Prayers. (Hansard, 30 July 1947)

HL Deb 30 July 1947 vol 151 cc737-818 782

§ 4.25 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 32, line 15, leave out ("or good estate management") and insert ("whether as respects good estate management or good husbandry or otherwise").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
My Lords, on a point of Order, may I ask whether it would not be for the convenience of all your Lordships, if, when dealing with the next Amendment, we deal at the same 783 time with the three which follow? The arguments either in favour or against will be along the same lines.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (b), to insert: (c) where the tenancy was created after the passing of this Act, that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for a purpose, specified in the contract of tenancy, for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy, and that.

§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think this is the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has in mind. I suggest that it would suit the convenience of your Lordships if we considered the Amendments together. This would include those which have been put down by my noble friends Lord Hastings and Viscount Bledisloe.

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, it would entirely suit my convenience to have one debate on these matters, but that must not be taken to mean that I would withdraw my Amendment with the mass.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, what I propose is that we should have one discussion on these Amendments, and then vote on the Amendments separately. This matter was discussed at some length on the Committee stage. The issues involved are considerable, and in the previous discussion there was a certain obvious divergence of views between the two sides of the House. Since then we have considered very carefully the speeches which were made by noble Lords in the Committee stage and the points which they raised. We have tried to meet noble Lords to a very considerable extent, and your Lordships will see that a number of Amendments have been put clown to this clause which do, I think, widen the provisions as originally suggested to quite a considerable extent. I hope that after examination your Lordships will agree that we, have in fact gone quite a long way in this matter. The first Amendment provides that after the Bill has become an Act then where a landlord specifies a definite intention when he enters into a tenancy agreement and writes that intention into the agreement, the Minister may grant consent to a notice to quit if greater hardship would be caused by withholding it. At this point I should, per- 784 haps, apologize because on the Committee stage I might not have made it clear that hardship was involved in every case. I considered that it was in the context and I meant to say so. If there was any misunderstanding, I apologize for the ambiguity of the words which I may have used.
The second Amendment at line 26 deals with a person who owns or acquires land before the Bill becomes law and who intends to give notice to quit to a tenant. It gives the Minister power to consent to a notice and widens the whole intention of the clause. It has been pointed put on Lord Hastings' Amendment that hardship might arise where the owner of land before the passing of the Bill, whose intention was that his son might eventually farm that land, dies subsequently to the Bill being passed, and the son is unable to dispossess the tenant. The Minister would not have the right to give consent to a notice to quit in these circumstances. Hardship might arise in such a case but, on the other hand, looking at the broader picture, your Lordships must appreciate that the great principle underlying the Bill is that of giving the farmer security of tenure. If a tenant-fanner dies, the owner can get back the, land without any application to the Minister and without even paying compensation. That is again a hard case against the son Of the tenant-farmer, just as we have mentioned a hard case against the son of an owner. Your Lordships may not agree, but it can be discussed. If we admit the principle embodied in Lord Hastings' Amendment it would open the door very wide indeed, and if we accepted Viscount Bledisloe's Amendment on the question of blood relations it is wry hard to say where it would stop.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
My Lords, that was put down before the Amendment moved from the Woolsack by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was put on the Paper. Had I known that Amendment was to be submitted, I would have substituted for "blood relation" words to cover such persons as were intended to be covered by the Amendment moved to Clause 16.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
This is really a compromise as to how wide the clause should be opened. As it is, I feel that we have gone a long way to meet opinion on the other side of the House, 785 in that we have given landowners the right in the case of a new tenancy to insert in the tenancy agreement what their intention is, which will give them a chance to get rid of a tenant at some future date. In regard to the son, I should like to say that, supposing the owner dies and the son succeeds and he wishes to dispossess one of the tenants, then there will be two lines of action which he may follow. If he can prove he is an efficient fanner and an enterprising man with experience, it will be quite possible. Alternatively, he could wait for a vacancy, when a tenant on the estate dies and he could take over. I hope your Lordships will agree that we have evolved a reasonable compromise. We have given what we can, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.

§ Amendment moved— Page 32, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
My Lords, I for my part should like cordially to thank the noble Earl and the Government for attempting to meet us to a very considerable extent in trying to obtain fair treatment for at any rate a member of a landlord's family who is a more competent and, from a national point of view, a more desirable person to occupy part of the estate as tenant. The small point I am putting is the case where, between the date of the passing of the Bill and the giving of notice, the landlord dies. The new owner, let us say his son, might well be a trained farmer and the sitting tenant may be a far less competent husbandman than the landlord's relation. I feel rather strongly about this.
We are coming to a time where the Government of this country will have to fix some sort of criterion of good farming. I know it has been said that something like only 5 per cent. of sitting occupants of agricultural land are incompetent. I would venture to say. with some considerable knowledge of farming in other countries, particularly in Holland, Denmark, Belgium and New Zealand, that the average standard in those lands is considerably higher than it is in this country. I am not at all sure that we, as a nation, can afford to keep on the land men who are not capable of obtaining the maximum output of food and timber—a fact to which the 786 Lord Chancellor referred in somewhat dramatic terms this afternoon. That toting so, where you have a member of a landlord's family who inherits his estates an I is a trained agriculturist, maybe trained for a long time on the farm of a competent farmer or at an agricultural college or agricultural department of a University, surely you must compare the value to the nation of that man and of the relatively incompetent sitting tenant. I say that in the national interest you ought to swing the balance in favour of a member of the family who is a trained farmer.
That brings me to the second point which I intended to raise, what is called greater hardship. I feel inclined to ask, greater hardship to whom? If you mean greater personal hardship, I venture to suggest that that is not the criterion which should govern the policy to be pursued under this Bill. What we have to consider is what is in the public interest, not what is likely to create a particular hardship as between one individual mud another. That is why I venture to acid the, words "or public disadvantage." I do not think I can say anything more, but I want to impress on the noble Earl and the Government that most noble Lords on this side and those who are not merely landlords but also practical farmers want to make a success of this Bill. We want to help the Government in every way to get the maximum output. We realize, and I am sure the Government realize, what a black picture is facing us to-day in regard to the provision of an adequacy of food for the feeding of this nation. I for my part have put down these Amendments in order to present the picture to the noble Earl. To those of us who are out not only for fairness to the landlord and family, but also for what is best in the public interest, it is a grim picture.

