AGRICULTURE BILL. (Hansard, 30 July 1947)

HL Deb 30 July 1947 vol 151 cc747-82 747

§ 2.50 p.m.

§ Amendments reported (according to Order).

§ Clause 10:

§ Good estate management.

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

§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to insert "economic 748 and" before "other relevant circumstances." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is exactly the same as the one I put down on the Committee stage. I do not propose to weary your Lordships at length with the arguments I advanced on that occasion. I would, however, like to make two points. First, I would remind your Lordships that the purpose of the Amendment is to get the word "economic" into the Bill, so far as it affects land-owning, because there is nothing in the Bill which recognizes that there is a certain necessity for the landowner to have some economic return. Secondly, I wish the House and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to realize that my insertion of the word "economic" will apply to the land and not to the personal circumstances of the landowner himself.

§ The whole subsection deals with the land, and the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the word "economic" shall apply to the circumstances of the land under consideration. The noble Earl on Committee stage definitely agreed that he would look into the matter. He made no promise as to the results of his looking into it, but I did at that time withdraw my Amendment and I said I would put it down on the Report stage in order to hear the results of his reflections and his looking into the Amendment. I beg to move.

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

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)
My Lords, we have very carefully considered the noble Earl's Amendment. I should like to emphasize once more at the start of the proceedings this afternoon that we have indeed looked very carefully at the whole of this Bill; in fact, I think it is almost true to say that on a measure about which there has been so much agreement "Never has so much discussion been conducted by so many people for so long a time." Long before the Bill came to this House or to Parliament, we had consulted every section of the industry and tried to get agreement or a compromise; certainly I can say that no section was left out. On the whole we reached a very considerable measure of agreement, but we have to recognize that 749 there were some points outstanding where, either through the economic interests of landlord and tenant or because of political considerations, we failed to reach complete agreement.
Finally, however, this Bill went to another place where two days were spent on Second Reading, twenty-five days in the Committee stage, two days on Report and one day on Third Reading, making a total of thirty days. That was, I think, a quite adequate time for an agreed measure! It then came to your Lordships' House for your expert scrutiny, which it has received. After the Committee stage, we examined the different suggestions made by your Lordships. I should like to emphasize that we considered extremely carefully all the points that were raised and the suggestions that were made, and, wherever we found it possible to meet noble Lords on the opposite Benches, we have done so. I think that in all fairness, noble Lords will admit that we have gone a very long way indeed towards meeting them—in fact, as far as we could possibly be expected to go. As we consider these Government Amendments on Report stage, I hope the feeling of the House will be that we have done our best to meet the points raised by your Lordships, whose judgment and wisdom on agriculture we respect very much indeed, and to make this as good a Bill as we possibly can. If your Lordships will forgive that brief introduction, I will now deal with the noble Earl's Amendment.
First, the noble Earl pointed out in his speech that he did not wish the financial circumstances of the owner to he taken into consideration. Therefore I gather what he has in mind is that the relation of the rents and the value of the land should be taken into consideration in that regard, and not the personal financial position of the owner. I think we have got that. I should like to point out that this will be done because, if the noble Earl will turn to Clause 109, at page 90 of the Bill, he will read that: 'relevant circumstances,' in relation to an owner or occupier, includes all circumstances affecting management or farming other than the personal circumstances of the owner or occupier. That is to say, that when we take into consideration "relevant circumstances," not only economic but all other circumstances will have to be considered.
750 I submit further that if we put in the word "economic," which the noble Earl would like inserted, that would, in a way, be putting the cart before the horse. We do not want owners to say "The value of the returns from my land for so many years has not been what I expected; therefore, it would be unreason. able for me to have to bring about such improvements." What we want to do is to have the improvements brought about and then if, as would presumably be the case, the value of the land has increased through those improvements, it is up to the owner to put up the rent relative to the increase in value. Should there be any difficulty in doing this, he is, under Clause 35, enabled to go to arbitration and have the rent decided. I want to point out to the noble Earl that we mean this arbitration to be recognized procedure that will give equitable and fair treatment to the capital invested in the industry. Considering all those circumstances, I am afraid that we are not able to accept this Amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate the reasons and will be willing to withdraw it.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY
My Lords, may I just ask this? The noble Earl has covered the point fairly well but there is one gap in his argument. He said that in fact he did not want the landowners to be in a position of deciding before it was done whether or not further investment of capital in land in the way of improvements of conditions would be remunerative. His approach was that some function of land management was to be carried out by direction or by persuasion and then subsequently the rent could he raised. It is perfectly true that the machinery for that is there, but I think that he is putting people in rather a difficult position if he is saying: "Although it was a bad investment in the past, you are to spend so many hundreds of pounds, regardless of whether it is going to bring an economic return." I hope he can cover that point, and indeed I think the definition he has referred to in Clause 109 probably does. But I thought that part of what he said was a little disturbing and not in fact related to the ordinary atmosphere in which people invest money in any enterprise.

THE EARL OF RADNOR
My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his 751 reply and for his drawing attention to the definition in Clause 109. I must confess that I had overlooked that. But when one comes to the end of a Bill containing 110 clauses and one reaches Clause 109, one is liable to overlook an occasional point like that. I should like to assure the noble Earl that I know the care which both he and the right honourable gentleman, his Minister, have taken in order to get as near agreement on this Bill as possible. Indeed we were grateful for being taken into the confidence of the Ministry at the very earliest stage of the Bill, long before it first saw the public light of day. By the time it leaves this House, I think it will be not too bad a measure on the whole, though I will not say it will be a good one.
With regard to his reply to my Amendment I think it is a satisfactory one. But this is the kind of circumstance I had in mind, and I do not know whether it will be covered. Take for example, a small farm with a rental which is perhaps low to-day, where there is a demand or an order to spend a great deal of money which would perhaps even double the rent. It may be, in the first place, that the owner has not got the money, secondly, that he cannot get his tenant to pay the additional rent; and, thirdly, that even if he gets a tenant who is prepared to pay the doubled rent, that tenant would still be in a position to give one year's notice and to get out, leaving the farm on the owner's hands. If you are going to get an economic return for that farm you have to double the rent that you received two years previously and you are, therefore, limited so far as the tenants that you may be able to get are concerned. You may indeed increase the rent charged upon a farm to a figure quite beyond the ordinary means of that farm to carry, though the individual tenant sitting there at a time may be prepared to pay it. That is a point which comes in, and I rather hope that it is covered by the definition of "relevant circumstances." In any case I am assuming that, in such cases as that it will be within the rights of the owner of the land to make the necessary representations. If that is so, I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

752

§ Clause 15:

§ Supplementary provisions as to directions.

