AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HL Deb 10 June 1948 vol 156 cc649-753

5.4 p.m.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The LORD HOLDEN in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Provisions as to payment of compensation for improvements.

1.—(1) Any agreement made after the commencement of this Part of this Act by an incoming tenant with his landlord to pay to an outgoing tenant any compensation payable by the landlord under or in pursuance of this Act in respect of improvements or to refund to his landlord any compensation payable as aforesaid which has been paid by the landlord to the outgoing tenant shall be null and void: Provided that an incoming tenant may enter into an agreement in writing with his landlord to pay to an outgoing tenant, or to refund to his landlord up to such maximum amount as may be specified in the agreement, any compensation payable by the landlord under or in pursuance of this Act in respect of the whole or part of any improvement included in Part III of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923 (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1923").

LORD MORRISON

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if this Amendment and the next, which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, were taken together. I think the noble Earl's Amendment was on the Order Paper first and after considering it we have endeavoured to put it in a briefer form. I hope he will agree that the three words we have proposed are equally effective to the twelve in his Amendment. The Amendment makes it clear that the provisions in the clause apply to tenants of holdings to which Part I of the Act applies. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 10, after ("tenant") insert ("of a holding").—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting me to some extent, although I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied. During the debate on Second Reading the noble Lord said he wished, in the course of the Committee stage, to explain certain points not made on Second Reading. There are a number of points which should be explained, and this is one of them. I admit that this Amendment is substantially of an exploratory nature. So far as it is possible, we want to make his Bill clear. Frankly, the Bill is not clear as it stands, and I am afraid that even this Amendment leaves it unclear. What I am trying to discover is: to what does Part I apply? The noble Lord has said it applies to all holdings under the 1923 Act. If he turns to that Act he will see that "holding" means: …any parcel of land held by a tenant which is either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral, or in whole or in part cultivated as a market garden… That seems to cover every conceivable form of agriculture, anywhere. There appears to be some idea that the term "agricultural holding" means something; but so far as I am concerned, it means nothing. If the noble Lord can explain to me what it means, I shall be only too glad. It is important that we should know exactly what Part I of the Bill does apply to. If it applies only to a certain type of holding, then on the question of whether the clause shall stand part, I shall have something to say on quite a variety of matters. What I want to discover is whether Part I of the Bill applies to small holdings.

LORD MORRISON

With the permission of the House I will endeavour to explain a little further to the noble Earl. I appreciate that he is anxious to avoid confusion about the position of crofters and small holders under Part I. To the best of my knowledge and the best of my advice, the noble Earl's anxiety is unnecessary, because the conditions of tenure of crofters and small landowners are covered by a separate code—namely, the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts. Part I and the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1923–1931, do not apply to crofters and small landholders. It was to clarify the position, because of the point raised by the noble Earl, that the Government Amendment which I have just moved was put down. The noble Earl has no doubt noted that the only difference between his Amendment and mine is that whereas he proposed to insert the words: of an agricultural holding to which this Part of this Act applies", I am convinced that this point is adequately met by my Amendment, which merely inserts, "of a holding."

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to make this clear. Part I does not apply to small holders. Does it apply to statutory small tenants? If the noble Lord is not sure of that, I will not press it now; but it is important that we should be clear. I am not speaking entirely for myself. I am speaking on behalf of people much better-informed than I am myself, but who are themselves not clear. I must press that before this Bill leaves this House it shall be made clear exactly what does and what does not apply. The noble Lord has said that these Acts do not apply, but I do not see how, within the structure of the Statute, there is any execution at all. I believe it has been suggested, for instance, that the small holding is not a lease. The 1886 Act says that "It"—that is the small holding—"shall be treated in the same manner as if the tenancy were a lease." So the fact that it is a lease certainly does not exclude that type of holding. If the noble Lord agrees that small holders, or statutory small tenants, are excluded, I am sure we can find a way out. I am merely seeking full information as to the position. It is for that reason that I have raised the matter.

LORD MORRISON

My information is that they are excluded, except in so far as other Acts of Parliament may apply to them. I can see by the noble Earl's expression that he is not yet clear, and I will endeavour, either later to-day, or certainly before we part with this Bill, to make it even clearer.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.13 p.m.

LORD POLWARTH moved to add to the proviso to subsection (1): "or in Part III of the First Schedule to this Act." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to try to clear up what seems to be a matter of some uncertainty in this clause. Later on in the Bill, as your Lordships know, there are provisions for the payment by the landlord of compensation to a tenant for improvements carried out by that tenant. This part of Clause 1 provides that in certain cases an incoming tenant may pay such compensation to an outgoing tenant, or else refund the amount of it to the landlord. It specifically refers to the amount of compensation payable by the landlord under this Bill. It then refers to compensation in respect of improvements included in Part III of the First Schedule to the Act of 1923. As your Lordships know, the improvements in the First Schedule of the Act of 1923 are not re-enacted exactly in the Schedule to this Bill; there are certain alterations. As I see it, the provisions of this clause should apply to the improvements in the Schedule to the Bill. It may be that the situation is covered, since the Schedule to the Bill we are discussing now will take the place of the Schedule of the 1923 Act. On the other hand, another interpretation that seems possible is that it is the intention that this provision should apply only to leases current when this Bill comes into force as an Act; in other words, it will not apply to leases entered into after that time. It is in the hope of clearing up this point and of getting some information on it that I beg leave to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 7, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD MORRISON

I think perhaps the noble Lord may have overlooked that in subsection (4) of Clause 86 it is made clear that: References in this Act to any enactment shall be construed, except where the context otherwise requires, as references to that enactment as amended by or under any other enactment, including this Act. The references throughout this part of the Bill to "the Act of 1923" are, therefore, references to the Act of 1923 as amended by the Act of 1931 and as now amended by this Bill. I must admit that it is difficult for laymen, such as the noble Lord and myself, to obtain a clear picture of the changes introduced into the agricultural holdings code by Part I of this Bill. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that the Government hope that at no distant date they will be able to introduce a consolidating Bill, which will make his task and mine easier.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I cannot even claim to be entirely a layman and I have the humiliating experience of not understanding what is meant even now. Is the effect of this that the proviso to Clause 1 is governed by Part III of the First Schedule of the Bill in regard to every future tenancy which may arise—in other words, that in any tenancy which is created to-day, the effective Schedule will, in fact, be the Schedule which appears in this Bill? That is the important point and, if I understand my noble friend correctly, that is the point he would like answered.

LORD MORRISON

That is so. I omitted to say that, in the opinion of the Government, the Amendment of the noble Lord is unnecessary, the point being already covered.

LORD POLWARTH

I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which clears up the point. I am particularly grateful for his assurance that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a consolidating Bill at an early date. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Compensation to tenants for improvements]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

moved, alter subsection (2), to insert: (3)In any cases where the right to compensation payable by the landlord to the tenant is altered by an alteration to the First Schedule to this Act, the landlord or the tenant may appeal to the Land Court who shall decide what compensation, if any, shall be payable to the tenant.

The noble Earl said: Clause 2 contemplates the possibility of changing the contents of the First Schedule from time to time. That necessarily creates, to some extent, a variation in instance of tenure between landlord and tenant. In order to meet that, the Secretary of State says that he will make such order as is necessary, which will take effect as appears to the Secretary of State to be just having regard to the variation of the said Schedule effected by the order.

How is it possible to make an order which will be just in every single case in varying Schedules, which will necessarily affect: a great variety of different types of leases? My Amendment provides that, the landlord or the tenant may appeal to the Land Court who shall decide what compensation, if any, shall be payable to the tenant.

The idea of that is to give individual effect to any variation which may or may not be necessary in the Schedules affecting improvements in tenancies. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment. I can see no reason why the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, should not accept it. After all, the function of the Land Court is to be fair between landlord and tenant. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, you cannot make one hard and fast rule simply by one Act, and it might be just as likely to be a hardship to the tenant as it is to the landlord. I can see no reason whatsoever against the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, allowing us this Amendment, which I very much hope he will do.

LORD MORRISON

I was unable to understand whether there is any sound reason why any dispute as to the amount of compensation due to a tenant should be referred to the Land Court instead of, as in other claims for compensation, to an arbiter.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Surely it is because we have a Land Court.

LORD MORRISON

The Land Court, of course, may come into the picture. Section 34 of the 1931 Act lays it down that, in cases where both parties are desirous that the matter should be referred to the Land Court, it will be referred to the Land Court. But in the case where one party is anxious that it should go to arbitration and the other to the Land Court, difficulties will arise. I think the noble Earl will agree that in these cases in Scotland, arbitration has been reasonably satisfactory over a fairly long period of years. Normally the variation would involve adding or removing items from the Schedule. As noble Lords know, Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to vary the provisions of the First Schedule to the Act of 1923. In those circumstances, I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

Before that Amendment goes, I would like to ask the noble Lord whether it is not a more suitable arrangement for appeals to be made to the Land Court rather than to arbitration. The noble Lord says that arbitration has proved quite useful or reasonable in the past, but I can remember a number of cases where arbitration has not been very satisfactory. I feel with the noble Lords who have spoken, that the Land Court is the proper court to which these cases ought to be referred. Points arise in connection with compensation of this kind which cannot always be settled satisfactorily by arbitration. I wish to support my noble friends and the Amendment which has been put forward.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

May I just emphasise that point? Does the noble Lord suggest that up to now the work of the Land Court has not been sensible and reasonable? Is there any reason why this body should not act in this case? Has the noble Lord anything definite against the Land Court? Surely it is the obvious body to deal with these things.

LORD MORRISON

I have not said a word against the Land Court—indeed on the contrary. I said that to the best of my knowledge and information the system of arbitration has worked well in Scotland, and that the Government see no reason why arbitration should be abandoned and everything pushed on to the Land Court. I would also point out to the noble Earl that I have already said that, in cases of dispute, where both parties desire that the case shall be referred to the Land Court, it can be so referred. Surely, that is a very reasonable system, and better than pushing every claim willy-nilly on to the Land Court.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

Why should it be left to only one party to refer this matter to an arbiter? Why should one party be favoured more than the other? If one party wants arbitration through an arbitrating court, and the other party wants the Land Court, why should the one who wishes to go to arbitration prevail? It is only fair that the Bill should decide in favour of the Land Court. In the general belief of noble Lords on this side, that is the fairest way of doing it.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

May I urge that the Land Court should be allowed to be the authority on this particular question? The Land Court is peculiar to Scotland, and everybody in Scotland understands what it is. There is no such thing in England. All those who have spoken so far come from Scotland and know what they are talking about. I suggest that a very good case has been made out why a Land Court should be the authority.

LORD MORRISON

I can only say that I am unable to go any further. I cannot understand why the House should suddenly wish to make a dead set against arbitration and push all these cases on to the Land Court. So far as my information is concerned—I stand to be corrected, and the noble Viscount has to a certain extent corrected me—the system of arbitration in Scotland had worked reasonably well, and I understood that there was no serious objection to it. I have already explained that, even in the case of dispute, if both parties agreed, the matter could go to the Land Court. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, says that because one wishes it to go to the Land Court and one to arbitration, why should it not go to the Land Court? I can put it the other way. If one wishes to go to the Land Court and one to arbitration, why should it not go to arbitration? I think I shall not be very wrong in suggesting that one reason might be that it is more expensive to put the case to the Land Court than to arbitration. That is usually a factor which is taken into account in Scotland. I am sorry that I am unable to go any further.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I should like to point out that it is cheaper to go to the Land Court than to arbitration.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

In the first place, we can assure the noble Lord that there is no dead set against arbitration—that is not the purpose of the Amendment at all. Indeed, I do not think that point arises. There is no specific reference at all to arbitration in this clause. The second point which I am trying to make is this. Arbitration normally deals with the question of valuation, and this is not purely a question of valuation; this is really a mixture of law and valuation. You have here the change of a Schedule in an Agriculture Act. That will affect some people favourably, and probably some people adversely. Your Lordships will observe that under Clause 2 it falls to the Secretary of State to make such rules as are just. I emphasise the word "just," because it is quite clear that there are questions of equity which necessarily arise. Questions of equity are the result of the effects of a change in the division between Schedules and in the lease of the individual tenant. For that reason I submit that the simplest arrangement would be for this matter to be examined by the Land Court, which could in fact examine both valuation and any facts of law at the same time.

I should like to ask this question. I observe in the proviso to this subsection that: …nothing in any order made under this subsection shall affect the right of a tenant to claim… Does that mean to say that any tenant who claims can go to arbitration, not only on the subject, but also on any claim to a variation in Schedule? That means to say that in a dispute either side can demand arbitration or they can agree together to go to the Land Court. I would just like to put that question, in the hope that the noble Lord can answer it.

LORD MORRISON

I am sorry; it is really no good the noble Earl putting legal posers to me. I have never pretended, and have no intention ever of pretending, to have any legal knowledge whatsoever. I do my best to understand the position from a common-sense point of view. I have already explained the position as clearly as I could; indeed, I am afraid that I have transgressed the rules of your Lordship' House by making several speeches on the subject. That, perhaps, may be overlooked, but I am afraid that I cannot add anything further to what I have already said with regard to this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I regret that we are unable to extract any further information on the subject. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. Perhaps I may ask for a further explanation on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Compensation to landlord for deterioration of holding.

(6) This section shall not apply during the occupancy of the tenant a record of the condition of the holding has been made under the Act of 1923, or under this Part of this Act, or in respect of any matter arising before the date of the record so made, or, where more than one such record has been made during his occupancy before the date of the first such record: Provided that if the landlord and the tenant enter into an agreement in writing in that behalf, a record of the condition of the holding shall, notwithstanding that it was made during the occupancy of a previous tenant; be deemed, for the purposes of this subsection, to have been made during the occupancy of the tenant and on such date as may be specified in the agreement.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the beginning of subsection (6) to insert: "Save as expressly provided in this subsection." The, noble Earl said: I regret to say that this is another case of some possible technical difficulties. I am not clear about the point at all. This clause, for the purposes of the Amendment, is a transitory clause; it is not permanent; it refers only to current leases and will not be a permanent feature of the Act. The difficulty is this. What is the relationship of the landlord and the tenant to existing and current leases? I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison for putting down an Amendment which appears to me, in some measure at least, to meet the point I have been trying to make. The ordinary Common Law rights existing at that time between landlord and tenant should not be affected by the compensation standard rules laid down in Clause 4. I should like formally to move this Amendment in my name, which is linked with the consequential Amendments at page 4, line 24, and page 4, line 30. If the noble Lord can say whether in fact the alternative Amendment which he has put down covers the point of preserving the Common Law rights as regards existing tenancies, I shall be glad. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 17, at beginning insert ("Save as expressly provided in this subsection.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I think the noble Earl has a point here. As he generously said, in the Amendment which comes next on the Marshalled List I have done my best, with the assistance of the Department, to do in one Amendment what the noble Earl was seeking to do in three. I am sure that that will meet with his approval. The Government had intended to safeguard the present rights of landlords in respect of existing leases, but I admit that in the clause as it stands this intention has not been carried out. The proposed Amendment will put the matter right, I think, in a better way than that of the noble Earl would do. Under the clause, as amended, a record will be essential before a claim will be competent in respect of a holding the lease of which has been entered into after the commencement of Part I of the Bill, but in respect of any holding held under an existing lease the clause will not disturb any right the landlord may have to claim without a record. I hope that in these circumstances the noble Earl may be convinced that my Amendment achieves, in more appropriate language, what he sought to achieve.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may, with your Lordships' permission, turn for a moment to the noble Lord's Amendment, and to ask why the date 1931 appears. I am quite unable to see quite why this should be confined to leases entered into after July 31, 1931. There may well be some reason for it of which I am unaware; but before I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment perhaps the noble Lord could give me some answer to that.

LORD MORRISON

It may perhaps suit the convenience of your Lordships' House if I give an answer at this point. The clause provides—I am talking now about my Amendment—for three types of claim for deterioration: (a) specific—under subsection (1); (b) as an alternative to (a), under the lease—subsection (3); (c) general—under subsection (4). Subsection (6) provides that in none of these cases shall a claim be competent unless a record of the holding has been made. The provisions of Section 10 of the 1923 Act, as amended by Section 30 of the 1931 Act, do not exclude a claim under a lease where there is no record and the requirement as to a record in cases where there is a claim for specific or general deterioration does not apply to tenancies which commenced before the 1931 Act came into operation.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON

We have already dealt with this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("unless") and insert— ("Compensation shall not be recoverable—

1. (a) under subsection (1) or subsection (4) of this section in any case where the lease was entered into after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, or
2. (b) under and in accordance with any lease entered into after the commencement of this Part of this Act.").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON moved to add to the proviso to subsection (6): ("and shall have effect subject to such modifications (if any) as may be so specified"). The noble Lord said: The proviso to subsection (6) of Clause 4 stipulates that if the parties agree a record of the condition of the holding made during the occupancy of a previous tenant shall hold good for the purposes of the clause. The Amendment will permit the parties to modify such a record, by mutual consent in writing, in order to bring it up to date. I am sure that this extension will be welcomed by both sides of the industry, since it will avoid landlord and tenant being put to the expense of calling in an arbiter to make a fresh record merely for the purpose of giving effect to agreed amendments of an existing record. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 30, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

5.39 P.m.

Clause 5:

Compensation for disturbance.