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, I feel that these two Amendments which are rut down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, indicate how complete is the failure of the Government to realize the revolutionary character of the proposals which they are attempting to embody in this Bill. It is the first time in any civilized country that an attempt has been made to enact that the rights of ownership do not take priority over the rights of occupation. The noble Earl indicated—if that were possible—an even greater failure to realize how fundamental these matters 787 are when he talked about the hardship caused by a tenant's son's inability to succeed automatically to his father's tenancy. He mentioned that in the same breath as the hardship inflicted upon an owner's son in not being able to occupy the land which he owned. If that does not indicate a perversity of mind, I do not know what does. It would cause my hackles to rise, if I had any! But we had all this out on the Committee stage, and it would be a waste of time to go over it all again.
What I think I am justified in doing now is to point out to the Government the inevitable consequences upon the operations of their own county agricultural committees of the framing of these clauses. When you have to determine a matter of hardship you get away from points of fact into the realm of opinion; and, of course, opinions are formed on the basis of ideologies. At the present time these county agricultural committees may—and do—contain representatives of various interests. But the members do not represent only those interests when they get into committee. Their object then is to improve the standard of farming in the area for which they are responsible, and to act as one body, reasonably directing their activities towards that end. If you are to compel these committees to discuss questions of hardship, you will immediately range the landowner members on one side, and the farming members on the other. The ideology of the landowner will be to hold that ownership has priority, and that the right of an owner to occupy the land he owns is fundamental; and the farming community will hold, quite naturally, that the right of the occupier is one which ought to rank at least equally with that of the owner, and should be judged solely upon the basis of whether or not the occupier is an efficient farmer, and, if he is, he ought to be allowed to remain where he is. Those things are patent and apparent.
Instead of having committees who will be able to devote the whole of their time and intelligence towards the purpose for which they have been formed, you will have them scrapping between each side about what is and what is not a case of hardship. Who are these committees to determine social questions of that kind? You will place upon them a burden which will be impossible for them to bear. After 788 all, these county agricultural committees are the basis upon which the effort to build up an efficient agriculture is to be made.. The Government, and the country as a whole, are going to be dependent upon these committees to an increasing extent in the future, far more even than was the case during the war. You do not want to rot away their time by making them debate social questions which they are wholly unqualified to consider. That is what you are going to do.
I beg the Government to make tip their mind to accept, what I know is unpalatable in some quarters—the principle of giving some direction to these committees, which would enable them to get on with their own jobs, by saying that where the owner wishes to occupy his land the Minister shall not interfere, bearing in mind all the time that there are at the beginning of the clause the words, "Without prejudice to the discretion of the Minister," which reserve to the committees and the Minister absolute power to debar an undesirable owner from entering into occupation. At the end of the clause there are other provisions whereby either the owner or occupier can, if he feels aggrieved, take his case to the agricultural land tribunal. There is a complete safeguard against the bad man entering into occupation. If only the Government would admit the principle, they would simplify the work of their county agricultural committees, because they would not then have to determine these questions which are impossible of determination.
I recognize to the full that the Government have gone a long way to meet the very strong feeling which has been germinated on this question, and I do not want to stress too much the case of the landowner per se. What I do want to stress—and I think I have stressed—is the immense difficulty which the Government are placing in the way of the functioning of their county agricultural committees. I would dearly like to see that simplified, so that we should not have our county agricultural committees wasting their time on subjects with which they were not qualified to deal. I shall reserve to myself the right to move my Amendment, if I so please when this debate is over. For the moment I shall be content with what I have already said, hoping against hope that that particular argument will have weight with the Government, for I confidently believe that it is a very strong one.

789

§ 4.48 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR
My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on this, as at an earlier stage I moved the original Amendment for which this is a substitute. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, when he moved his Amendment, said something on the question of a tenant's son not having the right to follow his father—from which I assumed that his argument was that there should be, so to speak, equality of treatment as between a tenant farmer and a landowner. I think he entirely forgot that that equality of treatment is not there. The tenant can give his landlord one year's notice in any year that he likes, whereas the landlord cannot give his tenant notice in any year that he likes; he has to go through a great deal. I would add, as a further argument on this point, that when he takes on a farm and signs the agreement the tenant knows the circumstances, and knows that his son is not necessarily going to succeed him when he dies.
The noble Earl also said that this was a workable compromise. I am not certain what he meant by the word "workable." As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, pointed out, it will not be easy to work, although it may come within the meaning of "workable." I am afraid, as is the noble Lord. Lord Hastings, that in their attempts to decide any questions which may arise under this Amendment, if inserted in the Bill, the committees will be split from end to end, and I am also afraid that they will be split with the owners of the land upon one side and the farmers and the workers on the other side. The latter will be in the majority and the owner will get—to put it in ordinary language—"the dirty end of the stick" every time. That is my fear.
There is one other remark I want to make, and that is with regard to something my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe said. He said that the average standard of farming in this country was very much lower than in other countries.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
In certain other countries.

THE EARL OF RADNOR
In certain other countries. But I do not think the noble Viscount is right. I believe that the average yields in this country in all forms of produce are higher than in any of the countries which he mentioned. I will say this, that there are far too many 790 indifferent farmers—I have not the figures with me—and, indeed, there are so ma ay indifferent farmers that I think it cm be placed to the discredit of the county committees.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
I am afraid the noble Earl must allow me to contradict him, because statistics are against him. The statistics with regard to food output, certainly in Holland, certainly in New Zealand, certainly in Denmark, and, I believe, in Belgium, show that the average output per acre is considerably higher than the average output per acre in this country. I do not want to discuss it now, but I cannot let it pass without some comment. If I may venture to say so, I am not condemning the farmers of this country. I think we have some of the best farmers in the whole world, but the average yield, both of our farms and livestock, leaves a great deal to be desired.