§ (2) An owner to whom notice of a proposal is given under the last foregoing subsection may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act, and the provisions of the said Part V shall apply accordingly, in any case in which the owner proves to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that—

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

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

§ (4) Where, for the purposes of determining whether a direction under the last foregoing section is to be given to the owner or occupier of land which is let, it is necessary to ascertain the respective liabilities of the owner and occupier under the contract of tenancy in relation to fixed equipment, the Minister may by notice in writing served on the owner or the occupier require him within twenty-one days from the service of the notice if there is an agreement in writing relating to the said liabilities to send or produce the agreement or a copy thereof for inspection by such person as may be specified in the notice, and in any case within the said twenty-one days to furnish in such manner and to such person as may be so specified such information as to the said liabilities of the owner and occupier, in so far as they do not depend on an agreement in writing, as may be so specified, and—

(a) if where a requirement is made under this subsection an owner or occupier fails to comply therewith, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day after conviction on which the failure continues;
(b) if in purported compliance with such a requirement an owner or occupier knowingly or recklessly furnishes any copy of an agreement or any information which is false in any material particular, he shall be liable to the penalties specified in subsection (7) of the last foregoing section.

§ 3.3 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (2), after "agricultural unit," where that phrase last occurs, to insert: or in any case in which either an authority or person has at the time when the notice is given power without further authorisation 753 to acquire compulsorily the land to which the notice relates or at that time that land is designated by a development plan under the enactments relating to town and country planning as subject to compulsory acquisition, or designated by an order under Section one of the New Towns Act, 1946.

§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, during Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, moved an Amendment which we considered and accepted subject to redrafting. This Amendment is the result, and I hope it is to the satisfaction of the noble Lord. We particularly wished to alter the wording so that the New Towns Act, 1946, should be covered. In view of that, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the new Amendment, and I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—. Page 13, line 24, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, if I may say a word on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think this does really meet the point for which our Amendment was put down, and I thank the noble Earl.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, and I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 13, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD TEVIOT moved to add to subsection (4): Provided always that where it can be shown that a financial loss will be caused to the person contravening the order or where, by reason of the weather or for any other good and sufficient reason, the order could not be carried out, then the court shall rescind the order and make such order as to costs as it may think fit.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned just now the question of politics. There is no question of politics about what I. am going to say. Before I move the Amendment, I will explain to the noble Earl why I am doing it. I want to raise a particular question which is important around where I happen to live. Some of your Lordships may remember that, some years ago, there was a most unfortunate episode, where there was a misunderstanding between a farmer and the authorities, as a 754 result of which there was shooting and the farmer was killed. Naturally that has not been forgotten, and there is a great feeling of apprehension now with regard to the question of carrying out orders, and what will happen if they are not carried: out. I move this Amendment really in order that the noble Lord may have an opportunity of thoroughly reassuring the farmers in what are their quite genuine apprehensions.

§ I have had sent to me a very large number of signatures as the result of a meeting that I did not attend, and did. not know was going to take place. There was anxiety on their part with regard to orders, and particularly in regard to the question of what is and what is not good husbandry. That, of course, is always a very controversial question, but I rather feel that Clause 73, with the new Amendments which I understand the noble Viscount is bringing in, ought to do very much what they want. There is no doubt that sometimes there are orders which are very stupid. We all know of them. I have had instances where a man is to ld to plant potatoes on land that will not grow them economic ally. There it is, the man has to grow his potatoes and loses money by doing so; and so on. So there is, as the noble Earl well knows, probably a considerable amount of anxiety in that regard, and also in regard to what tie farmer feels that he has not got, the right of appeal to the courts. I rather feel he is barking up the wrong tree there in a way. So far as I can understand, the independent tribunal is probably a better court for him to appeal to than the law court, because he is there appealing to a court or tribunal which has all the qualifications for dealing with any subject that he might wish to bring before it.

§ Again, there is the judgment which was delivered by Lord Caldecote, you will remember, in the case of Price against the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the obeying of orders. It was quite clear there, as far as I can understand the reading of the judgment, that, while the order had not been obeyed, the Court in that case had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to why it was not. It seemed to me that that raised quite a reasonable apprehension in the minds of farmers. Now, however, I think Clause 73 with the additions thereto will put tie farmer right in that regard. At the san e time I would quite shortly like to-state 755 the position as it appears to the farmer who, after all, is not conversant with all the intricacies of the law and of this Bill. He really lives a rather secluded life. At present, whether he is supervised or not, he gets an order, or he gets an agreement, as to how he is going to conduct his farm, and I want him to feel that if any untoward circumstances—and we do have untoward circumstances in farming, as the noble Earl well knows—make it impossible for him to carry out the order, he will be able to appeal to somebody who really understands why he was unable to carry it out.

§ Behind that, of course, is the idea that, whereas in other walks of life the citizen has always the right to go to the courts, in this case the farmer has not got that right. And, after all, as one of them said to me the other day: "A murderer has the right of appeal; why should not I have the right." I hope that the Government and the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this point of view, and if he can—which I am sure he will be able to do, because it is only a question, as far as I can see, of common justice—give me a reassuring answer to the Amendment. I shall not, of course, press it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Teviot.)

§ LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER
My Lords, may I, speaking as a mere Don, ask the noble Lord a question about the English of this Amendment?