(2) The amount of the compensation payable under this section shall be the amount of the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting of the holding which is unavoidably incurred by the tenant upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding, and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being expenses of an arbitration to determine any question arising under this section):

Provided that—

1. (a) the compensation payable under this section shall be an amount equal to one year's rent of the holding the rate at which rent was payable immediately before the termination of the tenancy without proof by the tenant of any such loss or expense as aforesaid;
2. (b) the tenant shall not be entitled to claim any greater amount than one year's rent of the holding unless he has given to the landlord not less than one month's notice of the sale of any such goods, implements, fixtures, produce or stock as aforesaid and has afforded him a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation thereof;
3. (c) the tenant shall not in any case be entitled to compensation in excess of two years' rent of the holding.

In this subsection the expression "rent" means the rent after deduction of such an amount as the arbiter, failing agreement, may find to be equivalent to the aggregate of the following amounts, that is to say—

1. (i) the amount payable by the landlord in respect of the holding for the year in which the tenancy was terminated by way of owners' rates or of any other public rates, taxes or assessments or other public burdens, the charging of which on the land- 662 lord would entitle him to relief in respect of tax under Rule 4 of No. V of Schedule A to the income Tax Act, 1918; and
2. (ii) the amount (if any) recovered in respect of that year from the landlord in pursuance of subsection (1) of section forty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929.

(5) Compensation shall not be payable under this section in the case of a permanent pasture which the landlord has been in the habit of letting annually for seasonal grazing and which has been let to a tenant for a definite and limited period for cultivation as arable land on the condition that the tenant shall, along with the last or way going crop, sow permanent grass seeds.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words from the beginning down to the end of proviso (c) and to insert: The compensation payable under this section for disturbance including any expenses reasonably incurred by the tenant in the preparation of his claim for compensation (not being expenses of an arbitration to determine any question arising under this Act), shall be an amount equal to one year's rent of the holding at the rate at which rent was payable immediately before the termination of the tenancy without proof by the tenant of any loss or expense; The tenant shall not be entitled to claim any greater amount than one year's rent of the holding unless without prejudice to his claim for disturbance otherwise he has given to the landlord not less than one month's notice of the sale of any goods, implements, fixtures, produce or stock and has afforded him a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation thereof; The tenant shall not in any case be entitled to compensation in excess of three years' rent of the holding. The noble Lord said: I have some hesitation in moving an Amendment on a subject which has already been fully discussed in another place, but for certain reasons I think it is desirable to think a little about this clause.

As it stands at present, the clause provides that the amount of compensation payable a landlord to a tenant for disturbance when he goes out as a result of notice to quit shall be a minimum of one year's rent and a maximum of two years' rent. The effect of this Amendment would be to increase the maximum to three years' rent. I do not intend to go into all the merits of the two respective periods because they have been thoroughly thrashed out already. I know that this Amendment does not meet with the agreement of the Land and Property Federation, from the landowner's point of view, but I believe that the National Farmers' Union probably would approve of it. The point is this. If the Government could see their way to relax in some small measure the rigid security of tenure which is provided for the farmer by Clause 7, which we shall be coming to discuss in a few moments, I think the concession of a slightly greater compensation for disturbance would not be an unreasonable one. That is all that I intend to say on this. I hope the noble Lord will be able to hold out some hope as regards the relaxation of the provision of security of tenure. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, leave out from beginning of line 26 to end of line 2 on page 6, and insert said new words.—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD MORRISON

I think it would be best if I commenced by explaining clearly what I am advised would be the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment. The effect would be twofold. First, it would widen the basis of assessment of compensation and would permit loss of profits or of good will to be brought into the reckoning. This would involve a material change which could not be accepted by the Government, in view of the repercussions which it would have in other industries. Secondly, it would increase the maximum compensation to an amount equal to three years' rent of the holding. The noble Lord is correct when he says that this matter was debated at considerable length in another place. I have no doubt that, if the noble Lord has read the debate, he will have read the statement of the Secretary of State, that the Government were willing to examine carefully any evidence that might be submitted in support of the proposal to increase the maximum amount of compensation beyond the two years' rent proposed in the Bill. To the best of my knowledge, no such evidence has been forthcoming, be it in another place, be it in your Lordships' House. Therefore, it is considered that no good grounds exist either for widening the basis of assessment of compensation or for prescribing a higher ceiling than the two years' rent proposed in the Bill. I am therefore unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in his remarks. I rather deprecate the opinion of the Land and Property Federation being referred to by a noble Lord in this House. There is no one here officially to represent the Federation and there are no means of knowing whether such opinion is a unanimous one or not. In another place, Mr. McNair Snadden, who was the leader of the farmers' party there, was strongly against a similar Amendment. For that reason alone, I am glad that the noble Lord has not seen fit to accept this Amendment.

LORD POLWARTH

If I may, with all respect, correct my noble friend Lord Rosebery, I did not pretend to quote the opinion of the Land Property Federation. I said that I thought it was the opinion of the Land Property Federation. Apparently the Government are not prepared to move on this. I would point out, however, that whatever may be laid down in the Bill, so long as this degree of fixity of tenure exists, if a landlord wishes sufficiently to get a tenant out of a holding, he will be prepared to bribe him considerably more than to the extent allowed in the Bill. If a higher rate of compensation is not legalised, there is nothing to prevent him from doing that. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (5), after "grazing," to insert "or of keeping in his own occupation." The noble Lord said: To some extent, at least, I hope that this Amendment meets the point of the Amendment to Clause 7, page 8, line 35, standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird. As the clause stands, compensation for disturbance is not payable in the case of permanent pasture which the landlord has been in the habit of letting annually for seasonal grazing and which has been let to a tenant for a limited period in order that he may put it through a cropping rotation before sowing it back to grass. In the course of discussion with the noble Lords, in which the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, took an active part, it has been represented that there is in principle no difference between permanent pasture which a landlord may have let annually for seasonal grazing and permanent pasture which he has retained in his own hands for grazing purposes. In both cases the subsequent lets for a rotation of cropping are made in identical circumstances. The force of the representations which have been made by the noble Lord and others is appreciated, and the Amendment is designed to meet them. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it does meet them. As I have already said, it goes a long way towards meeting the purpose of the Amendment which is next on the Order Paper, standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 44, after ("grazing") insert ("or of keeping in his own occupation").—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD KINNAIRD

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has already made the point which I intended to make by my own Amendment on this matter. I am glad to hear that, because these policy parks are of great value to the farming community at the present time, with the shortage of permanent pasture. In the event of an emergency, the owner is often not in a position to cultivate policy parks as he has not the equipment for doing so. The result of that is that frequently the best thing to do is to let on a lease to a tenant. It is very important to bring it back to grass. On the whole, I think it is the best method, from the point of view of food production. I shall not move my own Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I draw the noble Lord's attention to the words "within six months" on page 7, line 5? Ought not that to read "within nine months" to agree with Clause 5 (1) (a)? Further I would point out that page 7, line 17, refers to Clause 37, subsection (1). But Clause 37 has no subsection (1). Perhaps the noble Lord will look into that matter.

LORD MORRISON

I certainly will.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings.

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

(2) The last foregoing subsection shall not apply— (d) where the notice to quit is given on the ground that the land is required for a use, other than for agriculture, for which permission has been granted on an application made under the enactments relating to town and country planning, or for which (otherwise than by virtue of any provision of those enactments) such permission is not required, and that fact is stated in the notice.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) to insert: (d) Where the notice to quit relates to the garden or policies of a dwellinghouse which dwellinghouse has not been let to the tenant of the holding. The noble Earl said: While being most grateful to the noble Lord for his Amendment in regard to the policy question at page 6, line 44, I must disagree with his statement that it meets the garden side of the question. I think I am correct in saying that the object of this Amendment was to exempt gardens, and at one time policies as well. I am suggesting that this is a very advisable step to take. Otherwise we shall find proprietors extremely chary of letting their gardens, as even though they have actually stipulated in the lease that they wish to resume possession at the end of the lease they will be unable to do so without first obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State. Undoubtedly this may have a very detrimental effect on food production. I can visualise a situation—and so probably can your Lordships—where, for financial reasons or for the reason that the proprietor of the garden is a man of a certain age and perhaps hopes to have a son coming along, or has a son about to leave the Army in five or six years' time, he will wish to work that garden once again, either as a private garden or commercially. But will he let it. Certainly not; because he realises that he dare not do so, as he will be unable to get it back when the time comes. Therefore he will be prevented from doing what he probably thinks would be in the best interests of food production—namely, to let the garden for several years in order to increase the production of food.

We know that in regard to this Amendment promises have been made for which we are extremely grateful, but I would point out that a garden (and I suppose here I can speak for Englishmen, too) is a personal thing. An Englishman's home is his castle, and a Scotsman's home is his castle, too. I would suggest that a garden is a very personal thing, whether it is private or commercial, and you are dealing here with something which is very near to the private concern of a man. A garden is a much more personal thing than any holding of a bit of land. The noble Lord knows what I think about interference with freedom, and I consider that this is one of those cases which are cropping up day by day. I venture to suggest and hope that he will again look into this matter of a garden, because I think it is one which should be dealt with.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 35, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

LORD MORRISON

I am indebted to the noble Earl, for raising this matter. I will endeavour to explain to him what my position is. I admit immediately that gardens are not included in the concessions I made, and therefore he has a perfect right to raise the matter now. A Scotsman's home is his garden, but it is important to keep in mind that a garden may be extensive and, even though it belongs to a Scotsman, may be worked as a commercial market garden.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?

LORD MORRISON

And policies too might conceivably extend to several acres. In view, therefore, of the wide variation in the type of case that might be involved, it would be dangerous to provide for an exception of the kind that he suggests. It seems to me that it would be better that any cases that might arise should be considered on their merits, and, for that purpose, they should come within the scope of the general "consent" procedure of the clause. I fully appreciate that in the straightforward case which the noble Earl gave, where, say, a landlord has let policy parks or a garden to an adjoining farmer under the stress of war-time necessity, there is much to be said for enabling him to regain occupancy if he so wishes; but such a case would be dealt with—and I suggest sympathetically dealt with—under subsection (3) (d) of the clause. Again, there may be cases where gardens were let many years ago, not on any ground of national necessity. In others, dwellinghouses may long since have ceased to be used as such. Who is to determine what are policy parks? It may not always be clear. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the wisest course would be to leave the question of the right to resume occupation to be dealt with under the provisions of the clause. In the straightforward case, in my opinion the landlord need not fear the result, since hardship in all its aspects will be taken into account. I hope the noble Earl may be satisfied with that explanation.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Before the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment—if he intends to do so—I would like to support his plea. I must confess that I am not satisfied with the remarks the noble Lord has made, because this is a case of real hardship. I am quite sure that there will be many cases of people who may want to have these gardens. A Scotch garden is not like an English garden—it may be some distance from the house, and it may easily be so ripe for food cultivation that it should be cultivated by somebody else. Then the circumstance arises in which the owner wants it back. The consent paragraph (d) says: where the tenancy was created before the passing of this Act and the same person was landlord…"— and so on. I think this is a case which might occur in future. Your Lordships know that security of tenure has gone very far in favour of the tenant. I would beg the noble Lord to give this matter further consideration and perhaps consult with my noble friend to see whether an agreement cannot be reached, because I am sure there will be hardship.

LORD MORRISON

I can only add that the real difficulty here is in the tremendous variation in the type of case that would arise if this Amendment were to be accepted. As I endeavoured to explain, if it were only a straightforward case it would be easy, but there are so many variations that will arise that it seems to me that the case to which the noble Lord has just directed my attention will be met under the clause as it is. However, I am perfectly willing—without, as the noble Lord will understand, giving any commitment—to look again at this matter to see whether there is any possibility of meeting what I call the straightforward case, without opening the door too wide to a whole variety of questions that would possibly arise. I hope the Committee clearly understand that I am making no promise in the matter.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time or to appear to be looking a gift horse in the mouth, or to be in any way rude, but I really am not very much impressed with the noble Lord's arguments about sympathetic dealing with each case. I am afraid I do not believe in that sympathy in these days, and I do not think it is there. The question I really wanted to ask is: What is going to happen? Are we to have land which has probably been extensively cultivated for a very long time, going out of cultivation because the owner will not dare to let it go to somebody else? That will be a great evil, apart from the fact that the shackles in this country are getting tighter and tighter every day. I appreciate what the noble Lord has said and, in view of that, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to add to subsection (2):

"(e) Where—

1. (i) the notice to quit is given on the ground (stated in the notice) that the landlord desires occupation of the land for himself or for his heir for the purpose of farming the same, and
2. (ii) the land was owned by the landlord or his predecessors by means of testamentary disposition or by operation of law at the date when the lease was entered into, and
3. (iii) the landlord has satisfied the Secretary of State of his intention or the intention of his heir to farm the land and that he or his heir will continue to farm the land for such minimum period and subject to such terms and conditions as may seem reasonable to the Secretary of State in the circumstances and that he or his heir will comply with the Rules of Good Husbandry as set out in the Sixth Schedule to this Act."

The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to enable the owner of a farm to regain possession of it, for himself or for his son or heir, for the purpose of farming it. When the proposals for the English and Scottish Agriculture Acts were originally under discussion I think there was not only sympathy but also acceptance of this point of view, as was expressed by the Minister of Agriculture himself in January, 1947. Subsequently, the Government appear to have withdrawn from the attitude then taken. Under this Bill, many concessions have been demanded from the owners, and many proposals to their disadvantage have been adopted in order to make security of tenure really effective for the tenant in the farm. It seems only reasonable that, in this one matter at least, there should be freedom to an owner and to his own family to have an opportunity, at the end of the lease, to regain use of the land. When they are genuinely wanting to farm it themselves, they ought to be entitled to this, as of right, with suitable safeguarding provisions. This is the one and only provision on the side of the owner to balance all that is being done in favour of the tenant.

It may be said that it would be a hardship to the tenant that at the end of a fixed period or lease he should be asked to remove from the farm in favour of the owner, even though arrangements for full compensation exist. But it is equally—or more so—a hardship for the family owning a farm that they should not be allowed to farm it themselves. Many cases of different kinds can arise, such as those of owners who have been serving in His Majesty's Forces (this applies particularly in war time), who were unable to farm during the period of their service but who fully intended, on returning to civilian life, to take over their farms. They would, of course, then be able to devote their full time to farming. Another case which might be suggested is that of the head of a family, occupied in public work or in business, who has a son or daughter able and wishing to farm the land, and he—the owner—wishing them to do so.

I would like to ask what is the position of an ex-Service man who—say three years ago, when still in the Army—bought a farm which was then leased, intending and fully expecting, after leaving the Army and on the expiration of the lease, to farm the land himself? Has he a good chance of doing so, or very little prospect? I think it is correct to say that as the Bill stands now most owners anticipate that in circumstances of that kind they would have little chance of getting possession of their land and farming it themselves. I hope this is not so, and that the Government do not propose to go too far in that direction. I believe it is the intention of the Secretary of State, who has a fairly wide discretion, not to be unreasonable in this matter. I hope by some statement or, preferably, by the acceptance of this Amendment, the Government will indicate to us how the Bill is intended to work. I agree that it is difficult to legislate on this and on many other points in the Bill with strict impartiality; and, in consequence, much is left to the future administration. The hope is, no doubt, that any of these matters will be carefully handled as they arise. But that must mean great uncertainty about them now. In support of my plea that the Amendment should be accepted, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, that there is provision for the Secretary of State to impose conditions as to the period for which a farm must be occupied by the proprietor and his family, and that the landlord will be subject to the rules of good husbandry. The Secretary of State, therefore, has adequate sanctions to ensure that any advantages accruing to anyone by reason of this Amendment will not be abused. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 43, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

6.6 p.m.