THE EARL OF RADNOR
I am not going to argue with the noble Viscount, because he knows his figures much better than I do, but I was under the impression that what I said was right, although I agree with him that there are far too many indifferent farmers in this country now, even after the pressure which was put upon them during the war. It is said that half a loaf is better than no bread. I suppose the same would apply to a quarter loaf being better than no bread, because I do not look upon this as being more than one quarter of what we want. That word "hardship" was not mentioned before, and when the noble Earl was speaking during the Committee stage I did not realize that it was all going to be dependent upon that word "hardship." I would have the House realize that not only is it dependent upon that word "hardship," but that it is still at the discretion of the Minister. The owner of land has absolutely no discretion at all in this matter beyond appealing to the Minister; and it is left to the Minister to say whether there is hardship or not. As somebody said, hardship for whom? For the country? For the individual? For the land? Or what?
That is why I feel that this is just one-quarter of what we wanted, and nothing like what we ought to have. It does not touch the fringe of the problem, and it course of time it will result in every 791 tenancy agreement having the saving clause provided for. It will also tend, I think unduly, to make owners farm their own land and not put their head into the noose. Whether that is good for tenant farmers, and whether it is good for farming in this country, I do not know; but it will be the inevitable tendency, and in that way you are not safeguarding the tenant in the way in which you hoped. In those circumstances, as I know that the noble Earl has done everything he can to meet our point of view, I am prepared to support this Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Hastings will not press his Amendment, because I know that it will be unacceptable and I do not believe that we could ever get it.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I think in the normal course of events, when we are going to accept an Amendment, it is generally better to do so right away, without saying anything more. I am glad that I have the concurrence of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. But this is rather an exceptional Amendment; it is one on which I think it only right that this House should put its views on record before we do in fact make a most unwilling acceptance. In saying "unwilling", I do not want to seem in the least ungrateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who I know have done their best to get clauses drafted which would meet our point of view. Undoubtedly these Amendments as they stand will make the Bill slightly better than it was before.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said this was a quarter loaf—I was thinking he might say one-eighth, but we will not quarrel over that. We on this side of the House, although many of us are landowners ourselves, have tried very hard not to put ourselves purely on the side of the owner, but to look after the agriculture industry as a whole. Clause 31, as it will finally reach the Statute Book, is going to be a boomerang for the farmer himself. We do not believe that this is just a case of a victory, shall we put it, of the National Farmers' Union over the Central Landowners' Association. I believe it is something which is ultimately going to be a source of hardship to the farmer himself.
792 We said these things on the Second Reading and, I think, on the last stage of this Bill, but I feel that it is important to repeat them. The farmer has his sons coming along, wanting to find new farms, and it is farmers who are going to be affected. Few farmers have against the private landowner security which they have not got against the State. I will give two instances. Under the New Towns Act there are known to be men looking for farms, and there is the case mentioned by the noble Earl himself on Committee stage of new blood coming into the industry; I think he had an engineer friend who was interested in it. None of that class of farmer is going to find it very easy in future—not half as easy as in the past—to find a vacant farm. If and when such men do come upon a farm of which it is possible to get vacant possession, as often as not they will find that they have to pay heavily for that possession. The farmer who has a tenancy will say, "Yes, I am prepared to give up this tenancy, but only in return for a very heavy payment," and that payment will amount to far more than the one or two years' rent which is mentioned as compensation in the Bill.
That is one set of reasons why I think the farmer will not gain by this clause. But there is another. Let us remember the distribution of the profits of the industry of agriculture at the moment and the fact—I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has already mentioned this point—that it is far more profitable to-day, and is likely to be for a long time to come, to farm than to own land. That is bound to be so; that has been the case for many years, and it is likely to continue so. Let us remember, also, that it is a great deal more profitable today to sell your land than to let it.
Are we quite sure that we are not driving the landowners into the position of saying that when a farm becomes vacant they will have to consider very carefully whether they are going to let it or farm it themselves, or put it up for sale and obtain the economic sale value? They know perfectly well that if they let it they are not going to get an economic rent, because none of us ever does. I feel, and I think a great number of other noble Lords feel, that this is likely to be a very unwise victory against the landowners. We should record that as our view—at the same time making it clear 793 that we recognize that this is certainly as far as the Government are prepared to go, and that the advice already given to your Lordships by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and others, is wise.

§ LORD HAZLERIGG
I wonder if I might make one suggestion? Is it possible that any special case can be made out for the home farm? There are cases where a man dies as a comparatively young man. His widow may live in the house with a boy of perhaps six or seven, and when that boy becomes a young man of, say, twenty-five years of age or so, he may want to have the farm. It seems to me a very special case, and as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, have been so friendly, I thought they would not mind my making that suggestion.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
We naturally welcome a suggestion from such a distinguished farmer as the noble Lord who has just spoken. I must also pay tribute to noble Lords opposite for the generous way in which they have accepted the fact that we have gone a long way to meet them. We have done our best to meet noble Lords on a very difficult and controversial point. I should like to deal with one or two of the points raised in this extremely interesting discussion. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, raised the question of public interest. I think that that would be covered by efficient farming. In fact one of the reasons why we brought in these words "efficient farming" was to give the Minister much wider power. We do not want "efficient farming" just to mean the actual farming of the holding, but that farming in general, throughout the country, shall be covered by the expression. I do not think, therefore, it would be necessary to bring in the question of public interest, because it is already fully covered under the Bill in this way. I am glad to see that the noble Viscount does not propose to press his Amendment on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, raised some interesting points, and I do not want to join issue with him on the problem of fundamental rights, on which we all feel very strongly. The discussion might go on far into the night if we started on it. I might say, however, that conditions this country are changing very 794 considerably. We all admit that. We hope that this Bill will bring about an absolutely dynamic change in the whole farming industry. If it does not—if conditions are not very different from what they were between the two wars—we shall have failed. There was a particular point which Lord Hastings raja d in connexion with the committees. He pointed out that there were, after all, a certain number of people whose sympathy might be with the landowners, and others who might incline more towards the farming interest; and that there maybe a division of loyalty which will make judgment and decisions difficult in hardship cases. The committees admittedly are going to have an extremely responsible and difficult task to carry out, and on them hangs very largely the success of our policy in agriculture. But these cases of hardships which would come up to the committees might well in time divert their energies from tackling the day-to-day problems, and one hopes such cases will be extremely few. I do not think you are going to get a large number of cases of people who were owners before the war and who are giving notices to qui[...]. There will be a few, but not a tremendous number. Also I do not see why the committees should not act in a judicial capacity on these different cases, just as our exemplary legal system acts in a completely impartial manner. The find responsibility will not, however, rest on the committees. They may make certain recommendations, and then either side will be at liberty to appeal, not only to the Minister but to an impartial tribunal. That may ease very largely the peace of mini of the committees.
There was a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—and I could not help thinking that some noble Lords are thinking rather in terms of the past than of the future. It is perfectly true to say, I imagine, that, anyway for a long period of years, farming profitability has been extremely low, and the return to the landowner from farm property has been, one might say, miserably low. But the whole of our intention is that it should not go on being miserably low. We want to see farmers prosperous and producing all the food we need and getting a real return for their ingenuity and labour. At the same time we want to see the landowner who manages efficiently, who provides the goods and 795 equipment needed, get a proper return. And for that purpose we have instituted what we hope and believe will be a live system of arbitration which, in the event of disputes between the landlord and the tenant, will produce an economic, sound basis on which rents can be fixed.

