is suffering, and the sick list is a heavy one. We all know of cases where often several of the higher ranks are absent at the same time.
I am picking my words when I say that I believe that at this very moment the Civil Service is breaking down. It would not be right to use a general phrase of that sort without saying what I mean; I want to tell you exactly what I mean by those words. As you know, there is before Parliament a mass of legislation. The preparation of that legislation alone has imposed a tremendous burden on Departments, but this legislation is of such a character that, even when it is passed, it is not finished with. At once there is a trail of further work to be done; there is a trail to be followed of interpretation, because modern legislation is so complicated that even when it is through it takes a legal pundit to interpret it, and I think the Departments themselves spend a great deal of time settling what the legislation means after Parliament has passed it.
Then there is the question of regulations. Over and over again we have to put into Bills that the draft regulations have to be laid before Parliament. There can be no greater evidence of the complication and complexity of these matters, and that again lays a tremendous burden upon these senior civil servants. That is what I mean when I say that the Civil Service is breaking down. To put it more exactly, a load is being imposed on civil servants which is greater than their capacity to bear.
654
The application of what I am saying is to the future. The noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, described this measure as "a gigantic adventure." No description could be truer. I think a gigantic adventure of this sort is one which should have been reserved, and should in future be reserved, for more normal times. Everybody knew when the war was ending that we were going to run into difficult times economically. Nobody foresaw the acute difficulties which now confront us. It is a commonplace to say that there is an economic blizzard approaching this country. We have to face that blizzard, and not the wisest of us can foresee when it is going to hit us or how it is going to arrive. Much hope is laid upon what is called the Marshall Plan. I think it is gradually being realized now that the Marshall Plan, whatever it may be, at best will be merely a palliative. We shall be struggling very shortly with the maintenance of our standard of living. We have a short-term and a long-term problem, and surely this gigantic adventure really concerns the long-term problem rather than the short-term problem. It is a thing which we should do well to postpone. I am not suggesting that we should postpone this Bill but, if there are other Government projects of nationalization on the stocks, I would beg the Government to give consideration to this point of view before they once again impose a still heavier burden which it will be beyond the powers of the Civil Service to carry.
3.35 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I propose to detain your Lordships for only a very few minutes before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House. This Bill has been debated clause by clause and line by line and, with the assistance and agreement of His Majesty's Government which we on this side of the House fully appreciate, the Bill has undoubtedly been considerably improved and clarified. In fact, the debates have led to the addition of a new form of Parliamentary language which is no doubt very expressive and all embracing but may not yet be found in the Oxford Dictionary. I think it is true to say that no Amendment has been carried in your Lordships' House against the Government which could in any way be considered a wrecking Amendment or

655
which has sought to alter the declared policy of the Government.
I want to refer to one or two of the principal Amendments. I think it is important that they should be emphasized because we may eventually get some agreement. One of the principal Amendments which have been inserted in the Bill was directed towards an increase in the radius of action of the short distance road haulier. This was done in order to give him a little more elbow room and a fair chance to earn a living while in competition with the Transport Commission. In another place, the Minister of Transport declared that the original distance as drafted in the Bill was chosen "for no special arbitrary reason." I do hope that when the Bill reaches another place he will modify his views and give the matter his sympathetic consideration, because this very reasonable Amendment will go a long way to satisfy the legitimate claims of the road haulage industry for a fair deal. I am sure that His Majesty's Government will fully realize the importance of maintaining a contented industry. It will do neither the country nor the Transport Commission any good if a discontented, impoverished private transport system is to work alongside the organization of the Commission. It is for this reason and for justice to the short distance haulier that I hope the increase in radius of action will be retained in the Bill.
I would also remind your Lordships that the declared policy of the Government has been to nationalize long distance haulage. It would be of little use to increase the radius of action of the short distance haulier if the majority of the undertakings had been absorbed by the Commission, and therefore by another Amendment we extended the distance which determined by the formula in the Bill whether or not an undertaking would be taken over by the Commission. I hope that His Majesty's Government in another place will also give this Amendment their fullest and sympathetic consideration. It has been argued that by this Amendment the Commission would be unable to absorb sufficient undertakings to run their organization in an efficient manner. I do not believe this to be true, and I feel strongly that some agreement should be arrived at on these figures.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has touched on another matter, which is the
656
harbour clauses. I want to speak very briefly about this. He referred to the agreed Amendments which had been inserted in the Bill. We are grateful to His Majesty's Government for going a long way to meet us on the local administration and control of the ports and services. It must not be forgotten that under the Bill as it leaves this House it will still be possible for the Commission to prepare harbour schemes under centralized control, but in view of the "desirability of local administration," as now set out in the words of the Bill, I hope that no centralized control will in fact ever be instituted and that wise counsel will always prevail.
We on this side of the House feel that the basic principles of this Bill are wrong, unnecessary and forced upon the country at a time when all our attention should be directed to the reconstruction of our trade and industries rather than to the disturbance of our efficient transport system, but, when the Bill becomes law, we shall do all we can to ensure that the reorganization is a success, and we have endeavoured to ensure this success by carefully studied and well thought out Amendments to the Bill. I have little doubt that the Minister of Transport will take the greatest care in the selection of the members of the Commission. I wish them all success in a great enterprise which may well have a profound bearing on the future of this country for good or ill, and which will certainly tax the minds and ingenuity of these supermen, as they will certainly have to be if success is to be achieved. I close as Euclid might have said: "Quod erit demonstrandum."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, with the leave of the House I hope I may be allowed to say how much I am sure we have all appreciated the speeches that have been made on the Motion before us. I would like, if I may, to pay tribute to the remarkable summary of the Amendments for which we are indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I must say that I do not remember ever listening to a more compact, fairly stated and comprehensive summary of a very intricate series of subjects. Those who want to remind themselves of what we have been doing during these eleven days might quite profitably, if I may say so, read the noble Viscount's speech in Hansard of what has been done on this Bill. We are indebted to the noble Viscount for that review.

657
There is one further observation I might make. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for his exceedingly thoughtful speech. Whatever his views and our views may be as to the future of the public service, I am sure we are indebted to him, and the public service is indebted to him, for the tribute which he paid to the Civil Service, so often misrepresented to the damage of the public interest. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I thank the House for this opportunity of saying so.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
3.42 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 31:
(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—

(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

(b) that the carrying out thereof is otherwise desirable for the purposes of agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration or for the purposes of the enactments relating to smallholdings or allotments; or

(c) that by reason of the purpose for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy to which the notice to quit relates, greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or

(d) that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of the land being used for a use, other than for agriculture, not falling within paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection:

Provided that in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Part of this Act paragraph (c) of this subsection shall not have effect in relation to the termination of the tenancy unless it is so provided by a written contract of tenancy, specifying the purpose referred to in that paragraph.
Debate resumed on the Amendment moved yesterday by Lord Ashburton, at page 32, line 6, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), to leave out "desirable in" and insert "in conformity with."
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps I might say a word here, as my name is down to this Amendment. I should like, with the permission of the House, and without in any way committing myself for the Report stage, to have an opportunity of seeing this clause when we have finished with it after discussing the next Amendment. I therefore propose now to withdraw the Amendment, page 32, line 6, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashburton and myself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASHBURTON LORD ASHBURTON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "farming," to insert "or good estate management." The noble Lord said: This Amendment was in fact referred to yesterday, so I do not propose to detain your Lordships for any length of time on it. I would only say that there is a very widespread and, I think, sincere feeling on our side of the House that in this Bill, which pre-supposes the continuation of landlord and tenant, and exalts exactly similar and very fierce penalties for the failure of either, it should be made easy for the landlord to do his job. Therefore, in this clause—which is really quite a vital one—when the Minister is required to give his consent or withhold it with regard to a notice to quit being given by the landlord, he should have some reference to good estate management in giving this decision, as well as to the consideration of good farming. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 7, after ("farming insert ("or good estate management").—(Lord Ashburton.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): It is obviously essential that the Minister should have regard to good estate management, but if I may draw your Lordships attention to subsection (3), the words "efficient farming" in paragraph (a) would cover good estate management. In fact, it is rather hard to think of efficient farming being conducted without good estate management. I suggest to the noble Lord that this is already covered by the words "efficient farming."
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid that throughout the Bill, whether the part

659
dealing with supervision orders or in other parts of the Bill, there are not only references to efficient farming but to good estate management. Actually they are quite separate portions of the Bill, and there are clauses dealing with each subject. Therefore, I do not think we can accept the contention of the noble Earl that the words "efficient farming" cover "good estate management." However, I gather from the noble Earl that it is really only a question of drafting, and he admits that the words "good estate management" should in fact be included in this clause. It would be very helpful if the noble Earl could accept this Amendment, and I would press him to do so.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If that is the feeling of noble Lords, we have no real objection, and I should be prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD ASHBURTON: I would like to thank the noble Earl for accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "farming," insert "or otherwise in the interests of the community." The noble Earl said: I think we are all very grateful for the concession on the last Amendment, which certainly does widen the powers of the Minister, not only in the interests of farming but in his own interests. But quite apart from that, there are other considerations in the management of land and estates which I think might and ought reasonably to be taken into consideration on this question of giving notice to quit. I wonder whether such a case as one might have in mind of a very efficient farmer who looks after his own and his landlord's property well, but for some reason or other is a very bad employer of labour, is continually changing his men and, therefore, causing great trouble in the locality, is entirely covered by these provisions even as widened.
That is why I have in mind that we might have in the Bill—and, mind you, at the discretion of the Minister; he has got to be satisfied before he agrees—the words which I suggest shall be put in; that is to say, "or otherwise in the interests of the community." That makes
660
the provision a bit wider. I would have the noble Earl realize that farming is not only a business; it is the life of the countryside. I am seeking in this way to give to the Minister slightly wider discretion to take into account what in other parts of the Bill are perhaps called "relevant circumstances." I think the words which I propose, "or otherwise in the interests of the community," bear more nearly on the question, and I hope the noble Earl may feel disposed to accept this Amendment. I would emphasize again that it is "in the opinion of the Minister." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 7, after ("farming") insert ("or otherwise in the interests of the community").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: With regard to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, I appreciate his intention, and I agree with him that the interests of the countryside generally have to be considered. But as I pointed out last night on a previous Amendment, what we are trying to do is to provide efficient rules for the security of tenure of farmers. The fact that this gives the Minister wide discretion might not please the tenant farmer or the farming community. What they want are definite rules to guarantee that they will not be disturbed. To take rather an extreme example, you might get a great difference in political views between the landowner and the farmer which, it might be argued, should be resolved in the interests of the community. Although I quite agree that under the present Minister such a consideration would not come into the picture at all, noble Lords have pointed out that this is a very long-term measure and that one should provide for different persons and different factors. I think however that this would open the door too wide, and I am afraid that I must ask the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I cannot subscribe entirely to the views expressed by the noble Earl. It is quite true that possibly the days of the Rechabite political opinions might have caused divergence of opinion which resulted in an injustice to the tenant. We have travelled quite a long way from those days, and that that suggestion should have been thrown out is I think a little unworthy

661
of the noble Earl because he cannot produce any evidence. Equally I would refer to something I interjected last night—perhaps rather rudely. The noble Earl has produced no evidence as yet that tenant farmers are disturbed over the question of their lack of security of tenure. There is no evidence on that account at all, and the noble Earl has not produced any. I hope that before we part with this particular clause the noble Earl will be able to produce the answers upon which he bases the statement that farmers and tenant farmers will be disturbed in their minds if they do not get this additional security of tenure. But in spite of that the Amendment is not of sufficient importance to press, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.54 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), to leave out "creation of the tenancy to which the notice to quit relates," and insert "giving of the notice to quit." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name deals with a very much narrower point than that with which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has just been dealing. The cases with which this Amendment deals are cases such as those of an owner-occupier who is dispossessed of his holding in connexion, for instance, with town planning, as in the case of the establishment of new towns. It is the case of a man whose livelihood and that of his family is dependent upon farming, and who is naturally looking for another farm in which he can carry on his business. As your Lordships are quite aware, there is great difficulty in securing and purchasing a farm with vacant possession, and in many cases it is practically impossible to do so.
This Amendment is designed to give the Minister discretion in dealing with cases of that description, as, for example, where a man has bought a farm which is already occupied and desires to farm it himself, and in order that this should be achieved it is necessary that the sitting farmer should leave that farm. What the Amendment asks for, in effect, is that in such a case it should be possible for the Minister to review the whole case and, in his discretion, deal with the matter on its merits. The wording of the whole of this subsection very involved, but I understand
662
that the Amendment I have suggested does put into effect the intention which I have expressed. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said yesterday, all these Amendments to the clause are to increase the discretion of the Minister, and I cannot help feeling that in this particular case there are good grounds for asking that that discretion should be enlarged in the way I have indicated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 13, leave out from the second ("the") to end of line 14, and insert ("giving of the notice to quit").—(Lord O'Hogan.)
THE EARL ON HUNTINGDON: I thank we are up against the same point on this Amendment as on the previous Amendment. It involves opening the door very much wider and giving the Minister much greater discretion. The difficulty of using the words "notice to quit" is that in any case where a person bought a farm without vacant possession the Minister could give consent to a notice to quit. As your Lordships know, the object we have in mind is to prevent that very thing. We want to protect the sitting tenant, the farmer who has been there for years and years and who is doing a thoroughly good job. Unless there are very strong reasons for not doing so, or unless the farmer is a bad farmer and not up to standard, we want to give him security.
MARQUESS TOWNSHEND: I wish to support this Amendment and the words actually used in it, because I feel that we are dealing here with a very particular case—the case of a person who is displaced through no fault of his own. He may be displaced as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said, through building, town planning or some other function of a Minister, and he may be turned cut without being able to help himself. Therefore, he will be looking for another place. If we can get these words into the Bill he will realize that his only chance of getting possession of the particular holding he has bought is to produce a better case than that of the sitting tenant. I feel that that might happen quite frequently. I might emphasize that we do not wish for powers to turn out a man automatically under this rule, and we are only asking to widen the powers of the Minister in order that he may take into consideration such cases as I and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, have mentioned.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think I have ever heard an Amendment turned down by a Parliamentary Secretary on the grounds that his Minister was not fit to have wider discretion. So far as I can see, that seems to be the only objection to this Amendment which obviously sets out to deal with a very real case of hardship. It might well be that the Minister is convinced of the hardship and feels it is one that should be remedied, but as the clause is drafted now he would not be allowed to use his discretion to remedy it. Surely that is most unreasonable and might lead to great injustice. I suggest, therefore, that this is an Amendment which has serious substance behind it. It leaves everything to the discretion of the Minister, and it does not widen the power of the purchaser to turn out a tenant without approaching the Minister. Therefore, I should have thought it comes well within the agreed policy, not only of His Majesty's Government but of your Lordships' House as a whole, that the tenant is as entitled to his full security as is compatible with doing justice to others.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: It surprises me to hear the noble Earl asking for greater discretion for the Minister in this clause. We so often hear complaints about additional powers being given to different Ministers that it is refreshing to hear the other point of view put so well by the noble Earl. I should like noble Lords to recognize that already we have opened the door very wide under subsection (3) (c), which reads:
"that by reason of the purpose for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy.…"
That is a very big concession. It allows any landlord, if or when he can get vacant possession of a farm, to say, "In future years I shall want this farm for another purpose," and if that is inserted in the tenancy agreement, the Minister may consent to a notice to quit when such a notice is given. The landlord may, for example, have a child whom he wishes to succeed him, but the child may be going into the Army or abroad; for the time being therefore, he cannot farm the land. In such a case the owner could let the farm and insert in his tenancy agreement that be has this other purpose in mind; and when the time comes he can give the tenant notice to quit, and the Minister may give his consent. If we opened the door
664
wider still to anyone who gave a reason for notice to quit, it would probably lead to the dispossession of a great number of farmers. It would cut away the security of the tenant farmer which we have so much in mind. In the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: This is a difficult Amendment because of its many complications, but I do not quite see that the facts just mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, really bear on this particular discussion. It is true that the paragraph does have a very considerable effect on tenancies which are now existing; but this Amendment suggests that the discretion of the Minister should be capable of being exercised in the case of a tenancy which has not in fact been made by the purchaser. It means that a man can buy a farm and then find there is a chance of getting it for himself. Then there are the farmers who moved to bigger farms and perhaps want to buy their own and become the owner-occupier. Owner-occupiers of that kind are a very useful section of the farming community: men who started on small holdings and moved on and on. I think your Lordships will probably find that in most counties there are men of that sort on the country agricultural committees and on their district committees. They are extremely useful and good men to have in the farming industry, and if it is not possible for a man of that kind to buy himself a farm he will not be able to develop in that way; he will not be able to be his own master and take the part in the farming community which he should.
I understand that the Government's objection to this proposal is that anybody who is not in the category I have mentioned would be able to buy a farm and then claim it for himself. I should have thought that there was more than adequate protection in that case from the fact that the Minister is instructed that he need not give possession until he is satisfied about it. It seems to me there is adequate protection against people coming into possession of a farm and having no moral claim to occupying it themselves. I hope we can find something which will meet cases of that kind. It is essential that men should be able to progress through the industry in the way I have mentioned.
LORD HASTINGS: The importance of this Amendment depends really on the treatment which is accorded to the Amendment which immediately follows. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that it might be better for him to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee, reserving to himself the right to re-enter it on the Report stage if the succeeding Amendment does not meet with the success which those who support it hope. Its relative importance will then become very much greater than it is at the moment. If the noble Lord were to allow this to go by for the moment, and wait for the discussion on the other Amendment and if necessary put down another Amendment on the Report stage, I think he would find it more satisfactory.
LORD O'HAGAN: I am in the hands of your Lordships on this matter. I think there is very great substance in the Amendment put forward. I feel, in spite of—perhaps partly because of—what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said in reply, that there is really so clear a case made out that I trust His Majesty's Government will consider this particular point with great attention. At the same time, I can see the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, says, and I am quite prepared, on the understanding that on the Report stage we should review the position and that I hold myself free if it is thought necessary to endeavour to get an Amendment of this nature inserted later, to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There are three Amendments following which bear on the same subject. I do not know whether it would be for your Lordship's convenience if we were to take them altogether so that we could have a general debate.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think it would be possible to take the last one, standing in the name of Earl Stanhope, at the same time as the others. It is a standing Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert, after paragraph (d) of subsection (3):
"(e) That the notice to quit is, or is proposed to be, given with a view to the holding
666
or the part thereof to which the notice to quit relates being farmed either by the landlord or by a child or grand-chill of his, and for the purpose of this paragraph a person's stepchild, adopted child (whether adopted in pursuance of an enactment or otherwise) or illegitimate child shall be treated as a child of his."
The noble Earl said: It seems that the discussion on widening the clause is going to be centred on this Amendment, and from our point of view it is a very important Amendment. I would go so far as to say that its acceptance by His Majesty's Government would go a long way to reconciling those interested in the ownership of land to Clause 31, which is the clause in this Bill to which we take very strong exception. In moving this Amendment, and in saying that, I want to make one thing quite clear: It purports to make it possible for the Minister to agree to the notice to quit when the landlord wishes to farm the land himself, or wishes a child of his to farm it. May I say that I am not responsible for the rather exotic definition of "child" in the Amendment? It originated in the Ministry of Agriculture, I think and was considerably wider in the early draft. I am not wedded to this definition. The purpose is, of course, that the heir should be allowed to enter and farm the land.
I would make it quite clear, also, that this Amendment does not have quite the same relationship to this subsection as some of the other Amendments or some of the other parts, in that although nominally it is still within the discretion of the Minister it is not intended that where a case is made the Minister shall have any discretion whatever. Noble Lords will understand what I am driving at, that though the subsection says the Minister has to be satisfied, as soon as he is satisfied in those cases it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact; and when he is satisfied as to the facts he has to accept them if they can be accepted. It is a definite thing. I also want to make it quite clear that it is not a question of the selfish landlord desiring to turn out a tenant who deserves well of him. Nothing of that sort is intended; it is intended entirely for the benefit of agriculture the agricultural community and the progress of agriculture in this country.
May I, first of all, adduce as an argument that the powers sought in this Amendment have been in the hands of

667
landlords for many generations past? Right up to the beginning of the war a landlord could get rid of a tenant for any reason whatsoever—not the narrow reason in this Amendment, but for any reason—provided that he was prepared to pay the necessary compensation. I do not want the noble Lord again to talk in this House about the fear of the tenant-farmer for his security of tenure. Landlords have had this power, and much greater powers than we are now seeking to insert in the Bill, for many years past. And, as my noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth said only yesterday, in the National Farm Survey it was found that the average length of tenancy in this country was twenty-two years. That does not allow for many cases of people being turned out without any particular reason. You must remember, and take into account in that, the fact that some farmers do give up, others move on from one farm to another; and you have only to look at the advertisement columns in the farming papers to see the number of farms that are being advertised, and the number of farms that are ultimately taken up by farmers. The average tenure in this country is twenty-two years, and nobody can say that that denotes an insecurity of tenure, even under our normal practice of year to year tenancy.
he second point is that where there is an owner of land with an estate, then in the interests of the estate, in the interests of the countryside and in the interests of the country as a whole, it is very desirable, and indeed essential I think, that if he is able to do so he should farm some of his own land. It will give him a clearer understanding of the difficulties of his tenants; moreover, if it so happened that other farms fell into hand—such things have been known; I think my noble friend, Lord Hastings, has had trouble in that direction—and if he has a farm and has been farming it, he has the nucleus of an organization to keep these farms in proper cultivation. Thirdly, it is a great education for a young man entering in upon his own property that he should farm some of his land. There is also the case of the owner-occupier (mentioned by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan on the last Amendment) who may have been turned out through the workings of some other Act of Parliament and who desires
668
to find somewhere where he can return to his occupation.
There is also another case—that of the man who is neither a landowner to-day nor an owner-occupier who has been turned out of his farm because of development of another sort. There is the man—we know quite a number of them, and I have no doubt the noble Lord does—who, having made his money in some other walk of life, has an urge to go into farming. In the eyes of many, they may be considered undesirable people to own land, but such people have brought into agriculture a much-needed stimulus, both in money, enterprise and brains. It would be a great pity if the possibility of such men coming into the farming business should be prevented, as it is prevented now by this clause, because they cannot prove that they will be more efficient than the man they are to turn out. They have never farmed, but, on the other hand, they are going to bring brains, money and enterprise into the industry. Though they will probably lose money—and we all know of cases where money has been lost in this way—they will do a great good for the countryside in which they farm. I have in mind a particular case, where extremely good cowsheds and farm buildings were entirely rebuilt, and a whole series of cottages were also built in order to house the workers on the farm which that individual had bought. That is a permanent improvement to the countryside, and enables, or would enable in the right hands, that land to be more profitably farmed—I do not mean "profitably" in the terms of money, I mean "profitably" in the terms of production for the country's needs.
May I add one other thing? I have wondered, when I have considered this problem of the terms under which the Minister is to consider whether or not a man should be turned out of his farm, if some of our great agriculturists of the past would have been considered efficient farmers in the eyes of the present-day county agriculture committees. I wonder whether the introduction of the turnip would have been considered progressive and efficient farming. I wonder if the introduction of the four-course rotation would have been considered efficient and competent farming in the eyes of the county committee. One of the things of which one has to be extremely careful in these matters is that in official eyes, and,

669
if I may say so, in organizers' eyes, efficiency so often means merely the continuation of established practice and not the starting of new practice. We do not want to prevent enterprise in the great industry which we represent, and I am very much afraid that if the landowner, and those who wish to go into land-owning from outside, are prevented from farming their own land, you will put a stop, to that enterprise.
We know perfectly well that in the past the landowner has done great things for agriculture in this country. Most of the great advances in agricultural practice in this country have been initiated originally by the great landowners of the past, and it is in this connexion that the owner of land still has a big part to play, if he is allowed to do so. I cannot tell you what the results of his playing that part will be, but it may well be of vital importance to agriculture. If this Amendment is not accepted, or something of this sort is not accepted, that vital force which has been in the past provided by the landowners will suffer slow strangulation. Not only will landowners suffer, hut the agriculture of this country will undoubtedly suffer. The country as a whole will suffer in consequence of the lack of that increased production for which we may yet look in this land of ours. It is on these grounds that I commend this Amendment to the Committee with all the strength that I have at my command. It does not, perhaps, go so far as I should like it to go, but it does keep that vital force, which the landowner can provide, as a possibility for agriculture. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 21, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD COURTHOPE: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor. I do so not especially in the interests of any particular class but in the interests of the land itself, its fertility and its production. The owner's love of his land is a powerful emotion, and there is no doubt that in the great majority of cases the man who owns his land and is occupying it will make greater efforts to maintain its equipment and its fertility than will a man who is merely a tenant and who is primarily concerned with having an
670
economic return for his enterprise. My strong impression is that in the interests of the land and its fertility every possible encouragement and inducement should be offered to owners of Land, whether large or small, and their families, to occupy that land and to farm it.
Throughout the lean years which passed between the two wars, I was a member of the Forestry Commission, and we had experience of countless cases of land, large areas of which had become vacant and derelict. In the great majority of those cases the land which had become derelict was land which had been subject to tenancies, and upon which the tenants were not able to make a living. The home farm, or any farms still in the occupation of the owner, on the other hand, were kept in some sort of good condition and fertility, because the landowner, whether large or small, made a greater effort to maintain that land than was justified by mere economic considerations. In a great many instances land which the Forestry Commission were subsequently blamed for taking over—which was offered to them in a completely derelict condition and is now growing trees—might, in the opinion of the local agricultural committees, have produced valuable food supplies during the war if it had been maintained in some sort of fertility by the owners.
Those areas, however, were covered with weeds and scrub, and in that condition they were much more suitable for afforestation than for food production. I cite that only as an illustration, and as evidence in support of the argument which I put forward, that an owner of land, whether large or small, will make greater efforts than a tenant, who is primarily concerned with his economic return, to maintain the land in a state of fertility. I think that this is a consideration to which this Committee and the Government should attach great importance, if they want—as I know they do—to produce the largest possible amount of foodstuffs in this country in the future.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I believe it to be entirely false to suggest that the tenant has not security of tenure at the present time. Most tenancies—as indeed we have been told this afternoon—have lasted for a great number of years. Some have lasted through generations of the same family. I personally rather resent