LORD MORRISON

I am much obliged to the noble Duke for having—as he always does—presented his case in such a fair manner. It is certainly not the intention of the Secretary of State to be unreasonable in this matter. I will try to clear up some of the points which the noble Duke has raised, and to give reasons why the Government are not prepared to widen the scope of the clause. In their view, the clause in its present form gives ample scope, either on grounds of efficiency or hardship, for resumption by a landlord. And this Amendment is unacceptable on other grounds. In order to satisfy himself as to the intentions of the owner or his heir, the Secretary of State would have to ascertain the facts much in the same way as he would in cases where his consent to a notice to quit is sought. Moreover, under the noble Duke's Amendment he would have to intimate whether or not he was satisfied, which would be tantamount to giving or refusing consent. The imposition of conditions as provided in the Amendment would be of no avail, because there would be no sanctions against a landlord who did not adhere to them.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Why not?

LORD MORRISON

In cases such as are envisaged by the Amendment, if the landlord did not carry out his obligation—if, for instance, he obtained possession on the ground that he required the farm for his heir and then did not act in accordance with the terms on which he had obtained possession—there is no provision whereby the landlord could be dealt with.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Surely he could be dealt with under the Perjury Act, if under no other.

LORD MORRISON

The farming ability of the landlord would be taken into account in any application for the Secretary of State's consent, but having regard to the efficiency provisions of Part II of the Bill, I suggest to the noble Duke that the reference in his Amendment to compliance with the rules of good husbandry is inappropriate. When the Bill comes into operation, all occupiers of agricultural land will be expected to comply with these rules. Finally, may I say that it seems to me that in the drafting of the clause, the interests of landlords and their heirs have been kept in mind. It has not been possible to exempt all personal occupancy cases, but steps have been taken in this Bill to ensure that cases of this kind involving hardship shall receive full consideration. For example, the noble Duke has mentioned the case of a son who has been away on war service and returns and wishes to farm. Any lease entered into before May 15, 1947, gives the landlord, if he had been farming the holding for a period of twelve months before the tenancy was granted, the right to resume possession within a specified period not exceeding seven years. This will meet the case, for example, where a landlord has given up his occupancy of a holding in order to proceed on military service.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Would the noble Lord give the reference for what he is quoting?

LORD MORRISON

Subsection (9). In the future, it will be open to landlords, if they wish, to specify in the lease that they wish to terminate the tenancy of a holding for a specified purpose and found any application for consent on the provision of subsection (3) (c). I am sorry that I am unable to accept this Amendment.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE

I was very disappointed as I listened to the noble Lord's reply. Do the Government not realise the hardship which must fall on families whose heirs have been abroad fighting for their country, and who, in some cases, are still abroad, in Germany or elsewhere? Surely, when these boys come home, they can satisfy the Secretary of State that they mean to carry on the cultivation of the land for a sufficient number of years. These boys have a right to give notice to a tenant to say they are to farm the land themselves. In ordinary justice, that ought to be accepted in a Bill like this. I hope the Government will reconsider their position in the matter and see that this gross injustice to these boys is not carried on. It is inconceivable to me that the Government do not at once accept this Amendment, considering the safeguards laid down about proper cultivation and application to the Secretary of State.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I am sure the noble Duke who moved this Amendment must be bitterly disappointed at the reply of the noble Lord. I am very disappointed myself. I would like to give the Amendment my unqualified support. It seems to me grossly unfair that, as the clause will stand without the Amendment, it will be practically impossible for an owner or an heir to resume possession of his farm. The noble Lord said it was possible, but that there are only two chances. They are very slender ones. As the noble Duke explained in moving this Amendment, the Secretary of State will have adequate safeguards against the abuse of this right. In the first place, the landlord will be subject to the rules of good husbandry and, in the second place, the Secretary of Stale can define a minimum period for farming of the land. That is laid down in proviso (iii).

The noble Lord has given instances of what might happen if the clause went through without this Amendment, but a hundred different circumstances might arise after an owner has acquired a farm. He might be abroad in the service of his country, either military or civil service. He might be suffering from a severe illness for two or three years. When he comes to resume his normal life, he is precluded from regaining control of his old farm. At a later stage, we are to discuss cruelty to animals; but here we have reached cruelty to human beings first. I think this is a black spot on a Bill which has many excellent features. For the harmonious working of this Bill it is essential that the interests of the landlord and tenant must be equally balanced. I submit that in this case, the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the tenant.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Since the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, mentioned Clause 5, subsection (9), I have had a look at it, and I am bound to say that I do not think the protection is effective for a landlord who wants to resume possession. I am not going to argue the case. I feel that under present-day conditions the ending of a lease means nothing. The wheel has turned more than full circle. I beg the noble Lord to see whether, between now and the Report stage, he cannot do something to meet this very hard case.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

The noble Lord says there is no penalty for a landlord if he does not carry out his obligations. But surely, if he has to give an undertaking to the Secretary of State, there must be some method of seeing that he completes that obligation and some method of penalising him if he does not do so. To commit this gross injustice because there is no possibility of penalising a dishonest landlord, seems to me to be a poor answer.

THE MARQUESS or ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

Can the noble Lord state whether he is rejecting the Amendment because the conditions laid down in paragraph (iii) are not strong enough for the Secretary of State to accept? If so, I am sure the noble Duke would be willing to consider redrafting the paragraph. But it seems to me that the Secretary of State could not ask for more, because it is in his power to say "No" or "Yes." If the landlord concerned is willing to agree to the conditions made by the Secretary of State, that is provided for in paragraph (iii). I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us what is wrong with paragraph (iii). It is pretty "stiff," even as it stands. If it is not "stiff" enough, perhaps the noble Lord will say in what respect it is to be stiffened.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I should like to make a plea for the special case of the home farm. The discussion so far has dealt with land generally, but I know cases where the hardship is even greater. Perhaps a man has either had to go abroad on military service—because he may well have to go abroad in time of peace—or has to serve in public life to such an extent that he is unable to give the attention he would wish to his farm; and, in the best interests of the land, he has let his home farm. I hesitate to repeat the phrase, "a man's home is his castle," but the home farm does lie within the purview of his home. It is essential that such men should have a chance of getting back into their own home farms.

THE EARL OF STAIR

There are at the present time young men who are still serving their country abroad, young men who wished to go into farming when they grew up. They could have sheltered behind that and escaped all service. I do not really believe that the noble Lord wishes to impose this frightful hardship on these people and ruin their lives by ridiculous legislation.

LORD MORRISON

I have listened carefully to this discussion, and it seems to me that some noble Lords are becoming very indignant about something which to me has been a day-to-day matter for years, in another but equally deserving connection. What is suggested is what is happening all over the country, in every court, almost every day of the year, in regard to ordinary house property. Men have returned from the war and find that they cannot get back into their homes. Their furniture has been stored, and they are suffering extreme hardship. How are all these matters decided? Every noble Lord in this House has heard of hard cases. Noble Lords have instanced hard cases of what has happened as a result of war service, but I guarantee to give twenty for any one that any noble Lord can give.

THE EARL OF STAIR

That does not seem to be an excuse for unnecessarily multiplying these cases.

LORD MORRISON

Certainly not. I am only endeavouring to point out that this Amendment would give a certain preference to a landlord or his heir to get back a farm. I was pointing out that there are thousands of cases of men who left their own houses and went off to the war, and who returned and found they could not get back into the houses which they owned. Surely, the case I am quoting is a similar case. How is that dealt with? It is dealt with in the only way I imagine it can be dealt with. It is dealt with every day, in regard to ordinary property and dwellings, by people going before a court which decides in favour of the person with the greater hardship. Surely, it is right that a man who has been thrifty, who has bought a house while still a young man, and has gone off to war and come back again and found another family living in his house, should get his house back as quickly as possible. In most of the cases with which I have had any connection, that has been the decision of the court. Because of the greater hardship, and because it is his own property the owner has been allowed to go back to it. There may be other hardship cases (there have been) but, so far as I know, that is always the decision of the court. I think noble Lords will find, if they will explore the type of case to which I am referring (and it is similar to those which are being dealt with) that more often than not the court does not hesitate to give the decision on the ground of greater hardship.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I would like to point out that where a man has had to go and join the Army the cases of a house and land are not comparable. Take the case of a farm. What happens? One man leaves his farm and goes and serves his country; and his son does the same. The man next door applies to be exempted, and he remains on his farm all through the war. The third man is possibly a conscientious objector; and he is allowed to stay on his farm. The man who served his country comes back and is not allowed back on to his farm. He sees the man who was exempted from fighting still on his farm, and the man who was a conscientious objector also on his farm. Does the noble Lord think that is comparable to a man who has been made to leave his house and go abroad, and has had no option but to do so?

LORD MORRISON

If I thought there was anything analogous in the Bill as it stands at present to what the noble Earl describes, I should not be standing at this box advocating it. But I find nothing in this Bill to say that a young man, in circumstances to which the noble Earl has referred will be unable to get back. If the noble Earl looks at Clause 7 (3) (d) he will find the words: 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 consent of the Secretary of State is made before giving the notice to quit, at the time of the application, that greater hardship would be caused by the Secretary of State's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice. So I say that in almost every case that has been quoted here this afternoon, under the Bill as it stands at present the Secretary of State, or any reasonable person, would have no alternative but to give possession on the ground of greater hardship. That is what is being done in regard to houses in all the courts in the country, and although the noble Earl says it is different (I agree that farms are different from houses) I still say that the Secretary of State, or anybody else who had to give that decision on the ground of greater hardship, could not possibly hesitate from giving the decision in favour of the man returning from the war.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I just say this? We find much encouragement in the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has been able to say there is much to be said for the argument that has been advanced. He has admitted that a good case has been put forward, and we are grateful for that. There is, however, one point I should like to press, and it is this. I would like to see an increase of owner-occupiers. Under this Bill as it stands, there is no sort of facility for assisting owner-occupiers as such. It does not exclude them, I admit, but there is no assistance provided to encourage them. There is no protection at all, if I may say so, in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) in subsection (3), of Clause 7 for anyone who owns the land, or for them having the slightest advantage in regard to coming back to it. When you talk about people owning land, you may imagine people who own a lot of land. If a man owns a great deal of land it is probably comparatively easy for him to get back part of it. But what about the man who owns only a small portion of land? It is much more difficult for him to get back to that small piece of land. I am sure the noble Lord will remember (I think the words were used in our debate on the Agriculture Act) that the finest manure is the owner's feet. That is a very telling phrase, which I think is true. It is worth a good deal of reflection as to whether a way out cannot be found. At present there is an assurance at all. We do not know how this will work; and, with great respect, it is not being operated by a court of law, but by the Secretary of State. We do not know quite what that means. It may be the agricultural executive committee—I daresay it is—but there is nothing in this Bill to say how the system will work. I think an assurance from the noble Lord that he understands the difficulties which must necessarily arise would greatly facilitate matters.

LORD MORRISON

I can only say that the noble Earl did not previously draw my attention to the case of the owner-occupier.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I did on Second Reading.

LORD MORRISON

Perhaps it is my fault for having overlooked that he did so. I am quite willing to look into the matter again to see that the owner-occupier is adequately protected.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I feel very much the disappointment of other noble Lords that this Amendment has not been accepted. I trust the Government realise how strong is the feeling on our side. I think a large majority of noble Lords in this House share the views which have been expressed. I did detect, in the reply of the noble Lord, a measure of assurance as to the way in which these clauses will be operated. I can only hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will be sufficiently impressed by the arguments that have been put, now and on other occasions, and will bear them in mind in the administration of the measure. I feel obliged to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.28 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply with respect to any field or enclosure forming part of a holding which field or enclosure is temporarily in the occupation of and worked by the tenant or occupier of an adjoining holding where the landlord on the termination of the arrangement under which the said field or enclosure is so occupied is desirous in the interests of efficient farming that it should revert to the first-mentioned holding. The noble Earl said: This is an entirely different Amendment, because it does not affect the landlord at all. It deals purely with neighbouring tenants or neighbouring farms. We have got to the stage to-day when it is not only that possession is four-fifths of the law, but that a lease has, in fact, become ten-tenths of the law. This is really rather a tight case, which I think is being carried rather too far. I am placing my case purely and simply on the efficiency of farming. It is common knowledge that farmers quite frequently exchange fields; that is to say, farmer A takes over a field from farmer B, and farms it, to his own advantage, for a period of years—perhaps because the other man is getting old, or because he does not want to deal with that particular type of work. Everyone knows that that has been the practice. It will now be impossible to get the field back unless the farmer to whom it belongs, or who had it originally, can show, first, that he farms more efficiently than the other man or, secondly, that he has greater hardship. If he cannot show one of those things, then he will not get the field back.

What would be the effect of such an arrangement? It is quite clear what would happen. You would let a neighbouring field to an inefficient farmer—in fact to the most inefficient farmer you can find, because you can easily prove that you are more efficient. What is the other class of people to whom you would let? It would be to an extremely rich man because you could easily show that there was greater hardship on yourself, and you could have the field taken away from him. Those are the two cases in which a field would be let out to a neighbouring tenant. I submit that this has nothing to do with the previous Amendment, which was in an entirely different category. This is the ordinary convenience of farming life. Unless you are able to exchange small fields from time to time, you establish in the farming industry a fixity which I do not think is in the interests of efficient farming. This Amendment is based purely on efficiency and the convenience of those engaged in the farming industry. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 43, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

Might I give an illustration? It is the case of a landowner who has felled his plantation and then let out his plantation to grazing to a neighbouring farmer. He wants to replant that land, but he cannot get it back under this Bill. What is to happen then? Does he have to go to the Secretary of State, or what?

LORD MORRISON

In the case of this Amendment, the intentions of the noble Earl, as always, are good; but the Amendment does not carry them out. It is one thing to have good intentions and quite another to frame an Amendment which will carry them out. I am advised that the words "enclosure" and "arrangements," both of which are contained in his Amendment, are lacking in specification, and that the subsection he proposes could apply only to sub-tenancies. I doubt whether that is what the noble Earl intended. That is why I prefaced my remarks by saying that I thought his intentions were good, but I doubted if his Amendment carried them out. If I may proceed on the assumption that the purpose of the Amendment is to facilitate, in the interests of efficient farming, the reversion to their original form of holdings which have been broken up, there is no reason why such cases should not be dealt with under the provisions of Clause 7 as it is at present. If the desirabiliy of reversion in the interests of efficient farming is clear, no difficulty should be encountered under the clause. Even under the Amendment, the interests of efficient farming would have to be established, although the Amendment does not state by whom. In these circumstances, there seems to me every justification for leaving such cases to be dealt with under the clause. If reversion is desirable in the interests of efficient farming, the landlord need have no apprehension about leaving the matter to the decision of the Secretary of State. In short, what I have been trying to say is that, while the noble Earl's Amendment is desirable, it is unnecessary.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

May I just add one word to that? Far be it from me to interpret what the noble Lord on the Front Bench wants to say—he is far more capable of doing that than I am. What I am trying to emphasise above all is that, in efficient farming, you want to avoid rigidity and that you must have flexibility. It is the only way in which you can do it. Some of us know a little about this question. We are hound to, because it is our job. What we want to ensure is that the time element will not come into this. The noble Lord says that it is covered under the Bill. I have known cases where, within a short time, arrangements have been made where it was desired that a field should be—if I may use the vulgar phrase—"swapped" from one tenant to another. In one case, a tenant may be a little old; he may be willing to hand on the land to the other tenant or, perhaps in the case of an estate, where it was in the best interests of estate management, to tie two farms together. As things are at present, you waste a great deal of time before you may get an answer from St. Andrew's House.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

I am afraid that Lord Morrison has no knowledge of agriculture. It is quite a common thing on a large estate to let off certain fields for a specific period, and then to return them to the holding to which they were originally attached. This is a matter of convenience for the better conduct of agriculture in general. I cannot see why owners, or even tenants, should not be allowed to come to arrangements which are convenient to them, and then revert to what they were before. There are all sorts of things which happen in agriculture which do not happen in what I might call house properties. Farming is entirely different, and we must be allowed some flexibility. I would ask the noble Lord to undertake that he will further consider this Amendment, which is essential for good agriculture.