§ LORD HASTINGS
There is nothing in the Bill instituting a new arbitration system. It is a mere repetition of the 1923 Act system.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
I think the basis is different though I agree that the system is not new. We know that in the past it has happened, through the fact of the depression of the agricultural industry, that rents have not perhaps been what they should have been. We intend to do everything we can to help the agricultural industry to achieve prosperity, to give us the food we so badly need, to give the farmer a fair return, and at the same time compensate the owner in the form of rents and management. That is our intention and one sees no reason why the arbitrator should not be fair and reasonable on these subjects. Certainly that is our intention. I stress that point particularly because many noble Lords seem to look at the matter in the old light, that farming never has been profitable.
Let me say again, however, that I do recognize that noble Lords have been extremely generous. Having explained that we have done our best to meet the points of the noble Lords in this matter, I earnestly hope that the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Viscount Bledisloe, will withdraw their Amendments—and that the House will accept what may be half-a-loaf .

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, I have just two remarks to make. The noble Earl in introducing this Amendment spoke of hardship in the case of a tenant who died and the son who succeeded being turned out; he used that as an argument against this right being given to the landowner. Ire all the proceedings that have gone before in this Bill, I do not think that any of your Lordships has ever denied that that might be a hardship and, speaking entirely for myself, I would gladly consider conceding compensation as well as notice in such a case in return for something rather wider than this Amendment.

796

§ EARL STANHOPE
My Lords, might I remind the Government of an old French saying. I am not going to cross swords with Viscount Bledisloe on manures and so on; there is a French saying that "the best manure is the owner's foot." If you want really to produce the greatest amount of food in this country that you can, do not forget that old saying.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of an Amendment to insert: (c) That the notice to quit is or is proposed to be given by a landlord who acquired his interest in the holding to which the notice relates before the passing of this Act or who acquires that interest by inheritance after the passing of this Act. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had our debate, as we agreed, upon these Amendments. I have no intention of pressing my Amendment or even speaking to it, but I would like to endorse what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, and, perhaps, to put it more strongly. Security of tenure is a thing without which a farmer cannot do. But, if you overdo security of tenure, you change it from an incentive to do good work to an incentive to do nothing, and it is my belief that by insisting upon this Clause 31, those who represent the farmers' interests have driven more nails into their own coffin than anything else they could possibly have done. I regard it as the height of folly that this clause should find its way into the Agriculture Bill. With those remarks, I will leave the matter.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 32, line 26, at end insert— ("(d) where the tenancy was created before the passing of this Act and the same person was landlord at the passing thereof as at the time when the notice to quit was given or, if the application for the Minister's consent is made before giving the notice to quit, at the time of the application, that greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
My Lords, I do not propose to move the Amendments which I had put down to this Amendment, but I do want to say this. The 797 noble Earl just now said that the landowners must look for their reward for their management to this Bill. I venture to suggest that they will expect a little more remuneration for their management. As long as agricultural land remains private property, if they are going to equip their property properly, they must have some return.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, I beg to move that the proviso in subsection (3) be omitted.

§ Amendment moved— Page 32, leave out lines 35 to 35.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, I beg to move that these words be inserted.

§ Amendment moved— Page 33, line 4, after ("substitution") insert ("(except in so much of paragraph (d) of the said subsection (3) as relates to the application for the Minister's consent)").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.16 p.m.

§ Clause 36:

§ Variation of terms of tenancy as to permanent pasture.

§ the Minister may, after affording to the landlord and to the tenant an opportunity of malting 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 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.

§ LORD HAZLERIGG moved, in subsection (1), after "aforesaid", to insert: "having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is one which was moved before, and one which does not seem to have met with much favour in the eyes of the noble Earl or of the Government. It seems to me quite non-political and one which merely points the way to what these county agricultural committees should do. After the really friendly way in which the noble Earl who is conducting this Bill and the Leader of the House have met us, 798 I do not want to make a long speech and press this Amendment which may, perhaps, be met by some assurance being given that some directions will be put in to guide the county agricultural committees. I believe something was issued when the Bill was first introduced, which Lord Cranworth called the "Apocrypha"; I am not very familar with the "Apocrypha", but I imagine it is something to make the Bill more plain to the ordinary person.

§ As regards the Bill as a whole, I feel very much the same as when a person used to quote a saying to me: "The more, I see of some people, the more I love my dog." The more I read this Bill the more I love the liberty of action which is being taken away from the landowners, good, bad or indifferent. I would not like to differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe; I know he praised this Bill when it first came in; it seems to me that he sang the nunc dimittis of the squires. There was never a time when squires were more needed. Even though he got another gold medal this morning—a non-political one; he was told this morning that he was not only the old man of agriculture, but the grand young man of agriculture; I was hoping that someone would say "the Peter Pan"—I believe that in a few years' time he will be writing the obituary notice of the tenant farmer. It seems to me that people will in future be very careful how they let their land when a tenant dies.

§ I do not wish to make a long speech, but I do feel that it would be worth while if some direction could he put in about this question of ploughing up permanent pasture. We have been told to-day, once or twice, that it is quite easy for a landowner to go to arbitration. I can tell you of a case where a fine grass field was taker. by a farmer in the second year of this last war, which was worth £4 or £5 an acre as pasture, and he got the war agricultural committee to let him plough it up. He then went to arbitration because he said that the plough was not so valuable as the grass, and he got his rent reduced. He has that land for four or five years, when he makes money out of ploughing up good permanent pasture, and then it goes back to the landlord. That does not seem to me to be a very fair way of doing things, and I am inclined to think that arbitration is not going to do us a great deal of good in the 799 future. However, I say no more. I move this Amendment and, if I can get any assurance that something will be done to direct these county agricultural committees, that will satisfy me. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 39, line 15, after ("aforesaid") insert ("having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors").—(Lord Hazlerigg.)

§ LORD CHORLEY
My Lords, I have been asked to answer for the Government. We are very much in sympathy with the object which lies behind the noble Lord's Amendment. The reason why we cannot accept it is that it would have a limiting effect upon the discretion which is given to the Minister by the clause. To take one example: if, for instance, the farmer has a grass farm, then the maximum power to make an order might very well be cut down by that fact, and, at any rate, it would be doubtful whether he would have the power to reduce the amount of grass by a variation of the tenancy agreement, because of the words which the noble Lord asks should be inserted. On the other hand, as I say, we are very much indeed in sympathy with the object behind the Amendment, and I am able to give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks, in that the Minister will, in fact, when he issues his advice and instructions to the committees, make it quite clear that they are to take all these matters into account, and that, in particular, they are to pay regard to the character of the land before they reach a decision. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
My Lords, when this matter was discussed in Committee, I expressed very strong sympathy with the Amendment, particularly coming from the noble Lord opposite, who has, I think, a very strong case to urge, coming, as he does, from a county which is supposed to contain the most fertile grassland in the whole of this country. We certainly should have liked to see this provision inserted in the Bill, but, failing that, I imagine that my noble friend is about to withdraw the Amendment on the definite assurance that we now have, that instructions will be issued covering this particular point to all the county agricultural committees.