671
the attitude of the Government, who seem to me to be trying to insinuate that the tenants in this country have been rather badly treated by their landlords. The opposite is, I believe, the truth. There is absolutely no proof at all that the present system of tenancy is either unsatisfactory or unpopular. Now we are told that the Government are not prepared to meet us over this Amendment, which touches on the fundamental right of an owner to farm his own land, or to obtain that land for his son to farm. Surely, the old Socialist cry was always against the absentee landlord. Now that the landlord wishes to increase his responsibility by getting hold of the land to farm—either himself or by his son or some other relation—he is to be discouraged. In fact, I think that it would be difficult for him to do so at all. So I feel that in order to introduce some form of justice into Clause 31 it would be well if the Government could see their way to meet us on this Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: We have heard some very forcible arguments and some eloquent speeches on this clause. It always surprises me—though perhaps it should not—to find how often we seem to walk along happily together for a part of the way along the road and then suddenly the road diverges and we seem to have differences of opinion as to the way to take. I think that all of us are agreed that it is an absolute necessity that this country should have efficient farming. Clearly, there is no dispute about that. It seems that the only question of opinion is how that might be brought about: what are the best means and methods to employ? I was greatly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, but I did not think it was altogether a good advertisement for the landlord who looks after his own farm but who is apt to neglect that of his tenant, because he is more interested in his own ownership.
LORD COURTHOPE: The tenants have gone. They have given notice, and moved out. The farms of which I spoke were vacant farms.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I apologize if I have misunderstood or have inadvertently misrepresented what the noble Lord said. In any case, I do not think that it would be suggested that
672
between the two wars farming and agriculture generally were in the condition in which any of us would like to see them now. I do not want to labour the point since it is a controversial one. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, seemed to suggest that we were not desirous of encouraging the owner-occupier. Of course we want to see the owner-occupier in agriculture. We want to see the progressive man, who perhaps has not yet proved himself, enter farming and help to make some discovery which will be of benefit to British farming. I know of one farmer who started as an engineer but took up farming in later life. He produced surprising results on his farm and added considerably to farming knowledge. This farm is now one of the show-places in the district. That is the sort of thing we do not wish to discourage.
We want to help young men to start in farming. I think we are completely in agreement there. Where we disagree on this clause is that we do not think that in order to bring about this very desirable result, a landowner should be able to dispossess an equally good farmer who is a sitting tenant. After all, it is possible to get farms with vacant possession; they do fall vacant every now and then. We should not allow a farmer to be dispossessed in such circumstances. The owner should wait until vacant possession comes along. Our emphasis is on the sitting tenant. But there is a case, I admit, for a farmer with a son who has been brought up on the farm and to whom he wishes to give a start in agriculture. There is also the particularly hard case of a man who bought a farm before the war for a son who went into the forces and that son wants to come back to farm. Owing to the provisions of the Bill the owner cannot get rid of his tenant to allow his son to take over. I think we might make some concession in this case.
We cannot make a concession on the former Amendments, which throw open the door for the buying of farms and allowing the Minister to dispossess tenants in order that the buyers may gain vacant possession. If the noble Lord will accept this, we will put down an Amendment which will allow that in the case of land bought before the war the owner could apply for a notice to quit—giving his reasons, not necessarily related to children—and the Minister woud have power

673
to agree to the notice. How far that would go to meet the noble Lords, I do not know, but if they are prepared to withdraw their Amendments, I would be very happy to make that concession.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I do not know if I speak for all those who sit with me, but I feel that the noble Earl has not answered the case which we have put forward in favour of those who have inherited land generation after generation, who know and love their land, who have a high sense of duty in regard to the landlord's functions and who are particularly interested in the local community and whose son or other children have been brought up with a deep sense of responsibility concerning the functions of a landlord. Those are the people for whom I at any rate make a plea, as I did in the course of the debate yesterday.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has said, that there are people who have made fortunes in other walks of life, are progressively minded, have purchased estates and, with a reserve of wealth which most of us older landlords cannot command, have generously equipped their estates and farms with buildings, cottages and everything that we should all desire to see in the light of modern agricultural developments. But I do feel very strongly that some concession ought to be made in favour of the son or other successor entitled to an estate who will be imbued with all those traditions of which we can justly boast and who should be given the opportunity in preference to any outsider to carry on the duties of a landlord of a property which has been in the family perhaps for generations or even centuries. As I ventured to say yesterday, large number of the sons of existing landlords, particularly belonging to old landed families, are to-day receiving an agricultural education either at universities or agricultural colleges with full consciousness that they want to be equipped to carry out the functions laid down in this Bill as the proper functions to be discharged by an agricultural landlord. I am perfectly certain that, if the Government are prepared to repose the due amount of confidence in agricultural landlords in this country and in the traditions of the best type of landlordism in the past, they will not be disappointed.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to realize that the clause and the Amendment proposed to it go infinitely deeper than anything which can be described under the heading "security of tenure." It is a question of priorities and a question of priorities that goes right down to the roots of the fundamental freedoms. You are proposing in a civilized and well-ordered country to give priority to a tenant over an owner, a thing that has never been done in any other civilized country in the world. We are aware that there are countries where land has been nationalized, sometimes without and sometimes with compensation. That has been an act of State policy which has nothing whatever to do with the subject we are discussing. This is not a question of the State taking over land and dealing with it as it sees fit, having once become its possessor.
This is a question entirely, if I may dare to repeat myself, of priorities. In this country and in every other country where the private ownership of land is allowed—and I include uncivilized countries as well as civilized countries, which is a very important inclusion—the owner of the land has the prior right to occupy it. His Majesty's Government are the first authority who have ever suggested—and I do not stand open to contradiction on this matter—that a tenant should have priority over the owner. It is as well that this should sink right in, because it is a very big social question which goes far far beyond the mere expediency of security of tenure.
I venture to hold—and I should suppose that an enormous majority of my countrymen would support me in taking this view—that the right of an owner to occupy the land that he owns is a fundamental right. It is one of those rights with which it is impossible to interfere on the ground of any expediency whatsoever. That is a standpoint which can be argued, of course, but I doubt if it would be possible for anybody to go out into the highways and byways of this country and to argue against that principle; I do not think he would stand a chance of carrying his view. If we start from that standpoint, we really are in a better position to deal with the subject matter before us than if we deal with it only on the somewhat secondary ground

675
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.
676
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

677
they own in which they have acquired an interest in these different ways, and who are held up until this Bill passes into law, until the terms of it are known and until the local agricultural executive committees are enabled to function.
Unless you allow an Amendment of that character which is now before the Committee to pass into the Bill, what is going to happen to the twelve good men and true who constitute your county agricultural executive committee? Here is a matter of such vital importance to applicants that it is impossible to delegate this work to the servants of the committee. It would be grossly improper if it were so delegated. It has to be done by the members of the committee itself. The members of the committee have got to debate after an inspection and after hearing the relative merits of the man who wishes to occupy his own land and of the man who wishes to remain on it as a tenant. What guidance have they? Extremely little. There is going to be the standard of efficient farming. To-day the applicant has to prove to the satisfaction of the committee, and so of the Minister, that the standard of farming is going to be improved, and that production is going to be improved. That is an impossible thing for an applicant to prove, unless it so happens that he is a well-known farmer in the same county. Otherwise it is impossible to prove. How are your committee to sit and deal with this enormous number of cases? They cannot do it. You are going to ask your committee of twelve in every county of Great Britain to saddle themselves voluntarily with an immense burden. You are placing upon them a burden which requires to be shared—and there are many members of this House who do share it and who will know exactly what I am talking about. You are going to make that burden such that it will be veritably the last straw that will break the camel's back. It cannot be done.
For the very salvation of your agriculture executive committees, I appeal to you to allow this Amendment. It will relieve them of an immense burden of work and it will relieve them of the most odious decisions. How are they to decide these matters impartially? It is asking too much. They cannot determine these matters which you are trying to make them determine; it is beyond their capacity to deal with so large a number
678
of matters. If you want your agricultural committees to function well, you must confine them to their proper job, which is the improving of the standard of farming in Great Britain. That is what they are constituted for; that is how they can best serve the country, and not by making these meticulous decisions as to who should and who should not be permitted to enter into occupation of the land. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, offered us the minimum concession. If you are dealing with a principle so deep and so fundamental as this, how can you fob it off by making a concession to persons who acquire their interest before a certain date? How do you know that there will not be another war, and that the same reasons will not arise that now make you wish to give a concession to the ex-Service men of the last war? Is this Bill going to be torn up because there is another war—which heaven forbid? No. I think if you are going to put provisions like this in a Bill, you must make them apply to all equally.
I have spoken all too long, but I feel very strongly on this matter. I would like to end where I began. Do not let us pretend to ourselves that this is an expedient which has application only to security of tenure. It goes far deeper than that. I would not like to sit down and let it be thought that I had no sympathy with the tenant who, through no fault of his own, had to be turned out of his farm in order to make room for his landlord, or his landlord's son. Obviously, it is a hard case. It would be wrong of me, standing in my place in your Lordships' House, to argue this matter solely from the standpoint of the landowner. I should be ashamed to do so. But if we admit that the landlord's priority is the priority—and we cannot get away from that—then we ought to be ready to make concessions to meet the hard case of the farmer who has to give way to that priority. Why not agree amongst ourselves that a farmer given notice in such circumstances should be paid a degree of compensation ranging higher than that which applies to an ordinary case? It would be a matter of common justice and, although I am qualified to speak for but a few, I do know that there is an opinion held strongly by leaders of the agricultural community, in the landowning interest, that that would be a fair and proper thing to do. I would go one step further than that. You

679
must have a guarantee that the landowner is not crippling the man who wishes to evict his tenant in order to occupy his own land. In a short space of time he may sell it and derive the advantage from vacant possession. You have got to guard against that. There would be no reason whatsoever why you should not put a time limit to the period which he must guarantee to occupy that farm if he wishes to take it over and get the Minister's consent to the removal of his tenant. That is a condition which I throw out as a suggestion, which would make it easier for farmers' representatives to realize that landowners are not in this matter greedy, but are merely wishing for justice for themselves and their tenants. I would wish to support with the greatest strength I can—indeed, I have—the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I apologize to your Lordships for the length of time I have taken in putting forward my point of view, and thank you for your consideration in allowing me to speak for so long.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have listened with great respect, interest and patience to every word that has been uttered in the Committee stage upon this Bill. I have listened with profound admiration to the logic and clarity with which the noble Lord who has just sat down has advanced every argument I have heard him advance up to now. But I was shocked when the noble Lord claimed—and challenged contradiction—the priority of the fundamental right of the owner over the tenant.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I must have misunderstood the noble Lord.
LORD HASTINGS: Not at all.
Lord LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Does he mean—I only ask this for clarification—that the owner has the right to disregard any agreement which he has entered into with his tenant?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD HASTINGS: Forgive me—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: You can answer me completely later. I will just go on, if I may.
LORD HASTINGS: By all means.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In spite of the fact that the noble Lord's supporters are quite sure I have not misunderstood him, I want to know quite clearly what the noble Lord really means by "the fundamental right of the owner over the tenant." I understood him to say that, disregarding everything, if the owner wanted to place his son in a farm which he owned, he could get out a sitting tenant, irrespective of whether that tenant was a good man, and even if he farmed the land to the best possible advantage; that there was a fundamental priority whereby at any time the owner wanted that land, irrespective of any agreement he had with the tenant, he could apply for an eviction order. The noble Lord can correct me if I am wrong.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord is correct in everything he said about what I said except in one important particular. I did not say "irrespective of any agreement."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord will forgive me. He did not mention that.
LORD HASTINGS: No. I think it is well known to everybody concerned with agriculture that every tenant is in occupation of a farm subject to certain conditions of legal notice; that where the owner wishes to exercise what I repeat is the fundamental right of occupying the land he owns, he would be under legal obligation to give to that tenant not less than one year's notice and to pay him the compensation which is due to him under the 1923 Act and which will be due to him under this Bill.
LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. What he now means to say, if I understand him correctly, is that an owner should be able to make application for notice to quit with a year's notice if he wants the farm for the benefit of his family, irrespective of the quality of farming which has been done by the tenant.
LORD HASTINGS: That is correct.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of course, that raises the whole subject of security of tenure. It is not only a problem which is troubling the agricultural world, but is a problem which is causing

681
trouble to industry as a whole. Has the working man to-day too much security of tenure? Has the tenant-farmer too much security of tenure under this Bill? It is the same thing. Is it right that an employer should be able to tap a workman on the shoulder and say: "I will give you the sack in an hour," irrespective of whether he is a good workman or whether he is not? Is it right that the owner of a farm should be able to tap the tenant on the shoulder and say: "I am going to give you a year's notice whether you are a goad farmer or not"?
LORD HASTINGS: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Whether it is a fundamental right of the owner so to do, or whether it is a fundamental right of the employer so to do, the noble Lord will at least grant me that it is a matter of opinion. But it is one which we shall have to settle in every stratum of every industry as to what is the rightful security of tenure to be given, not only to the tenant, but to the worker if he does his job correctly. I would not go all the way with the noble Lord in perpetuating a curse in industry where good honest men who have worked a long time have had to give way at a moment's notice to the son of the owner.
I think my noble friend Lord Huntingdon has made a very generous gesture. In effect he has admitted to some degree the rightness of the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and he has said: "I am prepared to accept this in so far as the past is concerned." The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, only brought in the war as an example, but he has said—and he will correct me if I have misunderstood him—"I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's argument in so far as the past is concerned, but any purchaser of any land in the future after this Bill becomes an Act will at least have purchased that land with his eyes open. Therefore, he cannot pray in aid in the future the same conditions as operated in the past."
LORD HASTINGS: Inheritance, I would remind you.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I presume that the farm is at present in the ownership of the owner, so that is the past. If I am right in what the noble Lord said I cannot see that he has anything at which to cavil. I know there can he arguments
682
pro and con, and I do not suppose the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and I would ever agree upon the priority of the fundamental right of the owner over the tenant. That does, I confess, savour to me of the good old feudal system.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I am quite at liberty to say that, just as the noble Lord is at liberty to say that it is a fundamental priority. I respect his point of view, but I do not think there is a cast-iron argument to put forward as to whether this Bill as at present drafted gives too much priority to the tenant or whether it gives too little. That must always be a matter of opinion, but I think what we have to decide in the interests of efficient farming, in the interests of the community as a whole, and in the interests of carrying out the purposes set out in Part I of this Bill, is whether the security of tenure given by Clause 31 is reasonable in all those circumstances. I think the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has met the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in a very fair and square manner.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two on this Amendment which we, have discussed very fully, but I do wish to support it. I personally agree with every word which has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who moved the Amendment. I have two main reasons for supporting it. What we want in agriculture to-day are capital and young men. I am rather afraid that this clause, unless it is amended, will make it very difficult to get either. I do not think that the noble Lord who has just sat down, as a man of great business experience, would like to lock up his capital in the agricultural industry to-day. It is rather like putting your head into a noose and we would perhaps lose him as a valuable recruit to this industry. On the other hand, it seems you are going to get a certain stagnation. I do not see, under the Bill as it stands, how a young man who starts perhaps as a milkman is going to work up and eventually own a farm. For those two reasons I hope we can get some sort of Amendment to this clause.
I support the noble Duke on this matter. I personally have had no evidence that the average tenant farmer is unhappy and insecure to-day. I refuse to

683
accept that. No farmer has ever told me so, and I am perfectly certain that anybody who knows anything about agriculture at all knows that it is not true. There is one other point I would like to make and that is with regard to the home farm. The home farm is a traditional link between the landlord and tenant as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said. You may get a position now where for some reason or other the home farm has had to be let. Are you going to deny to the landowner, who may have been there for many generations, the right to take back his own home farm? If you do I think you are going to smash the landlord and tenant system. That may be a good thing, but about that I do not know. However, that is what is going to happen. For those reasons I should like to support the noble Lord in his Amendment. I am not sure about the compromise the noble Lord offered, because I think you create two classes of landlords. The favoured ones who had their land before the war and those we want to attract to the land now. With those few words I would like to support the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we are all agreed that we have had a full and extremely useful debate on this Amendment, which stands at the very heart of this Bill. It is perhaps inevitable, in the case, of an Amendment which raises such deep issues and deep principles, that we have tended to wander just a little away from what the Amendment really sets out to do. But before I deal with that point I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a question. He was speaking as if we were asking for the landowner advantages that the rest of the community do not enjoy. He says that the principle has to be examined in every stratum of industry. We should be quite prepared to have that examination. I would ask the noble Lord how he would like to buy the freehold of a motor sales business which had been let to a tenant whose tenancy was at an end—because there is no question of breaking a tenancy agreement—and then having done so, have an Act of Parliament come down and impose immense new obligations on him not only for repair but for the provision—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Comparisons are always odious, and I
684
cannot think of one more odious than this: or, rather, there is no comparison at all. I will grant to the noble Earl great knowledge of the farming world, but he shows a lamentable lack of the knowledge of industry.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was not going to enter upon this matter of comparisons unless the noble Lord had done it himself. You do not have to know anything about the motor industry to know something of the leasehold system.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The leasehold system has been one of the biggest curses, whether it is in property or anything else, in this country for years and years.
EARL DE LA WARR: I really cannot follow the noble Lord, since we are now discussing the simple question of how His Majesty's Government shall compulsorily continue the leasehold system in a very special form. We are going rather far away. This Amendment prevents the landowner from obtaining occupation of his own land without the Minister's consent—mark that: this is subject to the Minister's consent. All that the noble Lord is suggesting is that the Minister shall not be allowed to use his discretion, no matter how strong the case may seem to him, to give the landowner consent to get possession of his own land for the purpose of farming it. Let us be quite clear; that is the point that we in fact are discussing.
I cannot add much to what has already been said so excellently by my noble friends on this side, but it must be obvious to the noble Earl that there is a very strong feeling on this side of the Committee that the landowner is being driven, by legislation against his will, into the position of being a mere rent receiver. I speak as one who believes that the landowner is an infinitely better landowner by virtue of having a bit of farming to do, of having something of the risks of farming, and of his tenants knowing that. There may be noble Lords who disagree, but I feel that it is almost a function of the landowner to have a bit of land himself and to farm it. Incidentally, there are many estates to-day that can be maintained only by virtue of the profit that the landowner can make out of his farming operations. Nobody would pretend that it is possible to-day to

685
maintain an agricultural estate as a private investment unless there are some very special conditions attaching to the estate.
From the point of view of the general industry, not only of the landowner but also of the tenant and the worker, the whole tendency of this legislation is to over-stabilize the industry; and over-stabilize it, I believe, in favour of the mediocre. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, quite legitimately spoke only of the possible disturbance to "A" farmers. I do not believe that the risks of the "A" farmer under out present landowning system is one half of one per cent. It is there in theory, but it is not happening. Nor do I think we need concern ourselves with the "C" farmer, because he can be dealt with under other provisions of this Bill. The man whose position you are to stabilize is the "B" farmer, the man who is not bad enough to be turned out because of bad farming but whose farming it would be easy to improve from the point of view of the country. Either you are going to over-stabilize the position or you are going to stabilize what I believe to be a blackmail value in the occupancy of land.
There is a real danger of creating something like a land monopoly here, not in the case of the landowner, but in the case of the tenant who knows that he cannot virtually, in any circumstances, be displaced. It means that in getting possession of land you are going to have large premiums paid. I have seen the practice quite lately in certain estates—and it seems to me a very bad practice—of allowing the tenant to sell out lock, stock and barrel. In fact it means that the tenant virtually disposes of that farm and settles its new possessor according to how large a price he is able to extort from an incoming farmer for his stock. It is a pernicious system which allows the man who is not the best farmer to obtain possession of land, and which frequently saddles a new man with a heavy burden of over-capitalization. That is what will happen under this Bill. You are going to turn the landowner into a rent receiver, to over-stabilize the position of the second-rate farmer, and give him virtually a monopoly value in his land. How is a new man to get in? The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, told us about his engineer friend. I should like to know from the
686
noble. Earl how he thinks his engineer friend is ever going to get in except by hanging about waiting for tenancies to fall vacant due to death. Every one of us can think of the names of some of the best farmers to-day who have introduced new ideas influencing farming for the last fifteen or twenty years. They are men who come in to the industry from outside, buying land and risking something for their ideas, and frequently we who come of the land have for five or ten years thought them crazy; and then we have begun to see what they were doing. All this will be stopped by this system.
The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has suggested an Amendment to me, but it is extremely difficult to discuss an Amendment that in fact we have not seen. I can only say, speaking for myself, that at first sound I did not like the look of it. It is quite helpful to some of us who were on our land before the war to feel that we are to have an exception made in our favour, and that we are to be in a permanent privileged position. But I cannot feel that the Committee would be properly fulfilling their function if they said that they would take advantage of something like that, and then have these two classes of landowners—those of us who owned our land before the war, and these unfortunate men who came into the industry later. Therefore I must say, speaking for myself, that I do not like the smell of the Amendment; but, of course, we are in the hands of the Committee.
My inclination would be to suggest that we should see on Report what it really is that the Minister proposes, and then to consider the whole question again. I do not know whether that advice would appeal to your Lordships, but I think if we do withdraw our Amendment, or if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his Amendment—I do not know whether or not he is—we should make it clear that the whole question is kept open for an equally full and frank discussion on Report and that we keep our hands absolutely free to insert this or any other Amendment that we may desire on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, appealed to me at the end of his remarks, perhaps I may be permitted to give a little advice to the Committee. This is, of course, a difficult Amendment for both

687
sides of the House, because it touches on what really is the most controversial part of the Bill. For the first time in our discussion of this measure, which is not a very easy measure for some of us, I did detect with interest some signs of heat arising in the House. I do myself feel that on practical grounds the arguments for the Amendment are very strong. As I think the noble Duke, the Duke of Rutland, said, everybody in the last thirty or forty years has concentrated on criticizing the absentee landlord. It has been common ground—not limited to noble Lords opposite and their Party; we do not like the man who does not know about his land and the way the land should be farmed.
Perhaps it is fair to say that landlords of that class have been unfairly criticized in that way. I think that the majority of landlords do know about their land and there are outstanding cases of men—Coke of Norfolk, for instance—who are some of the greatest pioneers of farming in this country. I think it is true, however, that during the last century there has come about a tendency for estate management to be slightly divorced from the actual practice of farming. That was a very bad tendency, as I think will be agreed by everybody. Fortunately, the movement is at present in the other direction. I know of, and you have seen, some of the younger members of this House who are obviously people who are farming practically their own land; I could quote a great many other cases of the same kind if there were time to do so. There is a definite and enthusiastic movement of landowners to practise farming, to learn for themselves, so as to be able to assist both themselves and their tenants. One would have thought that that was a movement to which the Government ought to give every impetus, but I do not think an impetus is given to it in this Bill, and I think the purpose of this Amendment is to facilitate that impetus.
Going into the reasons why there has been this remarkable change, I would say that it is partly because the distribution of the yield on capital in agriculture is much more unsatisfactory than it is in most other industries. I think I should be right in saying that in most industries the profit on capital is distributed equitably between the various classes of
688
those who have lent that capital; if a profit is increased they all reap the benefit of that increase. But in agriculture that has not been true in recent years. Of course, any suggestion that the landlord is a blood-sucker is certainly inaccurate; on the other hand, the yield which the landowner receives on the capital invested is infinitely smaller than the yield which is given by the other sections of the agricultural industry. A landlord who receives 2 per cent. on his land does extremely well. During the last war years, when agriculture has had the most profitable period that it has had for a long time, in a great number of cases landlords have had no increases of rent at all, and, of course, they have been far more heavily taxed than in the past.
That is the situation of the landlord and of the owner of the estate; and it is an utterly uneconomic situation. A number of these landlords have felt, apart from their natural interest in the subject, that the only way of maintaining the estates of which they are the trustees—and after all, a life tenant is merely a trustee of his estate—is to take over a number of farms and to get what is the fair yield on profit on the working of the industry. From the point of view of stabilizing the position in the countryside, I would say that enabling the estate to be properly managed, giving all the people who live on that estate a fair chance, and all the things that can be facilitated when a landlord enters on to his land as a practical farmer, are all strong arguments. They are practical arguments and not controversial, and I do not think that this afternoon they have been dealt with at all fairly by the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in his reply, put forward a proposition which I understood was to deal with the son who comes back from the war; it deals with hardly anyone else. Of course, that is a mere fleabite in dealing with a problem of this size but my feeling is that we have had an important debate and a full debate, and I think it is conceivable that we have put into the minds of the supporters of the Government certain aspects of this very real difficulty of which they have not been so conscious before.
It is so difficult a question that I think I should not be justified in advising noble Lords on this side to go to a Division unless the thing had been fully brought out. I would suggest to the noble Lords