So far as I understand it, the present Government have a policy to encourage production on the land. This is the sort of thing which makes farmers almost lose all patience and all hope, because they are to be tied by people who do not know anything about their work. I ask the noble Lord most seriously to give an undertaking that this will be considered on Report. I know what I am talking about. I have had 14,000 acres to manage, and I know how difficult it is. I also know how you must consider everything that happens, whether it is included in this Bill or not. You can never tell what is going to happen from year to year, and you must give the people who know the land some authority to carry on what they know is best for the land. Because a wan is called a landlord, it does not fellow that he is au fait with what is required to get the best out of the land—it is not his job to know. If it had not been that my father, in his wisdom, made me become a tenant on the estate in order to learn farming, I might not have been nearly so competent to take over when my turn came. Those who have had experience of that kind know what estate management means. I ask the noble Lord to say that he will reconsider this before the Report stage.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I do not know whether I should attach any particular significance to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, that my intentions were good. Whether they have been malicious on previous occasions I do not know. There are two points which he raised in regard to the Amendment, and the first was purely a drafting one. He said that the Amendment lacks specification. That can be adjusted. He said that it dealt with sub-tenancies. I had in mind sub-tenancies or possibly owner-occupiers, so I need not worry about that point. The noble Lord now goes on to say that there is no reason for it and that this point is covered by Clause 7. With great respect, I say there is a reason, and the answer given does not cover the reason. What are the grounds on which the Secretary of State is entitled to return to the original farmer or owner land which has been released? Under subsection (3) (a) it is efficient farming and under paragraphs (c) and (d) what is called "hardship." If I do not want to farm a field, and I want a tenant for it, what do I do? In the circumstances I find a farmer who will certainly not farm more efficiently than I, and whose conditions of life are not likely to be of greater hardship than mine. I may take the case of the inefficient farmer to the Secretary of State and say "I farm more efficiently than he does; give me back the farm." Or I can point to the case of the man who is sufficiently well off and again say, "Give me back the farm." The alternatives are that I let the farm to a man who is not such an efficient farmer or who is sufficiently well off not to be able to plead hardship. That is the point upon which I should be glad to have some information.

LORD MORRISON

If I am unable to satisfy the noble Earl now, I will certainly take note of what he has said. I was apparently wrong in my inference that the subsection applies only to sub-tenancies, which I thought was not what the noble Earl intended. But the noble Earl assures me that that was what he did intend. Therefore, having had the further explanation of what the noble Earl intends by his Amendment, I suggest that he might put it down again on the Report stage. That will give me time to have the Amendment looked at in the light of the further detailed explanation he has given.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to thank the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Provisions as to notices to quit where holding agreed to be sold.

8.—(1) The provisions of the two following subsections shall have effect where, whether before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, notice to quit land being or comprised in a holding has been given to the tenant and at any time after the commencement of this Part of this Act while the notice is current a contract is made for the sale of the landlord's interest in the land or any part thereof.

(2) Unless within the period of three months ending with the making of the contract the landlord and the tenant have agreed in writing whether on the making of such a contract the notice shall continue in force or be of no effect,—

1. (a) the landlord shall, within the period of fourteen days from the making of the contract, or, where the notice to quit expires within the last mentioned period, before the expiration of the notice to quit, give notice in writing to the tenant of the making of the contract, and
2. (b) the tenant may before the expiration of the notice to quit notify the landlord in writing that the tenant elects that the notice to quit shall continue in force, so however that the tenant shall not give a notification under this paragraph after the expiration of one month from the receipt by him of a notice under the last foregoing paragraph of the making of the contract.

(3) In default of any such agreement or notification as aforesaid the notice to quit shall be of no effect unless the landlord has failed duly to give notice of the making of the contract and the tenant quits the holding in consequence of the notice to quit.

(4) A notice to quit shall not be invalid by reason only that under any such agreement as aforesaid the operation of the notice is conditional.

(5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in substitution for the provisions of Section twenty-seven of the Act of 1923.

LORD POLWARTH moved to delete Clause 8. The noble Lord said: I do not know whether any of your Lordships claim to be able fully to understand this clause. For my part, I certainly do not. So far as I can make out, the object of this clause, which is on similar lines to a section in the 1923 Act, is to make it impossible for a landlord to get a tenant out of a farm with the object of then selling the farm with vacant possession and thus obtaining a higher price than he otherwise would. Now, such a provision was obviously desirable in the former Act, when it was possible for a landlord to get a tenant out of a farm. But what is the position when this Bill becomes law? The decision as to whether the tenant leaves the farm or not does not rest with the landlord at all. The person in whose hands it rests is the tenant. The landlord has no opportunity of getting the tenant out of the farm unless the tenant wishes to go. If the tenant decides of his own free will that he will go, is there any objection to the landlord then selling the farm with vacant possession and obtaining the price which it would command? It is possible that there are certain cases in which some advantage may be obtained by the landlord through some action of the tenant, but I really cannot see how this extremely complicated clause is justified. I think that before allowing it to become part of the Bill we should ask the noble Lord to give us some explanation and see whether in fact there is any reason for it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 17, delete Clause 8.—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD MORRISON

I should like to make an appeal to the noble Lord. He says this clause is exceedingly difficult to understand and so he wishes to adopt the somewhat drastic method of deleting it altogether. We have a very long way to go with this Bill and we are only at Clause 8. I therefore ask the noble Lord whether he will allow me to give him a short answer, for I am perfectly sure he does not really mean to delete the clause. I admit that when the Bill comes into operation this clause will be less necessary than its counterpart in the 1923 Act. But cases may still be encountered where either the Secretary of State's consent to a notice to quit is obtained or is not required under Clause 7 of the Bill, and the landlord subsequently takes advantage of the notice to sell with vacant possession. I am advised that if this clause were deleted the tenant would suffer hardship, and I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord would wish. Perhaps in view of the slow progress we are making, the noble Lord will accept that.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

What hardship would the tenant suffer?

LORD MORRISON

I am quite prepared to make a much longer explanation—

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I only want to know what hardship the tenant can suffer, because it is not apparent in this clause.

LORD POLWARTH

I cannot say I am entirely satisfied with the noble Lord's reply. I think the noble Lord took me up wrongly. I am moving to delete the clause, not because I do not understand it, but because I cannot see what is the necessity for it. If the noble Lord would rather not give a full explanation now, I shall certainly reserve the right to bring the matter up again at a later stage.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to ask the noble Lord in what conceivable circumstances under Clause 7 the tenant can suffer hardship? We know that all types of men exist in the world and that a landlord might give his tenant notice for the purpose of selling with vacant possession—that is to say, for no good purpose at all but simply in an effort to cash in on the sale of the property with vacant possession. I agree that a modified clause of that kind would be reasonable. But, with great respect, I challenge the noble Lord to say how that position can arise at the present time. We ought not to be hustled. This is a very important Bill, and I do not care what the time is. I think we are entitled to an explanation and to go into matters which are of considerable importance.

LORD MORRISON

I have not the slightest objection. I shall be the last noble. Lord in this House to leave the scene of battle to-night. I am quite prepared to give a full answer. Time is of no consequence to me and so let us continue. I shall not try to hustle your Lordships along any more; if you want to move quickly you must do so of your own volition and not on my suggestion. I will endeavour, therefore, to answer the noble Earl's point. Clause 8 of the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, wishes to delete, while it preserves the principle of preventing the giving of notices to quit in order to sell with vacant possession, remedies the defects of Section 27 of the 1923 Act by requiring the landlord to notify the tenant of any contract of sale and by enacting that where the landlord fails to so notify the tenant and the latter quits the holding, the notice to quit shall be treated as valid for the purpose of the tenant's claim for compensation for disturbance. I hope that that answers the point that has been raised.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask the noble Lord this question? Is there any instance of hardship arising under Clause 7? I see no hardship that can arise out of the notice to quit under Clause 7

LORD MORRISON

If I made that statement, I must have been in error. The Amendment that we are discussing is the one moved by the noble Lord to delete Clause 8. I said that I was advised that if the whole clause were deleted, a tenant would suffer hardship. The noble Lord is proposing to delete the whole clause.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

But surely the tenant is completely covered under Clause 7. If you could show us where he is not covered, we would not wipe out this clause.

LORD POLWARTH

I am still not convinced that to remedy this small defect in the Act of 1923 it is necessary to have a clause several times its length and of such complexity. But, as we are not going to get anywhere on this matter at the moment, I intend to withdraw my Amendment, but we will reserve the right to put down a different Amendment on the clause at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Variation of rent of holdings.

11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section the landlord or the tenant of a holding may, whether the tenancy was created before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, by notice in writing served on his tenant or his landlord demand a reference to arbitration of the question what rent should be payable in respect of the holding as from the next ensuing day on which the tenancy could have been terminated by notice to quit given at the date of demanding the reference, and the matter shall be referred accordingly.

6.52 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

moved, in subsection (1), after "arbitration" to insert "or to the Land Court." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the question of arbitration. It connects up a little with the point that I made earlier to-day with regard to small holdings. I did not wholly understand the noble Lord's explanation as to how far class one applies to statutory small tenants, but it is the practice in small holdings and with statutory small tenants that the rent should be fixed by the Land Court. It is rather with that idea in mind that I have put down my Amendment, suggesting that as an alternative to arbitration the Land Court should be used for settling questions of variation of rent. It raises the wider question, and I would like to have the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, upon the point as to whether the Land Court should be used more generally in dealing with questions of arbitration in matters connected with agriculture.

I think it is a step which should be taken, for I rather favour the use of the Land Court. It is an institution we have in Scotland which has established a high reputation and enjoys a great deal of confidence in different parts of the country. I would like to advocate strongly the use of the Land Court. I have this question to ask. Under the 1931 Act, there is no reason why farm rents cannot be settled by the Land Court. I have not the reference at the moment but I am sure that there is no reason why the question should not be settled by the Land Court. Does the reference to "arbitration" in line 6, page 13, exclude the use of the Land Court, or is it still open to use the Land Court? I put that question because I think it is important that the Land Court should be available, and in order to facilitate the position I am suggesting that the words "Land Court" shall be inserted after the word "arbitration." I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 6, after ("arbitration") insert ("or to the Land Court").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I take it that the noble Earl is in effect moving these six Amendments, all of which cover the same point?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

With your Lordships' permission I will do so.

LORD MORRISON

As I said previously in this debate, I find difficulty in understanding why there should be a desire to get away from arbitration. I confess that my own attitude is that instead of taking up a line in favour of the arbiter or of the Land Court, I would rather take the line of freedom for people to do as they want. If people want arbitration, they should be entitled to have it. If they want to go to the Land Court they should be entitled to go to the Land Court. But a decision must be made in cases where one party wishes to go to the arbiter and the other party wishes to go to the Land Court. In those cases, someone else must decide for them. In that case, the Secretary of State comes down on the side of arbitration, and he does so because this job has been undertaken by arbiters for many years now and, so far as I am advised, there is no evidence that they have proved inadequate for the purpose. Moreover the provision in the Bill for an immediate revision of the panel of arbiters and for periodic revisions thereafter will ensure that the arbiters are kept up to strength and that they include men who are adequately skilled and qualified.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I wish to assure the noble Lord that this is no attempt to criticise the arbitration system at all.

LORD MORRISON

Then the only short point between us seems to me to be this: that the noble Earl agrees with me that there ought to be freedom for people to have their cases settled as they wish. If they have more confidence in arbitration than in the Land Court, they ought to be allowed to go to arbitration. On the other hand, if they have more confidence in the Land Court, they should be able to go to the Land Court. That covers all cases in which both parties are agreed upon the course in which they have most confidence. But someone has to solve the problem where one party wishes to go to arbitration and the other wishes to go to the Land Court. For the reasons which I have just given, in those cases the Secretary of State comes down in favour of continuing the system of arbitration, because up to now he has not heard of any dissatisfaction expressed with that system.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

The Land Court is a more recent idea than arbitration, because arbitration has been going on from time immemorial. I do not see why the Secretary of State should have this bias against the Land Court. It has judicial authority and, in the main, it is cheaper than arbitration. As your Lordships are aware, cheapness is a matter that is very dear not only to most of the people in Scotland but particularly to some of these tenants who may be very short of money. The Secretary of State says that they have to go to arbitration. Surely they should be allowed to go to the Land Court in preference to arbitration if they so desire?

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

I would point out that the Land Court is a comparatively new institution which is concerned with very small holders. In fact, not only small holders but large holders prefer to go to the Land Court. Because we have a good institution which has gradually grown in popular favour and popular confidence, I cannot see why everybody should not be allowed to go to the Land Court if he so desires. The noble Lord appears to be sympathetic to the idea that people should go to the Land Court. Why should not everybody go to the Land Court without the sanction of the Secretary of State? Why should the Secretary of State say which is the best course? When the Land Court was started, it was received favourably. Why not continue to favour the Land Court by making it available to all in Scotland, when everyone has confidence in it?

LORD MORRISON

I am ready to listen to what the noble Marquess says on this point, and I feel sympathetic. All I am trying to do is to follow the excellent words of Mr. Winston Churchill: "Set the people free." I want people to have freedom to choose. If they want to have their disputes settled by arbitration, they should be allowed to go to arbitration. I want freedom for them, if they want their disputes settled by the Land Court, to have them settled by the Land Court; if one party wants to go to the Land Court and the other to arbitration someone, somehow, somewhere, has got to settle it. The noble Earl who has just addressed the House can perhaps suggest an alternative in regard to that case. I say the alternative is the Secretary of State. I say that, candidly, because of the fact that arbitration has been going on for a very long time and, so far as I am informed——

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

If the noble Lord is going to expound and expatiate that because things have been going on for very long they are right, there is no value in this Bill at all.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl will agree that when the Secretary of State has to decide whether in a disputed case he will come clown on one side or the other, he would naturally come down on the side of the oldest established method, which has the confidence of the people, rather than that of a more modern method which has not been so long established, even though it may be popular. However, that is the position. It seems to be a very small point.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

The noble Lord has not been sufficiently in Scotland to realise how the Land Court has grown. If he would resume his residence in Aberdeen he would find out how very popular it is.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

I see the difficulty in which the noble Lord finds himself in this matter—that where the two parties disagree someone has to settle it. Would it be possible for the Secretary of State to have a discretion either to submit it to the Land Court or to arbitration? The Land Court holds a very high position in Scotland, and we are justly proud of it. I do not altogether subscribe to the view that, because arbitration is the older method, the matter should necessarily always be decided there. It may not be workable, but I throw out the suggestion as to whether there should be a discretion in regard to disputes.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

In these circumstances, there is little between us. I am certainly not attempting in any way to cast a reflection on arbitration, but there is one point which I think is, perhaps, not quite so simple. Subsection (1) says: …the landlord or the tenantmay…by notice in writing served on his tenant or his landlord demand a reference to arbitration… When we come to subsection (3), we find when he can demand it. It appears to me that, having gone to the Land Court and not having obtained what he wants, he can demand an arbitration. That obviously seems not to be what anybody wants. If I withdraw the Amendment now, perhaps the noble Lord might look into the matter to see if any submission could he made to a Land Court by which a rent could be fixed or agreed at the same level. In other words if he could accept one of my Amendments—such as that which would make subsection (3) (c) read: the date as from which there took effect a previous direction of an arbiter or Land Court… I suggest that possibly that Amendment by itself would cover the point. The noble Lord has stated that statutory small tenants are not affected by Part I, except in so far as they do not come under other Acts of Parliament. Those I think were the words he used, and they were words which I did not entirely understand. It did appear to me that the statutory small tenants were, in some degree, affected by Part I. But, assuming that the noble Lord can satisfy me that small holders are not affected by Part I, the normal way in which their rent is decided is by the Land Court. Under Clause II they would have to go to arbitration. That is not the normal procedure, and I do not think it is the Government's intention to change the ordinary procedure. I throw out those two points merely because I think they are worth looking at; and if the noble Lord would look at them, I would be glad to withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I hope the noble Lord will agree to this, because it is bound to get around that the Secretary of State has less confidence in Lord Gibson and the Land Court than he has in arbitration.

LORD MORRISON

I do not think that is correct.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I hope it is not correct, but the feeling will get around.

LORD MORRISON

I was going to do my best, with the assistance of the noble Earl, to stop the feeling before it went too far, because it is not true. That is why I rose so suddenly. The real reason why I am opposing the noble Lord's series of Amendments is because they would involve a departure from one of the basic principles of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act code—namely, that matters of dispute in respect of the holding shall be referred to arbitration. That is in the code. It also would mean that the rent-fixing should be put on to the Land Court, instead of to the arbitrators. It is because of these two somewhat drastic changes which the noble Lord is advocating that I have said that the arbitration procedure which has worked successfully for many years should be adopted. If both parties agree, those who want to go to the Land Court can do so, even for rent-fixing. It is because of that I have resisted the Amendment. I am perfectly willing to look at it, so long as it is clearly understood that I have no anticipation of being authorised to go further than I have done to-day.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I do not wish to delay your Lordships, but I would not like this clause to pass without calling attention to an extraordinary provision which seeks to make illegal the mutual discussions and arrangements between landlords and their tenants, which normally take place on well-managed estates. I know from experience the advantages to upkeep of mutual cost of fences, drains and certain types of buildings and repairs, and I think they ought most certainly to be encouraged. My noble friend Lord Airlie referred a short time ago to the rigidity of this Bill, and I believe that this inflexibility is one of the most unfortunate effects of this legislation—and it is a defect which often recurs. It arises, no doubt, entirely through well-intentioned safeguards, but I am afraid that in this case these safeguards will do more than anything to prevent that close co-operation between tenant farmers and landlords, who are two of the most active partners in the industry.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Leases to continue in force notwithstanding variation of terms, etc.]:

LORD MORRISON

This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment, to avoid doubt which may conceivably arise as to the scope of Clause 16. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 18, line 48, after ("only") insert ("that any new term has been added to the lease or").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 25:

Construction, citation and application of Part 1.