800

§ LORD ASHBURTON
My Lords, I would like to ask one question of the noble Earl. I do not understand why the Government are not satisfied with this Amendment because, after all, at the end of it there are the words "and to all other relevant factors." We did try and put this point before, and I cannot understand where they see the red light. We are only asking that the committee, who will be the body who have to consider this point, will bear in mind the character of the farm. If, having borne that in mind, they think that other relevant factors override it, they have still got the discretion, as I see it. Therefore, I cannot see where they are running any danger.
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that there has been some rather loose consideration of this particular Amendment. In fact, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that when this clause was being considered in another place, a most peculiar statement was made by no less a person than the Minister of Agriculture. I think I practically quote his words, although I do not happen to have the paper with me. He said, "I think of course it will work like this: that when a tenant farmer wishes to plough up some permanent grass he will make application to the county committee, which will, of course, inform the local authority." I suggest that that is a most curious and peculiar relationship to envisage between tenant and landowner, if the first the landowner is going to hear of it is from the county agricultural committee. I think this Amendment is well worthy of serious consideration, and I would beg the Government to see if they cannot think again.

§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN
My Lords, before we close the discussion on this Amendment, it seems to me that any Government assurance which may be given on this point ought to have regard to the question of buildings which might have to be provided by the landowner in the event of a direction being issued of such a kind that it would be necessary, in the interests of good farming, to alter the buildings. Earlier on in the discussions in this Bill we talked this matter out at some length on, I think, Clause 15, and before the noble Lord replies I would ask that any reply that he gives should take account of this point as well as the other points that have been raised.

801

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I am divided between, on the one hand, fury at the inadequacy of the reply and, on the other hand, the feeling that really the thing is not worth quarrelling about too much. We have been told frequently, after a fashion, that this is going to cut down the powers of the committee, but we have not had a single word explaining why that is so. Why should the fact that they should have regard to certain instructions, in any way limit their powers? Is it suggested that the instructions from the Minister may not be obeyed? I really do think, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment (if he is withdrawing it), that we are entitled, out of respect to the House, to some explanation on those two points.

MARQUESS TOWNSHEND
My Lords, I would point out that we are always getting assurances. I live in the County of Norfolk, where we have at the moment some feeling in regard to the Stamford battle area. Those people got a great deal more than an assurance that they would be returned to their land, or that the land would be returned to them. At the moment, they are in a very awkward position. They have not got the land back and, as far as I can see, they are not going to get it back. We are asked to accept assurances here. Admittedly, I think it may be said that this Government did not give these assurances, but members of this Government were all parties to the assurance given to the people in the Stamford battle area. I do not see why we should go on accepting assurances when we have such extraordinarily patent cases confronting us now. "This Amendment is not political in the very least. It makes no difference to politics. It is purely and simply a common-sense Amendment, moved, I may say, by Lords who know what agriculture is all about, and I think the Government would do well to pay attention to what they say. I would very much like the noble Lord to press this Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
My Lords, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I might say this. Some of us are very anxious not to have any Divisions on the Report stage of this Bill, but we do feel very strongly in regard to this particular point. I want to make a final appeal to the noble Lord and his col- 802 league as to whether something car riot be done on the Third Reading to satisfy us in this respect. It is a material point. Some of us have seen holdings altered by a tenant in this respect, and the whole, thing being thrown up, and a reversion to the more traditional method of farming upon that farm when a new tenant comes in. That is the sort of thing that will happen again.

§ LORD CHORLEY
With your Lordships' permission, might I reply to the points which have been made? This question, of course, is purely a question of law, if I may say so, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is quite wrong in saying that I did not explain this. I am very sorry if I did not explain. it as clearly as he would have liked me to do. As the clause stands, of course, it gives the Minister a wide discretion. The words in the Amendment cut down I hat discretion. It is true that the Amendment refers at the end to "all other relevant factors," but I am advised that in suite of that fact it does cut down the discretion. There are legal rules of construction and one of them is the rule called ejusdem generis, which comes into play when the word "other" is used. It means that it is to be construed in relation to the preceding words. I am certainly not going to lay down the matter as being one that is absolutely clear. But I am advised that the Amendment, as drafted and tabled, does in fact cut down the discretion of the Minister.
I should have thought that the illustration I gave was a good illustration, in that dealing with a grass farm the Minister's discretion might at any rate be held to have been cut down in such way as to Make it doubtful whether he had, in fact, the power to reduce the amount of grass by a variation in the tenancy agreement. The noble Lord referred to difficulties in connexion with war-time arrangements relating to civil defence and training, and matters of that kind, which are outside the scope of the Bill, and which, with great respect. I should have thought were hardly relevant here. On behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister I have given an explicit assurance which I understood the noble Lord who moved the Amendment would be content to accept. I am glad to repeat it, and to say that it has been given in the light of the discussion which 803 took place during the Committee stage of this Bill and with the full intention that such an instruction shall be given and that the county agricultural committees shall act in the light of it. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down could he answer the question put forward by my noble friend and myself? In what way is the Minister's discretion less fettered by an instruction than by putting this in the Bill?

§ LORD CHORLEY
In an Act of Parliament it must be construed according to strict legal rules of interpretation, and it might have to go before a court of law. In the case of an instruction it is a circular from the Minister setting out the sort of way in which agricultural committees shall act.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
May I put in just a word or two here? It seems to me that a number of noble Lords are anxious to have these words in the Bill, and the Government do not wish to put them in because of the ejusdem generis rule. May I suggest that this should be looked at between now and the Third Reading, and may I also suggest that the addition of the four simple words: "of any kind whatsoever" added at the end of the Amendment might well get rid of the difficulty relating to the ejusdem generis rule? The Government might well look at this again, and see if it is possible to put down an Amendment which will meet the point. An Amendment of this character will not do any harm in the administration of this Part of the Bill, for, as I understand it, it would only be in accordance with the intention of the Government; it would certainly give satisfaction all round and I gather that it would enable noble Lords opposite to avoid any legal difficulty.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, it is only by leave of the House that I may speak again but if I may have that leave, might I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the words in the Amendment are: "having regard to the character and situation …" In the assurance which he gave he mentioned only "character." Was that an intentional omission or a slip?

804

§ LORD CHORLEY
My Lords, I was reading the actual words which have been given me. I say quite frankly that I read the words accurately. They were: "relevant considerations including the character of the land." I imagine that character and situation of the land would both be included, but I am not in a position to say more than that.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, assurances are bad enough but if we have now to rely on imagination I feel that we are getting to a rather difficult pass. I think that the Minister should be able to say "Yes" or "No" upon this.