689
on this side of the House that the Government should be given a further opportunity to consider all that has been said this afternoon. It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and the Minister may be able to make some concession, but, anyway, they would have another week or fortnight to consider what has been said by practical experts in this House. If the noble Earl will report to the Minister what has been said, and give the matter further consideration—I cannot ask him to do more than that—I think the Committee would be wise to postpone its decision until the Report stage.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: We have had an extremely interesting debate on a subject which, as the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, has just called to mind, does touch on the fundamentals and, unfortunately, goes right into the most controversial part of this Bill. In view of what the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, has said, I do not wish to go into and answer all the points which have been made, because it would take a. long time to do so. But they have been extremely constructive and interesting points. On some of them we disagree and there are others on which we agree. I would like to make it quite clear, so that no misunderstanding can exist, what we can and what we cannot do; to say just how far we can go. If anything, I would add to the offer which I have already made. I suggested that we might make this proposed Amendment in respect of the time before the war. I think now that we could make it up to the time of the passing of the Bill. It would not cause greater hardship but less, because it would not be limited to an heir or children. It would cover any purpose which the landlord had in mind, and that is, I think, a very wide field.
In regard to what the noble Marquess has said, I certainly will report the matter to the Minister, and if finally, after consideration with members of the Opposition the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, would agreed to the withdrawal of his Amendment, we would put down an Amendment on the lines which I have suggested for the Report stage.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Before the Committee decides what is best to be done with this Amendment there are one or two things I would like to say which
690
arise out of the lengthy and important debate which we have had upon it. In my view this matter strikes at the fundamentals of agricultural life in this country. First of all I would refer to what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said in the early stages of the debate. He laid considerable stress on the question of having efficient farmers and of efficiency generally. I believe that he was thinking in the narrow terms of efficiency as envisaged in this Bill. I would like to make it clear—and I hope he will bear this in mind—that when I was speaking on the Amendment I had in mind the efficiency of agriculture as a whole, and not efficiency in the narrow sense of using some particular piece of land to the best advantage. I was thinking of the wellbeing and of the efficiency of agriculture as a whole, and not in any other and narrower sense.
I would also like to say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that under this Amendment the landlord does not seek anything that is outside the law or outside the agreements which he has with his tenants to-day. He does not seek rights even as great as those which he had before the war. He is not seeking to be hard on his tenants in any sense whatsoever. In that connexion, I feel that too much emphasis has been laid on the danger of the "A" farmer being turned out of his farm. The landlord who owns land on which there are a number of farms, in my experience—and it is fairly wide—is not going to turn out an "A" farmer and put himself in. He is a fool if he does and he deserves to get into trouble with his county agricultural committee. The only man who is going to turn out an "A" farmer is an owner of land who owns one farm and who, probably for good reason, has need to farm that land himself. That is the only case I can think of. It would come about probably because there was a very sound reason for it. Therefore I submit that we should not make too much of the suggestion that an "A" or good farmer is likely to be turned out of his farm.
I appreciate that in my Amendment there is a danger of speculation coming in. But equally, without some such Amendment, there is the danger which has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—that is the danger of what I prefer to call a black market in vacant possession. You will have

691
people coming along and saying: "Look here, my dear fellow, I will give you two or three years' rent if you will give me notice." You will get that kind of black market, and I am certain that His Majesty's Government do not wish to encourage anything of that sort. In my view the danger of such a black market is greater than the danger of speculation. I know something of the danger of speculation. As a liaison officer, I had, if I may so put it, one foot inside the Ministry door during the war, and I saw that the dangers of speculation (often for reasons not unconnected with military service) were far greater then than in peacetime. With regard to the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, as I understood it he made the suggestion that he would concede that land bought before the war would entitle the owner to apply for permission to serve a notice to quit to permit of occupation for any purpose, and, of course, he said, it was in the Minister's discretion to grant that or not. I am not quite certain how much the word "bought" covers—whether it means actually bought or acquired.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: May I just make it clear to the noble Lord that it means "owned," whether inherited, acquired or bought.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Owned before the war? I understand; that makes it quite clear. The noble Earl now suggests that the date should be altered to that of the commencement of the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act. For that further concession may I say that I thank him very much indeed. I am grateful to him for going so far as he has gone. I still think, though, that it touches only the fringe of the subject. As has been said, it divides landowners into two classes, one class of which is a disappearing class, because human beings do die occasionally. In due course the first class of landowner, those who acquired, inherited or bought their land before the passing of the Bill will die, and their heirs will take over and will go automatically into the second class. So it only slows up the process of slow strangulation of the landowner which I mentioned when I opened the debate on this subject.
692
I am wondering whether the noble Earl, when he gives the matter further consideration, will consider those who inherit their land as also being eligible for inclusion. Continuity is something which is of great importance in the countryside, and to stop that continuity abruptly by Act of Parliament will do a great deal of harm. If the noble Earl can give us some hope of widening the scope of his Amendment a little, I will be prepared to follow the suggestion of the noble Marquess that my Amendment should be withdrawn in order that we might see the noble Earl's proposals on the Paper. We hope that they may be put on the Paper in plenty of time for our consideration. Then if necessary, if we are not satisfied, I shall put this Amendment down again on the Report stage; and I hope that, without quite such a long debate, we shall then have the necessary Division and put the Amendment into the Bill.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I shall be very pleased to follow out the suggestion of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Then, if your Lordships are willing, in the circumstances I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 P.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of an Amendment to insert in subsection (3):
"(e) that the notice to quit is or is proposed to be given with a view to the holding or the part thereof to which the notice relates being farmed either by the landlord or by a child or grandchild of his."
The noble Lord said: Except that it is a little less generous to illegitimate children this Amendment is the same Amendment as that which has just been withdrawn. I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, that I have this Amendment on the Paper, and that whatever anyone else may do I propose to put it back there on the Report stage. For the moment I will, of course, beg leave of the Committee not to proceed with it now, but in no circumstances will I subordinate my rights in this matter to anyone else.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given notice of an Amendment to leave out Clause 31. The noble Earl said: I put down this Amendment only to give the Government

693
an opportunity of saying what are the relations between landlord and tenant. We have had a very general discussion on the whole aspect. I certainly could not say it as well as the noble Lords, the Earl of Radnor and Lord Hastings, who have put the case. The Government have had their opportunity and I do not think they have taken it. I therefore will not move my Amendment.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32, 33 and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35:
Variation of rent of holdings.
(3) A reference to arbitration under subsection (I) of this section shall not be demanded in such circumstances that any increase or reduction of rent made in consequence thereof would take effect as from a date earlier than the expiration of three years from any of the following dates, that is to say—

(a) the commencement of the tenancy, or

(b) the date as from which there took effect a previous increase or reduction of rent (whether made under this section or otherwise), other than an increase under subsection (4) of this section or such an increase as is referred to in proviso (i) to that subsection, or

(c) the date as from which there took effect a previous direction of an arbitrator under this section that the rent should continue unchanged.

5.41 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), to leave out all words after "otherwise." The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this Amendment, with which I include the next. The first is merely to lead to the second and perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience if I were to explain the second. The purpose of the two Amendments is to deal with the case where a tenant farmer is to be deprived of part of his holding and as a result there is a proportionate reduction in the rent. This may happen either as a result of a notice to quit from the landlord coming within the provisions of Section 27 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, or as a result of the Minister dispossessing an occupier of part of his holding under the provisions of Clause 17 of the Bill. In either case there would be a proportionate reduction in the rent of the holding.
This, however, will not be the fixing of a new rent for the bit of holding with which the occupier is left. All that will
694
happen will be, broadly speaking, an apportionment of the existing rent as between the two parts of the holding, the part with which the occupier is left and the part which has been taken from him. Since, in both cases, the reduction in the rent is nothing more or less than an apportionment of the rent, it clearly should not count for the purpose of Clause 35 and prevent any further arbitration on rent taking place within three years. Paragraph (ii) of the Second Amendment, which is to go at the end of subsection (3), provides that any reduction of rent under Clause 17 of the Bill, or under Clause 27 of the 1923 Act, shall be disregarded for the purpose of Clause 35. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 17, leave out from ("otherwise") to ("or") in line 19.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 22, at end insert—
("Provided that there shall be disregarded for the purposes of this subsection—

(i) any increase of rent under subsection (4) of this section or any such increase as is referred to in proviso (i) to that subsection,

(ii) any reduction of rent under subsection (6) of Section seventeen of this Act or under Section twenty-seven of the Act of 1923,

(iii) any other variation of rent which under the following provisions of this Act is directed to be disregarded for the purposes of this subsection.").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
Variation of terms of tenancy as to permanent pasture.
36.—(1) Where under the contract for a tenancy of a holding, whether created before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, provision is made for the maintenance of specified land, or a specified proportion of the holding, as permanent pasture, and it appears to the Minister, either on the application of the landlord or the tenant or otherwise,—
the Minister may, after affording to the landlord and to the tenant an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, direct that the contract of tenancy shall have effect subject to such modifications of the provisions

695
thereof as to land which is to be maintained as permanent pasture or is to be treated as arable land, and as to cropping, as appear to the Minister expedient as aforesaid and are specified in the direction.
5.45 p.m.
LORD HAZLERIGG LORD HAZLERIGG moved, in subsection (I), after "aforesaid," to insert "having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors." The noble Lord said: This Amendment in the name of myself and Lord Ashburton has to do with the ploughing of permanent pasture. There are so many different sorts of permanent pasture that it may be as well to put in the words which we suggest— "having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors." I do not think it is a very contentious Amendment. No one is more in favour of ploughing out bad or even second-class pasture than I am. I come from a county where there is a lot of good permanent pasture, feeding land, and I have seen the disastrous effect of having a field, or sometimes part of a feeding field, ploughed up. There was the instance of a forty-acre field, twenty acres of which were scheduled for ploughing up. This land was in an impossible position, quite away from roads, and the rest of the field had to remain in permanent pasture.
During the war one could not complain very much about people doing hasty and ill-advised things, because one knew they were always being urged towards quantity of ploughing up and not quality of farming, but now we are going to have quality of farming, and we do not always need to have quite the same quantity of arable. I think we can produce from certain parts of the country a great deal more for the nation as a whole if we leave some of the permanent pasture. You will see the difficulty when you come to reseed the twenty acres of which I have spoken. That is a very uneconomical thing to do. It is a very costly business and it is very difficult to graze the two parts of the field together and always puts a great strain on the farmer who has to do it. If a little consideration could be given when any such order is going to be made and the Minister would see that whoever is sent down to look at the land took into consideration the whole aspect of a farm and all the relevant factors, it would be very useful. Although
696
I have very little doubt now it would be done, it seems to me to be a very wise thing to have such a provision in the Bill.
I ask your Lordships to remember the way they sampled in the past. I have seen a man of very great reputation come down to a field of old permanent pasture and with a spade dig up two or three sods and say that this was a likely place for growing potatoes. If he had seen potatoes being lifted a year later, with one pound of potatoes and a half a pound of good Leicestershire clay, he might not have been so pleased with it. I think we should give consideration in future where the best feeding land is ploughed up, if any more is to be ploughed up. I regard the people who talk about ploughing up really good feeding land as genial lunatics. I have asked the gentlemen keen on ploughing up pasture land if any of the factors could be mentioned by which this best served agricultural economy, and I have persuaded the financial committee of the Royal Agricultural Society to give £1,000 for experiment on that. So far we have never had any report which dealt with economy at all. I am sure that in future the present Minister will think about economy and the way we ought to manage our land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 3, after ("aforesaid") insert ("having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors").— (Lord Hazlerigg.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I hope and confidently believe that the noble Earl will be able to meet the reasonable request which is put down by my noble friend Lord Hazlerigg. May I say, in passing, that no one could be better fitted by location and experience to move such an Amendment as this, because the county from which he comes, Leicestershire, is famous throughout the whole world as having the finest permanent pasture to be found anywhere in the United Kingdom, including a large amount of land which is capable of feeding a bullock to the acre.
LORD HAZLERIGG: A bullock and a half.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: A bullock and a half—all the better. And, of course, it produces what some people regard as the finest cheese in the United

697
Kingdom, Stilton cheese, which is a Leicestershire product and has nothing whatever to do with the town of Stilton. I am a fervent advocate of ley farming, and I am perfectly certain that a large proportion of permanent pasture could be usefully improved in productive capacity by being periodically turned over and put in herbage and cultivable crops. But there are exceptions and I feel that there is a real danger of the ley farming idea being carried to excess by over-enthusiastic county agricultural committees. For that reason, and particularly because Lord Hazlerigg has moved it from the county of Leicester, I venture to hope that the noble Earl will see his way to make a concession in this respect.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I feel great diffidence in talking on this Amendment when two such eminent agriculturists as the noble Lord, Lord Hazlerigg, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, have introduced this Amendment and powerfully attracted us towards its acceptance. With regard to the principle of agriculture, I certainly would not venture to disagree at all that there is a difficulty about this Amendment. There is one point in particular upon which I should like to express a difference of opinion. As the noble Lords know, we are basing our policy very much on the competence of the new committees. These men, after all, will be chosen from panels representing different sides of the industry and they will be thoroughly good farmers; we hope, in fact, that they will be the very best that the industry can provide. Such a jury would obviously take all relevant factors into account; they would have to. Certainly we intend that they should.
Where the difficulty lies is in the words "having regard to the character and situation of the farm." It is a very limiting phrase and there are cases in which we feel that it would limit the Minister's power very considerably. It might be right that some pasture should be changed. Some cases might be brought to support the noble Lord's argument, but on balance we think that it would be unwise to limit the Minister's powers to the extent proposed by this Amendment. As the noble Lord says, it is not a very far-reaching or important thing, and, in view of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ROCHE: I would not venture to interfere as an agriculturist, but I should like as one who is supposed to have been a lawyer to remind the noble Earl that the Minister would not be limited at all because of the concluding words: having regard "to all other relevant factors." The effect of the Amendment is to point out that there is one that they should assent to, although they need not shut their eyes to all the relevant circumstances. It is for that reason that I think the noble Earl is giving nothing away, and I would ask him to accept this Amendment which, for the reasons advocated by the two noble Lords who have spoken in support of it—who do, at any rate, understand agriculture—might be very useful.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we are agreed that the noble Lord, Lord Hazlerigg, put up a most convincing case on this Amendment. It is perfectly true that it is not a fundamental principle, but so far as I can see the burden of quite half of the noble Earl's remarks is that the committees are wise and skilled people—I am inclined to agree with that—and that they will view the interests with considerations such as these. If that is so, why not put it in the Bill? For the ninety-nine wise there is always one unwise man; this Amendment will not hurt the ninety-nine and it might have some effect in restraining the influence of the one.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: As the noble Lord has suggested, there is the legal aspect of it to be considered. I do not pretend to have any great knowledge of the legal niceties of the point, but if it is true that the legal factor cancels out the effect of the words "having regard to the character and situation of the farm," I do not really see the value of the Amendment. If, on the other hand, having regard to those words it is an important factor, then it is such a limitation that it would be unwise to put the words into the Bill.
LORD ASHBURTON: Surely, there is a point there. The limiting factor, first of all, is the character of the farm. This Amendment is designed to draw the Minister's or the committee's attention to that. Having given consideration to this point from that angle, they can, if they like, override that consideration by using

699
the "relevant factors"; but at least it has brought the matter to their attention, and that was the object of the Amendment. After all, this is one of the few places where the Minister is receiving absolutely no guidance as to his decisions. He can have the tenant up and listen to him, and he can have the landlord up and listen to him; and he could, if he wanted to, if I may use the expression, spin a halfpenny on his desk to see to whom he should give the land. Surely, it is not asking very much to have a simple Amendment of this kind put into the Bill. I very much support my noble friend Lord Hazlerigg in his request.
LORD HAZLERIGG: May I just say that this Amendment is phrased so that it should be a pointer to encourage the wisdom of anyone who was unwise "having regard to the character and situation of the farm," and to point out to him what he should consider? As the noble Lord who talked so learnedly about the law said, the words "and all other relevant factors" were put in so that it would not bind the Minister. I am not going to press it, but I would like him to accept it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I cannot understand why the Government will not accept this Amendment. After all, the committees ought to have something to guide them. We know very well that during the First World War and during this last World War grass was turned up in cases where it was absolutely fatal, because when they turned it up the land grew nothing; and it took ages to get it back to pasture. I am speaking for my part of the country, and what happened there no doubt happened in other parts of the country. If that is the case, why not give guidance to the committees as to what should influence them in their determination of whether or not they shall turn up grass? I think that they ought to have guidance and, as the noble Lord said just now, as they are left they might take a halfpenny, toss it up and say: "Heads I am going to do this and tails I am not." There is nothing to guide them. I cannot see why in the interests of good agricultural economy the Government should regard this as a limiting factor rather than as a factor which will be an influence for the good of agriculture.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I wonder if the noble Viscount would suggest, to carry his argument to its logical conclusion, that, because in some cases permanent pastures have been ploughed up during the war, we should never have embarked on our policy of growing more on arable farms.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I do not make that suggestion at all. I entirely agree that lands ought to have been turned up in many parts of the country for the purpose—even to the extent of procuring a smaller return on that land; but in many cases land which ought never to have been turned up was turned up, and there was practically no agricultural result from it, only a destruction of pasture land. I am sorry the noble Earl interprets my words to mean that I do not believe in any turning up at all. That is quite a different matter, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, remarked in the course of his speech.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the noble Viscount but at the time that seemed to be the trend of his argument. There are, I think, two factors which come into this. What we are worried about is that there may be cases where permanent pasture might have to be destroyed.
EARL DE LA WARR: There have been.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In other words, the logical conclusion of noble Lords' argument is really that they have no confidence in the personnel of the committees.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD HAZLERIGG: I never said such a thing.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I did not say that you did.
LORD HAZLERIGG: I do not believe any of us think that. I hope the new agricultural committees will be even better than the old ones. We have a very good one now, having sacked a lot of the original members, and probably this new one will function very well.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I did not intend to suggest that the noble Lord said they were bad. I said the trend of the argument might be a dispute over the facts. I can assure noble Lords that the

701
committees will have instructions to look thoroughly into the matter and take into account all relevant factors. But we cannot put that into the Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Because it would limit much too strongly the Minister's power in certain circumstances.
LORD COURTHOPE: Would the noble Earl give an assurance to the Committee that the committees will not issue instructions demanding that definite acreages should be ploughed? That is what did the harm before. There was a demand for several thousand acres from such and such a county, and pasture land was ruined in that way. If the noble Earl will give us an assurance that the Minister of the future will not demand acreages on paper the danger will be minimized to some extent.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not think I can give an assurance to bind Ministers of the future. Governments come and go, and Ministers may change. Obviously we would instruct committees to take into account all relevant factors.
LORD HAZLERIGG: Although I am not convinced at all by the noble Earl's arguments, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Liability for repair, maintenance and insurance of fixed equipment.
(2) Where an agreement in writing relating to a tenancy of a holding, whether created before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, effects substantial modifications in the operation of regulations under the last foregoing subsection, the landlord or the tenant of the holding may, if he has requested his tenant or landlord to vary the agreement so as to bring it into conformity with the provisions of regulations under that subsection but no agreement has been reached on the request, refer to arbitration under the Act of 1923 the terms of the tenancy with respect to the maintenance, repair and insurance of fixed equipment:
Provided that where there has been a previous reference under this subsection relating to the same tenancy, no further such reference shall be made before the expiration of three years from the coming into effect of the award of the arbitrator on the previous reference.
(3) On any reference under the last foregoing subsection the arbitrator shall consider
702
whether (disregarding the rent payable for the holding) the said modifications effected by the agreement are justifiable having regard to the circumstances of the holding; and if he determines that they are not justifiable as aforesaid, he may by his award vary the terms referred to arbitration in such manner as appears to him reasonable and just between the landlord and the tenant.
6.4 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "Provided that," to insert "no such reference shall be made before the expiration of three years from the commencement of the tenancy and." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really self-explanatory. As the clause now stands a man can sign a freely negotiated agreement to-day, and to-morrow he can decide that he wishes to have it changed, as he feels that it is substantially different from the terms for repair and maintenance which would be incorporated in the standard lease under the previous subsection. An unscrupulous man could sign a lease to which he had no intention whatsoever of keeping merely with the object either of letting a farm or getting the lease of a farm. There is also the case where you have a tenancy agreement negotiated fairly on both sides, and there is some doubt about the construction to be put on the regulations and at a later stage, or immediately afterwards, one of the parties decides that he wants to have that lease altered. I feel that in a case of a freely negotiated agreement it should be binding on both parties. All this Amendment asks for is that it should be binding for three years. I think the short point here is: Is a person's signature on a piece of paper worth the paper on which it is written? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 37, after ("that") insert the said words.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MORRISON: As the noble Lord has said, his Amendment is self-explanatory. I agree that in a large number of cases it would not be necessary, but the noble Lord himself said that there might be a case of an unscrupulous man, and it is to afford some protection against the machinations of the unscrupulous man that I am going to ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: An unscrupulous man is the person who is going to gain.
LORD MORRISON: I was hoping to convince the noble Lord that, on the contrary, if his Amendment is accepted he is giving an advantage to the unscrupulous man and enabling him to go on with his unscrupulous course of conduct for three years without any opportunity being given to the other party to do anything about it. I think the noble Lord will agree that both the landlord and the tenant will know when negotiating a tenancy agreement that either party will have the power to refer the matter to arbitration if the terms are unreasonable. As a result, both the landlord and tenant will think twice before making unreasonable demands. It seems to me very unlikely that either of the parties would wish to go to arbitration within three years after the commencement of the tenancy. If, on the other hand, one were to prevent an arbitration until three years after the commencement of the tenancy, there would be nothing to prevent either a landlord or a tenant taking advantage of the general situation with regard to the availability of farms, or other causes, to drive an unreasonable bargain with the other party, and it would not then be possible to get this altered for a period of three years. Therefore, if the noble Lord looks at his Amendment again, I think he will see that, so far from giving any protection against the unscrupulous man, he is doing just the opposite. It is because we want to prevent the unscrupulous man from getting an advantage that I would ask him not to press the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I find it difficult to follow the reply of the noble Lord. If he will forgive me for saying so, the brief he has just read out does not make sense; it is a complete contradiction. If neither the landlord nor the tenant is in fact likely to make application for an arbitration in three years—we all agree it would be most unreasonable if either of them did—why not put it in the Bill? I would certainly advise your Lordships that we should put it in the Bill.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: What the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said in his answer does not really make sense. He suggested that if two parties were negotiating a lease they would both know they could not hold each other to it. I cannot conceive of letting a farm in that
704
way at all. I would remind the noble Lord that there is a provision as to the variation of the rents of holdings in an earlier clause which we have just passed, which does give a delayed period of three years, comparable to this. I would have thought it would be consistent to have this period in the clause we are now discussing.
LORD MORRISON: I will try again. I did try to make it clear, but apparently I did not succeed. This Bill, as it stands at present, is intended to provide protection in the exceptional cases that may arise, which were referred to by the noble Lord, of someone who was unscrupulous and wished to take advantage—
EARL DE LA WARR: Who, and how?
LORD MORRISON: Either one or the other—the landlord or the tenant. If the terms of the agreement are fair and reasonable, a provision allowing immediate arbitration after the commencement of the tenancy need cause no apprehension. Even if the matter is referred to arbitration the arbitrator is unlikely to alter the terms agreed upon. If, on the other hand, either the landlord or tenant has forced upon the other party unreasonable terms—
EARL DE LA WARR: How?
LORD MORRISON: I confess I am not able to answer that, but as the noble Lord who moved this Amendment referred to unscrupulous people who might do unscrupulous things, I came to the conclusion that someone would force unreasonable terms.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: With respect, I think the noble Lord who moved this Amendment was referring to the person who might apparently accept the terms of a tenancy, knowing quite well that, being unscrupulous, he was immediately going to repudiate.
LORD MORRISON: The short point I am trying to make to the noble Lord is that if there is going to be cause for asking for arbitration in three years, there may equally, in exceptional cases, be reasons for applying for arbitration in a much shorter period than three years.
EARL DE LA WARR: I cannot help feeling that the proceedings of this House will be brought into ridicule if we have answers of this character, which are

705
totally divorced from the reality of the situation or even logic. We have tried to avoid Divisions during the whole of this Committee, but I feel that we must put this Amendment in the Bill or have it looked into between now and the Report stage.
LORD HASTINGS: Might I be allowed to say one word upon this? The paragraph under discussion does lay down that if there has been a previous reference to an arbitrator there shall be no further reference before the expiration of three years; that is already provided for in the Bill. When a landlord and prospective tenant negotiate for the hire by the latter of the farm both of them are, of course, agreeing as free agents to rent at the terms of the tenancy. They are under no compulsion, and if the tenant does not like the terms when the landlord puts them on his table for him to sign, he does not sign and does not tenant the farm. If the paragraph here recognizes that it would be unreasonable for an award to be upset, or that it would be unreasonable that application for it to be upset should be made in a less period than three years, the beginning of the tenancy is, in effect, exactly the same date as the last arbitration award. I think you will have to recognize the fact that they are cycles of three years, during which the landlord or the tenant may quite properly apply to an arbitrator for a change in the terms of tenancy. But it would be most upsetting and disturbing to the whole law of land tenure if a tenant coming in to a farm and signing an agreement with his eyes open, within the space of months was to apply to an arbitrator to have it changed. It would introduce an element of instability which I think would be most disturbing. I do not think we could very well deal with it. This Amendment does not affect the principle of the Bill. It merely emphasizes in a way the principle which is already agreed by the words which are in the Bill—that is to say, the same conditions are to apply to the arbitration period after three years. It recognizes that the date of entry is one such of those periods.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: Before the noble Earl replies, might I express a hope that he would feel able to reconsider this point between now and the Report stage. I am bound to say that I think the case which has been advanced by my noble
706
friends is one that is very difficult to meet, and certainly, with all respect, has not been met by the noble Lord who replied for the Government. Some reference has been made to intelligent men and unscrupulous men. Well the reflection which passed through my mind while that was being said was this: if men were intelligent, presumably they knew what they were signing when they made the agreement, and it is not unreasonable that you should have a period of stability for three years. If they are unscrupulous, they ought to be checked by the protection the Amendment may give.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think what we really had in mind was this. Conditions in the farming industry change. Sometimes for example there is a great shortage of farms. It was thought that in the bargaining between the purchaser and the seller of a farm there might well be varying conditions. For instance, if there were a great shortage it might be that the tenant would agree to a price forced upon him by the general shortage of farms. Therefore, we thought that if appeal to an arbitrator was open quite soon after the purchase that fact would actually force a more reasonable standard of value.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: Does the noble Earl mean that the tenant knowingly agrees to these terms? He puts his signature to the paper and at the time he signs it he has no intention whatsoever of keeping it and intends going straight to arbitration?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No, I do not think so. That would only be upon the question of unfair terms. I think the noble Lord would admit that no arbitrator would judge on a matter like that. He would only alter what had been agreed if he thought that some great unfairness or injustice had been done. For that reason we did want to allow arbitration in this particular case, which is quite different from the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, where if in fact an arbitrator had given his decision it would be ridiculous in six months' time to open up the whole question again That would, I admit, be completely foolish.
LORD HASTINGS: Might not the conditions have changed in the period which intervened between the first and the

707
second arbitration just as much as in the first period? Surely if there is a time limit placed between the dates when arbitration can be sought, there is no guarantee that in those three intervening years, during which the tenant cannot seek arbitration, circumstances would not have changed just as much. Was there no great change between 1939 and 1942?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is the whole reason for the arbitration, because circumstances may change. In this case we are not dealing with changed circumstances; we are not suggesting that. We are suggesting that the original agreement may be wrong.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: As the Bill stands are you not really holding out a temptation to a somewhat unscrupulous would-be tenant, or one who is a hard bargainer, to take a farm, enter into an agreement with the landlord upon what would appear to be mutually satisfactory terms, and then, in a comparatively short time, seek to bring the matter to arbi-
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.29 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), after "circumstances of the
708
tration with a view to altering those terms? That is calculated to create considerable instability and lack of confidence between landlord and tenant. If I may say so, if a three year interval is going to be agreed as between different awards, surely it should also be an agreed interval between the making of a contract and the variation of it by an award.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do suggest that we have discussed this matter sufficiently. Either the noble Earl can give us the Amendment, or he can tell us that he has not the authority to give us the Amendment, but that he would like, to put it before the Minister with a view to granting some concession on Report. I suggest that there is nothing more to argue about now.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Rutland, D.