(2) Without prejudice to section forty of the Act of 1923 (which relates to land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Crown) it is hereby declared that the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1923 and 1931, and this Part of this Act and the Schedules therein referred to apply to land notwithstanding that the interest of the landlord or the tenant thereof belongs to a government department or is held on behalf of His Majesty for the purposes of any government department; but in the application thereof to any land belonging, or an interest in which is held, as aforesaid the said provisions shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.

7.10 p.m.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (2) after "as" (where that word last occurs) to insert "regards procedure as." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is merely to put in the Bill the substance of an assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, was good enough to give on the Second Reading—namely, that the wording of this clause did not enable the Government, as owners of land, to evade the responsibilities laid down for landowners in Part I of the Bill. I have full confidence in the noble Lord's assurance, but, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, a provision in the Bill is worth any number of assurances. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will agree to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 21, after ("as") insert ("regards procedure as").—(Lord Polwarth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I, at this point, just read out what is stated in Section 40 of the Art of 1923? This Act shall apply to land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Crown.

LORD MORRISON

I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment but I hope to give him a reply that will afford him, at any rate, some little satisfaction. It is true that in reply to the observations of the noble Lord on the Second Reading, I said that the modifications contemplated under this clause were in relation to procedure only. I also gave the assurance that there was no intention of using the final provision of the clause for the purpose of contracting out of the application of Part I of the Bill, land held by Government Departments. The noble Lord may well ask why, in these circumstances, his Amendment is not acceptable. The answer is that the Amendment is not sufficiently wide in its terms to cover all matters with which it may be necessary to deal by way of regulations. There are some matters which the layman might bring within the definition of procedure which the lawyer would not accept. For instance, it will doubtless be necessary to prescribe that in certain instances matters which under the Bill are referred to the Secretary of State should, if they relate to Government Departments, be referred instead to an arbiter or to the Land Court for determination. I can, however, tell the noble Lord that certain points of difficulty in relation to this clause, which I have indicated, are at present being considered, and in the meantime I should be reluctant to narrow the power which the clause gives to make regulations. I hope that with this explanation and with a repetition of the assurances I have already given on the point, the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask whether there is any limit at all to the modifications which can be applied? There are no such words as "necessary modifications" so I presume there could be unnecessary modifications. Are there any limitations at all to the modifications which are laid down for everyone else under Part I of this Bill?

LORD MORRISON

I indicated in my reply that questions of modification were at present receiving the close attention of legal authorities on the subject. I am sure that it is asking too much of me to say what the decisions of those people are likely to be.

LORD POLWARTH

It does not seem that there is much that we can do about this matter. As usual, we shall have to take the words of the lawyers for it. In view of the fact that we have had two such categorical assurances on this point from the noble Lord, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 25 to insert the following new clause: . The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding to which the provisions of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1885, 1886 and 1887, or the Small Landowners (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, respectively apply. The noble Earl said: I beg to move this new clause. The purpose of it is specifically to confine the effect of Part I to what I suppose are agricultural holdings—that is to say, to exclude those small holdings to which we are told this Bill does not, in fact, apply. I have put down this Amendment because it is not clear whether or not the whole of Part I applies to all agricultural holdings, or what it applies to. The only words which, so far as I know, are relevant on this question are: "The provisions of this part of this Act…shall be construed as one with the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1923 and 1931…" I spoke on this matter during the debate on the Second Reading and I submit that it is very important that the point should be made entirely and absolutely clear. Whether an Act is good or bad, one thing which we are all agreed upon is that, even before consolidation, what it intends to do must be made abundantly clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 25, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

The short answer to the noble Earl's suggested new clause is that it merely states the existing legal position. The noble Earl's new clause reads: The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding to which the provisions of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1885, 1886 and 1887, or the Small Landowners (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931 respectively apply. I am informed that that is exactly the present legal position and that the Amendment is therefore unnecessary.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I regret to say that I cannot accept that. I have had this considered by two authorities in law who are fully competent to speak on this matter—much more competent than I am, and very much more competent than the average person who reads Acts of Parliament. They were not clear on the point. I must ask the noble Lord to give me chapter and verse to show me how these holdings are clearly excluded from the application of Part I of the Bill.

LORD MORRISON

The only further answer I can give to the noble Earl is that I am advised that the provisions of Part I of the Bill as read with the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1923 and 1931, do not apply to crofters and landholders whose conditions of tenure are governed by the separate legislative code referred to in the proposed Amendment. I am afraid that I can go no further than that.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am not satisfied that the position is sufficiently clear and shall be glad if the noble Lord will be so good as to look at it further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26:

Duties of good estate management and good husbandry.

(2) The provisions of the Fifth Schedule and of the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall have effect respectively for the purpose of determining for the purposes of this Act whether the owner of agricultural land is fulfilling his responsibilities to manage it in accordance with the rules of good estate management, and whether the occupier of an agricultural unit is fulfilling his responsibilities to farm it in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to add to subsection (2): and such provisions shall apply to land notwithstanding that the interest of the landlord Or the tenant thereof belongs to a government department or is held on behalf of His Majesty for the purpose of any government department. The noble Earl said: I do not wish to take up a great deal of the time of the Committee but I consider that this is a very important Amendment indeed. I do not know whether it is the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to weaken us by starvation—I understand he has said that we cannot adjourn for dinner. Perhaps he has taken that course in the hope that we shall proceed at a faster pace. Some noble Lords are going to catch trains to-night, but, still, I am sure that they will not die en route, and, we will try to get along now as quickly as we can.

In my opinion this is an Amendment which deals with a serious matter of principle. Here we have rules and regulations—and if I may say so with the utmost good will, such things seem to be the breath of life in the nostrils of the present administration of His Majesty's Government. I hope that I shall not be giving any offence if I add, using a Biblical quotation, that they seem to be that by which they "live and move and have their being." As I say, here we have rules—and strong rules, stringent rules. I am not saying that in many cases they are not right. They are laid upon the tenant and upon the landlord and if they break them they will probably be. I was going to say, "hung, drawn and quartered"—but, in spite of your Lordships, and if another place runs true to form, they will still remain unhung. Do these regulations apply to a Government Department, such as the Department of Agriculture, who own (I think I am right in saying) about 600,000 acres of land in Scotland? No, they do not. I believe they do apply to the National Coal Board, but the Department of Agriculture are not mentioned at all in this section. Nor, as we shall see later, are they forced to give any account of their stewardship. For years we have been without any account of how these farms have been run. In other words, the State is supreme and can do no wrong.

This is exactly the sort of thing which I noted the other day in the House and which, I believe, gave considerable umbrage. It is simply government by order and regulation. The Boards and apparently the Department, where they are owners, are not bound by the same rules as private owners. It seems to me an extraordinary case that the Secretary of State should find himself expected to judge whether he himself is a sinner or not. What we want to do, if possible, is to bring the Secretary of State into Part II of the Bill, which deals with discipline. I do not see why those who claim to run the country, where they are in the same position as private owners, should not be subject to the same rules. Except in one case, where the Secretary of State is the owner of small holdings and subject to the Land Court, the Secretary of State is not. He is sort of Pooh Bah. He ought to say to himself, "Arthur—or Tom, whatever the name is—have you been a good boy? Have you been clever at farming to-day? No. Well then, bend over, and I will chastise you." That is a caricature, but it is not unrepresentative of the facts. This is a very serious matter and one which your Lordships should not pass, because it affects the whole conduct of the country in future. If I can get anybody to follow me, I may take it into the Lobby.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

This is an Amendment which the Government ought to welcome. It merely puts everybody on a common denominator. If the Secretary of State, as the owner of small holdings, is under the Land Court, perhaps that explains his powers of arbitration. I hope the noble Lord will agree to this Amendment. Why should the Secretary of State be in a different position from the Coal Board or any other landlord in the country?

LORD CLYDESMUIR

I should like the noble Lord to make it clear that statutory bodies like the National Coal Board are bound by the provisions of this Act. I see the difficulty of making the Secretary of State judge in his own cause, but I think it would be a good thing that all operations should be checked. Other Departments are owners of land in Scotland—the War Department, the Air Ministry and so on.

LORD MORRISON

If the noble Lord who has just spoken were to have come over here, as an ex-Secretary of State he could have made the case against this Amendment much more strongly than I can. I am sorry the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, commenced his speech by making what I consider to be an accusation, that I was attempting to undermine the physique of your Lordships. From the vigour of his address, however, it would not appear that my efforts were having any effect.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

It was nothing to what it would have been had I had some dinner inside me!

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl is not going to tempt me. I made an effort half an hour or three-quarters of an hour ago to get a move on, but it was a complete failure; and I do not mean to try again. As the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has intimated, it would clearly be absurd (though he did not use that word) to include provision in the Bill for land held or tenanted by the Secretary of State. He would have to have power to serve a warning notice on himself, or to serve directions upon himself.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Why not?

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

It happens with regard to Crown lands.

LORD MORRISON

I am trying to explain the difficulty of asking the head of a Department to summon himself. For the Secretary of State to serve a summons on another Minister, or to take steps to dispossess him on the grounds of bad husbandry, would be regarded—to put it mildly—as unconstitutional. I am sure the noble Earl would be the last person in this House to egg me on, especially on these Benches, to do something unconstitutional. In these cases, steps will be taken by inter-departmental arrangements to ensure that any deficiencies in estate management or in farming are corrected. I would add that the Government are fully alive to their responsibilities in this matter and will observe the same standards of estate management as private landowners. I am perfectly certain this will apply whether there is a Labour or Conservative Secretary of State.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I was not suggesting any Party.

LORD MORRISON

For these reasons, and partly because such a step would be entirely unconstitutional and revolutionary, I am unable to accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I regret to say that the noble Lord's answer is quite unsatisfactory. I do not accept for one moment that it is unconstitutional that one Government Department should summon another. To quote the poet: When self the wavering balance shakes, 'Tis rarely right adjusted. That is the trouble. When a man is judge in his own case he is a poor judge. We should like to know what are the arrangements to be made. It is no use the noble Lord pretending the Secretary of State's land is always well-managed. I am not going to offer the criticism that it is always badly managed, but in the opinion of some people it is not well-managed. I take the liberty of quoting a letter from someone not ill-qualified to express a view. He says: The Department of Agriculture are notorious as the worst estate managers in Scotland. I do not offer this as my opinion. I do not say it is true. All I say is that that was the view expressed to me by one whom I consider well qualified to judge. Can the noble Lord give any indications of the sort of procedure likely to be adopted? I would like to suggest this is in the interests of the Secretary of State himself. Is he to allow a situation to arise which will become a public scandal, or is he to have some system which will enable it not to happen?

LORD MORRISON

I hope to give an explanation which the noble Earl will consider satisfactory. He has now raised the same point as was raised on Second Reading by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, when he criticised the state of equipment on some farms on Government estates.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

The noble Lord says that the Secretary of State cannot judge for himself. There are so many different things the Secretary of State is allowed to do that we are not allowed to do. For instance, if we receive an allowance towards a tied cottage, that cottage at once becomes untied. But when it belongs to the Government, I understand that it never becomes untied. That is a case—and a vital case—where the Secretary of State, as a landlord, is different from the man who owns his own farm.

LORD MORRISON

I must confine myself to the terms of the Amendment. What I said was that the noble Earl's Amendment was a proposition to do something entirely unconstitutional in the history of this country. Those are the words by which I stand.

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asks me to give him some information as to exactly what does happen in these cases. On Government, as on private, estates, the exigencies of war time and the current shortages of building labour and materials have inevitably led to arrears of maintenance work. The Government are aware of deficiencies which should be made good. But I should like to make this point. The Secretary of State is adopting the policy of treating his own estates on the same basis as private estates in regard to the allocation of materials and labour for the most necessary and urgent jobs. I think your Lordships will agree that that is the right course to take. There are, of course, other matters to be borne in mind, such as the extent to which responsibility for buildings on some of these properties rests not on the Secretary of State, but on the landholder tenants—the position under the Small Landholders Acts being different from that under the Agricultural Holdings Acts—but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to elaborate on this subject at this moment. I have endeavoured to explain that the Secretary of State, so far as land over which he has jurisdiction is concerned, is applying to his own Department the same restrictions and stringencies as are applied to the private individual.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My I ask specifically whether Clause 13 applies to all tenants on Secretary of State's land?

LORD MORRISON

Yes.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

What references are the agricultural committees to make to any lands in the hands of the Department? This is a matter not without importance. Presumably, the agricultural committee would normally report that estate management or husbandry is badly conducted in certain areas. Can we have some idea of what they will do in cases of land owned by the Department?

LORD MORRISON

The Secretary of State would always be glad of advice from the agricultural committee in regard to land which comes under his Department.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The noble Lord answering for the Government has accused me of producing something—"revolutionary," I think, was the word he used, and something unconstitutional which has never been heard of in the history of this country. The very state in which the Minister now finds himself is revolutionary and unconstitutional. In the old days, a Minister could probably not have found himself in that position. I suggest that it is revolutionary in the extreme to suggest that there should be a Minister in power upon whom there is no check whatsoever to see whether he carries out his duties properly.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl will know that there is also the check of the matter being raised in either House of Parliament.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Is that a very strong point, with the present majority in another place? In view of the fact that the depopulation of Scotland has set in, to a large extent, and because, I am sorry to say, we have not sufficient members in the House to divide, I am forced to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

Powers of Secretary of State in cases of bad estate management or bad husbandry.

(2) A warning notice served under the last foregoing subsection shall specify the general grounds on which the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to add to subsection (2): and shall also state in what respects the person on whom the notice has been served has failed to observe the rules of good estate management or of good husbandry as the case may be prescribed in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules respectively. The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to provide that where a warning notice is served on the owner or occupier of an agricultural holding it shall state the specific provisions of the Fifth or Sixth Schedule of the Act relating to the rules of good estate management and husbandry respectively, with which the owner or occupier may not have complied.

I endeavour by this Amendment to overcome the objections by the Government on the Committee stage in another place to giving the detailed grounds on which the Secretary of State is satisfied that the rules of good estate management or husbandry have not been fulfilled. If it is the advice of the Government that the warning notice should not be too detailed or specific, it certainly should not be too vague. The landowner or farmer ought to know what case he has to answer. In this subsection your Lordships will see that it is stated: A warning notice served under the last foregoing subsection shall specify the general grounds on which the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section. I should have thought that omitting the word "general" from line 21 would be both simple and applicable—neither too wide nor too narrow. The words "general grounds" are used more appropriately in other clauses and much less suitably here. If, however, the Government do not wish to drop the word "general," I suggest that the wording in this Amendment will be equally suitable and applicable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD MORRISON

I am sorry that at the moment I am unable to answer the noble Duke's question as to the retention of the word "general." I will certainly undertake to make inquiries to find out what is the official attitude towards that word.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

If the noble Lord does not wish to adopt that method—and I understand the Government do not approve—will he accept this Amendment?

LORD MORRISON

I was going to give reasons why the Government are unable, in any circumstances, irrespective of the point which we have just been discussing, to accept this Amendment. It seems to the Government, and to me, neither necessary nor desirable to specify in precise detail the grounds on which the issue of a warning notice is based. Surely the person concerned will know of his shortcomings long before there is any question of a warning notice, because the committee will have had him under observation before making their proposals, and he will have had the opportunity of seeking advice and guidance from his local agricultural advisory committee, or from the local organiser of his agricultural college. The clause already provides that he shall be afforded an opportunity of making representations, either in writing or in person, after notification of the intention of the committee to serve a warning notice. It seems to me almost impossible to conceive of a case where the matter should have reached that state without a man knowing specifically what are the complaints against him. Further, as soon as the warning notice has been issued the person concerned may be served with such directions as are required to secure that he fulfils his responsibilities in regard to good estate management or good husbandry, as the case may be. These directions will specify the action required to be taken. For those reasons, while I am unable to accept the Amendment as on the Order Paper, I would ask the noble Duke to leave it over to the Report stage so that I may give him a definite answer in regard to the other suggestion he has made.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I would bring it to the notice of the noble Lord that there is a dislike of the word "general" in this particular place. I am not asking for anything very detailed or very specific, but I think some improvement is possible. If any alteration is refused, then I think it becomes all the more necessary in practice that the Department or the agricultural executive committees should be encouraged not to be too vague when telling the offender what the charge is. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

7.42 p.m.