§ LORD CHORLEY
I shall be glad to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that this matter should be looked at again. Your Lordships will appreciate that my own position in regard to this matter is simply that I am holding the fort for my noble and learned friend.

§ LORD HAZLERIGG
My Lords, I feel that this discussion has gone on long enough. I am willing to accept the assurance which has been given, and I shall be glad if the Minister can give favourable consideration to the suggestion which Lord Llewellin has made. I am not going to argue a point of law. I am only a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and of course I would not know anything about such things. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 5.35 p.m.

§ Clause 41 [Power of tenant to obtain charge on holding in respect of compensation]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, the next three Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 42, line 27, leave out ("a person") and insert ("the tenant of a holding");

§ Page 42, line 28, leave out from ("landlord") to ("fails") in line 29 and insert ("and the landlord");

§ Page 42, line 31, leave out from the second ("the") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("tenant").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 48 [Acquisition by smallholdings authority of land for smallholdings]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this next Amendment is to meet 805 a point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on the Committee stage. We have had to alter slightly the words of his original Amendment—to give power to turn out an undesirable tenant. I hope that in view of the fact that we have gone a long way to meet him he will accept the new wording. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 45, line 42, at end insert— ("(45) Where a smallholdings authority have been authorised to acquire land for the purposes of smallholdings they shall not, except where in special circumstances it appears to them requisite so to do, exercise their powers of acquisition so as to require any person farming the land to give up his occupation of the land before such time as the authority are satisfied that the land is required, and can be adapted, for the purpose of smallholdings")—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. His Amendment probably meets the case much better than the words which I put down. It certainly seems to go as far as one would think that it should.

§ On Question, Amendment 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.

§ 5.38 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (6), after "appropriate" to insert "scientific." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, you will remember that I moved this Amendment during the Committee stage. Its purpose is to make it possible to include in the personnel of the Agricultural Land Commission one person who is a scientist. According to Clause 68 (6) the persons who will help the Minister in managing and farming land and advising and assisting him in regard to the management of agricultural land will be people "having appropriate technical, commercial or administrative qualifications." When I submitted this Amendment on the Committee stage the 806 noble Earl gave me to understand that his advisers had told him that the word "technical" included "scientific." I am afraid that I shall never quite agree with that proposition, and I doubt whether any of our research stations in this country would admit that it was so.

§ I should not have put this Amendment down again but for the fact that when I had moved it before I saw a very emphatic and affirmative nod iron the noble Lord who is the Master of Balliol. I thought that if an affirmative nod came from such an authoritative source it would be calculated to induce the Front Bench to alter their interpretation of the word "technical" and might induce them to accept "scientific," so that I might stand a chance on the Report stage if I moved. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 59. line 22, after ("appropriate") insert ("scientific").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)

§ LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER
My Lords, you cannot have technical qualifications without being a scientist, but you can be a scientist without having, in the meaning of this clause, technical qualifications. The question is whether you want on this hoard people who are fundamental scientists. It seems to me that what is wanted are applied agricultural scientists, and I should have thought it extremely desirable to have on the board, if you can get them, people who are by profession fundamental scientists, physicists or chemists. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, I am in rather a difficult position, coming under fire from both sides of the House on this Amendment. My information is that "technical" would cover a practical scientist but not a pure or research scientist. I should like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that I agree completely with his point of view that, in future, science must play a very important part in all our agricultural production, and I should be the first to support him in that respect. But actually the functions of the Land Commission are to manage land and deal generally with land taken over, to find tenants and so on, and only in very rare cases would they have to do practical farming. I suggest that a research chemist would not be the most appropriate person 807 to place on such a management committee, while "technical" would cover the practical scientist. I hope the noble Viscount will appreciate that and withdraw this Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE
My Lords, in spite of the valuable help I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay—incidentally I would say I had in mind not only the pure scientist; it is applied science we want so badly in our agriculture—I should not like to take the responsibility of inducing your Lordships to go into the Lobby in support of this relatively unimportant Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 70 [Annual report of Commission]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this Amendment meets a general point. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 60, line 24, leave out from ("shall") to ("prepare") in line 26 and insert ("as respects each financial year").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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

§ Amendment moved— Page 60, line 29, leave out ("in that year") and insert ("and accounts showing separately the results of the discharge of the said functions in relation to farming and in relation to the management of land").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this Amendment also follows. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 60, line 34, at end insert— ("(3) The accounts for each year shall be in such form as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury direct. (4) The report and accounts for any year shall be submitted to the Minister at such time as he may with the approval of the Treasury direct. (5) The Minister shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November in any year, transmit to the Comptroller and Auditor General the accounts prepared by the Commission under this section for the financial year last ended.")—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

808

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

§ Amendment moved— Page 60, line 36, at end insert ("and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine and certify the accounts of the Commission transmitted to him under this section and lay before Parliament copies of the accounts, together with his report thereon").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 71 [Establishment and functions of County Agricultural Executive Committees]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this is a very obvious Amendment dealing with the County of London. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 62, line 5, leave out the second ("and") and insert— ("(c) the county of London shall be treated as if any such part thereof as the Minister may direct were included in such adjoining administrative county as he may direct, and").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 73:

§ Establishment, constitution and procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals.

§ (3) The Minister may by order make provision for the procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals, for the sitting of a Tribunal in two or more divisions and for the assignment of the work of a Tribunal among the divisions thereof.

§ (4) Any order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament forthwith after being made.

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

§ Amendment moved— Page 62, line 23, leave out from ("determining") to ("matters") in line 24.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.47 p.m.

§ LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (3) to leave out from "Tribunals" to the end of the clause and insert: and in particular—

(a) for the taking of evidence on oath, affirmation or otherwise and the cross-examination of witnesses, and for the summoning of witnesses in like manner as for the purposes of an arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923;
(b) for the recording and proof of the decisions of the Tribunals, and for enabling the Tribunals to decide by a majority;
(c) for the sitting of Tribunals in two or more divisions, and for the assignment of the work of a Tribunal among the divisions thereof.