§ LORD TEVIOT
The noble Lord, I know, is a great professor. I do not wish to enter into any controversy with him regarding my English. I have no doubt that it is quite appalling.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, I understand that the purpose of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, as he has done with great eloquence, is really to get an assurance—to clarify the substance of the Bill as it affects this matter. I do not wish to go into detail regarding Clause 73 until we reach it but there are two points upon which I would like to give the noble Lord an assurance straight away. He brought up the question of crops and suggested that under supervision direction might be given for growing crops upon unsuitable 756 ground, or crops which were unsuitable to the character of the particular farm. I think I can give him an assurance that that is very fully covered by the definition of "good husbandry." If we turn to Clause 11 (1) we see there the definition of "good husbandry." I need not read the whole subsection, but noble Lords will see that it sets out very fully the obligations of the farmer in regard to his husbandry, and that good husbandry is defined very clearly. In Clause 12 (1) your Lordships will find laid down what is to happen if responsibilities with regard to good estate management and good husbandry are not fulfilled. Therefore I maintain that it would be impossible for the Minister—or in this case the committee—to direct the farmer to grow unsuitable crops, because this would undoubtedly be against the rules of good husbandry as defined in Clause 11 (1).
With regard to the matter of appeals, a farmer under supervision would have an appeal to the independent tribunal before he could be dispossessed. There is a question whether there should be a further appeal to the Courts of Law. The actual intention of my right honourable friend, the Minister, was rather to keep these courts less formal than the High Courts. In practice these courts would be considering questions of fact—questions of whether the farm was or was not being well managed, whether the rules of good husbandry were being followed and so on. These courts would not normally consider points of law. Therefore we did not think that in normal circumstances there should be an appeal to the law courts. But I suppose in the event of a tribunal exceeding its power, or something of that sort, there would be a further appeal. I would, however, rather leave such a point to be dealt with when we come to deal with legal and technical matters in connexion with Clause 73. I hope that on the matter of the crops and of the general right of appeal I have managed to satisfy the noble Lord.

§ LORD TEVIOT
My Lords, there is one further point on which I should like the noble Earl to say a word, if he will. Should unforeseen circumstances arise to prevent a farmer carrying out an order—bad weather, for instance—would that fact be taken into consideration?

757

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, if by leave of the House I may speak again, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the words "relevant circumstances" which I submit, would include such matters as the weather.

§ LORD TEVIOT
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 16:

§ Dispossession on grounds of had estate management.

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

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

§ (6) The persons referred to in subsection (4) of this section are— (a) in the case of a proposed certificate under subsection (r) or (2) of this section, every person on whom under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and apart from any direction under that paragraph, a notice would be required to be served of a proposed compulsory purchase order under that Act authorising the compulsory purchase of the land to which the proposed certificate is to relate;

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

§ 3.15 p.m.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "person" to insert "in conjunction with the first-mentioned land." The noble and learned 758 Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to wove that these words be there inserted. This was an Amendment which was places. on the Order Paper by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, at the Committee stage. It was not then moved by him, so I now find myself, not for the first time, in the position of picking up a crumb or two that has fallen from his table. And I am very pleased to do so. The Amendment has little more than a clarifying effect. ft points what we certainly intend here when we refer to "person"—namely, that we mean in conjunction with the first-mentioned land. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 28, after ("person") insert ("in conjunction with the first-mentioned land")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for picking up one of my discards. It was put forward in conjunction with three of her Amendments, of which I hope we shall hear something presently. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that his does clarify the clause.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to add to subsection (4): together with such particulars as appear to the Minister requisite for informing him of the general grounds on which the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) of thus section. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point which was raised by Lord O'Hagan in the Committee stage, and I hope it does so. In moving it I should like to clarify the issue a little. We are providing for representations to be made, and also for informing the owner of land of the nature of the Minister's disapproval with regard to any aspect of his farming or management. The reason we have arranged for that after representations and not before—and this I think was the noble Lord's great point—is that it is according to the procedure of the committee.

§ In the case of bad farming or estate management, as the case may be, a man will be put under supervision. He will be advised and guided, and, if necessary, directions may be issued. If it is then found that the farmer or the person responsible for the estate management 759 does not show any improvement in his work, he will finally be given the opportunity of making representations to the committee. An important point in this connexion is that it will not be a tribunal sitting in judgment on him, so to speak; this procedure will be followed in order that practical discussions may take place with the man concerned. The committee will be able to say to him: "You have not done this, that or the other," and he can reply, "Well, what I propose is this," and presumably he will do his best to present a good case. The case he makes would obviously be considered by the committee and it may very well be that after the discussions they will decide not to proceed with dispossession. In other words, one does not want to prejudge the issue in that respect. If, after full investigation, and discussions with the man, they find that dispossession should be recommended, they will give him particulars of why they are dissatisfied with him in a general way, so that if he wishes to appeal he will know exactly on what grounds the Minister is dissatisfied with him, and therefore on what grounds he can base his appeal. I hope that this meets the noble Lord's case, and beg leave to move the Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

LORD O'HAGAN
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, and to ask him one question. Do I understand that the particulars to which he has referred are to be put in writing?

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
Yes.

LORD O'HAGAN
My Lords, in that case I am glad to accept the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. It seems to me to meet the case, and I am very much obliged to him.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert in subsection (6), after paragraph (a): and (b) if the certificate relates to land which is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, any other person entered on the register kept for the purposes of this Part of this Act who is a trustee of the settlement or who under the settlement 760 has a vested interest in the land immediately following upon the interest of the person beneficially entitled to the land in possession, or who being an infant is beneficially entitled to the land in possession.

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, you will remember where these words come in. We are dealing with Clause 16, which relates to dispossession on grounds of bad estate management. Several of your Lordships raised the point that it was indeed hard that, because you might have a person who at the relevant time was an unworthy owner not looking after his land, the land should be taken out of the family altogether. It might be land which has been held by one family for centuries or it might be land held by a family of yeomen or held under the Settled Land Act. I was rather sympathetic to that point of view and I wanted to see if I could devise some machinery to deal with it. I think it is here. Your Lordships will remember that subsection (4) held that before the Minister gives any certificate he has to consult all those persons specified in subsection (6), and in subsection (6) I am putting in an Amendment making it quite plain that where it is related to settled land he must consult the trustee. By a later clause, Clause 21, I am providing that a register shall be kept so that you can see at a glance who are the people the Minister has to consult. He will thus be in a position to consult the people who ought to be consulted. There I think I have the machinery. Now I want to see how much further I can go to meet your Lordships. I cannot give an absolute guarantee that in all cases the heir will be the person who will be selected, but I can give this guarantee. The Government recognize that where land has been in the possession of a family for many generations, and the owner who has failed to show satisfactory improvement in his management during supervision is willing to hand over the management to his son or heirs and further that that son or heir is a fit and capable person to take over the management, it would in the normal way only be reasonable to give the son and heir a chance instead of proceeding immediately with dispossession.