Elibank, V.

Denham, L.

Hailsham, V.

Grenfell, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Lambert, V.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Margesson, V.

Hastings, L.

Townshend, M.

Maugham, V.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Hawke, L.

De La Warr, E.

Simon, V.

Hazlerigg, L.

Drogheda, E.

Swinton, V.

Llewellin, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Templewood, V.

Middleton, L.

Halifax, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Addington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Onslow, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Rennell, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Ashburton, L.

Rochdale, L.

Radnor, E.

Bingley, L.

Roche, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Brand, L.

Saltoun, L.

Selkirk, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L.

Savile, L.

Stanhope, E.

(E. Carrick.)

Selsdon, L.

Carrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cherwell, L.

Trevethin, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cowdray, V.

Courthope, L.

Wardington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Huntingdon, E.

Calverley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Addison, V.

Dukeston, L.

Nathan, L.

Hall, V.

Henderson, L.

Quibell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holden, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kershaw, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

Ammon, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

holding,"to insert "and of the landlord and the tenant." The noble Lord said: This Government Amendment was put down as a result of a promise made on Report stage in another place. Under

709
subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 37 either of the parties to a written tenancy agreement which differs substantially from the statutory maintenance and repair clause may refer the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator is required by subsection (3) to consider whether or not the modifications are justifiable "having regard to the circumstances of the holding." In doing so the arbitrator is required to disregard the rent payable for the holding.
The purpose of the Amendment is to widen to some extent the circumstances which can be pleaded to an arbitrator as justifying any modification from the statutory maintenance and repair clause. As the Bill is at present drafted those circumstances are limited to the circumstances of the holding. If noble Lords care to refer to page 40, line 2, they will see what those circumstances are. This would exclude the personal circumstances of the landlord and the tenant. It seems, desirable, however, that in this particular case the personal circumstances of the landlord or of the tenant should be taken into account since, having regard to these, it may clearly be more convenient to have a different arrangement for maintenance and repair than that laid down in the statutory maintenance and repair clause. For example, if the landlord lives a long distance from the holding, or is abroad, it may be more convenient for the tenant to bear a larger share of the maintenance and repair of the holding, subject, of course, to an appropriate reduction in the rent. For this reason the Amendment proposes to add to the circumstances which can be pleaded as justifying a substantial modification from the statutory maintenance and repair clause the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 2, at end insert ("and of the landlord and the tenant").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I would just like to thank the noble Lord for having moved this Amendment, which is, I think, very helpful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Supplementary provisions as to Sections 37 and 38.
(5) 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.
6.33 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (5) to leave out "or, if the award so provides, from such later date as may be specified therein." The noble Lord said: I hope this Amendment will not be so contentious. Its object is to try to discourage arbitrators from joining those who foretell the future—something which does not work with complete success. In this clause the arbitrator has to assess the accrued liability to repair, either by the landlord or the tenant, as at the date when their liability is transferred. It would be wrong of him to back-date his award, as it would be difficult to assess dilapidations at some past date. But surely it would be almost impossible to specify the dilapidations at some future date, as any amount of additional damage, either by storm or by a thousand and one other means, might occur between the date of the arbitration and the date of the award. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 30, leave out from ("award") to end of line 32.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MORRISON: I hope I am more fortunate with the noble Lord now than I was last time. I would like him to consider this point. These arbitrators are responsible and sensible people who would be well aware of the circumstances, and they are also trustworthy people. If they decide that it is more convenient that their award should take effect as from some date subsequent to the making of the award, they will take this factor into account in assessing the compensation due from the landlord to the tenant, or vice versa. If, on the other hand, as the Amendment suggests, every award had to take effect as from the date on which it was made, it would cause considerable inconvenience to both landlord and tenant. Where there is a new written tenancy agreement, or where the liability

711
for maintenance and repair is being transferred from one party to another, it would clearly be desirable for that to take effect, if possible, from a term day: or, if this would be postponing it too long, from a suitable quarter day, otherwise one would have a new agreement or new covenant on an agreement coming into effect on dates which bear no relationship to the ordinary term days for the land.
It may be suggested that this could be overcome by the arbitrator delaying the signing of the award until the appropriate date, but this seems to me to be asking a lot of arbitrators. There is no reason why they should have a lot of half-finished jobs waiting to be signed until the right date comes along. For these reasons, it seems to me that the Amendment would result in very considerable practical inconvenience to both landlords and tenants, and that arbitrators can be trusted, in framing their awards, to avoid any of the difficulties which it may be suggested would arise if the taking of effect of an award is postponed until some time after it is made. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that this Amendment would not be helpful either to the landlord or the tenant.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am sorry to differ from the noble Lord. I am afraid that I am not convinced at all, because two things are clearly involved here in which the arbitrator, however sensible and however wise, could not possibly assess the damage. The first is, say, the case of a small hole in a roof. That is an example, and there are hundreds of others. A big storm comes along after he has given his award; he is post-dating it by three months, and the storm comes in the three months. The whole roof may be swept off—and I have known cases where that has happened—and it would still be due to the carelessness of one party or the other in having had the original hole. You have the other case where there is really bad blood between the two. The award is post-dated and, from that moment—supposing it is an award shall we say post-dating from Michaelmas to Christmas—it is quite possible for a tenant to back his mangel cart against the side of a building and completely knock it in. You could get really malicious damage done in that sort of way, and I think it
712
is putting the arbitrator in an absolutely impossible position if he has to foresee these two types of difficulty. There are many others, but it wants much more careful thought than that. That the arbitrator should make an award in general and then wait till the final moment to sign it would be a very much sounder way of dealing with it.
LORD ROCHE: As a lawyer I would suggest that this Amendment needs consideration from both sides of the House. I am not sure that the noble Earl who has last spoken is not under the impression that the awards of the arbitrator are general awards by way of compensation and so forth. This clause which he is seeking to amend really relates to Clauses 37 and 38, which are clauses relating to interference with agreements. There is a simple provision that, if the arbitrator sits and varies those agreements, he may make his variation date from the date of his award, or later. That is rather an advantage than otherwise. If you are going to interfere with agreements you had better interfere with them later rather than earlier.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I could not have made a better speech than the noble Lord who has just sat down, but, just to answer the particular points of the noble Earl, surely the roof question would be covered by insurance. The second question relating to mangels is a perfectly proper—
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: If I may interrupt, I have not yet seen a form of insurance which covers acts of God.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Maybe it would be covered by the Agricultural Disaster Fund; I do not know. In any case, to take the other instance, which I think is the more likely, the instance of the tenant doing malicious damage by banging his mangel cart against the building, there is a certain substance in that, but I think if it were obviously malicious damage there would be the opportunity to take the matter to court. There may be a case, on the other hand, of little subtle difficulties where bad blood really does exist, but I think it is a minor point in regard to the advantage of allowing this discretion to the arbitrator; and the idea that the arbitrator keeps his awards and piles up whole lists of them to sign at a

713
later date would be, I think, objected to, and would be very difficult in practice.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Before we leave this, may I say that I was rather struck by the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to the effect that it would be inconvenient to have this on a fixed day instead of on a day which would probably be more suitable, such as a Quarter Day. I was wondering whether it would be possible to have words inserted here in some such form as this: at such later date being a suitable Quarter Day," so as to make clear the intention of the later date. I have in mind the difficulties which over-worked land agents might be in with the apportionment of liabilities on odd dates other than Quarter Days or half-yearly days. If what I have suggested could be inserted, I think it would be of value, and it would certainly earn the gratitude of land agents all over the country.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has made, what is, possibly, a valuable suggestion. I cannot say more about it now but we will certainly look at this before the Report stage, if the Amendment is withdrawn, and see what can be done.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In those circumstances, I certainly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Provisions as to arbitration]:
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of the first Amendment to this clause is to bring subsection (2) into line with other provisions in the Bill in anticipation of the consolidation of Part III with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1923. The effect will be that where a landlord or tenant is serving a notice of intention to make a claim that notice must be in writing. This is clearly desirable since otherwise there might be disputes as to whether or not the necessary notice had, in fact, been given. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 37, after ("notice") insert ("in writing'').—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This next Amendment is really a drafting Amendment, but if any of your Lordships desire a full explanation of it I will gladly give it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("the foregoing, provisions") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: The next Amendment is a technical Amendment which is being moved in order to make it clear that when arbitrations take place under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, witnesses may be summoned to attend the hearing by means of a witness summons. Owing to subsequent legislation, some doubt on that point has arisen, and it is clearly necessary that it should be dispelled. Accordingly, this Amendment has been drawn up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 24, at end insert—
("(7) The provisions of county court rules as to the issuing of witness summons shall, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by such rules, apply for the purposes of any arbitration under the Act of 1923 as if it were an action or matter for the county court.").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 51 agreed to.
6.44 P.m.
Clause 52 [Letting of smallholdings]:
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
" Provided that before offering the land to any person under this subsection the authority shall secure that the person in occupation of the land at the time of its acquisition shall have an opportunity to become the tenant of the said land on terms settled with due regard to the rent payable in respect of such occupation or to the price at which the land has been acquired from him as the case may be."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is really quite a simple Amendment, and it provides for security of tenure. That, I have no doubt, will endear it to the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill. As the members of the Committee will be aware, in many cases local authorities acquire land for houses and roads and other purposes, and do not require that land immediately. It

715
is usually the custom in those circumstances to leave the occupier in possession at an agreed rent. It is suggested here that as the clause stands the land must be let at the best rent that can be got. It would surely be in the interests of the occupier that he should have the opportunity of staying on. There is a difference where the occupier has been the owner or the tenant; the difference is to the extent that in one case the rent would be adjusted in the light of the rent which he used to pay, whereas in the other case the rent would be adjusted to the price paid for the land, which would naturally discount such matters as severance and other matters pertaining to the rest of a holding. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment which, as I say, is a very simple one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 38, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not know if the noble Viscount will accept an assurance on this point, but I hope that it will satisfy him. We can give a definite assurance that instructions will be issued to small holdings authorities that save in exceptional circumstances they should keep on the sitting tenant until the land is actually required for the small holdings.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think that that would be all right except that the Bill does say that they must let the land at the best rent they can get. That might result in someone coming along and offering a better rent than the sitting tenant was prepared or was able to pay. Perhaps the noble Earl can devise some way of getting over that difficulty.
EARL DE LA WARR: It seems quite obvious that there is agreement here, but there is this difficulty to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has drawn attention. I wonder if the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will agree to look at this and see what can be done.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, will accept my assurance and will withdraw his Amendment, we will certainly look into this matter.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: In the circumstances I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68:
Establishment of Agricultural Land Commission and Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission.
(6) The persons appointed to be members of the Commission and the Sub-Commission shall be persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having appropriate technical, commercial or administrative qualifications, and one of the persons appointed to be a member of the Commission shall be a person appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having special knowledge and experience of agriculture in Wales.
6.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (6), after "technical," to insert "scientific." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this clause provides for the establishment of the Agricultural Land Commission which is charged with the functions, as set out in paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of managing and farming land vested in the Minister, and of advising and assisting the Minister in matters relating to the management of agricultural land. I would venture to point out, first of all, that up to seven persons can be appointed by the Minister to sit upon this Commission. When we come to explore what are to be the qualifications of these persons as set out in subsection (6) of the clause we are told that they shall be:
"persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having appropriate technical, commercial or administrative qualifications…"
Science has made immense strides during the last few years, and in no sphere more than in regard to agriculture. I venture to suggest that if the Minister, who need not himself be an agriculturist, is going to have sound advice, it ought to be possible for him to have on this Commission at least one person having scientific knowledge.
The fact that the word "technical" is here employed, may be urged in argument. But, after all, good technique should be founded on sound science, and it does not necessarily follow that because a person has technical qualifications he

717
has also scientific qualifications. The functions of this body are not purely economic or commercial but also cultural. Let me illustrate the sort of difficulty that might arise unless the Minister has some scientific advisers on this Commission. I can remember the time, more than sixty years ago now, when there was a perfect craze for what was described as deep ploughing. I can remember seeing in my young days a great engine set up at the corner of a field with heavy wire cables directing a deep plough over agricultural land. As a result of turning up undesirable subsoil upon the surface, very often with poisonous ferrous compounds in it, the whole of the micro-organic constituents of the surface soil were submerged and a great deal of that land became absolutely sterile and unproductive for several years afterwards.
Let me take two of the latest developments in modern farming. One is ley farming. We have been talking about it during the discussion of a recent Amendment. The other is modern methods of silage making. These are founded on the relatively recent scientific discovery that when grass is four to five inches high it has its maximum nutrient value. In other words, when grass runs to flower and ultimately to seed it has lost at least two-thirds of its protein content. All that is scientific knowledge, but it is an important factor in modern husbandry, and if the Minister is to have advice on up-to-date methods of husbandry, surely he would be well served if he had on this Commission at least one scientist. After all, my Amendment does not bind him. There is nothing mandatory about it. It only says he may appoint a scientist among those whom he appoints to give him advice. Of course, there are several sciences apart from economics which come into play—chemistry, physics, particularly mechanics, micro-biology and mycology and others I could mention. I hope I have made a sufficiently strong case, as one who has devoted a considerable part of his life to scientific husbandry, to persuade the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 27, after ("technical") insert ("scientific").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD MORRISON: There is very little difference on this point, but I have taken
718
advice about it, and I am advised that the technical qualifications include scientific qualifications. The noble Lord shakes his head, and he has much greater experience than I have. As he feels keenly about this, I will take further advice, and if it is found that the word "technical" does not include "scientific," then we will put it right on Report stage.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Can the noble Lord accept the word and put it in for avoidance of doubt?
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before seven o'clock, and resumed at half past eight.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70:
Annual retort of Commission.
70.—(1) The Agricultural Land Commission shall, not later than the thirty-first day of December next following the end of each financial year, prepare and submit to the Minister a report on the discharge, whether by the Commission or the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission, of the functions of the Commission in that year.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
"together with a statement of account in such form as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury prescribe, being a form which shall conform with the best commercial standards and shall show separately the results of any farming operations carried on by them during that year and of the discharge by them during that year of their functions in relation to the management of land."
The noble Lord said: I do not think I need say very much on this Amendment; it speaks for itself. It is quite clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MORRISON: As the noble Lord has indicated that this Amendment is quite clear, it is accepted in principle.
EARL DE LA WARR: It means that it will go into the Bill and you will amend it if necessary?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No. I must make it quite clear that that is not the case at all. In general we are in agreement with what the noble Earl suggests. If he would agree to withdraw the Amendment, we would be glad to consider it and either put an Amendment down for Report stage or discuss it with the noble Earl, altering his wording.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is a small point to fall out about but it is the exact drafting of the Lord Chancellor's words in another Bill. I think the most courteous thing to do would be to accept the Amendment and then if it is not satisfactory it can be looked at again.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: If I understand the noble Earl's answer aright, he would be prepared to accept an Amendment or put down an Amendment the purport of which would be the same as this.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is right.
EARL DE LA WARR: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7o agreed to.
Clause 71:
Establishment and functions of County Agricultural Executive Committees.
(3) A County Agricultural Executive Committee may with the approval of the Minister, and shall if the Minister so requires, appoint one or more sub-committees, and the County Agricultural Executive Committee shall refer to a sub-committee for report and recommendation such matters as may be determined by the Committee with the approval of the Minister or as may be required by the Minister, and shall delegate to a sub-committee such of the functions of the Committee, to such extent and subject to such conditions or restrictions, as may be so determined or required.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved in subsection (3), after "shall," where that word first occurs, to insert:
"for the purpose of the exercise of any of their functions under sections twelve to sixteen of this Act relating to the management of land and in any other case shall."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to provide for the establishment of estate management sub-committees. In subsection (3) it says that the Minister may want to appoint one or
720
more sub-committees. It is most important for the agricultural industry as a whole that agricultural executive committees should appoint estate management sub-committees, in view of increasingly specialized work entailed in managing land. I believe that in another place the Minister gave a special assurance that he is in favour of securing the appointment of such sub-committees for estate management, and if he said that, this should be a good opportunity for the noble Earl to accept the Amendment standing in my name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 12, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Savile.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I wish I could be as obliging as I always like to be. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in what he says, that we are in favour of estate management committees, and the assurance to which he referred was given and will stand. There is, however, a technical difficulty about putting this provision in the Bill because if we mention specifically estate management committees we will have to put in every other sort of committee that will have to be appointed. For that reason, we do not wish to put it in the Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that we appreciate his point and that these Committees will certainly be appointed, for we look to estate management committees to help in this matter. With that assurance I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD SAVILE: I thank the noble Earl for his reply. If that is so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73:
Establishment, constitution and procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals.
(4) Any order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament forthwith after being made.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert:
"(4) An order made under this section shall be of no effect unless it is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Duke said: In the absence of Lord Courthope, I beg to move this

721
Amendment. We believe that the agricultural land tribunals are of vital importance to the working of this Bill. It is most necessary that their appointment and constitution should be subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Clause 7 of the Bill states:
"An order under Section four or six of this Act shall be of no effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
So there is already a precedent in this Bill for an affirmative Resolution. I feel it is of vital importance that the constitution and the procedure of the agricultural land tribunals should be very carefully considered. I do think the noble Earl should be able to grant us this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 38, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Rutland.)
LORD MORRISON: I have been asked to reply to this Amendment. We regret that it is not possible to accept an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, because it is considered that it would be a waste of Parliamentary time and would cause unnecessary delay. If there are any provisions in the order which are not considered desirable the Minister can always be questioned on them in Parliament and asked to give reasons why he has adopted the particular provision. I would, however, like to draw the attention of my noble friend to the fact that under the Pension Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, similar rules of procedure have to be made by order, and that Act provides that the order shall be subject to negative Resolution procedure. If that suggestion is acceptable, I am prepared to insert words to make the order subject to negative Resolution procedure. If the mover of the Amendment would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, the Government will move an appropriate Amendment on Report; or, if the noble Duke would prefer it, I will arrange for this Amendment to be put down on Report stage in his name.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: It sounded to me an astonishing remark which the noble Lord made, that the discussion of this question of agricultural land tribunals would be a waste of Parliamentary time. For my own part, I can conceive of nothing which would be less a waste of Parliamentary time than a discussion of
722
this very important part of the Bill, which we have to leave to order and cannot deal with in the Bill. The constitution of the agricultural land tribunals, and giving them a good start, seems to me to be eminently a matter which Parliament ought not only to have the right to discuss but most certainly ought to discuss. If there is no other argument than the pressure on Parliamentary time, I submit that that is not a very strong reason for not accepting the Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I propose to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to put the procedure in regard to these tribunals into the Bill.
LORD MORRISON: Probably I expressed myself badly in not making it clear that there is no objection to discussing these matters in Parliament. What I described as perhaps being an unnecessary waste of time was the procedure of the affirmative Resolution. Under a negative Resolution, particularly as it applies in another place—upon which I have more knowledge than I have of this House—there would be no difficulty at any time in discussing any case Parliament wished to discuss.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I quite understand his point.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I thank the noble Lord for his assurances and, in view of those assurances, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74:
References to Agricultural Land Tribunal
74.—(1) In any case where by any of the provisions of this Act a person is empowered to require that a proposal of the Minister to take any action shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, then if within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner the said person so requires, the proposal shall be referred accordingly.
(2) On any such reference the Tribunal shall determine—

(a) whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking the action are fulfilled, and

and shall report to the Minister accordingy.
8.40 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"and the Minister shall forward a copy of the report to any person who availed himself of an opportunity to make representations to the Minister afforded to him under the provisions in question of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This is a Government Amendment which requires the Minister, where a matter is referred to the agricultural land tribunal, to send a copy of the tribunal's report to any person who took advantage of the opportunity afforded him under the Bill to make representations to the Minister before the matter was referred to the Tribunal. A somewhat similar Amendment was moved from the Opposition Benches and debated on Report in another place. It proposed that a copy of the report should be sent to any party to the proceedings who asked for a copy, and it was withdrawn on the Minister's undertaking to look into the point again. The Amendment now proposed goes further in that it is not limited to persons who ask for a copy of the report. The persons who will be entitled to be afforded an opportunity to make representations to the Minister are in each case defined in the relative clause in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 11, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 75 to 77 agreed to.
Clause 78:
Power to obtain agricultural statistics.
78.—(1) Where it appears to the Minister expedient so to do for the purpose of obtaining statistical information relating to agriculture, he may, after consultation with the Committee established by him under the last foregoing section, make regulations providing for the service upon owners and occupiers of land used for agriculture, or of land which the Minister has reason to believe may be so used, of notices requiring them to furnish in writing, in such form and manner and to such person as may be prescribed, and within such time and with respect to such date or dates or such period or periods as may be specified in the notice, the prescribed information (including, as respects paragraphs (c) to (e) of this subsection, the prescribed information as to quantities, values expenditure and receipts) relating to—
724

(d) fixed and other equipment, livestock, and the stocks of agricultural produce and requisites held in respect of the land, and the provision and maintenance of such equipment, livestock and requisites and the provision of agricultural services for the benefit of the land,