Clause 29:

Directions to secure good estate management and good husbandry.

(4) Any direction under this section requiring the provision or improvement of fixed equipment or such replacement or renewal of fixed equipment as has been rendered necessary by natural decay or fair wear and tear shall, notwithstanding the terms of any lease to which he may be a party, he given to the owner of the land.

LORD MORRISON

These two Amendments are designed to remedy a defect to which attention was drawn by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, during the Second Reading of the Bill. He pointed out, quite rightly, that in the case of holdings held on landholder's tenure it would be inappropriate to issue directions to an owner in respect of fixed equipment, since in most cases the responsibility for the provision and upkeep of the equipment rests on the holder. These Amendments will meet the point by restricting the operation of subsection (4) of the clause to holdings to which the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, apply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 37, after ("equipment") insert ("on a holding (as defined in the Act of 1923)").—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for meeting me on this point. I am not satisfied with the definition of a holding under the 1923 Act. I think this has been given much wider connotation. The noble Lord recognises—which is really important—that the clause is wrong, and I would be glad if he would look at it again to see whether he is quite certain that the 1923 Act covers the statutory small holdings. In many cases they would not be entirely responsible for their own equipment. I believe there are a number which fall outside the scope of the 1923 Act, where the tenants are still responsible for some of their equipment. I will not press the noble Lord at the moment, but if he would look at it again between now and the Report stage I should be grateful.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

I beg formally to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 38, after ("equipment") insert ("thereon").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30:

Supplementary provisions as to directions.

For the purposes of this subsection the annual value of land shall be taken to be the gross annual value thereof as entered in the valuation roll in force at the time when the notice under the last foregoing subsection was given, or, if the land is rot separately entered in the valuation roll, such proportion of the gross annual value as so entered of the lands and heritages of which it forms part as the Land Court may determine to be appropriate.

LORD POLWARTH moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that in ascertaining the said annual value of the land for the purposes of this subsection there shall be deducted from the gross annual value such sums as represent owners' rates, feu duty, stipend and Land Tax. The noble Lord said: Under this clause the Secretary of State is empowered to give directions to a landowner to provide fixed equipment on a holding. It goes on to say that the landowner may appeal against that direction to the Land Court, on showing that the cost of carrying out those improvements to the fixed equipment, together with the cost of any such work carried out during the previous two years, exceeds the annual value of the holding. It then goes on to define the annual value as the gross annual value. The intention of this Amendment is to substitute for that the net annual value; that is, the annual value subject to the deductions mentioned in this Amendment. These are all fixed charges on the land. The landlord has first to meet them before he has any surplus of his rent for carrying out the improvements. There is one particular point. In England the rates are borne entirely by the occupier, whereas, in Scotland, the rates are borne partly by the occupier and partly by the owner. Therefore, there is a very strong case indeed for the deduction of the owner's rates in arriving at the annual value. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD MORRISON

Once again I regret to say that for four reasons—all of which I think are solid and sound reasons—I am unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. The first reason is that the valuation roll rent in Scotland is a well known and readily available yardstick. It has, above all, the merit of simplicity, and at a time when simplicity in legislation is being urged on all sides there seems to be no point in introducing unnecessary complications. The second reason is that, under the proposed Amendment, the rent would require to be ascertained after detailed inquiry and proof in each individual case. This would impose an additional and unnecessary amount of labour upon all parties concerned—applicants, Secretary of State and Land Court alike. The third reason is that the Amendment would increase the scope for appeals under the clause. The formula at present contained in the clause is considered, if anything, to be too favourable to owners rather than the reverse. The fourth reason—and the one to which I personally attach the most importance—is that the formula contained in this clause has been discussed with the representative organisations of every section of the agricultural industry, and has received their concurrence. In that case, I think it would be very unwise, particularly at this late stage of the Bill, to disturb that agreement.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am not sure that the last statement is absolutely accurate. I do not know, but I have never had any assurance on that point in any conversations which I have had. In regard to simplicity, may I take it that this valuation roll is taken as the gross annual value? That means to say that you are including certain figures which are pure tax.

LORD MORRISON

I said it was a well recognised yardstick.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The owner's rates, which are added to the owner's charges, may be described as a pure matter of tax.

LORD POLWARTH

I would like to comment upon only two arguments which do not seem to me to hold water. I cannot follow the argument that there will be a great amount of work involved in having to ascertain a figure other than the one to be found in the valuation roll. After all, this point is not going to arise until the owner is directed by the Secretary of State to provide equipment and, having been directed, decides to appeal. Surely, the amount of work involved is not as great as all that. The second point is the broad one that, in order to achieve simplicity, we should not adopt this proviso. In my opinion failure to do so will involve the sacrifice of equity. We have been arguing on a previous clause that, to achieve equity, we must sacrifice simplicity. Clearly, we cannot go any further with this matter at the moment. We may still find it necessary to try and find some other way round. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.

Clause 33:

Power of Secretary of State to take possession where occupier dispossessed and no other arrangements made.

(9) A certified copy of an order under subsection (1) of this Section requiring a tenant to give up his occupation of any land shall be a sufficient warrant for ejection against the tenant or any party in his right in the event of noncompliance with such order.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to omit subsection (9). The noble Earl said: This subsection which I am moving to omit is really the completion of a cycle. We have seen the Secretary of State as judge in his own case, we have seen him as jury, and now he is to be the executioner in other people's cases. I cannot see why the normal process of law cannot be carried out. People have been ejected from their houses for a very long time, and there is no reason why the Secretary of State should step in now and do it for somebody else. There is a perfectly good procedure, but the Secretary of State wants to take out his own warrant, a sufficient warrant for the ejection. Why should the matter not be submitted to the sheriff's court in the ordinary course of events? It has been done for hundreds of years? Might I ask who is to enforce ejection? Have the Department enlisted personnel for the task? What is the next step to be taken? The whole process of ejection has been going on for a long time, and there is no particular reason why the normal procedure should not be carried out here. The Secretary of State can use the Sheriff's Court with great ease, and I can see no particular reason why he should not do it in this instance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 35, line 16, leave out subsection (9).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I do not think the procedure is unusual. This is certainly not the first time that this procedure has been instituted, even in quite recent legislation. If the noble Earl wants an instance, I can give him one from the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947. Let me try to trace the story. The noble Earl said this was the completion of a cycle in which the Secretary of State, having been both judge and jury in his own case, now becomes the executioner. Let me give my version of what really happens. The noble Earl will be aware that the previous clause, Clause 32, provides that where the Secretary of State has terminated the tenancy of a holding on grounds of bad husbandry he may (a) require the owner, after a period of not less than three months, either to farm it himself if he so wishes or to let it to a tenant approved by the Secretary of State; or (b) if the tenancy is that of owner-occupier, direct that the owner should let it to a tenant approved by the Secretary of State. If the approval of the Secretary of State to a proposed tenant is not given, the owner has the right to appeal to the Land Court. If, in defiance of the Secretary of State's directions, the landlord lets the holding to a non-approved tenant, the tenancy is deemed by Clause 33 to have terminated, and the Secretary of State is given power to take possession. The Secretary of State is at the same time authorised to require the non-approved tenant, by order, to give up his occupation of the land. Subsection (9), which the Amendment seeks to delete, provides merely that a certified copy of this order shall be sufficient warrant for the tenant's ejection at the hands of a sheriff's officer.

I have already said that this is not an unusual provision. The power of eviction under the subsection will be exercised only at the end of a long process of procedure under the Bill. Representations can be made before the initial warning notice is issued. After the notice has been in force for not less than twelve months, a proposal to terminate the tenancy may be made by the Secretary of State. Here again, an opportunity for representation is provided, together with the right of appeal to the Land Court. As mentioned above, there is a further appeal available to the Land Court if the Secretary of State declines to approve a tenant selected by the landlord. If, after this procedure has been carried out, the landlord still persists in defying the orders of the Secretary of State, it is only right that summary methods of terminating the tenancy should be available. Otherwise, it would be necessary to undertake what might be protracted proceedings in court. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not insist on leaving out subsection (9).

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Subsection (9) is exactly what I thought. It is an evasion of the normal procedure of ejection. The noble Lord says it is normal. With great respect, I am not criticising the procedure; I am criticising whether the delinquent has an opportunity of appeal. I am not criticising the length of the process. What I am asking is, why the sheriff's court procedure should not be used. Can the noble Lord answer that point? I suggest that it is by far the easiest way for the Secretary of State to do his job; I think it would be much easier for him and much more convenient to do it that way than through the Department of Agriculture. As a matter of fact, I do not suppose that the Department of Agriculture have people who are fitted, competent or suitable for turning people out of their houses. I am not going to press this point, but I think the Secretary of State is wrong. He should use the ordinary procedure. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Special directions as to stocking of deer forests and grouse moors]:

THE EARL. OF HADDINGTON moved to add to the clause: (7) Where any land forming part of a deer forest or grouse moor is subject to a direction given under subsection one of this section the assessor shall have regard to the effect of such direction in assessing the valuation of the deer forest or grouse moor of which the land in question forms part. The noble Earl said: I feel that this Amendment requires very little explanation. Its object is to provide that where a stocking direction is served on an owner of a grouse moor or deer forest, other factors must be taken into consideration by the assessor in determining the valuation.

In the first place, the land will suffer a reduction in its rateable value and the assessment will be lower. If such an event takes place, it seems to me that hardship will fall in two directions. It is likely to fall on the owner: he may be relieved of his rates, but he will be deprived of his rents; he will be deprived of the rent of that part of his forest or moor which has the stocking direction. At any rate, on balance, I think we may say that the owner is bound to be the loser. But this hardship is nothing, to my mind, compared to the hardship which may fall on certain local authorities. Your Lordships are aware that many of the Highland counties—notably the County of Inverness—derive a large part of their revenue from rates—rates from fishings, shootings and deer forests. If this power of stocking direction is to be extensively exercised, it seems to me that it will be nothing short of a disaster for the local authority concerned.

Those of your Lordships who are members of county councils will appreciate the vital importance of keeping up the rateable value of the counties, for all those various services which the Government propose and which we all hope to see provided for the benefit of the people. Local authorities are faced with appalling financial commitments. We have water schemes; we have housing schemes; we have health schemes in front of us, and this problem is already causing a great deal of anxiety to many county councils. If the chief source of revenue is to be taken away from many of these Highland counties, from whence are they going to draw their rates? These are plain facts. County councils must balance their budgets somehow. They cannot run at a loss. I hope I have explained this Amendment fully enough for the noble Lord opposite and that he will give a sympathetic ear to this Amendment and accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 39, line 11 at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Haddington.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

May I support the noble Earl who has just spoken in putting this point of view? We are very anxious that the fact that consideration will be given by the assessor in assessing a valuation of deer forests or grouse moors should be printed in black and white. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has spoken from the point of view of a county councillor. I can speak from the same point of view. He has, equally, spoken on behalf of the owner, and he has pointed out that, although the owner may obtain relief in rates, he probably suffers at the same time a large drop in rent by reason of the fact that the stocking direction has been issued. The noble Earl has stressed strongly, as I do, the effect that this will have upon local authorities. I know, from my own case in my own county, the revenue which is derived from the lettings of shootings. It is also true of the county next to mine; it applies to both Angus and Perthshire. The revenue was something enormous before the Second World War. Accordingly, those counties, by reason of the fact that they have lost these sporting rates, find themselves in a very serious financial position. If you intend further to curtail the activities of people able to receive these sporting rents, then you will accordingly embarrass the financial situation still further.

I hope that the noble Lord—as I believe he will—will look at this from a reasonable point of view. In the old days, grouse anti deer were looked upon as the perquisites of the landlord, who was pictured as sitting on his behind, with several ghillies behind him, drinking whiskey and soda and popping off at deer or grouse as they ran and flew past him. Of course, that is nonsense now. The landlord, far from being able to shoot his own game, has brought more revenue from foreign countries to this country through these shootings. It is revenue from dollars which we now require more than ever. Very often, inquiries are made by Americans who desire to come over here and partake in this sport. I remember one estate which, during the twelve to thirteen years before the Second World War, averaged £5,000 a year of foreign money spent in the district. Can you visualise how that must have affected the assessment for various activities such as police, roads and things like that? As a matter of fact, it entirely kept them going. As has been stressed by the noble Earl, this matter must be looked at not only from the point of view of the owner whose concern it is, but also from the point of view of the local authority.

LORD MORRISON

This short, but interesting, discussion brings me into a realm of which I know little or nothing. I have always been candid with your Lordships, and I hope I always shall. Therefore, any reply that I give your Lordships can only be the reply which I have elicited from others possessed of much more knowledge of this matter than I can possibly have. I say that as a preliminary; and all the more so because my limited knowledge tells me that the point raised by the two noble Earls is a very arguable point. In the first place, I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary because, as the Amendment says, the assessor shall have regard to the effect of such direction I am advised that the Amendment is unnecessary since the assessor, in any case, in assessing the land's valuation for rating, is bound to consider the use to which it is put. The assessor, I am advised, will, in fact, assess it as agricultural land if it is used mainly for agricultural or pastoral purposes. This will apply to the whole estate or to a part of it, if that part is fenced off and can be assessed as a separate subject. Any owner or tenant has the right of appeal to the county valuation committee, and thence to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court if he considers that, having regard to the purpose for which the land is used, he is entitled to derating. Mainly on the ground that I am advised by those who know more about this than I quite frankly confess I do, I think the Amendment is unnecessary, and that what the noble Earl asks for is already fully provided for in the clause. Therefore, I am unable to accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I thank the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply. He says that he considers the Amendment unnecessary. But will not the noble Lord meet me this far? If he says that in principle it is correct, can he see any harm in inserting it? We should like it in black and white. Is there any harm in putting this into black and white? We ask only that the assessor shall have regard to the effect of such direction. Will not the noble Lord give this point further consideration?

LORD MORRISON

The only reason that I can give the noble Lord why his Amendment should not be put in, if it is unnecessary, is that we endeavour in all our legislation to refrain from putting unnecessary provisions into Acts of Parliament.

THE EARL or AIRLIE

The noble Lord is perfectly correct in what he says; but although it is correct in theory, it is not correct in practice. Therefore we should like something in black and white to emphasise it.

LORD MORRISON

Quite frankly, I confess that I am impressed with the way in which the noble Earl and his noble friends have presented the case for this Amendment. I have no authority, as I have said, upon this subject but I am prepared to ask those who have more knowledge of these questions than I have to look at it again. Perhaps then they will confirm, or enable me to confirm, to the noble Earl that the point is already completely covered; or, if it is not completely covered, will consider whether anything further can be done to make sure that the point which he has in mind is considered.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I thank the noble Lord. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36 agreed to.

LORD AMMON

I beg to intervene for a moment. It has been suggested to me on purely humanitarian grounds, not by the persons who are suffering most, that perhaps it would be worth while if we gave an opportunity for the Lord Chairman and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to get something to eat. I suggest that we adjourn for half an hour.

[The Sitting was suspended at ten minutes past eight and resumed at a quarter to nine.]

Clauses 37 to 45 agreed to.

Clause 46:

Returns of numbers, etc., of deer.

46.—(1) The Secretary of State may by notice in writing served on the owner of any land require him to make a return in such from as the Secretary of State may require showing the number of deer of each sex which to his knowledge have been killed on the land during such period (not exceeding five years) immediately preceding the service of the notice as may be specified therein, and also a return showing the number of deer of each sex which he estimates to be on the land.

(2) If any person on whom a notice under the foregoing subsection has been served—

1. (a) fails or neglects to make the required return within thirty-six days after the service of the notice, or
2. (b) in making such a return as aforesaid knowingly or recklessly furnishes any information which is false in a material particular,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to omit Clause 46. The noble Earl said: I feel there is almost a family party feeling this evening and, now that we have something inside us, even though it is probably only cider, almost an air of benignity spreading over us. Before I left the Chamber I saw a word on my notes which read something like "balderdash," but I find that I have altered it. In moving that this clause should be left out, I am going to say—and I believe many other noble Lords agree with me—that this clause is a very stupid one and it does not make sense, especially to those people who, having had lifelong experience, know almost all there is to be known about the conditions and habits of deer. I do not quite understand what is sought to be achieved by this clause. If the Government insist on trying to get a census of deer, they will be trying to get something that is quite impracticable. I am not alone in taking this view. I think your Lordships will find that I am supported by everyone with knowledge of the subject whom you may consult. I know Mr. Frank Wallace very well. He is, I believe, recognised as one of the greatest experts on the habits of deer. He has been asked by several countries—including Spain and Germany—to go and advise their authorities. He bears out my contention that the idea of numbering deer is altogether impracticable.