§ As has already been explained, there is already machinery provided in the Bill to enable the Minister to direct the appointment of a manager instead of proceeding with dispossession, and if the 761 owner is willing to appoint his son or heir and that son or heir is a suitable person, it will be possible to arrange for the son or heir to be given a chance to show his worth in this way. Moreover, if a Minister decides not to use his power of directing the appointment of a competent manager, but to proceed immediately with dispossession under Clause 16, the owner will have the right of appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I think that assurance goes a considerable way to meet your Lordships, and, coupled with the fact that we have here the necessary machinery, I hope it will give your Lordships considerable satisfaction. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 29, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said and for the obvious attempt he has made to meet your Lordships on this side. I hope he will forgive me if I say I am not absolutely clear as to what his assurance really is. It is a little difficult to be certain, just listening to words being read out. Perhaps I may say how it strikes me, and then the noble Viscount can correct me. I take it that the proposed paragraph (b) means that the heir within the meaning of the Settled Land Act shall ultimately have the right of appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. That is not quite what we asked for. We feel he has an inherent right to be given a chance, and not a right made subject to appeal. On the other hand, I think it is a big step in our direction and we should certainly accept that Amendment so far as it goes.
Unfortunately—and this is where I think the assurance of the noble Viscount comes in—the very class about whom we are most disturbed, the yeoman class, very seldom have their land settled. Where an estate is not settled, it is exceedingly difficult to define the heir, who can be changed from day to day. Both sides have tried to suggest a form of words to go into the Bill. And so we come down to the assurance, which really amounts to this: that the intended or most likely heir to an estate that does not come within the terms of the Settled Land Act shall be accorded so far as possible, by request to the Tribunal, the same rights as would an heir under the Settled Land Act. 762 Perhaps if I am right the noble and learned Viscount will be good enough to tell me so, and if I am wrong to correct me.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble Earl can interpret it as well as I can when he sees it in print. The words are not mine. It is a statement by the Minister. Where the owner has to be turned out and he has a son and heir who seems to be a responsible person, the Minister says that in the normal course of events that son and heir should be given an opportunity to carry on.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
I should like to express my cordial thanks to the noble and learned Viscount for his invaluable help in this matter and I am bound to say that if this Amendment carries out the intention as expressed from the Woolsack just now, I, for my part, would be satisfied that it is a reasonable compromise. My doubt arises on the word "immediate." The Lord Chancellor put the case of an incompetent or unworthy owner who stands the risk of being dispossessed because he does not carry out the duties of a good landlord as outlined in this Bill, and he suggested that in such cases where there was a competent and worthy heir the owner might reasonably appoint him as manager. I can visualize the case of an elder son or so-called heir being not altogether so well qualified as, we will say, his younger brother, who might be next in order of entitlement to an estate. I ask whether it would be possible so to draft this Amendment so as to bring in the son of an owner who might conceivably be more worthy and more competent not only than his father but than his own elder brother. I should be sorry to see an estate lost out of a family if there was one competent member of it with all the pride that long tradition would impart to him as a member of the family.

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, there is a great measure of agreement between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. In the case of the owner-occupier and small property owner, his family quite naturally would attach the same importance to the land remaining in the family. It is just as important with a small man as with a large man. We ought to try to find some specific means whereby the Minister shall, in fact, 763 give preference to the person who normally would have succeeded the present owner in the ownership. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gave us a carefully worded assurance that that was the intention of the Government but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, there are difficulties even there. When the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, was speaking, I was listening for the use of the word "minor." He never mentioned the word "minor." The case of a minor, of course, is provided under the Settled Land Acts, but it is not provided for in the assurance. We know that in practice the owner of a great estate whose management remains productive and is properly constituted is most unlikely to fall within the provisions of this Bill for dispossession. The man who is likely to get into trouble is the defaulting owner-occupier who, for reasons of finance, age or whatever it may be, is not really adequate to remain as the owner.
How are we to get over that? I confess, quite frankly, that I do not know. But some means ought to be found, if it is correct and generally agreed on both sides of the House that the chain of ownership in the family ought not to be broken by reason of one defaulter having found his way into temporary ownership—for everybody's ownership is a, temporary one—for protecting, not necessarily and only the eldest son, but the whole family, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, quite wisely pointed out. If the normal heir is a minor, his interests particularly ought to be protected. Obviously the Minister could not permit him to be placed in the position of a manager; legally he would not be able to do so. If the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack can help us in that regard, we shall be extremely grateful. I feel that we are all trying for the same objective, but the point is how to achieve it so as to be fair to everybody.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I cannot speak again save with the leave of the House. In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I will say this. I do not think I can devise any formula which can be put in an Act of Parliament; I think it must be left to administration. I presume that the Minister would administer the 764 thing in this way. He would obviously lean very strongly towards the heir, if there was an heir. But supposing the heir did not quite come up to the mark, and the second son was obviously better, I imagine the Minister would show a very strong preference to the second son over, for instance, any outsider. But I do not think you can put that in the words of an Act of Parliament; it must be a matter of administration.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
May I interrupt for one moment? As the Amendment is at present framed, that course would be impossible, would it not? So long as the words refer to a person: who under the settlement has a vested interest in the land immediately following upon the interest of the person beneficially entitled, surely that interpretation could not be put upon it?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble Viscount is confusing two things. First of all, there is this Amendment. This Amendment is simply saying, in effect, who must be consulted. Presently I shall move an Amendment providing for the keeping of a register. The undertaking I give goes beyond the Amendment. That undertaking is with regard to the Minister's recognition of the fact that it is desirable to have the heir, if at all possible: and I am now saying that, even if you cannot get the heir, the second son should obviously be put in advance of complete strangers, always provided that he is equally proficient as a manager of the land.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I can only speak again with the permission of the House. I simply rise to say that this does not quite meet every point we had envisaged, but equally it is clear that we cannot devise much better words here ourselves. I think the intention of the noble and learned Viscount is clear, and I gladly accept his assurance.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this Amendment is submitted to meet a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, who was not quite satisfied that the minimum period of twelve months was made clear. We have now put in "until not less than twelve months has expired." I hope this makes it clear beyond any doubt.

765

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 34, leave out from ("given") to ("from") and insert ("until not less than twelve months has expired").—(The Earl of Huntingdon .)

§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Earl for this Amendment. It is obviously impossible, in the difficult circumstances, to devise words to give us exactly what we would like, and this is the best that we can expect.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 3.36 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to add to the clause: (8) Nothing in this section shall authorise or be deemed to authorise the acquisition by the Minister under the foregoing provisions of this section of an interest in land or in a part thereof greater than the interest therein of which the person managing the land is able to dispose. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is in substitution for four Amendments of which I moved the first, and I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has to-day accepted the third. They are all designed to deal with one particular and rather difficult point, of land which, for one reason or another, a landowner has let on a lease—possibly a full repairing lease. The terms of the Bill as they now stand might easily be interpreted to mean that the leaseholder is the manager and in beneficial occupation of the land. Therefore, if he defaults in some way or other, and becomes liable to dispossession under the Bill, not only is he dispossessed of his occupation of the land, but, by virtue of the fact that he is looked upon as the manager of the land, the owner of the freehold is also dispossessed of his freehold.