(2) For the purpose of obtaining statistical information relating to agriculture, any person authorized by the Minister in that behalf may, after giving not less than twenty-four hours' notice and on producing if so required evidence of his authority to act for the purposes of this subsection, orally require the owner or occupier of land to furnish to him within a reasonable time, and either orally or in writing as the said owner or occupier may elect, such information, whether or not specified in the said notice, as the said person authorized by the Minister may require, being information which the owner or occupier, as the case may be, could have been required to furnish under the last foregoing subsection.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (1) (d), to leave out "and the provision of agricultural services for the benefit of the land." The noble Lord said: With the permission of your Lordships' House I would like to take this and the next Amendment together. I would merely like an explanation from the Minister of the significance of the words it is proposed to leave out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 17, leave out from ("requisites") to end of line 19.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I shall be very pleased to give the noble Lord the information which he requires. As he knows we shall need considerable statistics and figures under the Bill in carrying out its various provisions. The question asked by the noble Lord refers to such things as farm machinery, repair of farm buildings, veterinary services and haulage services. In a few of the matters which are outside that particular category we have other services, including machinery, labour services, and transport. A lot of transactions go on, such as the hiring of machinery by committees to different farmers, and also hiring of machinery between farmers themselves. There are innumerable sorts of transactions which go on about which we need to have information in order that we may get out the figures we need. That is the reason for the inclusion of those words. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved in subsection (2) to leave out "whether or not" and insert "being information." The noble Lord said: As the clause now stands a person authorized by the Minister can call upon a farmer and require him to furnish not only such information as is specified in the notice served under subsection (1) of this clause, but also any other information he considers desirable which is contained in paragraphs (a) to (f) and which amounts to pretty well everything under the sun. I think that if an official of the agricultural committee calls upon a farmer he should not ask him for additional information, but should stick to the information which is specified in the notice which has been served. There would seem to be little point in serving a notice in the first place if you are going to ask for much more information at a later date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 44, leave out from ("information") to ("specified") in line 45 and insert ("being information").—(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In regard to this Amendment there are two points which I should like to clear up if I can. The first is as to the time. It is perfectly true that only twenty-four hours' notice is required, but the noble Lord will have noticed, I expect, that there is no obligation on the man to furnish the information in that time. That is only the length of notice of the visit. As regards the second point, which is perhaps more pertinent, I think perhaps the noble Lord mistakes the character of the visit. This will be quite a friendly visit, not an antagonistic one, and it would hamper the work of committees very considerably if an officer came to a farm and was unable to get the information needed because he was debarred from asking questions about other matters. The noble Lord's Amendment suggests that the committee have a great deal more knowledge of the farm than they actually might have. It may be, however, that only when they arrive on the farm do they see what they wish to ask about. The farmer is given reason-
726
able time to provide any further information, either orally or in writing. It would hamper the work of the committee if they had to give longer notice. In view of these considerations, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: In an ordinary case it would be serious for a man if he were to get 24 hours' notice just before market day.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The fact that a notice was given does not put any obligation whatever on the farmer to be present when the man from the committee arrives. It is an obligation to give the notice, but if it happened to be market day it would just be unfortunate for the man calling. He would have to give another notice and go again.
LORD CARRINGTON: I cannot pretend to be very convinced by the noble Earl's answer. I should have thought that the agricultural committees were sufficiently intelligent to put in their notice the things they wanted to know. However, I do not think it is an Amendment which ought to be pressed, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80:
Restriction on disclosure of information.
80. No information relating to any particular land or business, being information which has been obtained under Section seventy-eight or seventy-nine of this Act, shall be published or otherwise disclosed without the previous consent in writing of the person by whom the information was furnished and every other person whose interests may in the opinion of the Minister be affected by the disclosure, being an owner or the occupier of the land:
Provided that nothing in this section shall restrict the disclosure of information—

(c) if the disclosure is confined to situation, extent, number and kind of livestock, character of land, and name and address of owner and occupier, to any person to whom the Minister considers that the disclosure thereof is required in the public interest;

THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out all words after and including "person" and to insert "statutory undertakers for the purpose of the exercise of any powers or duties vested or imposed upon them."
The noble Earl said: This is a very simple Amendment. I do not see why a man's affairs should be bandied about unnecessarily and so I suggest that the words of the Amendment in my name would be more suitable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 30, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 31, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I appreciate the noble Earl's point. Obviously we do not want this information bandied about, and in fact if the noble Earl will study the Bill he will see that there are provisions and penalties for disclosure of certain information. But there is a reason why we do not want to confine this matter to such narrow limits. There are certain classes of persons to whom the Minister would very much like to give this information, who are not statutory undertakers, such as research institutions or workers, universities and so forth, possibly even local authorities. There are these various people who could I am sure be trusted not to disclose what is not very vital information. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLO'W: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said, but I hope he will look into the matter and see if it can be tidied up in the light of the information he has given. It is not in the Bill as the noble Earl puts it.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not think we can withdraw on this if only because we are going to employ, or hope to employ, on a very big scale scientific research workers. That is part of our programme. There are provisions in the Bill to stop unnecessary disclosure, and there are penalties for it; but we must have the right to give the information, particularly to universities and similar institutions. It is not vital, but I agree with the noble Earl that it would be very bad if this information became public property and was bandied about. However, we have found from experience, when we have taken universities or research workers into our confidence, that our trust has not been misplaced.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: May I beg the noble Earl to withdraw this
728
Amendment? I would like to emphasize what has been said by the noble Earl. It seems to me to be absolutely vital that research into these matters should not be confined to official persons, and that you should not make too many regulations making it difficult for research bodies to obtain information. It is very difficult to find a form of words which would properly define research bodies. They may do an enormous amount of good if they have access to these figures. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw.
EARL DE LA WARR: I should have thought the noble Lord's arguments are really quite unanswerable, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, agrees. It is better to have this information really voluntarily given. The working is more smooth, and the information is more complete. I think that research is the only point that has been mentioned. If it were possible to specify that a little more clearly in the Bill it might be of advantage—possibly "a body," or "to any of those engaged in research authorized by the various research councils," or some such thing as that. There are only three research councils in England. I just suggest to the noble Lord that that might be of advantage.
EARL STANHOPE: Frankly I think the Government are right here. I do not see how they can go any further than to say "to whom the Minister considers that the disclosure thereof is required in the public interest." It seems to me that that is the widest provision in the Bill, and I hope the noble Earl will not oppose the Government in this respect.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am not quite satisfied with what the noble Earl has said but, in the circumstances, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 83 agreed to.
Clause 84:
Acquisition of land by Minister to ensure full and efficient use thereof.
84.—(1) Where—

(a) the Minister is satisfied in the case of any agricultural land that the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture is being prevented by reason of work not being carried out or fixed equipment not being provided, and that having regard to the nature of the work or equipment required

729
for such use of the land as aforesaid it cannot reasonably be expected to be carried out or provided unless the Minister exercises his powers under this subsection; or

(b) the Minister is satisfied in the case of any agricultural land that the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture will be prevented if existing fixed equipment thereon is not maintained, and that having regard to the nature of the equipment it cannot reasonably be expected to be maintained unless the Minister exercises his powers under this subsection; or

then if the Minister proposes to secure the carrying out of the work, the provision or maintenance of the equipment, or the use of the land in conjunction with other land, as the case may be, he may acquire the land by compulsory purchase or hiring in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf.
8.54 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved in subsection (1) to leave out from "satisfied" in paragraph (a) to the second "maintained" in paragraph (b) and insert:
"that it is requisite for the full and efficient use of agricultural land for agriculture that work should be carried out or fixed equipment provided, or maintained and that having regard to the nature thereof such work will not be carried out or such fixed equipment will not be provided or maintained except in accordance with a scheme under this section he may require the owner or owners of the said land to submit for his approval a scheme or he may himself make a scheme for securing the full and efficient use of the said land for agriculture by the carrying out of such works, or the provision or maintenance of such fixed equipment as may be specified in the scheme, and where such a scheme has been approved either with or without variations or made by him as aforesaid and the said work is not carried out, or the said fixed equipment is provided or no steps have been taken for the maintenance thereof within such reasonable time as may be specified by the Minister in respect of such scheme and the Minister is satisfied that the said works will not be carried out or such fixed equipment will not be provided or".
The noble Earl said: I think this is an important Amendment, dealing with a difficult and complicated matter. I certainly would not stand on the exact drafting of my Amendment. If anything were done in this matter, it should certainly be with the help of a Government draftsman, so that our intention might be expressed in the best manner. I cannot help feeling, however, that the clause as drafted might entitle the Minister virtually to nationalize the whole of the land of this country—certainly a vast block. I can visualize that there are large areas in the country where it might be in the
730
national interest, after discussion with landowners and giving them every opportunity to carry out a definite scheme, that the Land Commission should take over the land. Indeed I am not at all sure that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—if it is he who is going to reply—could not find words in a report of my own which suggests something of that character.
As it is drafted, the clause really goes very far. It says that the Minister can take over land where he can reasonably say—I am paraphrasing, of course—that the landowner cannot reasonably be expected to carry out certain work. What work? There is no suggestion of any definite scheme being put before the landowner and of his being asked to carry it out. There is no suggestion of an opportunity being given to him to say either that he will or that he cannot. Nor, incidentally, if I may go to a point which really attaches to a later Amendment, is there any suggestion of his being given any appeal whatsoever. I suggest that that is going in a direction which we should examine very carefully.
I think it has been suggested—and we have seen pictures outside this Chamber which make one think that this is so—that Romney Marsh is considered the sort of area which is suitable for such treatment. No doubt there is an area of extremely rich land there, possibly, in some ways, the best land in the country, without the proper equipment, the roads or the houses with which alone it can be fully developed. It is very tempting for those who feel like it to say: "Only the State can carry out the necessary work." How can we say that that is so now? As a matter of fact, my information is that very large and wealthy corporations; and colleges also, have been purchasing land down there. Have we got any evidence at all to convince us that they cannot carry out the necessary work? I do not think that we have, and there is nothing in the clause to suggest that we should make any attempt to get such evidence. I therefore suggest, according to the terms of the Amendment, that the Minister should be put into the position of having to produce a scheme himself or of having to ask the land-owners to produce a scheme, and then giving them the opportunity of saying whether in fact they will carry out that scheme or not. If they say "No," then

731
it is for the Minister to say that he will carry out the work through his own Land Commission, he having given the landowners the opportunity of doing it. I repeat that I do not stand on the particular drafting of this Amendment, but I think that your Lordships will agree that that would be a fair way of dealing with this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 31, leave out from ("satisfied") to ("maintained") in line 2, page 69, and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD HASTINGS: I would like to support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend, Lord De La Warr. It will be observed that the Amendment, by its wording, does not, in any sense, prevent the Minister from taking the initiative in this matter. It really suggests—it hardly goes further—to the Minister that it might be well, in certain cases, to endeavour to enlist the assistance of bodies, whether corporations or syndicates of landowners, and give them an opportunity to do work of a kind which the Minister, one would assume, would undertake rather reluctantly if he could find nobody else to do it. In my part of England, in East Anglia, there come to my mind several cases which are apposite. For years a scheme has been talked of for reclaiming the Wash. Although we know there was a syndicate of landowners in the late 17th century who undertook the drainage of the Fens, to-day I have my doubts whether any further reclamation could or would be likely to be undertaken by a syndicate of private landowners. There would be, however, if the state of this country were such that it became a matter of urgent necessity that every acre of fertile land should be used for food production. There is a case where this useful clause would come into operation. But I know also that in my part of England there are two companies who have undertaken reclamation work of scrub lands, light lands, on a commercial basis and made a great success of it. It would be a n error to regard it solely from the standpoint of national purpose, so that any enterprising company prepared to invest capital in such a scheme should not be given an opportunity of doing so.
732
There is a good deal of value in competition. Where you get a landowner employing obviously expert advice, prepared to sink capital in the kind of scheme which this clause visualizes, it is really better in the national interest that there should not be a monopoly. There should be competition, so that one kind of entrepreneur could vie with the others see where the best results could be achieved. This Amendment does not seek in any way to limit or control the Minister, or to diminish the usefulness of the clause itself. It seeks merely to make it possible for private enterprise to participate in an admirable cause with the public effort which the Minister would be required to make. I think that it makes for efficiency and it would help in the widest interests of agriculture. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted in principle. I am not insisting on the exact form. I do not propose to detain the Committee, but I think that in the widest interests of agriculture there is a definite advantage in allowing competition and investment of private capital. I do not wish in any way to diminish the Minister's power but rather to relieve him of undertaking that which in its nature must be speculative and which he can do only at the national cost.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): We have just listened to a moderate speech, if I may so, with a great deal of which I find myself in agreement. The Minister has no desire whatever to exercise power under this section where there are landowners ready and willing to carry out the work. May I ask your Lordships for a moment to look with me at the nature of the clause, and see what it provides? Take Clause 84 (1) (a). First of all you will see there are two conditions which must be satisfied before the Minister can act. He must be satisfied:
"That the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture is being prevented by reason of work not being carried out or fixed equipment not being provided."
That is the first step. He must be satisfied about that. The second step is:
"and that having regard to the nature of the work or equipment required for such use of the land as aforesaid it cannot reasonably be expected to be carried out or provided unless the Minister exercises his powers under this subsection."
Therefore it is quite plain—always assuming that the Minister is being honest about

733
this, for otherwise he can do all sorts of ridiculous things; we always make that assumption in these cases—that he has to be satisfied that the work or the equipment, whatever it may be, cannot reasonably be expected to be provided by private enterprise.
Those are the conditions, and paragraph (b) is virtually the same. Where:
"the Minister is satisfied in the case of any agricultural land that the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture will be prevented if existing fixed equipment thereon is not maintained,"—
—here you get the second condition again—
"and that having regard to the nature of the equipment it cannot reasonably be expected to be maintained unless the Minister exercises his powers."
I am willing to do what I can to meet apprehensions, if your Lordships have apprehensions, and to see that those two conditions really are present to the Minister's mind. What I suggest—I am putting forward my own suggestion to which I have the approval of the Minister, and it goes rather further than I myself would have gone—is this. He is prepared (and he is going to exercise these powers under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)) to refer the matter to the Agricultural Land Commission. The Commission, you may say, are his servant; they are. He is prepared to refer those two considerations to the Agricultural Land Commission and they are to report to him upon those two considerations. He is willing to do this and to say that that report shall be made public. If that is done, your Lordships will know exactly what the Agricultural Land Commission have reported to their Minister in this behalf, and it is only when that has been done that the Minister can exercise his powers.
His powers are exercised under the Acquisition of Land Act and, under that Act, everybody whose land is to be taken has a right either to have a public inquiry, or at any rate has the chance of making his observations to the Minister in person, and of making his objections; so that the local landowners who are concerned will have every opportunity to make their objection at that stage. Of course, the political pressure which could be properly exercised with regard to a Minister, if he attempts to exercise his powers under this section, in face of the fact that a report has been published by
734
the Commission that the landowners can provide the necessary appliances, would be very great. Indeed, the landowners would have the right to object, when the proposal was made that their lands should be compulsorily acquired, that the prerequisite and the use of these powers had not been complied with. That is as far as I can go.
Quite frankly, this offer which I make to your Lordships, and I want to meet your Lordships if I possibly can, is intended to take the place of this Amendment and the next Amendment in the names of Lord Courthope and Lord Ashburton. I am not in a position, although I have gone into it carefully, to accept either this Amendment which we are now considering or the next one. I may say, if the noble Earl who moved the Amendment will not mind my saying it, that I am quite sure he did not draft it because it is so very ill-drafted. It provides in line 13: "where such a scheme has been approved," but it never goes on to tell us what happens when the scheme is not approved! It enables the Minister to formulate a scheme and he may formulate a perfectly impracticable and impossible scheme; he might put a very short limit of time on the scheme and say, "You have not carried out my scheme and therefore you will act under my powers." In many respects I think the Amendment makes the position which your Lordships fear worse than the clause. I feel, however, that it would cause delay and, as I think we all agreed yesterday, we must consider, and consider without undue loss of time, how we are to get our agriculture in this country as fit and proper as it can be.
For my part, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said yesterday and hinted at again to-day. In so far as we can use the local landowners, with their local knowledge, let us do it; and in so far as they can themselves provide the requisite machines, and so on, by all means let them do it, and let us get on with the job. On the other hand, I think this clause may go (I do not speak as an expert on this topic—Heaven forbid!) farther than either Romney Marsh or the Wash. There may be many estates in this country which are held up from producing what they can produce by reason of the non-availability of machinery which is essential to enable

735
them to do so. Your Lordships know much more about this than I do, but I should be very surprised if many of your Lordships with great experience on this topic did not agree that that was the case—and pretty widely. If that is the case, we must not be held up in our production of essential foodstuffs by reason of the lack of the necessary machines, if it is possible to get them. If it is a mere question of money, and so on, then the Minister must do it. If it is a question of the impossibility of getting the machines, then neither the Minister nor anyone else can do it. That is what I feel.
I therefore make this suggestion to your Lordships. You are perfectly entitled to say, before assenting to my proposition, that you would like to see this down on the Paper. That is very reasonable. Your Lordships will see that the proposition does not square with the Amendments on the Paper. Frankly, it is an alternative. The scheme I propose is this. I propose that this matter shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Commission; that they shall discuss the matter, and consult with the owners concerned; that they shall then make a report on the two questions: (1) Is certain machinery necessary?; and (2) Can it be provided by those owners? That would be after discussing the matter with the owners. I propose that that report shall be made public, so that all those facts will be available and known.
In those circumstances, I think your Lordships will get about as good a security as you can get that the Minister will not act in an arbitrary way; because if a man is going to act in an arbitrary way, he does not like all the facts to be revealed to the public gaze. I think your Lordships will have there about as good a safeguard as you can have against the improper or arbitrary exercise of this power merely for the sake of bringing in by way of a side wind some scheme of nationalization. If we are going to do that, we will do it quite openly and will not seek to do it by camouflage under this clause. That is the suggestion I make, and if your Lordships say that you would like to see it down on the Paper, it shall be put down on the Paper before the Report stage. When your Lordships see that scheme on the Paper,
736
it will be open for you to say that you do not like it or, on the other hand, that you do like it. If your Lordships say that you do not like it, then you will be in a position to ask for these Amendments, which I am bound to say I am unable to accept. This is a real offer to try to meet the difficulties in your Lordships' minds, and I hope your Lordships will take it in that sense.
LORD CORNWALLIS: I do not wish to upset the harmony of this offer, and I should not be rising if part of the country which I and the noble and learned Viscount know so well—Romney Marsh—had not been brought into this matter. In the words of the Bill, it is said that full and effective use of the land for agriculture is being prevented by reason of the work not being carried out. What I am more concerned with is what is preventing that work from being carried out. I am anxious about this clause because I am perfectly certain that for two or three years anyhow the most willing developer or the most willing person who wants to improve his land with buildings, machinery or whatever it may be, to carry out all kinds of schemes, is not going to be able to get them. It seems very hard that any arbitrary action should be taken against that man who is trying his best and cannot get the materials.
Down on Romney Marsh the whole question is labour—as the noble and learned Viscount knows, because he has not left that area long enough to forget. There are very strong corporations and bodies down there; there are very strong landowners and very strong farmers buying land. In fact they are pouring down from the Fens to grow potatoes instead of rearing sheep. Whether that is for the good of the country, I am not at all sure. They are all ready to go into schemes if they can get the material and if they can get the labour. I do not want to bring controversy into this, but I am perfectly certain that there would be more houses built on Romney Marsh if it had been left to private enterprise instead of a local government scheme. I think a great deal more development might have taken place. I want to emphasize that for three or four years the most willing landlords and the most willing farmers will not be able to carry out the schemes, and it seems very hard that they should be penalized

737
under the powers the Minister is taking, if, simply by force of supply circumstances, they have not the opportunity of doing this work.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I add just a word to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis? I appreciate the force of what the noble and learned Viscount has just said, but, on the other hand, in the middle of his remarks he said that it might be not only Romney Marsh or The Wash but a whole host of small instances where this action would be necessary. He followed it up—and I think very rightly—with the assurance that it was not going to be a back door to nationalization, which it very easily could be. But the fact that it is not only Romney Marsh but may be hundreds of other places in various degrees does mean that possibly the whole of England, with an eager and keen Land Commission, might become the Naboth's vineyard of that Commission. I think that is a great danger.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has said, there is no need for hurry to-day with regard to the question of redeeming these very difficult pieces of ground. They would have been redeemed long ago had there been real urgency. We have had seven years of war in which we have done a great many uneconomical things in the redemption of land, and some very successful things. We have the next five or ten years in which to try to solve the labour and material problems of the land which we know can produce fully if it is given the chance. We must use those opportunities to repair the land and the buildings on the land. A great deal of what is proposed may, in the long run, be found to be of questionable wisdom. For instance, are sheep or potatoes going to be the best on Romney Marsh? I do not know, but it is not something one can decide all of a sudden.
Apart from that, I believe that the greatest failing on the land in England has been the lack of co-operation, whether it has been among farmers or whether it has been among landowners. I am perfectly willing to admit that the Amendment may be badly framed and could be very much better drawn up, but the intention of the Amendment is to give impetus to the landowner on a difficult area of land to cooperate with his neighbours to get a scheme through, and that, I believe, is
738
something we should encourage to the full. The Pontine Marshes were a very much more intractable area of land than Romney Marsh. Their reclamation was not done, I think I am right in saying, by the methods proposed under this Bill; it was done by giving the private landowner the incentive, first to get on with the job, whether he owned 5,000 or 50,000 acres, under threat later of its being taken away if he could not produce a scheme. He produced the scheme. Your Lordships may say that the Italians were used to co-operation, but when I went over the Campagna I found a very large and ancient canal completely dried up, with a hump in the middle of it. All the other work was in perfectly good order. I said to the Prefect who was showing me round, "That part of your work is very much older," "Yes," he said, "It is the Etruscans' work. There was an earthquake 2, 000 years ago that threw the canal out of level and the Campagna has been in this position for over 2,000 years." Therefore the owners were doing it for 2,000 years without the necessity of State compulsion!
NOBLE LORDS: Too long.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May be it was too long—but it was done under private enterprise in that way. And there were many dictators, let me remind the noble Lords opposite, during those 2,000 years.
During the war there was a certain amount of uneconomic regeneration of land. The private owner should be given his opportunity of offering to do the job and of doing it thoroughly, with the necessary effort and co-operation. It will be very much more difficult for the Land Commission, who will have great zeal in this matter—zeal always occurs in a public body of this sort. If the Commission have the example before them, they may be a great deal more careful with the spending of public money and so forth; otherwise they may be led into uneconomic works. I do not know whether my noble friend is willing to withdraw the Amendment or not, but I think that this is something that needs to be considered far more carefully than it has been so far.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I, for my part, am very anxious to see what the

739
terms of the alternative proposal are. I cannot help feeling that if the general intention of this Amendment is embodied in the Amendment contemplated by the noble and learned Viscount opposite, the result might be even more effective in carrying out what is intended than is this Amendment. I speak as the Chairman in 1927 of the Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales, and my noble friend Lord Courthope was a member of that Commission; and especially in the light of what the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, has just said about the co-operation amongst landowners, I foresee the possibility, as this clause stands to-day, of a landowner whose land is flooded or waterlogged through no fault of his own being saddled with big expenditure; or if he cannot face that expenditure, of the land being compulsorily acquired by the Government in default. I know the answer may be, "Well, since your Royal Commission sat a Land Drainage Act has been passed, under which Catchment Boards and Internal Drainage Boards have been set up." I have sad reason to say, however, that I have been the first serious victim in respect of some of the richest land in the country in the Vale of the Severn, where the catchment board and the internal drainage board have had to confess that they have not available the public money in order to carry out the necessary reclamation.
I admit that that is an extreme case. But suppose in a case like that, where land is flooded owing to the lack of the clearing of drains or water courses on land at a higher level than the land which it is proposed or contemplated to purchase, and suppose that through no fault of his own the landowner is unable to render that land fit for maximum or optimum cultivation, and owing to lack of co-operation among landowners—compulsory co-operation will probably be called for in such a case—he is saddled with large works in order to render his land fit for its optimum use, then I think it would be an injustice if the Minister compulsorily acquired, or sought compulsorily to acquire, that land. My noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth has used the words "an uneconomic proposition."
I call in aid my noble friend Lord Courthope, who travelled with me to the
740
Netherlands as a member of the Royal Commission. We put this question to those people who have a bigger knowledge on the subject of land drainage than any people in the world. We put it to the: "Suppose that you were draining the Zuyder Zee, which you are proposing to do, will it or will it not be an economic proposition? Will you in fact be able to recover the cost of that expensive process from the land so reclaimed?" And their answer was such that I was quite convinced by it. They said: "Whether it is an economic proposition or not, it is in the interests of the nation that this should be done, and that the land should be saved and put to the best use." I felt myself entirely convinced by that reply. For my part I am quite favourable to the suggestion thrown out by the noble and learned Viscount, but I should like to see the terms of it, and I should be glad if he would bear in mind that difficulty in regard to alluvial and possibly waterlogged land which cannot be put right by a single individual.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think on all sides of the House it would be agreed that the noble and learned Viscount has made a real and genuine attempt to meet this matter which was giving us considerable concern. So far as I can see, his scheme has the merit of giving landlords an opportunity of seeing what is really wanted and saying whether they will carry it out. There is only one point that is at all concerning me now, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not feel that we are looking a gift horse in the mouth when I raise it. It is because it is really opening up our minds. It did occur to me that on the whole the Land Commission are, perhaps, an executive rather than a judicial body, and there may be certain parts of the functions that are being handed over to them in this proposed Amendment that might be of a judicial rather than an executive character, and therefore it might be desirable to divide up the functions proposed between the Land Commission, for the preparation of the scheme, and the Agricultural Land Tribunal, for the consideration of the rather more judicial matters. That is a point we can look at when we come to the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount. I should certainly not desire to press my Amendment, but perhaps I might say this: if the noble and learned

741
Viscount could put down his Amendment as soon as possible we would be grateful, because we are very interested in this and would like to give it serious consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Naturally the draftsman will have to look at it, but I will do the best I can.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved, in subsection (1), after "land," where that word last occurs, to insert "or any part thereof." The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment, and one which is non-controversial. It speaks for itself, and does not need any explanation from me. If the Minister has power to acquire land as a whole for the purposes of this clause, it seems only reasonable that he could also accept any part of the land—that is, any part of the land apart from the land itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 21, after. ("land") insert ("or any part thereof").—(Lord Savile.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think that this seems a very reasonable suggestion by the noble Lord, and the Government will be pleased to accept it.
LORD SAVILE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86:
Control of subdivision of agricultural units.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the Eleventh Schedule to this Act as to mortgages and charges, in this section the expression "disposition" means a conveyance, assignment, surrender, grant, or agreement for the grant of an interest in land; the expression "major disposition" means a conveyance of the fee simple, a grant or agreement for the grant of a tenancy for an interest greater than from year to year, or an assignment or surrender of a tenancy granted for any such interest; and the expression "minor disposition" means any other disposition; and subject to the provisions of the said Eleventh Schedule the dispositions to which this section applies are all dispositions except—
9.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, in subsection (3), at the end, to insert:
"(d) my disposition of land which the landlord has obtained possession in cones-
742
quence of a notice to quit to which the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 30 of this Act apply."
The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment which is designed not in any way to be obstructive but to preserve so far as possible the Minister, as represented by the county agricultural committees, from doing unnecessary work. It is much the same argument as was used before, but I would like to point out that if you turn to Clause 30, subsection (4), paragraphs (a) and (b) you will find observed there the principle of a small piece of land taken out of a large piece of land. Though on appearance there may seem to be an obvious difference between the two examples do not think that in fact there is much difference. It would make it much simpler for odd pieces of land to be taken over without worrying anyone else on the sub-division of units. None of us wants to see it made a matter for the speculator. I think that the Amendment, as drafted, would exclude all that and would mean that if a landowner wanted to open a quarry or have a shelter built or something of that sort, that type of subdivision would not necessarily have to be challenged and go through the whole processes of committee work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 12, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have looked at this Amendment. It is rather a technical matter, and I think that although I cannot accept the Amendment I can assure the noble Earl that he need not be at all alarmed. The position is this. We are dealing at page 72, line 10, with "any disposition made in pursuance of a contract in writing entered into at the time when this section is not in force" The noble Earl wants to add to it a further paragraph, paragraph (d):
"any disposition of land which the landlord has obtained possession in consequence of a notice to quit to which the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 30 of this Act apply."
If he will turn to page 71 he will see at line 35 what disposition means. It means "a conveyance, assignment, surrender, grant, or agreement for the grant of an interest in land." I have looked at this, and so have my advisers, to see whether

743
the case of obtaining possession of land as a result of notice to quit is disposition at all. I am assured that it is not, and I think that clearly that is so. That being so it seems to me that any fear which the noble Earl might entertain is quite groundless. A tenant, of course, would be able to object under Clause 31, but it is not a case of disposition at all; therefore we do not want this Amendment here. I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied and will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In view of the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clauses 87 to 89 agreed to.
Clause 90:
Powers of managements, etc., of land acquirea by Minister.
90.—(1) The Minister may manage, farm, sell, let or otherwise deal with or dispose of land acquired by him—

(a) in such manner as appears to him expedient for the purpose for which the land was acquired; or

(b) if he is satisfied that the land ought to be devoted to some other purpose, in such manner as appears to him expedient therefor:

Provided that—

(i) the Minister shall not sell land acquired by him except where it appears to him that it is in the national interest that the land should be devoted to a purpose for which it is expedient that it should be sold by him;

(ii) this section shall have effect subject to any restrictions imposed by or under any enactment on the powers of the Minister.