(4) An order under the last foregoing subsection may make different provision for the procedure on different classes of reference to the Tribunals.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage considerable discussion took place as to procedure before the tribunal, and my noble and learned friend gave the assurance that he would look at the matter and try to put down an Amendment which would improve the position. The Amendment now tabled has been framed for that purpose. It does, in effect, three things. It provides that the rules may deal with the question of evidence, the bringing of witnesses before the tribunal, their cross-examination, and other matters of that kind to which such importance was attached during discussion. Secondly, the Amendment provides that rules may be made for different types of procedure for different types of cases. I think it amply fulfils the assurance given. There is a third point which was not, to my recollection, discussed at the Committee stage, and which provides that the tribunal may come to a majority decision. Your Lordships are possibly aware that there has been a recent case of pensions arbitration in which it was decided that there must be a unanimous decision. In this type of case it is obviously necessary that the tribunal should be able to reach a majority decision, and this matter also has been covered in the Amendment. I hope your Lordships will accept it and regard it as satisfactory. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 62, line 30, leave out from ("Tribunals") to end of line 34, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)

§ EARL STANHOPE
My Lords, I wish to thank the Government, and particularly the noble Viscount on the Woolsack, for this Amendment in regard to the agricultural land tribunals. I would have preferred the rules to have been in the Bill rather than in orders of the Minister, but I recognize there is difficulty owing to the variety of questions which may come before the tribunal, and sometimes, different procedures are required. I think the Government have met our point so 810 far as they can do so, and I am grateful to them. I hope that not many questions will be decided by a majority. The tribunal consists of only three members, and it is not too much to expect that they may occasionally agree.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 84 [Acquisition of land by Minister to ensure full and efficient use thereof]:

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, to insert: (2) Before proceeding with the acquisition of land under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall refer to the Agricultural Land Commission for their report thereon the question whether the conditions are fulfilled as to which under the said paragraph (a) or (b), as the case may be, the Minister must be satisfied before acquiring the land, and shall take into consideration the report of the Commission. (3) On any such reference the Commission, after inspecting the land in question and making such other enquiries as appear to them requisite, shall prepare a draft report to the Minister on the question referred to them, containing such information as to work to be carried out, or fixed equipment to be provided or maintained, as mentioned in the said paragraph (a) or (b), as appears to the Commission necessary for indicating whether such work or equipment can reasonably be expected to be carried out, provided or maintained without the exercise by the Minister of his powers under subsection (1) of this section. (4) The Commission shall publish, in such manner as appears to them best suites for informing owners, lessees and occupiers of land to which a draft report under the last foregoing subsection relates, a notice stating a place where copies of the draft report may be obtained by owners, lessees or occupiers of any of the said land, and the time within which representations may be made to the Commission by any such owners, lessees or occupiers, either orally or in writing, as to the question referred to the Commission. (5) The Commission shall consider any such representations as aforesaid duly made, and any technical or other evidence adduced on the making of the representations, and shall then submit a report to the Minister, either it the terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as appear to the Commission expedient in the light of the said representations and evidence. (6) The Minister shall cause any report of the Commission under this section to be published.

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, you will remember how this arose. It is with relation to land which, in the opinion of the Minister, requites some very special treatment in order that it may be properly developed, and your Lordships were frightened lest this power 811 might be used to such an extent, as I or somebody said, that it would be "nationalization by a side wind." I wanted to give your Lordships what assurance I could in regard to that. I suggested that this was, perhaps, the best scheme: to say that this clause will be applied only within those limits with which I think we shall all agree, and not be extended unfairly. The proposal I make is this: that where the Minister is going to avail himself of the powers under this clause, he first of all shall refer the matter to the Agricultural Land Commission for their report on whether conditions are fulfilled under paragraph (a) or (b) as the case may be. The Commission, after inspecting the land in question, prepare a draft report. It is merely a draft report, but it contains such information as to work to be carried out, or fixed equipment to be provided or maintained, as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b). They then express an opinion as to whether that work can reasonably be expected to be carried out without the exercise by the Minister of his powers.

§ The third step is this. They then publish that report in such a way as to inform owners, lessees, and occupiers—telling them where they can see the report, so that an owner who is being attacked in this way will have precise details of what is said. They will not be vague or indefinite, but precise details. Having seen the report, he then has an opportunity of making his complaints, and the Commission then have to consider the complaints which the owner makes. They may amend their report in the light of the information they get, or they may adhere to the report. It is in the light of that second report that the Minister has to pronounce. I think that goes a long way towards complying with the assurance and satisfaction which your Lordships quite reasonably wanted. It gives a wider and more effective protection than the Amendment which was put down and discussed on the Committee stage. If your Lordships think this is satisfactory, the Minister of Agriculture is quite pleased to carry it out on those lines. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 69, line 23, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I should like very briefly to thank the noble and learned Viscount for moving 812 this Amendment, and for the trouble which I know he has taken in getting it drafted. For myself, I would have liked at the end to have a reference to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. However, we cannot have everything we want in life, and I think this goes a long way to meet our fears.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 95 [Special directions to secure production]:

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

§ Amendment moved— Page 80, line 12, leave out ("nature of the land") and insert ("character and situation of the land and other relevant circumstances").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment 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."

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert: (3) Section four of the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939 (which allows the use in rabbit holes of poisonous gas, and the placing in rabbit holes of substances generating poisonous gas by evaporation or in contact with moisture) shall apply to the use of such gas and the placing of such substances in any hole, burrow or earth for the purpose of killing animals to which this section applies.

§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this point was very strongly debated in the Committee stage, as noble Lords will remember. We have looked very thoroughly into the question, and we hope we have been able to meet the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, and others. There is now no question of using poison in the open at all, and it is restricted to gas. This, of course, deletes subsection (3), so that no additional power is given to people to put down poison. All the powers taken are for gassing animals, which, after all, is one of the more humane ways of 813 killing them. I hope that by putting down this Amendment we have gone a long way to meeting noble Lords, and that the House will accept it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 83, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ LORD COURTHOPE
My Lords, having moved in Committee the deletion of subsections (3) and (4), I should like to thank the noble Earl. I am sure that all lovers of animals and birds will join me in my gratitude. There is only one point I would like to raise. I was a little surprised that no Amendment was proposed to subsection (4) because, as I understand this, it definitely restricts the use of poisons to gases underground, and yet subsection (4) is left in, extending the range of birds of which special destruction is allowed. I would like to be assured that that will not be by poisoning.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
I think it is obvious that it is definitely restricted to earth and burrows underground, and I presume that no birds will be affected.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, perhaps it might be possible for subsection (4) to be reconsidered before Third Reading in order to see whether any Amendment is necessary to bring it into harmony with subsection (3). Certainly very few birds live in burrows.

§ EARL STANHOPE
My Lords, is it not the case that subsection (4) relates to subsections (1) and (2) as well as to subsection (3)?

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
That is the case.

§ LORD BINGLEY
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the trouble which he has taken. I am sure he has made the anxiety of those who live in the country very much less, and I hope this will achieve the object of coping with vermin.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, there is a further Amendment coming later on Clause 106. This one is consequential. I beg to move.