This is not a matter in which we are quarrelling over a principle. We agree, of course, that dead deer should be numbered—that is only reasonable and it can easily be done. But it really is not possible to number living deer. It may be possible to get returns sent in by stalkers, estate authorities and forest owners, but those returns can only be—as I believe His Majesty's Government will agree—intelligent guesses. Some years ago when we were asked to make a census of deer I well remember going to my stalker and saying: "We've got the coont a' the deer in the forest." He roared with laughter at the idea. Your Lordships, I am sure, realise that there is such a thing as wind. It was suggested to me that the present Government may know something about that commodity—but I, of course, do not agree with that! Now deer are extremely sensitive to wind; it affects them quickly, so that they migrate and travel great distances. The result is that you may find deer in one part of a forest at one time on one day and miles away only some hours later on the same day—certainly a great distance away on the next day. Therefore, to try to achieve the object which is envisaged in this clause is really not a practical idea at all.

Deer have to contend with a lot of things—weather, lack of shelter, wind disturbance and many other factors. All those matters affect them and make it quite impossible for anyone to make a realistic census of them. If the attempt to make such a census is really going to be carried out, then, of course it will have to be done on one day. I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will probably agree that you could not make a census all over Scotland on different days, because the same deer which you counted on Monday would, quite probably, be in another forest on Tuesday; so you would be practically certain to count some stock twice. Then you would gain a completely false impression.

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

And be fined £50.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I am coming to that. Not only does the Bill insist on this census, but it lays down that anyone who "recklessly furnishes any information which is false" can be fined £50. I do not know whether it is going to be argued that he is not going to be fined £50. It is impossible for him to make a sensible reply. He might easily have 500 head more or fewer than he honestly thought was on the ground, and he could be hauled up for his "reckless" answer. Let me draw a short picture of what might happen. Take Monday as "D day", when the census of deer is to take place all over Scotland. Your stalker starts out at the end of the forest, over one of your beats, which perhaps runs to 7,000 acres. About eleven o'clock the wind changes or he comes into a corrie down which the wind blows, and you find the deer coming in or going out. By the afternoon there is a completely different situation.

Is that a reasonable way to try and get a census of deer? I beg the Government to be practical about it. What are they after? Are they trying to find out the number of deer so that they can say that one forest has too many? Deer do not belong to one forest; they belong to Scotland. They travel like water or electricity, and you cannot pin them on any one piece of ground. It was said in another place that some deer stayed more or less in the same place. That is true in very few cases. When you want to get information, the golden rule is that you must not ask for it unless you believe it is reasonable. This proposal will be of no assistance at all to the Government in achieving their end. The golden rule continues: do not legislate to get information unless it is going to be of some use.

We have to face up to the realities of this deer situation. The real trouble is that deer do not have a close season. For that reason they are poached. Deer are vermin, and they are treated as vermin. Nobody is going to quarrel with the killing of deer if they poach on arable land. They do harm, and even the tenant can kill them. But we should see that deer are not shot all the year round. They yield a considerable amount of venison. In the winter the deer are down by three to four stone in weight, and if they are shot then a considerable amount of venison, which is a valuable food, is wasted. We want to get the deer question put on a proper basis. We must have the shooting season kept rigorously—from August 1 or a little earlier if you like to October 15 for stags, and from November to the end of January for hinds and than close down. We should make certain that we have sufficient wintering for deer so that the deer left can live. If we make certain they have sufficient food, we will not get the deer poaching on the crops. At the present moment we are holding sheep stock on land which is not good enough to hold sheep. We are over-stocked in sheep, and, in my humble opinion, there is a lot of ground not good enough for sheep which would be better under timber or, in some cases, under deer. It may be said that this is a point outside my Amendment, but it is not. In this clause something is asked which is really quite impracticable. If that is the case, for goodness sake do not legislate to have it carried out, because it is making nonsense of the law, and it will not make for proper legislation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 46.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

LORD MORRISON

As I once before observed in this House, after dinner Scottish humour is always at its best. We have had an excellent example of that to-night. I do not propose to follow the noble Earl, because it would do no good. Certainly I am unable to compete with him in the lively address he has delivered to your Lordships on this subject. With your Lordships' permission, I would like to treat this subject a little more seriously than did the noble Earl, at any rate, in the first part of his speech. First of all, the practical difficulties of making any accurate estimate are recognised by everybody. I think the word the noble Earl used is not the word contained in the Bill at all. He referred to "numbering" sheep and "numbering" deer. In the sense that I understand the word "numbering," it means finding the exact number. What is intended—and, indeed, is stated in the clause—is estimating the number. I would like to address my remarks to why it is thought necessary to do such a thing.

Estimates of the number of deer on a particular forest are essential if the Secretary of State is to exercise his powers properly. The carrying capacity of a hill for deer will determine the number of sheep that might be carried without any reduction in the stock of deer. It will also enable technical experts to determine what additional sheep might be introduced by killing off a fixed head of deer. Moreover, if the numbers of deer are not kept under control, they will spread to lower ground, so that, quite apart from the introduction of sheep, it is necessary to keep a check on the population of each particular forest. As I have said, the practical difficulties of making accurate estimates are recognised. It is understood that in the main deer forests there is no marked migration of deer from forest to forest. There are in most cases natural breeding areas, and in some there are geographical boundaries. In the main areas, I am advised, the deer move about within their own forests, each of which retains a fairly regular standing stock. In the more southerly areas there is more movement across country, and the difficulty of estimating may be greater. In the main deer forest areas stalkers have a shrewd idea of the number of deer existing. Even in the southern areas they are not without some knowledge of the deer population.

The statement I am making seems to me to be borne out, because when deer forests are advertised to let offerers are usually restricted to killing a fixed number of stags. Sometimes they are also limited to a fixed number of hinds; but this is not usual. These numbers are fixed in relation to the killing in previous years, and to the known or estimated carrying capacity of the forest. Too heavy killing is not wanted, because it might lead to an unduly severe reduction on the stock in the forest. This seems to bear out that owners do, in fact, have a fair knowledge—I do not say an accurate knowledge—of the population of the forests and that in general they should have no great difficulty in furnishing such estimates, in accordance with what the clause requires. It is probably true that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that inaccurate information had been applied, but the penalty in the clause is required to cover classes of failure to make any return at all.

During the war years a return was regularly made. During and since the war, many owners have voluntarily furnished monthly returns of deer, stags and hinds killed on their land, and have thus enabled a general picture of deer control activities to be obtained. What has been lacking is a reasonably accurate estimate from time to time of the existing deer population. As I have already said, this information is considered necessary to enable the Secretary of State efficiently to exercise his powers. I think the noble Earl now understands that I am not suggesting anyone is foolish enough to believe that it is possible to get a strictly accurate estimate; but it is possible to make a rough estimate, and that is all that is desired by this clause.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

My point was that I did not think the return would be of any value. I cannot agree that you would get a close enough estimate. The Bill uses the word "number." All the owner can do is to make an intelligent guess, and that may be a long way from the real figure, because deer move about a great deal. It is true that to a certain extent you might consider that a regular stock remains on the ground, but its composition varies from year to year, depending upon circumstances. Sometimes a stag forest may change to a hind forest. What is really wanted is the reclassification of forests—that is to say, forests that can hold deer and nothing else; forests that can run some sheep and some deer; and some that are called forests which ought to carry sheep only. I am afraid I am not in the least impressed by the noble Lord's remarks.

LORD KINNAIRD

I do not want to interfere in deer forests, but I would like to make one remark. It seems to me, as an ordinary individual, that there is something penal and offensive about this. We are all required to make returns of what our land produces. We do it every year—the number of cattle, sheep and so on. But if we put in a wrong return we are not held up to a summary conviction and a fine of £50. It seems to me that it is unnecessary to say that deer forest owners shall be liable.

LORD MORRISON

I think the noble Lord has not appreciated that the fine is applicable only in the cases where the person refuses to make a return.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Subsection (2) refers to any person who:

1. "(a) fails or neglects to make the required return within thirty-six days after the service of the notice, or
2. (b) in making such a return as aforesaid knowingly or recklessly.…"

LORD MORRISON

What I attempted to explain was that it would be almost impossible, in cases of this sort, to prove that an owner had given inaccurate information.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

That is just my point.

LORD MORRISON

That would resolve itself into the only case where the penalty would be asked—where the owner refused to try.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Let us omit paragraph (b) then. You have (a) where he "deliberately fails or neglects." I quite understand that if he can he will snake a return, but it will not be an accurate one. Paragraph (b) says that if he "recklessly furnishes"——

LORD MORRISON

I am advised that the intention is merely to deal with the person who deliberately refuses to make any effort to meet requirements.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

We are grateful to the noble Lord. I feel that the word "reckless" is a curious one to use. If you were asked how many children you had, you would presumably know exactly what the answer was. I agree that if a person refuses to furnish information he is acting reprehensibly. If the noble Lord can undertake to take out paragraph (b) or the word "reckless," it will be of great assistance. If the noble Lord will consider that, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD MORRISON

I have already done it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46 agreed to.

Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to.

Clause 50:

Prohibition of night shooting, and use of spring traps.

50.—(1) If any person—

1. (a) between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, uses a firearm for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits: or
2. (b) uses or knowingly permits the use of a spring trap for that purpose;

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this Section, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

9.6 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "of a spring trap." The noble Duke said: If it meets with approval, I should like to discuss the three Amendments on Clause 50 together. The object of these Amendments is to enable the use of spring traps to be continued until there is a suitable substitute which is both practical and available in large enough numbers. There is a great deal that should be said on this matter, but I will endeavour to be brief. First, I would make it clear that there is no complaint of the intention of the Secretary of State to require the killing of rabbits in as humane a manner as possible. I am sure there is a universal desire that any apparatus which is proved to be cruel and which is used when alternative methods are available should be made illegal. But by preventing the necessary killing of rabbits, the Government will be making sure of a large increase in their number and will, in fact, be acting contrary to the views of all experienced agricultural opinion in Scotland.

We already know, from reports coming in, that this year, following the mild winter, will be a prolific breeding season. An early start has been made. It will be realised that if no check is applied, there will be a serious increase in the numbers. If there are 100,000 couples of rabbits they breed rapidly, so that there may be an additional 5,000,000 rabbits or so at the end of the year. I wonder if the Government and the Department of Agriculture wish to take responsibility for this particular clause. I hope they realise that the loss in food through rabbits will very quickly cancel out any extra production which might be hoped for from this Bill. What I am saying represents the opinion of the managers of agricultural lands and estates, farmers, gamekeepers, professional rabbit trappers and experienced landowners. If the spring steel traps are prohibited now, and other traps are not available in sufficient numbers, a great many professional trappers will not be able to start work next autumn.

I have referred to food production. There is co-operation now between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Forestry, and we must bear in mind the increasing re-afforestation and the effect of rabbits on the young trees. At this time, we should be appealing all over Scotland for an intensive campaign to reduce and destroy rabbits, instead of encouraging them. Incidentally, I should like to ask whether the noble Lord would state definitely whether it is still legal to use these traps for foxes and rats.

LORD MORRISON

It is.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Thank you. If it is cruel to use that trap for rabbits, I suppose it is also cruel to use it for foxes. I say that this clause, like a few others which have been referred to, spoils the Bill. I feel that many of the clauses, and especially this one, require very careful attention before the Bill becomes an Act. The best way of getting over the difficulty would be to delete the Amendment which was made on Report stage in another place. As we suggest here, the alternative is to give power to the Secretary of State to approve, for the time being and until there are other methods, the use of traps, such as the steel trap. This clause leaves a considerable amount of uncertainty. I hope that enough will have been said to bring the Government to realise that some change is necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 47, line 15, leave out ("of a spring traps").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I wish to support the noble Duke as briefly as I can in this matter. Although it may appear to some of your Lordships to be a relatively unimportant clause, I can assure your Lordships that those who know and appreciate the great destruction that this pest can cause to crops, trees and things of that sort, do view this in a very different light. To put it briefly, apart from shooting and ferreting, which are only supplemental means of killing rabbits, the main methods of extermination are snaring and trapping. I will deal with gassing in a moment. You cannot snare rabbits under any conditions. You cannot snare rabbits in winter; you cannot snare rabbits on bare pasture; you cannot snare rabbits on rocky ground. But the spring trap can be used under any conditions. It has the disadvantage of being bulky and heavy to carry; and, of course, it is cruel. So that the two methods, snaring and trapping, are complementary. They are the known and old approved methods of killing rabbits. We must rule out gassing because a gassed rabbit is not fit for human consumption, as your Lordships will no doubt realise.

In that connection, it would be interesting to your Lordships, I feel sure, if I quoted a letter giving some figures which I have received from the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. They are only an unofficial approximate estimate of the number of rabbits which have been killed in the country in the past: It is believed that about 44,000,000 home-killed rabbits, weighing about 800,000 cwt., were eaten in this country in the year 1938.

LORD MORRISON

Is that in Scotland only?

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

No; that is in Great Britain. The statement goes on: Of this number, 7,000,000 were killed in Scotland and 37,000,000 in England and Wales. I quote those figures to show your Lordships what a tremendously important item the rabbit is in the food of the people.

There is another interesting item in this letter—namely, the tremendous increase which has occurred in the importation of frozen rabbits in the last ten years. More than 193,000 cwt. of rabbits were imported into this country in 1938; in 1947, roughly ten years later, more than 423,000 cwt. were imported. So that in about ten years the import of frozen rabbits into this country has more than doubled. Here we have this large increase at a time when it is surely vital for imports to be restricted as much as possible. I think that is a very important point. Now a word with regard to cruelty. We all admit that the steel trap is a cruel thing, and I am sure there is not a single member of your Lordships' House who would not like to see it abolished. But is it wise to discard a known and approved method of exterminating rabbits when the matter of food production is of such vital importance, until such time as an efficient humane instrument can be devised?

I warmly sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said during the Second Reading of this Bill when, unfortunately, I was not able to be present. His words were: I would, however, say that I wish the organisations which are responsible for and interested in the prevention of cruelty to animals, before they take such strong action as they do in trying to bring about the abolition of any instrument that is cruel to animals, would make more effort to see that some alternative is available in its place. I heartily agree. One does not wish to lay blame anywhere in this matter, and I often wonder what these societies are doing. For years we have heard about this question of a humane trap, but has anything been evolved yet? Not that I know of. A few hours ago I received a telegram from the noble Earl, Lord Southesk. Unfortunately, he is not here, and I believe he is rather an expert in this matter. He wired me to this effect: "Humane traps three times as heavy and also dangerous to handler. Difficult to cover in certain soils."

I will not delay your Lordships longer, but if the Government are to prohibit what is a known and approved method of exterminating rabbits, surely it is their responsibility to provide a substitute. Cannot something be found which will kill rabbits humanely? Have the Department of Agriculture a research department? Is it beyond human ingenuity to devise some humane method of killing rabbits? I do not know. No one would welcome it more than myself if they did so. Finally, I would point out that the wording of this Amendment will not prohibit the humane trap; but, if the clause stands as it does, evidently it would, since a humane trap must be a spring trap. The only thing that has ever been suggested or thought of is a spring trap which kills a rabbit outright, instead of catching it by the leg and maiming it and holding it until the trapper comes along.

The noble Duke, in moving this Amendment, has pointed out how rabbits have multiplied. How true that is! The winter before last was a bitterly cold winter, and millions of rabbits died from the cold. This last winter was a warmer one and they have come back in millions. They are literally swarming in rural areas now. In the interests of fool production they must be destroyed somehow. I think that this proposed legislation is hasty and ill-advised. I go so far as to say that if it becomes law the purpose of this Bill, which is to promote efficiency in agriculture and to increase food production, will be largely frustrated.

9.22 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

I think it will be convenient to your Lordships if I speak now as I have an Amendment down on this particular clause. I have not a great deal to say. I entirely agree with the noble Duke who moved the Amendment that it is most necessary that we should find some means of destroying rabbits easily and quickly. They are a source of great trouble to agriculture in various ways. They are also an extremely valuable source of food. One of the troubles in the past has been that none of us has really liked employing the steel trap which has been in general use, for it can be extremely cruel, as those of us who have seen a rabbit strugggling after it has been caught well know. Unfortunately it has taken a long time to evolve any alternative way of killing rabbits that is reasonably efficient. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Animals have. I believe, been working on this problem for about thirty years. They have now a newly invented form of trap which does appear to me to fulfil the requirements of being a reasonably humane method of killing rabbits. I cannot tell the Committee much about its practical application, because it has only recently been manufactured. I gather that at present this trap is undergoing trials in Scotland and in England. I have a sample of it here. As your Lord ships see, it is a steel trap and not a very big one. It has been demonstrated to me in the rooms of the Society, but I have not actually seen it employed in catching rabbits. It appears, however, that it would kill rabbits instantaneously and in a quite humane manner.