9.35 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice to move after paragraph (b) of subsection (1) to insert: "(c) if in the interests of economy or good estate management it appears advisable to sell land." The noble Earl said: I ask the leave of the House to put at the beginning of my Amendment the word "or." It makes no difference to the sense of the Amendment; it merely puts it as an alternative to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the clause. I hope the Government will agree to accept this Amendment. All it does is to increase the powers of the Minister. It
744
enables him; it does not compel him. He may sell land if in the interests of economy or good estate management it appears advisable he should do so.
The Government have made a pathetic attempt to try and curtail the increasing numbers of civil servants. They had a "standfast" for figures as they existed on January 1. That failed. The Prime Minister told another place quite recently that of course the number of civil servants depended on what Parliament put on their backs, and if they kept on giving them more things to do the Civil. Service would grow. That is quite obvious. In this Bill we are putting a large additional amount of work on the Ministry of Agriculture. They are to take over the management of property all over the place, and sometimes they are going to farm the land themselves. They are to have all sorts of difficulties between landlords and tenants to resolve, and all sorts of additional work which they have not done before. There is to be a great increase in their numbers.
One thing those of us who manage property know is that to manage outlying pieces of property is uneconomical and unbusinesslike. When property is a long way off it means that you take a long time to visit it, and when you find things you may want done—repairs or renewals and so on—you ask who are the best builders in that neighbourhood whom you can get to do the work. Your official does not know. How can he? He does not live there. He has to hunt round to find someone to do it, and when the work is in progress someone has to be sent to find out whether it is being properly done. As a result, your increase of staff is going to be enormous and extremely extravagant. Those who have had property scattered about found out long ago that where outlying pieces of property cannot be economically managed it is better to sell them.
We do not say "must," we say "may" sell them. So far as I can see at present such a provision is not in the Bill. Everybody agrees that the absentee landlord is the worst of landlords. He does not look after his property as he should because he does not visit it as he should, and all sorts of things happen. Not only do buildings fall into disrepair but tenants are not kept up to the mark in their farming. The agricultural committees may do the farming, but they do

745
not do the management part. I know extremely good agricultural members of agricultural committees who are first-class farmers, but their hedges, gates and suchlike are abominable. I have a tenant of this kind. I told him he is one of the worst tenants I have, and he laughs and agrees. You do not want that to happen in regard to property which is being managed by the State. The State surely wishes to lay down an example to all us landlords as to how property should be managed. But if you are going to have outlying property which will not be managed properly you will be a by-word and a disgrace to people managing property privately. That is a thing to be avoided at all costs. It is a wise provision to put in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 19, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD HASTINGS: It is clear that the purpose of my noble friend in moving this Amendment is to prevent the Minister from tying himself up unduly in respect of land which he has acquired. I take that to be the main purpose of my noble friend's Amendment. I would ask if the noble and learned Viscount would advise the Committee on this matter. The words in the proviso to the subsection are:
"Provided that—

(i) the Minister shall not sell land acquired by him except where it appears to him that it is in the national interest that the land should be devoted to a purpose for which it is expedient that it should be sold by him;"

I have the feeling that those words really do not release the Minister from an unnecessary restriction, a restriction from which the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment is to relieve him. If, on the other hand, with his great knowledge, the noble and learned Viscount is of opinion that the Minister can get out through the medium of that particualr proviso, then, of course, my noble friend's Amendment would fall to the ground. It is not an easy subject.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: If I speak to this Amendment, it is because the next Amendment which stands in my name is designed to achieve exactly the same purposes as that of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. I like his Amendment rather more than I do my own, because it is
746
more exact; I do not like a lack of definition. The arguments he put forward are beyond doubt very, very sound arguments. Through this Bill His Majesty's Government are laying up for themselves, or rather for their officers, what I might well call—I think I have already called it in public—"a land agent's nightmare." They are going to take over all the worst estates in the country and they are going to take over all the worst farms; and, above all, they are going to take over such pieces of land as may be severed from their parent body—by the incursion of an arterial road, for instance.
As I understand the Bill, unless the purpose of that land is other than agriculture, they cannot dispose of it by sale. It seems to me that in the event of part of a farm being severed from its parent body by an arterial road, one would naturally try to dispose of the severed part to the nearest adjoining farm, so that this could be farmed properly, rather than farm it oneself; and hat seems to me to be inevitable under this Bill. There is no doubt that if you carry on as the Bill proposes, you have, as I say, a land agent's nightmare. I personally do not care particularly which Amendment His Majesty's Government choose to accept. I think my noble friend's is the better Amendment, but I should, of course, be prepared to agree to the acceptance of the Amendment which stands in my name.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I have been impressed by the cogency and the clear arguments, both of the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment and of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I think they have put up a case which it would be hard to ignore. However, looking at the two Amendments, I must say that I would prefer to embrace the child that the noble Lord has spurned, for I prefer very much the Amendment under the name of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, we shall be agreeable to accepting the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor.
EARL STANHOPE: The Amendment which my noble friend has put down contains the words: "Having regard to the use proposed to be made of the land." My idea is that the land will go on being

747
used for the same purpose as before. If it was agricultural land it will go on being used as agricultural land. I am not quite clear whether Lord Radnor's Amendment would enable the Government to sell the land if it were an outlying property. So far as I am concerned in my Amendment, the Government should have that power if they required it.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I did say I liked my noble friend's Amendment rather better than mine because it is more exact. My intention was the same as his, but perhaps the noble and learned Viscount might tell us whether the meaning of my Amendment is the same as that of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps we could also have information as to why the Government do not like the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. The wording is clear, and it seems to us very sensible. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said that he preferred the other Amendment, but he did not say why.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I cannot answer that one. Nor can I answer the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, because I did not know anything about this clause until a moment ago. It is quite plain, I think, that the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is about as wide as it can be. Let us see how the words will read if his Amendment is accepted:
"Provded that the Minister shall not sell land acquired by him except where it appears to him that it is expedient that it should be sold by him;"
I cannot think of anything much wider than that.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: "Having regard to the use proposed to be made of the land": That has to be inserted before "expedient."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It then reads:
"having regard to the use proposed to be made of the land it is expedient that it should be sold by him."
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That seems to me to be very wide indeed. I can hardly think of anything wider than
748
that. If my noble friend is willing to accept that, I should have thought your Lordships could deal with it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may intervene, it is not quite that. The point the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, made, and which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor made, was that it might be used for exactly the same purpose, but better, by somebody other than the State. It is not quite that it should be devoted to some other purpose. It might be devoted to exactly the same purpose. It is the little bit that is divided up.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The purpose is the same.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I have an answer now. The reason why the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is not favoured is that the Amendment would still be governed by the proviso, and it would, therefore, be quite ineffective.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: Surely the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is so wide that you are to have regard to the use to be made of the land. If you think the land is to be used for agriculture, you may then say that as an agricultural proposition it would be silly to own this land and not to sell it to the other person. Does that not bring in what the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, wants?
EARL STANHOPE: As I understand the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, he says that my Amendment is adequately covered by the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and I am, therefore, ready to withdraw it. I am the more prepared to take that course because it puts an obligation on the State that they shall sell the land in the way they should sell it, and not to the highest bidder, as the Treasury would want them to do.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am inclined to think the noble and learned Viscount has given the show away, in that he has pointed out that whereas the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, if inserted in the Bill, is still covered by the proviso, my Amendment is in the proviso, and, therefore, has that much more effect than my noble friend's.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I now beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, lire 22, leave out from ("that") to the first ("it") in line 24 and insert "having regard to the use proposed to be made of the land."—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am pleased to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 96 agreed to.
9.50 p.m.
Clause 97 [Contributions towards cost of liming agricultural land]:
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment and the next one together, with a third Amendment at page 82, line 12, have been put in to facilitate the administration of the lime subsidy. Clause 97 of the Bill contains Amendments to the existing provisions for the lime subsidy scheme, and in subsection (1) (b) extends the subsidy to cover the cost incurred in bringing lime from the place to which it is delivered at the farm by the supplier to the land on which it is to be spread, and also the cost incurred in spreading it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 41, at end insert ("or to be incurred").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 44, leave out ("towards cost incurred").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next three Amendments are drafting Amendments, necessitated by reference to the land fertility scheme not only in Part I, but also in Part V of the Act of 1937, for which there should be substituted references to the agricultural lime scheme. These Amendments make the necessary substitution. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 81, line 47, leave out ("Part I of")
line 48, leave out ("the said Part I") and insert ("that Act").
Page 82, line 2, leave out ("the said Part I") and insert ("Part I of that Act").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is an Amendment to which I have already referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, leave out line 12 and insert ("cost incurred or to be incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection as it applies to cost incurred in transporting.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98:
Prevention of damage by pests.
(3) In the proviso to Section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (which allows the putting down of poison for destroying rats, mice or other small vermin so long as reasonable precautions are taken to prevent injury to domestic animals and wild birds) for the words "rats, mice" there shall be substituted the words "animals, other than deer or hares, to which Section ninety-eight of the Agriculture Act, 1947, applies."
(4) The animals to which this section applies are rabbits, hares and other rodents, deer, foxes and moles, and the birds to which this section applies are, in relation to any area, wild birds other than those specified in the Schedule to the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, as it applies in that area whether by virtue of the terms thereof or of any subsequent enactment or by virtue of an order of the Secretary of State: and this section shall apply to such other animals as may be prescribed:
Provided that regulations under this subsection may provide that for the purposes of the proviso referred to in subsection (3) of this section any such other animals specified in the regulations shall not be treated as animals to which this section applies.
LORD COURTHOPE LORD COURTHOPE moved to leave out subsections (3) and (4). The noble Lord said: I tried, very ineffectively, to prepare some Amendments re-drafting these subsections, but I was not satisfied with them and I thought the best thing was to move the deletion of the subsections in the hope of getting from the Govrnment a modified intention with regard to the use of poison. Personally I dislike poison, as I expect do most of us who have anything to do with the land. With the probable exception of rats, I do not believe that poison is the best means of dealing with any kind of vermin, and in many cases the use of poison is a very dangerous thing, not only to our dogs but in some cases to ourselves. I was much interested to read in the Press a day or two ago that desperate attempts were

751
being made through the B.B.C. and other channels of communication to find some people who had picked up poisoned pigeons, the eating of which was likely to be fatal. I do not suppose for one moment that the poison was intended for the pigeons. The same thing may happen to other birds. I knew a case some little time ago of some valuable dogs which were poisoned by picking up poisoned rooks.
I am very anxious—and I am sure all of us who are interested in agriculture and food production are very anxious— about the decrease in the population of small insect-eating birds. They have had an awful winter, and many varieties of the most valuable birds, from the fruit growers' and farmers' point of view, are largely diminished in numbers. It would be a deplorable thing if the careless use of poison, not intended for those birds at all but intended for vermin, should lead to the wholesale poisoning of birds and other animals. How one would hate to think that the badgers were being poisoned, but I need not go on multiplying the examples. One ought to be extraordinarily careful, in authorizing the use of poison, to ensure that it is done in such a way that it can affect only animals like rats for which it is intended. I move this Amendment not expecting that the Government will be able to agree to the complete deletion of these two subsections, but in the hope that they will be able to announce a very much more moderate form of subsection dealing with this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 10, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—(Lord Courthope.)
LORD BINGLEY: I should be glad if my noble friend would carry this to a Division, because we all hate the idea of an extension of the use of poison, and it seems to be utterly unnecessary. The present law is that you may lay poison for rats and mice, and if you can prove that you have done it for that purpose there is no penalty attached. This Bill extends the use to all sorts of other animals, and subjects all those animals to risks which at present do not exist. I think we all share the same feeling about the use of poison, and in these cases it seems to be entirely unnecessary, because at present any animal that lives under ground can be
752
dealt with by gas. Gas does not involve any serious suffering to the animals that die under it, and it does not leave any corpses to spread poison about the country to other animals.
I agree that the process does not cover rooks and pigeons, but I do not believe that the damage done by rooks and pigeons is sufficient to justify the greater risk which will be incurred if this Bill goes through in its present form. We all realize what it would mean if a valuable sheep-clog or any other dog came across the fourteen-day-old corpse of a poisoned rook. It would be perfectly irresistible, and anyone who knows anything about dogs will know what would be likely to happen. I hope the Government will see their way to modify this or to delete it altogether. I have put down later what seem to be two alternatives or palliatives which would secure that you have complete authority before poison is to be broadcast like this, and would also provide for complete publicity, so that everyone will know the area, and the danger existing in it. That seems better than nothing; but I would prefer that we should go to a Division, expressing our complete objection to this extension of the use of poison, which is so dangerous and really unnecessary.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I would like to say right away that I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, and the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, have said. I think that all of us in the Committee dislike the use of poison. It is dangerous, and from a humanitarian point of view unpleasant. Therefore, I can assure the noble Lords that their views receive much sympathy and we would like to go as far as we can to find some way that will provide sufficient safeguards. It seems that a case has been made out, particularly in the case of rats and mice; but it also seems that there are cases in agricultural production where poison is necessary. I agree that it ought to be closely controlled, so that the least possible unintentional damage is caused. The only question is what is the best method to be followed.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, that his own Amendment is not quite the best way. His proposal to delete subsection (4) actually widens the use rather than restricts it. The noble Lord, Lord Bingley, has an Amendment

753
on the Paper which is very much on the lines of what we would prefer. I cannot quite agree with the actual words, but I would be happy to look at them between now and Report stage and, in consultation with Lord Bingley, see if we cannot devise an Amendment on those lines which would safeguard the position and, I hope, satisfy the noble Lords. If the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, would agree to-withdraw his Amendment, I would be very pleased to give that undertaking on behalf of the Government.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in his very persuasive speech, has tried to inveigle the House into accepting a less severe Amendment than that of my noble friend, Lord Courthope. But poison is something for which, once it is administered, there is very little remedy; and the poison that you put down to deal with vermin, if inexpertly put down, may well cause a great deal of trouble to many more animals than the vermin for which it is designed. I should like to call in aid my own experience as a liaison officer in the Ministry of Agriculture during the war, at a time when the status of the rook in relation to the agricultural effort was somewhat in doubt. Agricultural opinion was divided as to whether the rook was an enemy which ought to be destroyed at all costs, or whether it was an aid in the destruction of wireworms and, therefore, ought to be preserved.
In one county with which I was concerned the executive officer complained bitterly that his time was fully occupied in signing, and signing quite blindly, orders for the destruction of rooks in rookeries, quite regardless of his own opinion. His own opinion was that rooks were harmful, and therefore any order or request for the destruction of rooks in rookeries was signed by him as an order to destroy the rooks in the rookery, wherever that rookery might be. We stand in danger with the power—and the Bill mentions the county executive committees—of the indiscriminate use by an executive officer of poison to kill certain specified animals, without regard to any effect that that might have upon other animals which may be either the friend of man, or beneficial to agriculture. I must say that it seems to me most dangerous to put in the hands of county committees the power to give permission
754
to put poison indiscriminately almost all over the country. And even my noble friend Lord Bingley's Amendment, which suggests that the Minister's approval is required, does not meet the case, because again I know perfectly well from experience that when a county committee put something up to the Minister, he feels in honour bound to back up the county committee; otherwise, unless he has got very good reason indeed for not backing them up, they will complain.
I think there is a menace in this suggestion that poison should be used rather indiscriminately, and I feel that our present law with regard to poison works quite effectually. There are other means of killing the vermin which are concerned, and there is plenty of power in this Bill to insist that peopde who are, dare I say, responsible for those vermin, take the necessary steps in order to destroy them other than by the means of a free use of poison.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I say two or three words on this subject? I am glad to hear that the Government are sympathetic regarding this very serious matter of poisoning. Poisoning may go to any lengths. You do not know where it is going to end. It is a most serious matter to suggest that poisoning should be used indiscriminately. That is really what is suggested in this Bill. I was much interested to hear my noble friend the Earl of Radnor say that he thinks that the present law is sufficient to carry out what is required. That is my view also. We must remember that the present Act allows of putting down poison for rats, mice and small vermin, but that poison is usually in the form of a virus which does not affect other animals. Though I fully agree with my noble friend Lord Courthope as to dogs being killed indiscriminately (I myself have heard of a number of cases), I think it is true that virus dots not usually affect other animals.
Another point, which is an extremely important one, relates to birds. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, mentioned rookeries. It is not always rookeries that are concerned. There are certain woods in this country where rooks and jackdaws go quite indiscriminately. Are you going to put poison in those woods all over the place, and kill everything in them? I suggest that it is a most dangerous situa-

755
tion. There is another matter with regard to birds upon which I feel most strongly, and that is that there is in this connexion a complete lack of co-operation between the Ministries. It is indeed curious that the Board of Agriculture should suggest that poison should be put down to kill birds wholesale, for I happen to know that the Home Office are anxious to bring in a new Bill to co-ordinate all the many Acts for the protection of birds. What will be the good of bringing in a Bill for the protection of birds when they have all been killed? That is what is going to happen under this Bill. Subsection (4) of this clause says that the clause applies to wild birds other than those specified in the Schedule to the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880. Are you going to ask all other birds not to take the poisoned grain that you put down? I do not know how you are going to do it, but that is what His Majesty's Government seem to be suggesting. I do submit that that is a rather futile way of dealing with the matter.
One other point: I am not happy about Lord Bingley's Amendment because it would put this in the hands of the county agricultural executive committees. In my humble opinion those committees are not to be trusted over a thing of that sort. What are they doing with regard to trapping in the open? I find that in my own county council our agricultural committee are still trapping in the open—and in areas where there is not the slightest necessity, I am told, for anything of the kind. If they are going on with that—which, the Committee may remember, was fully discussed here and a law was passed, and to my mind it is completely illegal—are the agricultural committees to be trusted with a matter of this sort? I sincerely hope the Government will take these matters into consideration and very much amend this clause.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will realize that the House is seriously disturbed about this matter. This is a tremendous change that is being proposed, but I think it is fair to say not one single argument has been put up in favour of it. There is no evidence that those who have investigated this problem practically or scientifically have given any reason for saying that this is the only means by which the so-called
756
pests can be dealt with. There is no such evidence, and here we are asked to make a great change. I agree with those noble Lords who feel that even Lord Bingley's Amendment does not really go far enough. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, said so himself. It accepts the principle and merely suggests a slight modification and control. I need not say anything further about the possible destruction of domestic animals. We all have our dogs; some of us have cats; I have not, but some have. Those are being endangered. The noble Lords may think that pets are not an important side of life but some people think they are.
The Earl of Huntingdon himself mentioned the sheepdog, in many ways part of the capital equipment of a shepherd, a poor working man. That is the sort of animal that is to be destroyed. I hope the noble Earl will realize that his assurance that he will think again about Lord Bingley's Amendment is not sufficient. I would like to see these two clauses completely removed until some expert scientific case is put up for their insertion. I think the noble Earl would meet the feelings of the House if he were now to say on behalf of the Government that they will omit these provisions from the Bill.
10.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not know if Lord Courthope realizes it, but if we deleted subsection (4) it would actually widen the clause so that it would relate to any animal or bird doing damage to agriculture. I do not think the Amendment would achieve what is intended by the noble Lord. On the general question I should like to say that much as one deprecates the use of poison, there are cases where poison must be used.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Lord give some details of these cases and the animals to which they apply?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should be very willing to do so. There are moles, which can be destroyed by strychnine much easier than by traps. Then there is the question of cyaniding rabbits, which I think is a kinder way than steel traps. There are various other methods which, perhaps, are not so agreeable to the Minister, as, for instance, in the case of foxes. We can get rid of foxes by poison,

757
possibly cyanide, and there are other ways which, again, are better than steel traps. There are certain cases where there is a very good case for poison, for instance with rats. I do not see how you are going to deal with rats in certain cases without the use of poison. There are also other cases where in the agricultural interest some kind of poison might be used.
I would like to point out to the noble Lord that the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, would still, apply, even if this Bill were passed, for it is there laid down that reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent injury or damage to domestic animals or birds. If such reasonable precautions are not taken it is no defence to plead that the poison has been used for the destruction of the animals not covered by the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. I think it is true to say that if poison were laid down you would still have to take reasonable precautions, or you would be subject to prosecution. I do not say that it is a complete safeguard, but it is a partial safeguard. I am not arguing this in hostility to the case, because I agree that it is unfortunate that poison should be used and that every sort of precaution ought to be taken if it is to be used. I am more than willing to consult with the noble Lord to see if we cannot work out an. Amendment on the lines of Lord Bingley's first Amendment. I do not think that I can say further than that, because we would have to insist on the use of poison in certain circumstances. We are, of course, open to suggestions as to any reasonable safeguards.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I might make a suggestion. I think it is quite clear that there is a very strong feeling in this House about the use of poison. We do not think it is, at any rate, quite so necessary as the noble Earl seems to think. Rabbits, for instance, may be killed by the use of gas; it is not necessary to use cyanide. There are many other ways of getting rid of them, and poison does represent a real danger. It represents a real danger to domestic animal—dogs and cats and so on. There might be a case of a sheepdog in wild open spaces, and there poison would be a very considerable danger. It is a danger which concerns anybody who is interested in birds or animals. Ornitho-
758
logists would say it is a danger to wild birds, many of them rare wild birds. I am sure that ornithologists and scientists generally would be very perturbed if they realized the extent of the danger.
Then there is the remote danger to human beings which was mentioned by Lord Courthope. It would be indeed disastrous if there were deaths among human beings as a result of this. I think the Committee clearly would like to see the omission of any reference to poison in this Bill, but, whether it is best done by deleting subsections (3) and (4) or not, I do not know. In view of the assurance that the noble Earl has given, that he will look into the matter again and discuss it, I think we should be unwise to press this to a Division now, but we reserve the right on Report stage to make quite certain that poison is omitted, if that is the view of the majority of this House. I do not think we should be halfhearted about this matter at all, because I feel that the arguments against poison are much stronger than those in favour. The noble Earl has promised that he will look into the matter with the Minister and he will tell him about the very strong views held by agriculturists and people with knowledge of the countryside. We hope that the noble Earl will keep in touch with Lord Courthope to enable him to be aware of the considered views of the Minister, and to take whatever action he thinks proper before the next stage of the Bill is reached.
LORD COURTHOPE: I do not like to disagree with what is said by the noble Marquess who is my Leader in the House, but would it not be better to have a blank space in the Bill to enable the noble Earl, who dislikes these clauses as much as we do, apparently, to fill in that space with his draft Amendment so that we may study it on Report? Personally, I should like to see these two clauses deleted (though I will not press it against the advice of the noble Marquess) so that we may have the fullest opportunity on Report stage of considering the Amendment which the noble Earl has undertaken to draft to take their place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, I have the greatest sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Court-hope, says, but I feel it would be a little ungracious on our part, when the representative of the Government has said that