814

§ Amendment moved— Page 83, line 28, leave out ("the proviso referred to in").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 100 [Supplementary provisions relating to Sections ninety-eight and ninety-nine]:

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

§ Amendment moved— Page 84, line 11, leave out ("upon giving due notice").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 103 [Schemes for provision of agricultural goods and services]:

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

§ Amendment moved— Page 85, line 36, leave out ("commencement Of this Part of this Act") and insert ("coming into operation of this section").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 104 [Provisions as to representations]:

LORD O'HAGAN
My Lords, I think the Amendment which is on the Paper in my name is entirely covered by Amendment put down by the Government and therefore I will not move it. I should like to thank the noble Earl for meeting the point.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to insert: (5) No officer or servant of a county agricultural executive committee, or any subcommittee or district committee thereof, shall be appointed under the last foregoing subsection to receive representations relating to land in the area of the committee. The noble Earl said: My Lords, ibis Amendment is to meet the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and I hope the House will agree to it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 86, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.58 p.m.

§ Clause 106 [Provisions as to entry end inspection]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to insert: 815 (4) Save as provided by the last foregoing subsection, admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right in the exercise of any such power as aforesaid, other than the power conferred by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section twelve of this Act, unless notice has been given to the occupier of the land that it is proposed to enter during a period, specified in the notice, not exceeding fourteen days and beginning at least twenty-four hours after the giving of the notice, and the entry is made on the land during the period specified in the notice: Provided that where the power of entry is being exercised for the purpose of taking measures to secure compliance with a direction or requirement under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, and notice is given in accordance kith this subsection on the first occasion on which the power is exercised, no further notice shall be required before entering on the land on a subsequent occasion in connexion with the taking of the measures. (5) Where notice is served in a case falling within the proviso to the last foregoing subsection, and the person to whom the direction therein referred to was given, or on whom the requirement therein referred to was imposed, is not the occupier of the land, a like notice shall be served on that person. (6) Any notice served in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection or the proviso therein referred to may be served in like manner as the notice giving the said direction or imposing the said requirement.

§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, there was a considerable discussion on the Committee stage on this point, and if I remember rightly there was a Division on it. We went into the matter very carefully, and came to the conclusion that there was a lot of justice in what noble Lords said. We have therefore gone as far as we can to meet the House on this matter, on which such deep concern is felt. The Amendment as now drafted provides that notice shall be given to persons in all cases except of persons under supervision. We feel that in the cases of persons under supervision, who are actually being advised and directed, and possibly inspected quite frequently, if a member of a committee were obliged to serve notice every time he went to a farm, it would hinder the work by creating too much delay. We have conceded the point in every other case in which land is inspected, or when people enter on to land, that notice will be duly given. In the circumstances, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 87, line 13, at end insert the said subsections.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

816

§ LORD HAZLERIGG
My Lords, as I moved the Amendment on this point, and there was rather a muddle about it, which was probably my fault, I feel it is only right for me to thank the noble Earl for everything inserted in these four subsections. I had to read them over about four times before I was certain what they meant, and I came to the conclusion that they did mean exactly what the noble Earl has said they mean. I was wondering whether any county agricultural committee would really be able to understand them. I hope that this will also be put into the "Apocrypha" . But I am very grateful and feel perfectly satisfied. So far as men under supervision go. I should imagine that what would happen is that they would be told to meet the supervisor on the farm twice a week, at seven o'clock on Monday and seven o'clock en Thursday, to go round the farm with him.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I would like to add one word of thanks to the noble Earl. I think it meets us to a greater extent than we met ourselves. There is just one point upon which I should like him to give us an assurance—I would not think of asking him to alter the Amendment. One agrees that when an estate is under supervision it would be unreasonable to ask for this giving of notice, but I think there is one occasion when due notice should be given, and that is the final inspection which there must be before the decision is taken for the removal of the supervision order and the actual dispossession of an owner. If the noble Earl could give us an assurance that instructions will be given to Committees on that particular point we would be quite satisfied.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, I am very gratified that these Amendments have met with such general approval. In regard to the noble Earl's last point, I would be very happy to give the assurance that the committees will be instructed that in the event of a final inspection before dispossession the owner should be given due notice of time and date before the inspection takes place.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 108 [Regulations and orders]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, these Amendments refer to the question of the negative Resolution procedure which, we agreed, should apply 817 to the Minister's order laying down the rules of procedure for the Agricultural Land Tribunals. I suggest for the convenience of the House that we take these six Amendments together. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 88, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("and any order made by the Minister under Section seventy-three thereof")

§ Page 88, line 8, leave out ("are") and insert ("or order are or is")

§ Page 88, line 10, after ("regulations") insert ("or order")

§ Page 88, line 13, after ("regulations") insert ("or order")

§ Page 88, line 15, after ("regulations") insert ("or order")

§ Page 88, line 16, at end, insert ("or a new order").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 109 [Interpretation]:

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

§ Amendment moved— Page 90, line 1, leave out ("out") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 110 [Repeals]:

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

§ Amendment moved— Page 90, line 20, after ("are") insert ("save as provided in Part III of this Act").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Seventh Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

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

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 99, line 31, at end insert: ("12. In Section forty-one of the Act of 1923 (which relates to the recovery of compensation where the landlord is a trustee), for the words from 'and of all costs' in paragraph (iii) to the end of the section there shall be substituted— '(iv) a charge under this section shall charge the holding not only with the amount of the sum due as aforesaid but also with all costs properly incurred in obtaining the charge; (v) a charge under this section shall be created by order of the Minister in favour of the landlord or tenant, as the case may 818 be, and of his executors, administrators and assigns, and the order shall make such provision as to the payment of interest and the repayment of the sum charged by instalments, and shall contain such directions for giving effect to the charge, as the Minister thinks fit.'").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Twelfth Schedule [Provisions as to schemes for adjusting farm boundaries, or amalgamating farms]:

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, this Amendment is to meet a point which was raised in Committee by noble Lords. The effect will be that notice must be served on all owners and occupiers except where the names and addresses of such persons cannot be ascertained, in which case the notice would have to be affixed to the property or delivered to some responsible person on the land. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page III, line 36, leave out from ("(b)") to ("serve") in line 37.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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

§ Amendment moved— Page 112, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 11—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I have no comment to make on this Amendment, but if it would not be out of order, as this is the last Amendment before the House, I would like on behalf of noble Lords on this side to thank the noble Earl for the very thorough way in which he has endeavoured to meet us on this stage of the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, by leave of the House on behalf of my right honourable friend, le Minister of Agriculture, I would like to say that we are very gratified by the way in which noble Lords on the Benches opposite have expedited this stage of the Bill, and have very generously recognized our efforts to meet them. I think we have in that way been able to complete our proceedings in almost record time.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

c737