§ There are a number of cases in which that might happen. It was made quite clear in another place, as I pointed out on the Committee stage, that it was definitely designed to catch the man who leased his land. I think that is not quite right, and I have put down this Amendment which, as your Lordships see, tries to confine the compulsory acquisition to such interests as the defaulter has in the land. I would like to draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to one thing in the Report of the Committee stage. The noble Earl seemed to indicate that a leasehold was an indefinite 766 period. Of course, a leasehold is not for an indefinite period; it is for a period of years. Personally, I can see no reason why, in the case of dispossession of the occupant of the land in those circumstances, His Majesty's Government should not be content with acquiring the interest of the man whom they are dispossessing. They would still achieve their object of getting the best use of the land for the remainder of the lease.

§ It may be said that probably in such leases there are terms and conditions ensuring the proper cultivation of the land, and also, if it is a repairing lease, ensuring that the buildings are kept in proper order. I would ask your Lordships to consider what are the remedies of the owner of the land if those covenants are not properly kept. He has to go to the county committee; in fact he has to go to the Minister. If he wants to give notice he has to go to the Minister. Some of us on this side of the House have had some experience of going to committees and trying to get farmers out for bad. farming. I believe it to be a fact—I am not certain—that in only two cases in the whole of the time that that provision Las been in operation have farmers been turned out for bad farming. In fact, the ordinary land agent has for a long time past advised his principal strongly against trying to get a farmer out for bad farming. I can see very little prospect under this Bill of that being reversed. That tenant will be put under supervision straight away; he will not be removed. There will be a very considerable inhibition on the part of the owners of the land to go to the county committee against an occupant of any of their land, whether he be an ordinary tenant or a leasehold r, and it is very doubtful whether, should they take the initiative in that case, the county committee would feel disposed to take any action.

§ After all, the mere fact that a landowner has to go to the county committee for this purpose must indicate to the county committee that they have failed somewhat in their duty, because they are charged with the duty of seeing that the land is made use of to the proper extent. They will, in self-defence, instead of getting rid of the man, put him under supervision, or they will not do anything at all—probably dc nothing at all, because they will be rather 767 offended at finding a landlord who thinks he knows more about his own tenants than they do.

§ That is the position, and I think there is underlying it a matter of rather broad principle. You are proposing to dispossess a man for offending in some form or another. In so doing you are, at the same time, going to dispossess a man who has probably not offended in any way whatsoever, and who has very little remedy except through the Minister or his agents, the county committee. It is for that reason that I have again put down this variation of my original Amendment. I think the noble Earl did say that he would look into it more carefully, and I have no doubt that he has looked into it very carefully.

§ I am rather reinforced in my view as to the necessity for something of this sort, by the fact brought to my notice about four days ago, that a certain large and well-known estate, anxious to try and make the estate run on rather more economic lines, had offered to its tenants two alternatives: either they should pay a percentage increase in their rents, or they should take on the whole of the repairs of their respective farms. I do not say anything about the wisdom of such a suggestion—I just mention the fact. In such a case I believe those men would, under the terms of this Bill, be considered as the managers of that land. I think so, but I should like an answer to that. They may be only on a yearly tenancy but they are, within the terms of the Bill, managers of that land. They have the control of the cultivation, they have the control of the buildings, and I think they might easily he called managers of land. There are, of course, other cases of year-to-year tenancies and there are cases of long leases, and although long leases in England are not very frequent they are very important. With that I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 17, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, there is an aspect of this matter to which I ventured to refer very briefly in Committee and to which I feel I should refer again. These cases of small pieces of detached property, let off possibly to a neighbouring landowner with permission to sub-let and 768 passing, to all intents and purposes, permanently under the management of the neighbouring landowner, might, if mismanaged, for all practical purposes be taken away from the man to whom it belongs without very great fear of hardship. But we have been talking about the Settled Land Acts. These pieces of detached property would almost certainly be included in a settlement, and we know it is very unfortunate fact that a very large proportion of agricultural land is held in mortgage. What would happen if a small piece of property included in a settlement were taken away by compulsion from the owner because of what we would describe as a technical offence? I am not troubled about the offence, but I am troubled about the consequences. What happens if that piece of land is, so to speak, requisitioned and is included in the mortgage? Suppose the mortgagee declined to allow the owner to repay so much of the mortgage as was attributable to the value of that particular piece of land. The mortgagee has it in his power to do these things, and there is no reason why he should not implement that power.
Now the owner who may be losing his piece of land through no act or fault of his own, but through the default of the person who was managing, and who would, normally, suffer no particular financial or even material hardship, may and probably would, because of the operation of law, find himself in an extremely awkward position. The Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has down would, of course, cover that decision altogether, because it would disable the Minister from dispossessing any person other than the person to whom the land belonged or for whom he was managing. I feel I must support the noble Earl in this Amendment, because I am very unhappy about the possible consequences which would arise in the events which I have ventured to describe.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has raised an extremely complicated and interesting point. We all admit that, and as it is extremely complicated, if your Lordships will forgive me I would like to read so that I give an accurate answer to the Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that where the Minister compulsorily buys land on the grounds of 769 bad estate management under Clause 16 (1), or where tinder Clause 16 (2) he buys other land, necessary for the proper management of the land being acquired on the grounds of bad estate management, he should only be entitled to acquire the legal interest in that land of the person managing the land. In other words, if the person concerned is the leaseholder, the result of this Amendment would mean that the Minister would only be able to buy the remainder of the leasehold interest. The Amendment would affect subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Clause i6.
Subsection (1) provides that where a supervision order is in force in relation to the management of land and during the period of supervision satisfactory improvement has not been shown, the Minister shall have power to buy compulsorily that land. A supervision order relates not only to the land but to the person managing the land, and under Clause 12(1) the only person who can be placed under supervision is the "owner" of agricultural land who has failed to fulfil his responsibilities in accordance with the rules of good estate management set out in Clause 10. An owner, for the purposes of Part II of the Bill, is defined in Clause 21. It means the freehold owner unless under the provisions of Clause 21 (2) that owner has agreed with some other person that that oilier person shall be treated as the owner of the land for the purposes of Part II, or alternatively there has been a determination by the Agricultural Land Tribunal that some person other than the freehold owner should be treated as the owner for the purposes of Part II.
This means that under Clause 16 (1) the person who is under supervision and who has failed to show satisfactory improvement will in normal cases be the freehold owner. Clearly in such circumstances the Minister must have the right to acquire the freehold interest, and the Amendment could not prevent this happening. Where, however, the owner had agreed with some other person, as for example a long leaseholder, that that other person should be treated as the owner for the purpose of Part II, or where alternatively there had been a determination of the Agricultural Land Tribunal to that effect, the person who would be under supervision and would not show satisfactory improvement would not be the freehold owner but would be 770 the leaseholder. In that case the result of the Amendment would be that the Minister would only be able to purchase the remainder of the lease and would be debarred from purchasing the freehold interest.
I suggest that there is no justification for such a provision in relation to subsection (1). If the freehold owner has agreed that sonic other person should be responsible as owner for fulfilling the rules of good estate management in respect of that land or if the Agricultural Laid Tribunal has, on application, so determined, the freehold owner will in effect have abdicated from any of his responsibilities as an agricultural landowner. lie will not be concerned with the land except to the extent that he is receiving a rent from it. He will therefore be purely in the position of a rent receiver or any other person who has invested money and is receiving interest on that money. If as a result of the Minister buying the land including his freehold interest he is forced to change the nature of his investment he will not be damnified in any way. He will receive the full market value for his land and will be able to put his money into some other form of investment whether that be the purchase of other agricultural land or the purchase of, far example, stocks and shares.
If the Minister is authorized to take over land on the grounds of bad estate management, surely he should be entitled to purchase all the interests in that land so that he has a free hand to improve the property and to see that it continues to be satisfactorily managed. Suppose for example that this Amendment were carried and a lessee who had only three or four years of his lease to run had to be dispossessed on the ground of bad estate management. The Minister in such a case would have a period of only a few years in which to effect the necessary improvements and pull the estate round and might then receive a notice to quit, whereupon the lard would revert to the freehold owner who would thereupon lease it to some other person over whom the Minister would have no control. Moreover, if this Amendment were accepted it would invite evasion by the creation of fictitous leases. There would be nothing to prevent a free-hold owner from leasing the land to himself as a limited company and then agreeing with himself as a limited company 771 that the limited company should be treated as the "owner" for the purposes of Part II of the Bill. If this were done the result of the Amendment would be that the Minister could in no circumstances deprive the owner of his freehold interest. That, I think, is a position which we could not accept. I hope I have answered the question fairly clearly. I am sorry I have had to read such a long extract, but the case is a complex and difficult one and I wished to show the difficulties that we should be up against in accepting the Amendment. For those reasons I hope the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw it.