759
he will reconsider the whole matter, to insist upon pressing it to a Division. My feeling is that we do not want to have more Divisions in this House than are absolutely necessary, and if there is a chance of getting our point without a Division, I would rather have it by agreement.
LORD BINGLEY: I certainly sympathize with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, that we should go to a Division. My Amendment was put down as a possible palliative if we could not clear up the main difficulty. It does not meet the main difficulty. Therefore, I hope that when he is considering the matter the noble Earl will realize that he has got to go further to satisfy the real position and to meet the views expressed.
LORD COURTHOPE: In view of the advice given by the noble Marquess, I do not want to be ungracious at all, and I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, reserving the fullest right to be as antagonistic as I may wish to be on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100:
Supplementary provisions relating to two foregoing sections.
(2) Without prejudice to any proceedings under the last foregoing subsection, where a requirement imposed under either of the two last foregoing sections has not been complied with any person authorised by the Minister to act for the purposes of this subsection may at any time enter on the land to which the requirement relates and take such steps as the Minister may direct to secure compliance with the requirement; and the reasonable cost of taking such steps shall be recoverable by the Minister from the person on whom the requirement was imposed.
10.24 p.m.
LORD COURTHOPE LORD COURTHOPE moved, in subsection (2) after "time" to insert "upon giving due notice." The noble Lord said: This is another attempt to secure the maximum of good will between those who are administering this Act (as it will be) and the landowners and farmers with whom they have to deal. I think it is of the utmost importance that every effort should be made to secure that there is a personal meeting between the officers concerned
760
and the farmer or landowner with whom they are dealing. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment. I will not debate it any further, because we have already talked about this on previous clauses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 11, after ("time") insert ("upon giving due notice").—(Lord Courthope.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I quite agree to this extent with the noble Lord: that we do want to see the best possible relations all round the countryside. But I think this would be rather too wide a provision and therefore I do not think we can accept it.
LORD ASHBURTON: I should like to support my noble friend in this. I had an Amendment down to a previous clause to amend twenty-four hours' notice to seven days' notice. I did not move it as I felt that perhaps if we had it inserted in other places the Government would think again. I think they might give way on this Amendment, which has made more trouble than almost anything else. The farmer or landowner will come home and find somebody wandering about his farm. He does not know what he wants or what he has come for. He goes to his men, possibly behind his back, and asks them questions which they are not fully qualified to answer. It really is most unsatisfactory and it can be saved so easily, because due notice simply implies that the man rings up the night before and says, "Look here Mr. So-and-so I will be round your way to-morrow and I want to come and have a look." There is then nothing more to grumble about. But it would be most exasperating to find these people wandering about without any notice having been given at all. I strongly support the Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope my noble friend will insist upon this Amendment. Just see what this clause means. It refers to the compulsory acquisition of land, and what you are proposing is that officials should come down without any notice, wander about and take all sorts of information from all sorts of people, in order to acquire that land behind the owner's back. We are not yet the Soviet Republic, nor are we a Nazi dictatorship, and so long as this is a free country I hope that people are going to have rights

761
over their property, and that officials are going to ask leave to go over that property and not take it as a right.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I think there may be some misapprehension on this clause. It says at the beginning, "Supplementary provisions relating to two foregoing sections," and really deals with the question of poisons. I do beg to support my noble friend very strongly here on the general scale, but especially on the poisoning provision, which is I think most dangerous when a man can enter in and put down rat poison without the farmer knowing.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: With regard to that particular point, in relation to poison, I did not mention that because in view of the discussions which are pending I thought we might leave it open. I can certainly give an assurance that we will include an Amendment to the effect that the Minister will give notice before going in and laying down poison.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is not a tremendously important point: and yet in a way it is. We are getting to the point now where anybody can go on to anyone's land without giving any notice whatsoever. I do feel that this is a point on which, without in any way affecting the principle of the Bill, the noble Earl might give way. I think it is quite possible that if he does not give way your Lordships may feel that you would wish to enforce this Amendment. It is elementary courtesy and elementary human right.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like to say a last word upon that. I admit that this question is a difficult one. In the first place, I would like to mention that there are precedents for this both in the Factory Acts and in the health administration, although I do not say that they are necessarily parallel. We do not want it to be suggested that these officials are to go around with truncheons, walk in at the door and demand things and be generally unpopular. That is not the intention of this Bill at all. What we want to achieve is the agricultural industry getting together themselves, working together for their general good and for the efficiency of the industry. After all, these committees are not officials appointed from Whitehall; they are farmers and landowners, with a few experts
762
chosen by the Minister. It is the nextdoor neighbour who is coming in, originally in a helpful capacity; and when ultimately he finds that his help is no good and even the advisory service is rejected, it may well be that in the end, and in the interests of the community, he may turn from being so friendly, recommending finally that supervision might be applied. But in all 'the initial stages it is a friendly relationship. If we are going to enforce all this procedure that every time a member of the committee goes to visit a farm he must send formal notice of what he wants to inspect, we are going to build up a feeling that these are inspectors, rather than friendly farmers coming to help and do their best for the farmer and the community. I hope the noble Lord will see that point and withdraw his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: During the last two or three months I have had people walking across my land and laying out plans for a large by-pass road, putting in pegs, cutting down wood and so on, and I have not yet had a word from army Ministry on the subject; it was one of the Government Departments, perhaps the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. But when you have to go to eleven Ministries to get a decision on any matter it is not surprising that it is difficult to know which Ministry it is.
LORD ROCHE: The noble Earl's appeal for friendliness is most touching, but it has no application to this Amendment. This section is a penal section. People who come to one's land for this purpose are not friendly farmers; they are pest officers in search of material a conviction. Persons ought not to come without some notice to the person on whose land they come unless they are properly authorized police officers.
MARQUESS TOWNSHEND: I think good estate management includes letting your tenants know when you are going to look round their buildings. You do not just march in and say "I will look round your buildings." You tell them when you want to come and inspect. I think most noble Lords on this side will agree with that. The relationship between the committees and the farmers will be governed by the way they behave themselves. These people are principally the servants

763
and executives, and not the Committee men themselves. That is a point which we ought to bear in mind.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: During the war we had to put up with a great deal of this sort of thing. People whom we called "snoopers" came round and went over our estates whenever they liked, questioned men servants, and we only heard about them after they had left. The information given to them was not always accurate—necessarily so. We all thought that that was a war-time measure. We were very angry about it; but we accepted it. But now, you are going to embody this same system in this Bill, and I for one cannot reconcile the noble Earl's suggestion that this is done in the spirit of co-operation, because it is very difficult to co-operate with someone who comes on to your land behind your back, questions your farmers or whoever it may be, and then goes away. The spirit aroused is not one of co-operation but of animosity, and I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider this clause, or that the Government will endeavour to make it less offensive.
LORD CORNWALLIS: Perhaps I might be allowed to say one word. I do not want to be accused of being a gamekeeper turned poacher or vice versa, but first of all if, without giving due notice, you are going to put poison on anybody's land, I think that is absolutely outrageous and that cannot be contemplated for one moment. But may I just remind your Lordships of what we tried to do in the war, and I hope that not one single person in my war agricultural committee ever was sent on anybody's land without giving at least a week's notice; and sometimes even that was not enough. I hope that nothing more drastic than we were allowed to do in the war is to be allowed to take place in the future.
I can give the Committee cases in which it has started already, and it is rather amusing. Under the new Advisory Service one of the members of that service went to a farm and arrived about tea time to go into the cropping programme of that farmer. As that farmer happened to be, without any exaggeration, in the first ten best farmers in the world, probably it was not necessary to give him a cropping programme, but when he was
764
met at tea without notice by a person of whom he had been in charge—the farmer was in charge of all the machinery of the county, and he took on as his third machinery officer this man who had since joined the Advisory Service—as the cropping programme officer, it was not likely to start those happy relations that everybody so urgently requires. As a matter of fact, of course, they were such friends that all that happened (as a result we hope of happy co-operation in the war) was that the farmer said "You know nothing about it," and the fellow said "No," and the farmer said "Have some tea and leave me the papers. I will post them to you to-morrow and tell you exactly what the cropping programme is." Of course, the man was delighted. That is all right where two people know each other like that, but if people like that officer are going on without notice you will start this Bill in an atmosphere of rows within the first year.
The noble Earl said that they are neighbouring farmers. Oddly enough, it is their neighbouring farmers they object to more than any other, and it is absolutely essential that neighbouring farmers, members of district committees, should give notice, even to their best friends who are probably delighted to see them, that they are coming; otherwise I assure you that any hope in this Bill of any co-operation, and any hope of improvement between one farmer and another, is going by the board, because it will start in an atmosphere of suspicion and indiscrimination, which is what we do not want.
May I go back to the question of poisoning without due notice? I would warn the Government that what is lacking in the pest officers is the control of poisons. There are not the keepers and the individuals who used to go round every single morning and pick them up, and if you are going to use poison indiscriminately you will have to tighten up the service so that poison is picked up every morning. That is not being done at the moment. Your pest officers cannot do it. They go round and have to leave it for one or two days and it is an extremely dangerous state of affairs. I have been thoroughly well poisoned myself in the last few months— although that is no reason for speaking in this debate. I am one who has issued these orders and that sort of thing, but I do warn the Committee that unless due notice is given, and unless an invitation

765
reaches the officers saying "I am delighted to see you; this or that day is most preferable." you are not going to start in a very happy atmosphere.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think there is some misapprehension about this. There are three issues here. One is the issue in regard to poison. I was thinking that this would have been meant to apply to all cases under the Bill. Clearly it does not: it applies to this one specific Amendment to Clause 100, at page 84, line 11. With regard to this present question, I quite agree that it would be a bad thing if anyone were allowed to walk on the land without notice in order to put down poison. In regard to that, I can assure the House that we will put down an Amendment, subject to our discussions, under which the Minister's agent would give due notice before entering on the land either for the purpose of putting down poison or for doing anything connected with that purpose. We are prepared to do that. But with regard to this question as it affects defaulters, I think that in this case—quite apart from the matter of poisoning or anything like that—we must allow the Minister's agents, without giving due notice, to go on the land of anyone who may have defaulted.
LORD CORNWALLIS: Even in the case of defaulters, I would not have anyone go on the land without notice. I do assure you that if you give notice it will pay dividends a hundredfold.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Perhaps if I give my own experience it may be of some use to the Committee. Lord Cornwallis said that in his district no one went on a farm without at least a week's notice being given. My experience was that in spite of instructions from the Ministry that notice was to be given, the county committee concerned and the chairman in particular did not like to meet an owner and a farmer upon his land, and they went upon it without any notice. I was considered to be a defaulter at one moment (I was afterwards proved to be not a defaulter, I am glad to say) but the first that I heard of a visit being paid to my land was from my own men, who said that there were strangers on the farm. My reactions can be better imagined than I can describe them here, but I insisted at once, in writing, that the chairman should see me personally on my own farm. But I do
766
not like that kind of thing, nor does any farmer.
TUE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I think this is a matter of common civility. I consider it is monstrous that this right of entry without due notice should be allowed to exist. We had a discussion on the same matter yesterday, and I am perfectly sure that if the Government insist upon this sort of clause being kept in the Bill, the Bill will not work. You are not dealing here with big landowners, and the issue is not political. This is a matter, as I say, of common civility. I think it is monstrous that there should be the right to behave in this way, and something should be done about it.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope that the noble Earl will avail himself of the very considerable fund of experience there is in this Committee. A large number of noble Lords are either members of county agricultural executive committees or chairmen of those committees, and some were during the war liaison officers and, as such, came into contact with perhaps four or five committees. I say that anyone who had contact with that machinery as it worked during the war, or as it has been working during the last two or three years, would advise the noble Earl that if he wants to continue the operation of this machinery with the good will of the farming community—and I am convinced that it can be done—this is the sort of point upon which the Government must be prepared to respect the feelings of the men of the land. Whenever one came across an instance where there was conflict or difficulty it nearly always had relation to some small point of this character and not to the proper use of the committee's powers. Their powers might have been used in some very drastic fashion, as for instance in turning a man out of his farm, but, on the whole, such use of the powers was accepted by the farming communities. It was these elementary breaches of the common laws of courtesy and decent behaviour that broke up good feeling in about 99 per cent. of the cases between farmers and the committees. I once again appeal very seriously to the noble Earl to meet the feeling of this Committee, a Committee which I assure him has an immense fund of daily experience of the very problem we are now discussing.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I regret that I must argue this in the face of so much experience. I am also sorry about the experiences of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I am glad to hear that he was found not to be a defaulter. The question is a difficult one. When the Minister issues instructions obviously he would insist that in normal cases every courtesy should be given when anyone visited a farm. But this clause applies to definite defaulters, and I think that the acceptance of this Amendment would operate against the efficiency of the committees. In normal circumstances where it was not a bad case we would always be courteous. But I do not think we can limit by Statute this particular case in regard to defaulters. I am afraid I cannot withdraw from that standpoint.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am a member of one of the noble Earl's county committees and I can speak for every member of that committee when I ask the noble Earl to think again. When one of our officers goes round to a farm he undoes in five minutes all the good work we have been trying to build up for months before. I would ask the noble Earl to think again.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would like to add one word. I do not think the noble Earl met the point at all. He tried to make out that if this Amendment were made the officers could not inspect a farm. All we ask is that notice should be given. If the farmer is not there, that is his fault, not that of the inspector; therefore no ill will could be caused.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: This point is almost entirely to do with pest control. In committees it is dealt with at a high level by the pest officer who may be a very highly educated man, but the actual people who enter are nearly always the local poachers.
LORD COURTHOPE: The noble Earl appealed to me to withdraw this Amendment. I do not intend to. I have not
768
wearied the House with a personal experience before, but he has been so unsympathetic and shown so little knowledge and experience of what has been happening during the last few years that I will give it. I was made a defaulter. The local war agricultural committee, without notice, sent two young students—one of them was a chemical student from Aberystwyth and the other was a Welshman, a mere boy—to inspect my home farm. They spent a whole day. I was away from home, but I arrived back in the evening in time to find them. They were very rude to me because I was not prepared straight off to accept ploughing orders for 230 acres of grass land and modify my whole scheme of cropping, which I took some trouble about and which I believe was a good one. They were very rude, and I lost my temper and perhaps I was a little rude to them.
At all events, I refused absolutely to consider their proposals until they gave me an opportunity of going round my farms with someone in a responsible position. That was refused and I was made a defaulter, and a committee were appointed to supervise my cultivation. Long before they had finished supervising my cultivation I was sorry for them. They had the deuce of a time. It gave me a certain amount of trouble, too. That is an instance. Quite a number of people, important people, wasted days serving on that committee, investigating every little thing I did on my home farm. I do not think they got any change out of it. The whole thing could have been avoided, because I was only too anxious to co-operate with the war agricultural executive committee if they had given me notice and an opportunity of walking round with them, which both my bailiff and I would have been only too willing to do. In those circumstances, I do not propose to withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.

Rutland, D.

Bridgeman, V.

De Saumarez, L.

Cowdray, V.

Denham, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Davidson, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M.

Elibank, V.

Forester, L.

Townshend, M.

Wimborne, V.

Grenfell, L.

Hastings, L.

De La Warr, E.

Addington, L.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hazlerigg, L.

Howe, E,

Ashburton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Onslow, E.

Bingley, L.

Middleton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Carrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Radnor, E.

Cherwell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Stanhope, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Rochdale, L.

Courthope, L.

Roche, L

Bledisloe, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Savile, L.

Twesdsmuir, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stansgate, V.

Kershaw, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Ammon, L.

Marley, L.

Chorley, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Henderson, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holden, L.

Piercy, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause l00, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Schemes for provision of agricultural goods and services]:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after subsection (4) to add the following new subsection:
"(5) This section shall extend to Scotland, with the substitution for references to the Minister of references to the Secretary of State."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make Clause 103, which deals with schemes for the provision of agricultural goods and services, applicable to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104:
Provisions as to representations.
(3) If, whether or not representations are male to the Minister in writing, the said person within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner requires that an opportunity be afforded to him of being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, such an opportunity shall be afforded to him and, on the same occasion, to any other person to whom under the
770
enactment referred to in subsection (1) of this section the Minister is required to afford such an opportunity, and the Minister shall not take the action in question until he has considered any representations made at the hearing.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved after subsection (1) to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The Minister shall give notice to the said person specifying the action proposed to be taken and informing him of the effect of the three following subsections."
The noble Earl said: Under this Amendment the Minister is required to give notice to the person concerned, telling him of the action the Minister is proposing to take and explaining to him what his rights are under the clause as to making representations to the Minister. I think this will meet with your Lordships' approval, and I hope you will agree to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 4, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert the following proviso:
"Provided that where any person requires that an opportunity be afforded to him of being heard by a person appointed by the Minister in relation to any representation made by him under the provisions of section twelve of this Act, the person so appointed shall not be a member or officer of the county agricultural committee for the area in which

771
the land in respect of which the action is proposed to be taken is situated, or of any district committee or sub-committee thereof."
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this Amendment, a copy of which I have given to the noble Earl opposite, I purposely narrowed the terms of the Amendment as printed on the Marshalled List, because it was considered that the terms of that original Amendment were really too wide in their effect. This Amendment, as your Lordships will see, really refers to the supervision orders, and is limited to dealing with instances where a man has applied for his case to be heard with regard to one of those supervision orders. The point is a very simple one, and will, I hope, appeal to your Lordships. It is to ensure that a man who wishes to appeal should feel that whoever is in charge of the inquiry should not have been on the previous stage (as he is very likely to have been unless some such words as I have suggested are put in) concerned with the decision to make the supervising order. Therefore, I think this Amendment would probably commend itself to your Lordships. In the interests of the applicant a member or officer of the agricultural committee in the area should not be appointed in the category that I have suggested.
Again, it surely would be better from the point of view of the Minister. He would wish to have a report from a man who was completely detached, not from knowledge of the subject but from knowledge of the particular circumstances that had led to the appeal being brought. Moreover, I think it will give the owner-occupier a greater feeling of assurance that his representations will be fairly considered and reported upon to the Minister with whom the decision rests. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will see his way to agree to this Amendment. It seems to be reasonable, and to be consistent with the feelings of most people, certainly in this Committee, that there should be no possibility of giving the impression that the person in charge of the inquiry is prejudiced in reporting to the Minister on a case of this nature. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 19, at end, insert the said proviso. —(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I feel that the noble Lord has misconceived what our actual procedure will be. When we talk about making representations, it is in no sense an appeal. Our purpose is to allow every side to be heard. We want the person who comes and makes the representations to be able to state his case and to explain to the officer or the committee exactly what his case is and why he does not agree with this or that; and he can bring in someone else to help him. We do not want the officer to act on his own; we wish to allow a full discussion and full representations. It is only at a later stage that appeals come in, but that is a different matter. I suggest that it would be difficult for an outsider to know the actual facts of the case. I hope, in these circumstances, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: It seems to me that the noble Earl rather misconceives the intention of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. What Lord O'Hagan means is that when someone is desirous of making representations to the Minister on any point he has to be heard by someone. If that someone is in fact the chairman or an executive officer of the committee that has already considered his case, there is really no point in the re-hearing at all. The suggestion is that there should be someone who is not on that committee, and not in any way concerned with the case, who should hear it. Otherwise this paragraph really means nothing at all. Perhaps I might point out that this Amendment was specifically re-drafted to meet what we felt would be a very proper objection of His Majesty's Government. There are many cases in which members or an officer of the county agricultural committee might in fact be the most proper person to hear the representations. We have narrowed it purely to cases where supervision is concerned. We do not in the least stand on the drafting and we are prepared to reconsider that.
LORD O'HAGAN: If I used the term "appeals" it was done by a slip. I certainly meant representations made by the farmer or whoever it was who was concerned at the hearing of the case. It is not a question of an appeal at all. The noble Earl rather misconceived my meaning.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am grateful for the correction of the noble Lord, but what we have in mind in cases of supervision is that actually it will be the committees, acting as the Minister's agents, who will recommend this man or that to be put under supervision. At the same time, the Minister himself will want to be informed of the exact circumstances of the case. Supervision, although not as serious as dispossession, will be a serious step to take, and obviously we do not want some members of the committee recommending certain action and for their views to slip in without proper consideration. We wish to provide an opportunity for the whole case to be thoroughly considered. The man concerned will state his case and if necessary can have a representative to help him make it out. It will then be forwarded to the Ministry for the Minister's consideration. It is not an appeal at all, as though this were a court deciding a case. We do not want that atmosphere at all. We intend that the whole case should be heard in all reasonableness and submitted for the Minister's consideration.
LORD O'HAGAN: I wish to say only another word, if I may. The noble Lord has just used words which really, to my way of thinking, represent exactly what I said in the first place: that whoever is in charge of this preliminary inquiry will have to report to the Minister. What my Amendment seeks to secure is that that person should not have been concerned in the first place with the suggestion that the supervision order should be made. In that way the Minister would have the opinion of a disinterested person when reviewing the case which he has to consider. I hope the noble Lord will look further into the matter.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not think we can accept the Amendment. In the first place, it would be strongly resented by the members of the committee of "X's" land if somebody out of "Y" county were brought in to arbitrate on their decisions. I see the noble Lord's point, and I recognize that he seeks to effect by his Amendment that ample consideration will be shown. But, after all, this is a case which is going to be considered by the whole committee. These people will meet together, and it is to ensure that the matter is thoroughly con-
774
sidered that we give the man concerned an opportunity for stating his case. In those circumstances I do not think that we can accept this Amendment.
LORD O'HAGAN: I do not think, at this late hour, I can press this matter, although I do not consider the noble Lord has quite met the consideration that I and other noble Lords had in mind. I do not press it at the moment, but I would like to reflect on what the noble Lord has said and perhaps bring it up at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106:
Provision as to entry and inspection.
(3) Admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right in the exercise of any such power as aforesaid—

(a) if the power is being exercised for determining whether the land is to be acquired under Part IV of this Act or this Part thereof; or

(b) if the land is being used for residential purposes;

unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the land.
LORD HAZLERIGG LORD HAZLERIGG moved to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3). The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I am really proposing an excision at the bottom of page 86 and the top of page 87, so that the subsection will read:
"Admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right in the exercise of any such power as aforesaid unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the land."
This had exactly the same principle as the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Courthope, on Clause 100, and all the remarks which were made upon that clause are good upon this. I will not bore the Committee at this late stage by telling any stories of my own adventures in this connexion, but I would like to say that there is more in this than just the wish to have it made clear that notice is given so that we can meet people going round our land if we happen by any chance, to be defaulters. Very often I am worried because I do not meet someone whom I want to meet, simply because they have not been cour-

775
teous enough to give me notice beforehand. I know, too, that this sort of thing can be a great nuisance to the farmer. I hope that as we had to divide over the Amendment to Clause 100, His Majesty's Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 45, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 1, page 87.—(Lord Hazlerigg.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If I may adopt the noble Lord's words, I think that most of the arguments on the former Amendment might be used on this. At this late hour, I will save noble Lords from the ordeal of listening to them all over again. On the grounds that a full explanation has already been given, and because this is a similar Amendment, I do not see any point in arguing further.
LORD HAZLERIGG: I beg to thank the noble Earl very much.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?
LORD HAZLERIGG: I thought the noble Earl was accepting it.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I was saying that most of the arguments used on the previous Amendment were applicable to this. I am afraid that we could not accept the Amendment, but I did not want to go into all our reasons, since the Amendment appears to be so similar to the other.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am afraid that I do not quite understand whether the noble Earl is accepting the Amendment or not.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No I am not.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I suggest, as a simple method of dealing with the problem without having a Division, that when the question is put by the Lord Chairman, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, you on your side will say "content." We on our side will say "not content." When the question is again put we will say again "not content," and you will
776
keep silent. That will save a Division and your honour at the same time.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clauses 107 and 108 agreed to.
Clause 109:
Interpretation.
(3) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"fixed equipment" includes any building or structure affixed to land and any works on, in, over or under land, and also includes anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption of the thing grown or of produce thereof, or amenity and references to fixed equipment on land shall be construed accordingly;
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved, in subsection (3), in the definition of "fixed equipment," to leave out from "land," where that word occurs a second time, to the end of the definition. The noble Lord said: In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Ridley, I move this Amendment. The purpose is to exclude loose fences from fixed equipment. Clause 10, subsection (2), says that landlords must maintain fixed equipment. It is not in the definition of good estate management, but under Clauses 10 (3) and 11 (3) it seems to me that a written contract of tenancy overrides the definition in Clause 109; therefore leases would be exempt. Written agreements, though common, are not universal. Many small owners have not got them. The proposal in the Bill is a roundabout way of forcing people into written agreements. It would be better to make an order in black and white to do what is desired. Also Clause 37 will produce a standard of condition of tenancy which will not be in accord with Clause 109. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 20, leave out from the first ("land") to the end of line 24.—(Lord Savile.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: It is quite true that fences are a part of fixed equipment which should be provided by the landlord, but, on the other hand, as the noble Lord said, any written tenancy agreement can make it obligatory

777
on the tenant to maintain the fences. We are trying as far as possible to encourage written agreements rather than that matters should be left to chance, and we hope in future that written agreements will gradually take the place of verbal agreements and other arrangements. The landlord would then be able to put in the maintenance of fences and ditches as part of the tenant's duties.
LORD SAVILE: I see. In view of that, and as there does not seem to be any possibility of getting an order laid down, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 110 to 111 agreed to.
First Schedule [Produce to which Part I of Act applies]:
11.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved after "pigs" to insert "wool." The noble Viscount said: I do not propose at this time of the night to take up your Lordships' time over this matter, but I want to elicit from the noble Earl exactly what his attitude is in regard to certain very essential products, such as, for instance, wool and non-perishable market garden produce, in respect of which the Bill does not provide in the First Schedule a guaranteed price or an assured market. I have already said something in regard to wool in the course of the Second Reading debate, and I find it a little difficult to separate the mutton of a sheep from the wool that covers its back. After all, we who keep sheep naturally look to two sources of income from the sheep, and at the present time, in view of the scarcity of clothing throughout the world and the fact that wool produces the greater part of essential clothing, the production of wool ought, in my judgment, to be encouraged in every possible way. I mentioned during the course of the Second Reading debate that I had recently returned from that part of the world which produces 80 per cent. of the whole of the world's wool supply, and I expressed some doubt as to whether even in that part of the world there was sufficient encouragement being given to wool production. We, in the Old Country, surely ought to do our part in that respect for the requirements of our own population. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 6, after ("pigs") insert ("wool").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD MORRISON: I have been asked to reply to this Amendment. I regret that it should be so late before this interesting Amendment of the noble Lord's has been reached. I would point out to him that there is already a provision in Clause 6 of the Bill for adding new kinds of produce to the First Schedule. So far as his Amendment is concerned, the words proposed to be added would be outside the financial resolution agreed to in another place, with the result that, if the Amendment were made, it would not be considered as in the ordinary course of the proceedings. Your Lordships' House does not normally pass Amendments of such a kind.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I fully realize that in this Committee we could not possibly divide upon this Amendment, because it would increase the Exchequer charge. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that it is up to us to express our views upon a matter like this, even if we do not take the matter to a Division. So I venture to hope that that will not be regarded as the chief reason by the Government for resisting acceptance of the Amendment. In the circumstances, I do not desire to press it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved at the end of the Schedule to add "Dessert apples: Black currants." The noble Viscount said: With regard to this other Amendment, I should very much like to hear what the noble Earl has to say about non-perishable horticultural produce, and I particularly have in mind such a product as apples, bearing in mind that by far the larger proportion of the dessert apples consumed in this country come from either dollar or other overseas countries. We are told on the best authority that "an apple a day keeps the doctor away." At any rate, that is a theory that we hold with great enthusiasm and conviction in the West of England, whence I come. I also mentioned, exempla gratia, blackcurrants, and I did so because we have all begun to realize that they provide the

779
greatest and easiest available supply of vitamin C, which is considered so essential for the health of our young people. I beg to move in order to elicit a reply.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 14, at end insert ("Dessert apples: Black currants)").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Morrison, it is not that we cannot discuss these matters, but that in the Bill there are powers to add these things to the First Schedule if we wish to. I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for having drawn our attention to these products. We will consider them, and I hope that later on we may have a discussion on the general policy.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I would like to know if there is a reasonable prospect of action being taken in regard to such horticultural products.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I can give the noble Viscount an assurance that we are considering the horticultural industry. We have been unable to put them in the First Schedule owing to rather difficult circumstances, but we do recognize that it is a very important part of the industry. We wish to help them, and we are in fact having discussions on the matter at present.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Improvements to which consent of landlord required]:
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH had given notice of four Amendments: insert "8. Erection of buildings"; "8. Making of roads or bridges," and to leave out "erection" in paragraph 8, and "making or" in paragraph 12. The noble Earl said: At this late hour I will do my best to be as brief as possible. With your Lordships' permission, I propose to take together the first four Amendments down in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Radnor and myself. The matter of
780
taking out of the landlord's control in the way of permission to erect and so forth, through the medium of the Minister, such vital improvements as buildings is obviously one of great seriousness to all landowners. On Clause 24 this was argued very closely. If there is no proper safeguard over appeal on such matters, we will reserve the right to bring this up again on the Report stage. With your Lordships' permission, and with that reservation, I will not move the Amendments at this moment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, to insert at the end of the Schedule:
"25. Mole drainage and works carried out to secure the efficient functioning thereof."
The noble Earl said: This is a small matter which might become quite serious, and it is one which has not been foreseen in the drafting of the Bill. We all know that mole drainage is a common and laudable practice. At first sight, there can be no conceivable reason why the landlord's consent should be required for this essentially short-term job. But the land which is going to be mole-drained may have other structures or building works underneath it of which the farmer, as the tenant coming in—or perhaps he has even been there for a long time—will have no knowledge. Mole draining has become increasingly popular, almost as a form of sub-soiling of land, where you would not have thought of mole draining in the old days. But if you have a lot of tile drains under that land you may do irreparable damage, and the man who really knows should be consulted before it is allowed. Therefore, I suggest that mole draining should come into the Third Schedule instead of the Fourth Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 29, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In regard to mole drainage—which as the noble Earl says is usually a tenant's consideration—I must say that I have never seen mole drainage which can be done under buildings.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Perhaps it was my diction, but I suggested some forms of construction. It might even be an electric cable or a water pipe.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I see the noble Earl's point. Apart from that if was thought that it was better to put this mote drainage where it is, and I would remind the noble Lord that it will be upon the tenant to prove that he has done the mole drainage before he claims compensation. In other words, it will be up to the tenant to prove the value by which he has improved the holding in order to claim compensation. I think that in those circumstances there would be no hardship to the landlord if the tenant were allowed to put in his mole drainage.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I would like to point out that it is not what the tenant has done in increasing the value or fertility of the property, but the damage which he may unwittingly do that is the great danger. That is why I am asking that due notice should be given to the landlord.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I would like to support my noble friend in what he says, and add just one reason which I do not think he gave. In a great many cases of old drains under the land, plans no longer exist and therefore there is a great risk of the tenant doing the damage to which my noble friend referred.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Would I not be right in saying that there would be recourse to the courts in the event of a man doing damage which he might do through ignorance? There would be a very good case for the tenant to pay for any damage done.
MARQUESS TOWNSHEND: I do not think that recourse to the courts should be necessary. The object is to prevent the damage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Government will agree to some of these small and practical Amendments. The House has been extremely patient and restrained, and there have been several questions on which noble Lords on this side of the House would have very much liked a decision. In each case they have controlled themselves in order to give the Government a chance of further consideration. I honestly do not think that we on this side of the House could have acted with more restraint. These little Amendments are put up by practical agriculturists in order to improve the Bill, and
782
they are all turned down with no good reason given. I hope the Government will give us this Amendment and Amendments of this kind.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I cannot accept the Amendment but I will do this, if it will meet noble Lords. This is an instance where I think they have made out a case, and I will look into it before the Report stage without however committing myself in any way to accepting it.
LORD CORNWALLIS: Surely all that the noble Earl is asking is that before mole drainage is performed on a piece of land notice should be given to the owner who may know something about the other drains. We are now talking about courts. Heavens above! Some of us have been mixed up with tenants and landlords all our lives, and our fathers before us; and we have never dreamt of going to court for these things. Do you mean to say that we have solemnly to put in an Agriculture Bill that if anybody mole drains and upsets a land drain they have resort to the courts? What we are coming to I honestly do not know. All that is asked is that notice should be given before mole drainage is applied to a farm. Good gracious me, I should have thought it could be done without any law or anything else.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I do hope that this will not be looked at with a view to finding out the right Government objection. I do not, of course, imply any distrust of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, whose sincerity has been quite patent. It seems to me that these small matters should be met in the spirit in which they have been moved. Even if the Government made it so that notice must be given it would do. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
PART 1
Improvements in respect of which no consent required.
6. Application to land of purchased manure (including artificial manure).
PART II.
Other matters in respect of which compensation payable to Tenant.
Paragraphs 8 to 10 of this Part of this Schedule shall not include crops or produce grown, seeds sown, cultivations, fallows or acts of husbandry performed, or pasture laid down in contravention of the terms of a written contract of tenancy unless the tenant shows that the term of the contract contravened was inconsistent with the fulfilment of the tenant's responsibilities to farm the holding in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.
11.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph 6, to leave out "artificial manure" and insert "mineral fertiliser." The noble Earl said: If the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, I will sit down. If not, I will make an impassioned oration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 38, leave out ("artificial manure") and insert ("mineral fertiliser"). —(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is an Amendment which I wish I could accept, because I sympathize with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and I recognize his knowledge of this question and the great work that he has done with regard to fertilizers. I know that he is chairman of an important scientific organization and I recognize that the noble Earl thinks this would be a useful form of words to encourage certain forms of fertilization. But in fact these words would make it rather difficult. Various forms of artificial manure have boon known by agricultural valuers for a long time, and if we were to insert these other words it might upset a lot of things. They would lead, I am told, to more complications than would be justified.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I regret that the noble Earl cannot accept this Amendment—but I will cut my impassioned oration out! I am chairman of Rothamstead, the home of mineral fertilizers. That is why I put this Amendment down. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is just a small Amendment which I do not think noble Lords will wish me to go into in great detail. It is a small point
784
I am putting in to meet a case brought up in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 24, at end insert:
(" Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to anything the doing of which is reasonably necessary in consequence of the giving of a direction under this Act.").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth and Sixth Schedules agreed to.
Seventh Schedule:
Minor and consequential amendments.
The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.
6. In section twenty-nine of the Act of 1923 (which provides that the landlord of a holding shall not be entitled to recover, in respect of a breach or non-fulfilment of a term or condition in the contract of tenancy, any sum in excess of the damage actually suffered by him) the proviso, which excludes the operation of the section in relation to the breaking up of permanent pasture, the grubbing of underwoods, the felling, cutting, lopping or injuring of trees and the burning of heather, shall cease to have effect.
7.—
(3) For the purposes of any proceedings for an injunction brought under the said subsection (2) the question whether a tenant is exercising, or has exercised, his rights under the said section thirty in such a manner as to injure or deteriorate his holding, or to be likely to injure or deteriorate his holding, shall be determined by the Minister after affording to the landlord and to the tenant an opportunity to make representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister; and a certificate of the Minister as to his determination of any such question as aforesaid shall for the purposes of any proceedings (including an arbitration) brought under the said section thirty be conclusive proof of the facts stated in the certificate.
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of this Amendment and the next is to prepare the way for the consolidation of Part III of the Bill with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in the section shall confer on a tenant or former tenant, as respects any period after his right of removal has ceased to be exercisable, any property in a fixture or building not removed by him.").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the existing provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in anticipation of its consolidation with Part III of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 39, at end insert:
("5. Section twenty-five of the Act of 1923 (which requires that except in certain cases a notice to quit a holding must be given more than twelve months before the date on which the tenancy is thereby terminated) shall apply to a notice to quit part of a holding as it applies to a notice to quit an entire holding.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is also designed to clarify a point in the Agricultural Holdings Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 6, at end insert:
(" (4) In the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section twenty-seven (which provides that a tenant who receives a notice to quit part of a holding may accept it as a notice to quit the entire holding, to take effect at the expiration of the then current year of tenancy) for the words 'expiration of the then current year of tenancy' there shall be substituted the words 'same time as the original notice'.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved,—
Page 98, line 7, leave out from ("Where") to the third ("the") in line 9 and insert ("the operation of a notice to quit depends on any proceedings under section thirty-one of this Act").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph 6, to omit "the grubbing of under-woods, the felling, cutting, lopping or injuring of trees and the burning of heather." The noble Earl said: This is a short Amendment. We think there should be some proviso to safeguard un-
786
necessary damage or destruction, possibly through neglect or otherwise, of felled trees and Underwood. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 20, leave out from ("pasture") to ("shall") in line 22.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The general rule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, is that, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, in a contract of tenancy a landlord shall only be able to recover from his tenant, in respect of a breach of an agreement, a sum not greater than the damage actually suffered by the landlord. That is the general principle, but the proviso to Section 29 of the Agricultural Holdings Act excluded certain things. It excluded the breaking up of permanent pasture, the grubbing of under-woods, the felling, cutting, lopping, or injuring of trees, or regulating the burning of heather. Paragraph 6 of the Seventh Schedule deletes this proviso, so that Section 29 of the 1923 Act will apply in the case of every breach of a term in an agreement, and a landlord will not be able to obtain compensation in excess of the actual damage which he has suffered.
Of course, it must be always remembered that a tenant who does these things can be proceeded against and may suffer a forfeiture and the tenant then has to pray the Court to relieve him from the consequence of the forfeiture which he may suffer. It is not a thing that a tenant would be likely to undertake in open disregard of his obligations, but I am bound to say, apart from the risk of forfeiture, that why you should have a different rule for these things, as against anything else, I have never been able to understand. It seems right to me to put the whole thing on the same basis. So far as damage is concerned a landlord does not receive compensation for greater damage than he has in fact sustained. So far as forfeiture is concerned, a man who commits breaches of his covenant may find himself subject to forfeiture. But the whole object is to put all these breaches of contract on the same footing.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for this explanation and, under those circumstances, I would beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON: The next Amendment is designed to take an unnecessary burden from the shoulders of the county agricultural committees. As the subsection stands at the moment, it will be the county committees who will have to decide whether or not a tenant has injured his holding or has caused it to deteriorate. In addition, of course, they will have to find time to interview both the tenant and the landlord and to hear all the evidence. I think that county committees under this Bill will be so overworked that the Minister is going to have great difficulty in finding suitable people to do the job, and anything which would relieve any unnecessary work which will be put on the committees should be encouraged. Moreover, the matters in subsection (3) have always been dealt with hitherto by arbitration under the Act of 1923, and I think should continue to be so dealt with. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 50, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 3, page 99, and insert ("arbitration under the Act of 1923").—(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I appreciate the solicitude of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, lest the committees should be overworked. At the same time, I think that it would be wiser to keep to the committees to decide in this particular case. They are, as I have repeated, I am afraid ad nauseam, competent agriculturists. The committees are made up of farmers and landowners and various people connected with the land. I should have thought that they would be much better fitted to decide this matter than an outside arbitrator who would have to be brought in, it seems to me, rather unnecessarily. I think that if there were any question of unfair decisions or of bias on the part of the committees that would be something that would have to be taken into account. But I do not think, considering the general position of the committees, that there could be any sort of suggestion of unfairness or bias. I must say that the Amendment seems to indicate a lack of confidence in the committees. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will reconsider the matter and will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Even at this late hour I feel that I must say a word or two in support of the Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, would have led me to suppose, by what he said, that when a matter of this sort was being decided the members of the committee, who he tells us are competent to deal with such questions, went out and looked at the land. Unless my experience is unusual, and my own county agricultural committee differ very much from all others, I think that the committee men themselves would not go out. They would not have the time. The servants of the committee would go out on to the land. Now the servants of the committee are not likely to have professional qualifications such as are held by people who usually act as arbitrators. If I am right about this, in practice it is the servants of the committee who will go out on to the ground rather than arbitrators. Is there not, then, point in the Amendment?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Viscount probably knows far more about the detailed work of county agricultural executive committees than I do. But we wish to encourage members of these committees to go out when it is a question of supervision. We do not want servants of the committee to carry out this duty, we want the members of the committee to do it. I think that in practice it should be one or more of the committee members who should go out and look at the property; and such people, I submit, would have greater skill and knowledge of such matters than an outside arbitrator.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that this Amendment is in the interests of the working members of these committees. But if the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, feels strongly opposed to the Amendment probably my noble friend Lord Carrington will not insist on pressing it. I do think though, that the noble Earl is speaking with a certain lack of sense of reality when he says that the committee men will themselves more and more go out to farms to perform this duty. Does he really think that he going to get busy farmers to take on more and more duties, in addition to their duties of attendance at the committee meetings? Does he think that in addition to their attendance at committee meetings they are going to take on the task of dealing with little quarrels

789
between landlord and tenant, and generally doing work for which they do not pretend to be qualified? There are trained and experienced valuers and arbitrators whose services are available throughout the country to do this kind of work. But practical farmers are not trained for duty of this kind, and I should certainly be surprised if it were found that they were willing to give up their time to do it. However, it is for the noble Lord to say what his wishes are with regard to the Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: After what has been said, all I can say is that I think the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will find that when this Bill becomes an Act the county agricultural committees will be even more overworked than are your Lordships at the present time. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert as a new paragraph after paragraph 10:
". In section forty-three of the Act of 1923 (which provides for the application of the Act to Crown Lands) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(3) Section fifteen of the Crown Lands Act, 1927 (which enables the Commissioners of Crown Lands to pay out of capital the cost of carrying out any works mentioned in the Third Schedule to the Settled Land Act, 1925, or of any works for any of the purposes mentioned in that Schedule) shall apply to compensation payable under this Act for improvements specified in the Third Schedule thereto as it applies to the cost specified in the said section fifteen.' "
The noble and learned Viscount said: Section 15 of the Crown Lands Act, 1927, enables the Commissioners of Crown Lands under the authority of the Treasury to pay out of capital of the Land Revenues of the Crown the cost incurred by them of carrying out any of the improvements specified in the Third Schedule to the Settled Land Act, 1925, those being improvements to which capital moneys under settlements may be applied. This Amendment extends this provision so as to enable the Commissioners to apply capital, with Treasury authority, to compensation paid by them in respect of improvements set out in the Third Schedule to this Bill. The Section so applied
790
enables the Treasury, if they think fit, to direct that sums paid out of capital should be replaced out of income.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of this next Amendment again, is to prepare the way for consolidation of Part III of the Bill with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 40, at end insert:
(" (2) In subsection (1) of the said section forty-nine for the words 'hearing the landlord or his representative' there shall be substituted the words 'affording to the landlord and to the tenant an opportunity to make representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister'.").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, to insert, alter paragraph 11:
"…Section fifty-two of the Act of 1923 (which makes special provision as to the costs of proceedings in the county court under that Act) shall cease to have effect."
The noble and learned Viscount said: Subsection (1) of Section 52 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, provides that the costs of proceedings in the County Court under that Act shall be in the discretion or the Court. This is already provided for by County Court rules, and it is unnecessary and anomalous to retain this statutory provision specially in relation to agricultural holdings proceedings. Subsection (2) of this section authorizes the Lord Chancellor to prescribe scales of cost for proceedings in the County Court under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, and of costs to be taxed by the Registrar of the Court. This is also unnecessary as it is covered by the provision of the County Courts Act. The following Amendment merely includes the repealed section in the schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 13, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 29, after ("(1)") insert ("at the beginning of the definitions there shall be inserted the following—
'"building" includes any part of a building,' and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 10, leave out ("authorised").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after paragraph 20:
".Where the operation of a notice to quit served, under subsection (2) of section one hundred and forty of the Law of Property Act, 1925, by the owner of a severed part of the reversion depends on any proceedings under section thirty-one of this Act, the period within which under the proviso to the said subsection (2) the tenant may accept the notice as a notice to quit the entire holding shall run from the time at which it is determined that the notice has effect instead of from the time at which the notice is served."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This paragraph, like the corresponding provision in paragraph 5 (4) of the same schedule, applies where a tenant receives notice to quit part of his holding and is entitled to elect to treat it as applying to the entire holding. The purpose of the paragraph is to enable that tenant to postpone his election until he knows the result of any proceedings which might be taken by him under Clause 31 for the purpose of determining whether the landlord's notice to quit is to take effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 41, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth to Eleventh Schedules agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule:
PROVISIONS AS TO SCHEMES FOR ADJUSTING FARM BOUNDARIES OR AMALGAMATING FARMS.
Advertisement of References to Commission.
1. On referring any matter to the Agricultural Land Commission (hereafter in this Schedule referred to as "the Commission") under section eighty-seven of this Act the Minister shall publish, in such manner as appears to him best suited for bringing it to the notice of persons concerned, a notice in such form as he may determine describing the matter referred, stating that it is being referred to the Commission, and specifying a place where a map of the area to which the reference relates may be inspected at all reasonable hours.
preparation and confirmation of schemes.
3.—(1) Before submitting a final scheme for confirmation the Commission shall—

(a) in two successive weeks publish in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area to which the scheme relates a notice in the prescribed form stating that the scheme has been prepared and is about to be submitted for confirmation, naming a place within the locality where a copy of the scheme and the map referred to therein may be inspected, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the first publication of the notice) within which and the manner in which representations with respect to the scheme can be made to the Commission;

(b) except in so far as the Minister directs that this provision shall not have effect in any particular case, serve on every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of any land in the area which in the opinion of the Commission is likely to be affected by the carrying out of the scheme a notice in the prescribed form stating the effect of the scheme and that the scheme is about to be submitted for confirmation, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the service of the notice) within which and the manner in which representations with respect to the scheme can be made to the Commission;

Provided that no direction under head (b) of this sub-paragraph shall have effect in relation to an owner, lessee or occupier being a local authority or statutory undertakers or the National Trust.
4.—
5. After considering any representations duly made and the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held the Commission shall submit the scheme to the Minister for confirmation, either as prepared or, subject to the provisions of paragraph 7 of this Schedule, with such modifications as appear to the Commission expedient.
11.58 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: This Amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page III, line 12, at end to insert ("and shall serve a copy of such notice upon each of the owners and occupiers of agricultural land within the area in respect of which the reference is made").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I quite understand the point intended by the noble Lord, but I would draw his attention to the fact that when the Commission have produced a provisional scheme, be-

793
fore holding a public inquiry they are required by paragraph 3 (1) (b) of this Schedule to serve a notice on every owner, lessee, and occupier of any land in the area which, in the opinion of the Commission would be affected by the scheme. At the earliest stage it would not be necessary to serve notices. It would entail a great deal of work. When the scheme is in being then notices would be served. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is a very small Amendment. It was put in actually because twenty-eight days is quite a common term and "twenty-one" which stands in the Schedule at the moment is rather short notice, and, should people be absent or something like that, it might easily make for trouble. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page III line 32, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD MORRISON: Perhaps the noble Earl has overlooked the reason why three weeks is the time mentioned in this Bill. It follows the precedent of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act which was passed as recently as 1946, when the First Schedule provided that a minimum period of twenty-one days is given for representations against a compulsory purchase order. There does not seem to be any reason why the time should be different in this case, and for that reason perhaps the noble Earl would not persist in his Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD COURTHOPE LORD COURTHOPE moved, in subparagraph (b) to leave out all words from the beginning of the sub-paragraph up to and including "case." The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in requesting Lord Amherst of Hackney to withdraw his Amendment just now pointed out that it was unnecessary, in his opinion, because paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (1) (b), required a notice to be served on every owner, tenant, lessee and
794
occupier, but he omitted to tell the House that that paragraph begins with these words:
"except in so far as the Minister directs that this provision shall not have effect in any particular case."
I never heard of such an amazing thing. This Twelfth Schedule has provisions for schemes for altering the boundaries of farms, and it enables the Minister to direct that a scheme may be submitted for final approval without any notice at all if he so wishes. I think it is perfectly outrageous.
EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This has been agreed. On this occasion, we agree with the noble Lord Courthope, not in all the remarks he made, but on the sense of the Amendment. I am pleased to accept this and the next Amendment in principle, subject to slight drafting alteration on the Report stage.
LORD COURTHOPE: In those circumstances, I need not move my second Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I said the Amendment is accepted in principle.
LORD COURTHOPE: If the Amendment is accepted in principle, I beg leave to withdraw it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would like to know what exactly is the position. The Government have accepted in principle to put this in the Bill. Does that mean that they want us to withdraw it now and they will put it in on Report stage?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is agreed that the Amendment to page III, line 36, comes in on the Report stage.
LORD COURTHOPE: I think I have to be satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved to insert at the end of paragraph 5:
"Provided that at any such inquiry the Commission shall give such explanation of the scheme as may be necessary for informing the public of the full nature of and necessity for the Scheme and the members of the Commission or their officers shall be subject to examination or cross-examination in respect thereto by any persons objecting thereto or by the persons representing them."

795
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is an old friend by now. I feel that, if the inquiry is to be a reality and not a farce, then the representative of the Commission should before the inquiry explain the scheme fully and should be questioned about it by those interested. I feel that that would have two advantages: first, from the Commission's point of view, it would clear away all possible doubt about the scheme, and it would remove any source of friction; secondly, from the objector's point of view, it would make him feel that the Commission had really justified their scheme and that he himself had had a fair hearing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I regret wry much that we cannot accept this Amendment, which has rather far-reaching results. Again, the inquiry is intended not as a sort of appeal court, or anything of that kind, but in order to allow people to make their representations and to collect all the information possible. I would not like it to be thought that it would be otherwise. We can certainly give the noble Lord an assurance that we will ask the Commission to give a full explanation of the scheme, if that would meet his point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the assurance can be given, why cannot it be put in the Bill? I understand in every case that there will be a full explanation given. There is an assurance to that effect. Would it not be wiser to put it in the Bill? The noble Earl is speaking for himself and the Minister whom he represents, and we have the highest respect for them both. But this is a piece of legislation which will go on long after they have disappeared. I have no doubt my noble friend will not want to press the matter at this moment, but I do hope the Government will give a little more consideration to his point. The point of inquiry, in our view, is that it removes misunderstandings and frictions. For that reason, I should have thought the purpose of the Amendment was fully justified.
LORD CARRINGTON: After what the noble Marquess has said, I will withdraw the Amendment, subject to bringing it up again on Report stage. Before I do so, I
796
would like to say that I find it surprising that on every occasion on which this Amendment, or an Amendment like it, has been put forward on any of the Bills before your Lordships recently—and the Amendment has been for only one purpose, that of helping the private citizen, and giving him a fair hearing—the Government have refused to accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Twelfth Schedule agreed to.
Thirteenth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 44, column 3, after ("fifty") insert ("section fifty-two ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: We accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Thirteenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL;
  MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
  CERTIFICATES FROM EXAMINERS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER;
    MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER:
    Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION:
  And also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER),
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TUNBRIDGE WELLS),
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS),

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY).
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after midnight.