§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH
My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on the earlier part of the noble Earl's speech. We have to deal with things that are in being. A good many of us, landowners of all sorts and sizes, have found ourselves temporarily as trustees or landlords in possession of land, a good many miles uneconomically away from the seat of operations. We wish perhaps to give to a reasonable tenant a full reasonable time of twenty years on a repairing lease. There is nothing to prevent that tenant from deteriorating, like anybody else. Or the man may die and the land be carried on unsatisfactorily by his children. But the Minister has power to take the land away from the owner. Is that not a difficult and unfair position to those who have let their land out? The same thing may well apply in the ordinary course of events in the case of a young and progressive fellow who may come along and say: "I should like to take your land and do certain improvements, and if you will give me a full repairing lease of twenty years I will go all out." And you agree. You may say to yourself that it is not perhaps your general policy, but that you think this young man has vows and you want to encourage him to get on with the job. Then something happens on which he breaks down. Are you going to penalize the owner for that fact? Is that a fair position, under this particular clause as envisaged?

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I really cannot feel that the noble Earl has met the point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I do rather regret 772 also that the noble Earl should suggest that any landlord who lets land on a full repairing lease—a perfectly legitimate thing to do; some may think it a good policy and others a bad one, but it is perfectly legitimate—should now be accused by the Government of having abdicated his duties and become a mere rent receiver. That is not so at all. It seems to me that the fair thing for the Government to do in the case of a farm mismanaged by the tenant, is one of two things: either take over the remainder of the lease or else dispossess the man and offer the farm back to the original owner. He should be given a chance to put the farm right before he is dispossessed.
There is one other subject on which I feel rather strongly. I come from a county of rather small farms, but around me we have, particularly at the present time, a number of men who have come back from the war and perhaps have bought a small farm of about fifty acres. They are very keen and ambitious. They buy a good herd of cows and then want to extend it. They have their own small freehold farms of fifty acres and want to extend their herd. They go to a local landowner—this has occurred to my knowledge—and they say: "There is a piece of land of thirty or forty acres on the edge of your farm; it does not mean a great deal to you. Will you let it?" In the present circumstances, he puts himself out to do so, and lets one of these men have thirty or forty acres; which become attached to his farm for the time being. Then perhaps the man loses interest, something happens, something goes wrong, and in a few years' time he lets the holding deteriorate. These thirty or forty acres are let to him on a repairing lease; it is really perhaps a matter of keeping the fences in order. The Minister comes down on him, puts him under supervision and eventually decides to take over the holding.
In the meantime, the man who has done him this good turn by letting him the thirty or forty acres is going to be dispossessed of his land, purely because of the mismanagement by the tenant of this subsidiary holding. Surely that is not only very unjust, but it is very much against the interests of small farmers, because it means that in future we are just not going to do these good turns if we are going to be penalized. It is all 773 very well the noble Earl saying: "There is an appeal; you can put your case before the Minister and you can go to the tribunal." Why should we put our necks into a noose and make our rights subject to appeal when it is a matter of doing somebody a good turn? We are not going to do it. I say that this is doing a very bad turn to the farming community; it is doing something which is going to destroy the spirit of mutual accommodation and arrangement between landlord and tenant and between the small farmer and the large landowner in an effort to help one another.
I do hope that this matter will be carefully considered. I know that this is a late stage of the Bill, but this is a matter of some considerable importance and, if the noble Earl cannot meet us actually on this Amendment, perhaps he would like to make some other endeavour to meet us, for we should be very glad to undertake to discuss the matter between now and the Third Reading. I do make a very warm appeal to the noble Earl to consider this point.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, may I intervene to say a word? I admit that I have no particular knowledge on this subject, but I have been listening to the debate and I am quite ready to look at this Amendment between now and Third Reading, provided always that am not committed to any sort of undertaking or, indeed, to holding out any definite hope. I will look into this matter and try to find out more about it with a view to satisfying the noble Earl.
What I feel about it, listening to the debate is this. I think we have got to take in this country a very different outlook with regard to land from that which we have taken before. Unless our land provides very much more food than it has produced hitherto, we may be in danger of starvation. A good landlord regards himself, I know full well, as a trustee of his land, but we must see that all landlords, not only the good ones, in future regard the use of the land as for the production of food and that every other consideration is wholly secondary. We cannot afford to take any qualification or hesitation about accepting that fact. Indeed, only the other day, Lord Hastings in the most round and absolute terms accepted that proposition, and I am sure that all good landlords will do the same.
774 If we are taking the hypothesis that there is a farm which is in neglect arid the supervision order has been placed on the man in charge, and it is still in neglect and showing no signs of improvement, then I say that you ought to give the Minister the right to say: "In those circumstances, I will take that farm over lock, stock and barrel. If that is the fact, private interests must give way to the greater public interests." You may have a situation in which a man only three, four or five years still to run. If that means that the Minister, to put that right, can only take over for those three, four or five years, he may not be; able to put it right and we have got precious little time to waste in order to, get these things right.
I hope that I am not uttering any revolutionary doctrine to which any good landlord who cares about the land of this country would not agree; I believe he would. In those cases where you have a landlord who has, to a very considerable extent, at any rate, parted with his land—he has agreed under Part II that this man may be treated as the owner or there has been a finding to that effect—to that extent he has put this mater out of his control and in those circumstances the Minister should have the right—I do not say the obligation; the right ought to be exercised with discretion—to say: "Well, I must really take this land over and, to make the best of it, I may have to take it over altogether." On the other hand, having said that, in order that it may not seem to be revolutionary, I feel quite certain that the Minister will get on much better with his job and with the land if he gets on his side the people who know about it and if he enlists the sympathy and support of the people who have known this land from their childhood and know what it can do. If, therefore, you ask me what steps the Minister should take in a given case, I conceive that the answer should be that he should not resort to drastic measures. If you ask me to impose a limitation on the Minister's powers and say that the Minister can only take over the interests which the person in charge, being recognized for the time being as the owner, has, then I say that is too serious a limitation.
As I have said, that is as it strikes me in this way on the spur of the moment. I do not pretend that I have given full 775 consideration to this matter, for I have not; I have merely heard your Lordships discussing it. Neither do I pretend that it is in any sense a subject on which I am an expert; I know little about it. I will look into this matter between now and Third Reading and see if there is any modus operandi which I can find, always bearing in mind—I am sure your Lordships will be with me on this—that I must not do anything in present circumstances which would only handicap the Minister in proper cases in exercising the wide power which enables him so to take over the land so that he can really get busy and get something done with that land. In that, I believe that I should have the support of the vast majority of this House.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, we are very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for looking at this matter. It is a very difficult point and it deserves the utmost consideration by all concerned to see that justice should be done. I was, however, I must confess, rather surprised to hear him talking about a repairing lease. I hardly think that he would attempt to maintain it in a court of law, that when you let a house, say, on a repairing lease you surrender a large part of the ownership. I have never heard such a suggestion in my life. It is merely a practical agreement between landlord and tenant.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I did not mean to suggest that. I referred to Clause 21, subsection (2).

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
If I am misinterpreting what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I am sorry, but the Earl of Huntingdon certainly gave us that impression. We are all agreed that land must not be allowed to be neglected, but the real thing we have to consider is: Who has neglected it and who is responsible? In the course of this debate, several noble Lords have pointed out that conditions may arise where, through no fault of the landlord, the tenant has neglected the land: the neglect lies at the door of the tenant. The proper action of the Minister in those particular cases—I am referring only to the limited number of cases where the tenant is responsible for the neglect—ought to lie against the tenant, and not 776 against the landlord. There may be some way by which the landlord can re-enter and take over responsibility, and if he is willing and competent to do so that is obviously the correct procedure. What alarms us in this clause of the Bill, is that where even some neglect may have arisen through the tenant the landlord, under the terms of the lease, has not power to do anything about it. I would ask if the noble and learned Viscount would consider that aspect when looking into this matter: that the landlord must bear responsibility for the neglect if he is responsible for it, and, if he is not responsible for the neglect, that he should be able to re-enter into responsibility, so as to put himself into the position of carrying out his obligations to the country.

THE EARL OF RADNOR
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on this Amendment. Not the least interesting part is that we have had from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, a most forthright declaration that it is necessary for us to have maximum production from our land. I do not think we have ever had that from either this Government or any previous Government, and I am only sorry that it should be followed by the words, if I am right, "or otherwise we may face starvation." To return to this Amendment, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for saying that he will look into it. When he really looks into it, he may see that there is something in it. I cannot pretend that I followed in full detail the noble Earl's statement, because it was a very detailed one, but I hope to give it a more full examination before Third Reading. However, I would like to put forward a suggestion about which I have not had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues at all. One of the difficulties about this question of taking over the leasehold interest rather than the freehold interest is that you may have to take over the land when there is only a short period of the lease to run. During that time, you may have to spend a lot of money which is not recoverable because, on the termination of the lease, you have to hand back the land in the condition in which it was originally taken over by the original leaseholder, which one would presume was reasonably good.
That is an argument with which I have a very considerable sympathy, and I 777 think it is unfair on His Majesty's Government. It occurs to me that we might be able to find some words that, on taking over a leasehold, the leasehold should be deemed to be at its commencement. That would avoid taking the freehold. It would give the freeholder what we hope would be a very good leaseholder for a further full time of the lease, and it would also give the Ministry of Agriculture the full time in which not only to put the estate in order but also to recover by trading, and good farming perhaps, the money which they have so spent. I put that forward as a suggestion for consideration. Meanwhile I will withdraw this Amendment, on the assurance of the Lord Chancellor that it will be looked into.
I would say this before I sit down: unless something is done, it will mean the end, not only of these arrangements between neighbours, spoken of by my noble friend Earl De La Warr, but it will also mean the end of all leaseholds in agricultural land. There are quite a number of people who believe that leaseholds of fourteen or twenty-one years are the one way in which to give the farmer that security of tenure for improvements and progressive farming which he needs. If you do not do something of this sort, the owners of the land will never again offer land on a long lease. When existing leases reach the end of their term they will be terminated, and we shall not make a new lease. So it will mean, if nothing is done, that the owner of land will never again make a lease, and that the existing leaseholds will just die out.

§ LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER
My Lords, I speak as a fool but, listening to this discussion, is not the answer to make it possible legally, if these things happened, to terminate the lease in spite of what the lease happened to be? Does that get round it, or does it not? I listened to this and, if you are responsible for giving a repairing lease to X, arid X then misbehaves himself, are you, as the landlord, not able to say that that is the end of it? I may be entirely wrong.

§ EARL STANHOPE
My Lords, I think I may be able to quote a case that I know. There was a property which was let, a small quantity of agricultural land, with a house which is under the Rent Restriction Act. The tenant did not look after that land properly, and the owner 778 then tried to terminate the lease and get him out. It will amuse the noble End learned Viscount to know that this was a matter which came before a Judge of the High Court, who said that that land was not agricultural land because it was not mown for hay. He had never heard of such a thing as land which is grazed; and, therefore, the landlord was unable to terminate the lease, and to get hat land into his possession. That is the case to-day, and that comes under this clause as a case where the landlord can do nothing. It may be that the county agricultural committee may find that this is now agricultural land, and what will happen if the case is again brought Mare the Court I do not know. That is a case that did occur; and, incidentally, I might tell the noble and learned Viscount that it is one of the things that persuaded ma that he was right in having the tribunal, which we are going to discuss later, and that the matter should not come before a Judge of the High Court.

THE EARL OF RADNOR
In answer to the noble Lord, as I tried to explain, it is practically impossible for a landlord to get rid of a tenant without going to the county committee or to the Minister.

LORD LINDSAY or BIRKER
Nay I be allowed just to say that though. I spoke as a fool I did not speak as so big a fool as all that! I was assuming that the proper way of dealing with these difficulties was to pass an Amendment to give landlords different powers over this matter.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY
My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, might I refer to one point? I am glad to hear that the Lord Chancellor is going to consider this. I would suggest that a case of this sort might, in the end, result in deterioration in farming and land management. Consider the case of a smallholding or a large holding let on a repairing lease in the middle of a large and well-managed estate. It is quite possible that it could happen, and perhaps in some circumstances it will happen. If that holding is taken over, as the Bill now stands it will result in an island of ownership within a large area managed systematically and properly through the office for the management of the estate itself. That would clearly be 779 increasing the difficulties of management, rather than helping them. I hope that when the Lord Chancellor is considering this matter he will bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, has said, and that it will be possible to make provision in the Bill whereby a lease of this sort can be terminated on the order of the Minister, or by appeal, or in some other way.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 4.20 p.m.

§ Clause 17 [Dispossession on grounds of bad husbandry]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this Amendment is similar to that on Clause 16 at page i6, line 13, and provides for similar arrangements to apply to farmers. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 17, line 36, at end, insert ("together with such particulars as appear to the Minister requisite for informing the recipient of the notice as to the general grounds on which the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this relates to the minimum period of twelve months and applies to farmers. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 17, line 43, leave out from ("made") to ("from") and insert ("until not less than twelve months has expired").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 20 [Service of notices on agents]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point—or partly to meet a point—brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, on Committee stage. As I gather that the noble Earl agrees with the Amendment I will not say anything further about it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 39, at end, insert ("Provided that where by virtue of this subsection any notice is served in connection with a direction to entrust the management of land to a person approved by the Minister, and the owner of the land is entered on the register kept for the purposes of this Part of this Act, a copy of the notice shall be served on the owner at the address entered on the register in that behalf").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

780

§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH
My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 21 [Interpretation of references in Part II to "owner" and "manager"]:

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, this is the counterpart of an Amendment which we had before. It provides for the keeping of a register in order that the Minister may know whom he has to consult. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 23, line 35, at end, insert: ("(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the Minister shall keep, in such form as he may determine, a register of owners of land and other persons who are trustees of, or interested under, settlements as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of Section sixteen of this Act, being in any case persons who in the prescribed manner apply to be entered in the register").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, may I ask if this is a new register of owners of all land which has now to be set up—a new Domesday Book? I see the first part of the Amendment reads that: For the purposes of this Part of this Act the Minister shall keep, in such form as he may determine, a register of owners of land and other persons who are trustees of, or interested under, settlements… . and so on. I think, if I interpret the words correctly, that this must involve the creation of something equivalent to the Domesday Book.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, may I point out that it applies only to those who in the prescribed manner apply to be put in the register. You need not be put in the register if you do not apply. It is merely a question of whether you are certain that you are to be consulted. Whether you go in the register is purely optional.

§ LORD HASTINGS
I do not think one would have gathered that from reading the Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 25 [Measure of compensation for improvements, etc., in Fourth Schedule]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this Amendment is again to meet a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, and is designed to secure that a landlord is warned of proposed 781 mole draining. I think this meets the noble Earl's point and I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 26, line 35, at end insert: (5) A tenant shall not be entitled to compensation for an improvement specified in paragraph 1 of the Fourth Schedule to this Act unless not later than one month before the improvement was begun he gave notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to carry out the improvement."—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for having gone so far as he has done in this; but may I say that he seems to have got mixed with regard to a principle which was referred to in the discussions on Second Reading? This was that if a tenant carried out certain improvements for which grants were available he could, at his outgoing, apply to the landlord for compensation as if those grants had been paid. Here is a completely different principle. The tenant must notify the landlord of his improvement if he is going to be able to get the grants.
I think that is very important, because it goes contrary to another principle which was mentioned in earlier discussion on the Bill. However, I have little more to say except to thank the noble Earl for going as far as he has done. I would, however, like to add that mole draining, and such works as water and electricity connexions, and so on, which are laid under ground, have become in these last twenty years what might almost be termed a new procedure having regard to the extent to which they have been carried out. So it is not merely a question of compensation, because a great many farm tenants do not apply if the amount involved is not going to be large. They prefer not to go through all the procedure which is involved. Therefore this Amendment does not entirely meet my point. I believe that a new principle should be admitted in that in all cases of mole drainage notice should be given to the landlord before any actual drainage is done at any time.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 30 [Compensation for disturbance]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

782

§ Amendment moved— Page 31, line 3, after ("tenant") insert ("contravenes or").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 31:

§ Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings.

§ (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 0:: efficient farming or good estate management; 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 hale 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 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.