LORD MORRIISON

Is the trap which the noble Lord has in his hand a sample of what is known as the Sawyer trap?

LORD AMULREE

Yes, I believe that is so. As your Lordships see, I have a sample of the trap and also a pamphlet describing it and telling how it is used. It is claimed that it has the great advantage that, if properly set, it kills a rabbit either going in or coming out of its burrow. What I would like to see put in the Bill is an Amendment to this clause the effect of which would be that the use of a steel trap would be permitted if it had the approval of the Secretary of State. I think it would be better not to mention any particular kind of trap, because once one type is found to be effective it is likely that various efficient modifications of it will soon be evolved. One point which has been raised in the debate is the possible danger to persons setting the trap. I do not think there is much danger with this trap; I have tried to set it myself and I find that it requires a certain amount of strength. If you hold it properly, however, I do not think you will come to any harm—certainly to no more harm than you would come in setting an ordinary steel trap.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask him about the qualities of this trap from the point of view of portability? Whether it is a humane trap or not, is it portable? A keeper to-day carries about four dozen steel traps on his shoulder—that sounds a lot, perhaps, but that is the number he carries. If he cannot carry more than half that number of these traps, then I would say that this particular type will be regarded as useless. So I ask the noble Lord, is it really portable?

LORD AMULREE

I will pass it across to the noble Earl so that he may examine it himself.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I would like to support the noble Duke very strongly in this Amendment. But, really, I should be glad to know why this provision was ever put into the Bill. It is not in the English Bill. I have frequently tried to put things in a Scottish Bill in this House and have been told by the noble Lord opposite that it is quite impossible to put it in the Scottish Bill because it was not in the English Bill which has been passed. Now the boot is on the other leg. The English Bill is passed and we are being tried out with a trap which, if it is not bogus, is certainly not sufficiently good. We cannot hope to keep rabbits down by traps of this description alone. It may be a good trap, but can they be supplied in sufficient quantities to keep rabbits down this year?

If this provision is allowed to stand, I think the title of this Bill ought to be altered to "An Act for the promotion of rabbits in Scotland." We are here to try and help to put through an agricultural Bill, and this clause is put in, nobody knows why, to prevent us from doing everything in the Bill. The noble Lord may say it is to prevent cruelty. Steel traps are cruel, but they are no more cruel than gas. I have seen the rabbits crawling out to die, and they take a long time to die. But that is perfectly legal according to this Bill. It is legal to use steel traps on a fox or a rat. The Secretary of State has no qualms about torturing a fox or a rat, but has some qualms about killing a rabbit which is destroying crops and ruining everything we want to do in this Bill. Surely there must be some better reason than that.

I yield to no one in my dislike of cruelty to any animal of any kind, and if there is a possibility of killing rabbits by any other method I shall welcome it. But I do not think that even the most ardent supporter of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would say that we can kill the necessary number of rabbits this year with this humane trap. Has the Secretary of State steel supplies to make these humane traps? Can the Secretary of State supply every gamekeeper, landowner, and agricultural committee with enough steel traps to keep down rabbits from now till next year? I suppose we shall never know officially whether this clause was put in on the advice of the agricultural members of the Department of Agriculture, whom the Secretary of State must have consulted in the usual manner. I cannot conceive of anybody with a real knowledge of agriculture and a real wish to increase crops in Scotland wanting to have this clause in the Bill.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I follow the noble Earl very closely, and agree with him that I cannot see why this should be inflicted on Scotland when it is not in the English Bill. I am bold enough to say there is a lot of nonsense talked about inhumanity. I have seen operations performed on horses and dogs and, when they are released, they get up and feed as if nothing had happened. It is not the pain of the operation but the pain of being caught that worries them. It is just as inhumane to snare rabbits as to catch them in traps. This Bill is to help agriculture. We are going to do away with the best way of catching rabbits without providing a useful substitute. We have seen the trap. I think we should have had a lot of rabbits here and tried it out on the floor of the House.

LORD MORRISON

I will endeavour to reply to this interesting discussion as candidly as I can. First, may I address myself to the question asked by the noble Earl as to how this proviso came to be in the present Bill. From my reading of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place, I understand there was a feeling there that Scotland always likes to be a step ahead of England. Accordingly, when in their Agriculture Bill of last year England fell into line in this matter with Scotland, it occurred to some English member that the time had come for Scotland to go one further step ahead. By one of these, shall I say, mishaps that sometimes occur in another place—but which would certainly never occur in this House—the proposal seems to have been received with so much acclamation that the Secretary of State (the case is very like that of the abolition of the death penalty in another Bill) accepted the clamour for it as public opinion, and it is now in the Bill.

I have listened closely to the views of noble Lords who have spoken on these Amendments, and I have been impressed by the sincerity of their fears that, if this clause is allowed to stand in its present form, the effects upon agricultural production will be serious. I accept that. As your Lordships know, I spent a strenuous week recently in going from farm to farm, and on every farm I visited, without exception, this question was raised in a very serious way. Therefore, I can confirm what your Lordships have said from my own personal investigations, short as they inevitably were. From what has been said to-day, and reinforced by what I heard myself, it seems to me only reasonable for farmers and landowners, and, I might add, everybody concerned with food production, to ask that serious consideration should be given to two propositions. The first proposition I submit to your Lordships is that before compelling farmers and landowners to give up the steel trap, with its admitted cruelty (there is a genuine anxiety amongst farmers, which has been echoed by your Lordships; everybody admits it is a cruel weapon, if weapon it can be called) they should be assured that there are alternative methods in existence that are no less effective. The second proposition is that these alternatives should not be too costly, and should be easily obtainable.

I have been impressed by the useful work being done by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, although your Lordships will agree that it is one thing to work out new methods and quite another thing to make them easily available to those concerned. Particularly is this so when the new method is a new kind of trap or snare, because after it has been tried and tested there are the problems of production in sufficient numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has produced for your Lordships' inspection a new and so-called humane trap. Let me tell your Lordships what I know about it. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claim that they have evolved in the Sawyer trap a humane rabbit trap, which they think will be the trap of the future. This Sawyer trap is alleged to kill instantaneously. It compares with the gin trap in weight. It can be set in the burrows with a minimum of disturbance of the surrounding earth, and it is said to work well on sandy or clay soils. The trap consists of the usual trip plate, which works a single arm on one side and a double arm on the other. These arms are anchored on the reverse side to which they operate, thus forming a scissors movement. The trap is claimed to capture the animal by the neck, whether entering or leaving the burrow. I hope your Lordships will understand that these are not my claims; they are the claims of the people recommending the trap.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries agreed to undertake trials with this trap in the spring of 1947. These trials were somewhat inconclusive, and it was agreed that the Ministry of Agriculture for Scotland should order two gross of the traps, which should be made available to the Ministry for further trial. One gross of the Sawyer traps were ordered by the Department in the spring of 1947—that is over fifteen months ago—but it was not until almost a year later that they were received. Unfortunately, when the traps were received, they were not properly finished and, at the request of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, they have been returned to the manufacturer for completion. Accordingly, no opportunity has yet been given to the Department of trying out this trap. To summarise what I propose to do about the Amendments that are on the Order Paper, I am authorised to make this very definite and clear statement. If the noble Lords are willing to withdraw their Amendments, I can give them an assurance that the views which they have expressed will be sympathetically considered, and that an endeavour will be made on the Report stage to give effect to those views, so far as is reasonably possible. I hope that that very definite assurance will satisfy noble Lords in all parts of the House.

LORD KINNAIRD

I should like to question one remark the noble Lord made. He said that it is generally admitted that this is cruel, and I do not think that should be allowed to pass. As the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, said, I doubt that very much. I have this moment obtained a dictionary, and under "cruel" it says: all persons— disposed to inflict suffering; or indifferent to or taking pleasure in another's pain or distress. None of us does that. It would be more cruel to refuse food to children if we did not take steps to produce the food. I do not think we should allow it to be said that we agree that it is cruel, because that is wrong.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I am sure noble Lords will be pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has recognised the importance of our request, and that he guarantees to do the best he can between now and the Report stage to bring forward an Amendment which will meet our case. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 61 agreed to.

9.38 p.m.

LORD CLYDESMUIR moved, after Clause 61 to insert the following new clause: .—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare in respect of each financial year, in such form and manner and at such times as the Treasury may direct, an account showing separately as regards each holding of agricultural land the sums expended and received by him in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this Act in relation to the management farming and letting of land. (2) On or before the thirtieth day of November in each year the Secretary of State shall transmit to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the account prepared by him under the last foregoing subsection in respect of the financial year last ended and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine and certify the account prepared by the Secretary of State and lay before each House of Parliament copies of that account together with his report thereon. The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that the Secretary of State's Department prepare and publish accounts as regards their operations relating to land. There are already certain statutory enactments which enjoin the preparation of accounts. There is the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, and the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937. The Act of 1911 lays downs that in the discharge of their duties, the Board of Agriculture shall comply with such instructions or regulations as may from time to time be issued by the Secretary of State, and that they shall submit an annual report of their proceedings to him, which report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

The Act also lays down that the Board shall keep accounts of their receipt and expenditure, which shall be audited in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury may direct. For a number of years the Department of Agriculture for Scotland published Reports, and the last Report of that Department was published for the year 1938. It was published early in 1939. In the subsequent years no Reports were published and I hope the noble Lord will be able to reassure us that these Reports, with the useful material they contained—not only statistically—might well now be published. There is a certain history which I should disclose here. I believe that I was responsible for the fact that the Report of 1939, which would have come out in 1940, was not published, but I ask your Lordships to regard the situation then as abnormal, because that was a time of total war. The years have passed and peace has come again; but no Reports have come; and I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that these Reports have been resumed.

I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the English Bill. In Section 70 of the Agriculture Act of 1947, the Land Commission are required to submit to the Minister of Agriculture a Report for each financial year of their functions and accounts, showing separately the results of the discharge of such functions in relation to farming and to management of land. These accounts are to be kept in such a form as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury direct, and Reports are to be laid before Parliament by the Minister and examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The operations of the Secretary of State are very considerable in these days, and it would be valuable if the people of the country were able to compare the management of land under his Department with that of land under the ownership of private individuals. I therefore feel that two things should occur. In the first place, the Reports issued before the war should be renewed as soon as possible. Secondly, I hope that my noble friend Lord Morrison will consider whether something on the lines of the section in the English Act should be inserted to secure that up-to-date information is obtained as to the operations of the Secretary of State's Department in regard to the holding of land. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 61 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)

LORD MORRISON

I think it may be for the convenience of the House in clarifying the position if I say a few words now. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir, because of his long absence from his native land, has not complete information on this subject. First, may I point out that the Agricultural Land Commission to whom he referred, set up for England and Wales under the Agriculture Act of 1947, are not a Government Department? For that reason, provision was made in the Act requiring the Commission to submit an annual report and accounts on the discharge of their functions. There is no need for the inclusion of a similar provision in the Scottish Bill with respect to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on managing and farming agricultural land. Expenditure by the Department on the various services and activities is subject to control by the House of Commons and to examination by the Public Accounts Committee set up by that House. Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act, 1921, deals with the preparation of trading accounts by Government Departments and it provides as follows: There shall be prepared in each financial year in such form and by such Government Department as the Treasury may from time to time direct or approve, statements of account showing the income and expenditure of any shipbuilding, manufacturing, trading, or commercial services conducted by the Department, together with such balance sheets and statements of profit and loss and particulars of costs as the Treasury may require. Such accounts are examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General and are presented to the House of Commons with his report.

This provision in the Act of 1921 is, of course, applicable to trading activities of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. It would be unnecessary and undesirable duplication to insert a further provision in the Bill about the preparation of trading accounts for the Department's management and working of agricultural lands. The annual preparation of trading accounts by the Department for publication is at present receiving full consideration, in consultation with the Treasury. I think the noble Lord said that it ceased just about the time he left office. It was one of the bad results of his leaving office! However, I do not think that he would disagree with me if I said that it was more connected with the outbreak of the Second World War than wish his departure. The publication of a trading, account for each agricultural holding, as is suggested in the Amendment, Would be impracticable. It is contemplated, however, that comprehensive accounts might be published showing separately the results of the management and farming respectively of agricultural lands under the Secretary of State's control. Therefore, in the light of that explanation, I hope that when the after-effects of the Second World War have been surmounted, we shall revert to the normal procedure under which Parliament will itself retain full control of all the accounts of the Department.

LORD POLWARTH

I should just like to say a few words on this point, as I was responsible for raising this question on Second Reading. I entirely agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has said, but I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said in reply. He says that it is impracticable to produce a statement showing the results of individual holdings of the Department. I think that such a statement would be of the greatest value. I do not consider that it should be impracticable to produce, because an over-all view of all the farming activities and land-owning activities of the Department is of no use to the individual farmer. He wants to see what results are attained by the Department on the same scale on which he is operating. The landlord also wants to see the results on the same scale as that on which he is operating. That is how such a Report can be of great use to both those classes of people. I ask the noble Lord seriously to consider whether it would not be practicable. I am sure it would. We want the over-all view of the whole trading operation of the Department. A short time ago, we were discussing a clause about certain statistical information, which I still believe is information which, to a large extent, was useless when obtained and impossible of accurate ascertainment. This information is possible of accurate ascertainment, and I believe it would be of the greatest use to farmers and landowners commercially.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in what he has said. I found the noble Lord's reply most unconvincing. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to put himself in that position. We have already shown that the Secretary of State is judge and jury in his own cases. We have shown him to be executioner as well. It is no good quoting the Act of 1921, to say that there shall be accounts, when we know that there have not been any. It is quite two years since the end of the Second World War, and yet we have no accounts. I wonder whether the Act which was quoted is really adequate to cover exactly the point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth—the point about the individual accounting of different holdings? That is what is of value, because anybody can run a farm magnificently if he has enough cash. If there is plenty of money about it is not difficult. What is important is whether the effort is economic.

I should have thought that the Secretary of State himself would like some check as to whether, in fact, the individual parts of the Department were working satisfactorily; whether they were doing their job; whether they were carrying their weight—as indeed they are expected to do under this Bill. That they are not to carry their weight under this Bill, we have discovered. Everybody else will, but they will not. Nor are they to be subject to any detailed accounting. I feel that it is proper that whoever holds the land in Scotland—and after all it is held substantially in the name of the Government—should be subjected to an accounting system no less exacting than that which operates in England. I think that is something we are entitled to expect, and I am not impressed with what the noble Lord has said in regard to there being provision for accounting.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

The noble Earl has spoken of plenty of money being available. Of course, it is the taxpayers' money as well, not just that of the ordinary owners.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

I feel we should know a little more as to when the accounts will again be published. The noble Lord indicated that every effort would be made to bring them out soon. If not now, perhaps on Report stage he can tell us a little more accurately when the next accounts will see the light of day. I would strongly support what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said——

LORD MORRISON

If the noble Lord will allow me, I ought to have added that it is proposed in the near future to resume the publication of annual Reports.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

Is it proposed to do it for the present year? I am not pressing Lord Morrison now on that point, because he may not be ready to deal with it, but on the final stages of the Bill he may be able to tell us a little more about it. I would like to know when the accounts will be resumed. I also support what Lord Selkirk said, in that the English Bill seems to envisage, if not a tighter control at any rate more knowledge on the part of the public as to how the land is being handled. I hope that in the preparation of the Reports account will be taken of that, so that it will be possible to have an accurate presentation of what is being done. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 62 to 64 agreed to.

Clause 65:

Loans to tenants of holdings.

65.—(1) The Secretary of State may make loans to provide working capital to any person who after the commencement of this Part of this Act becomes the tenant of a holding provided by the Secretary of State on land vested in him of an amount not exceeding three-quarters of the estimated aggregate working capital required for the proper working of the holding.

9.52 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "three-quarters" and insert "nine-tenths" The noble Earl said: This clause provides loans by way of working capital for persons who are commencing to set themselves up on a tenant holding provided by the Secretary of State. The clause allows for this loan to be three-quarters of the aggregate working capital. I am suggesting that that figure should obviously be increased in suitable cases from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent. I am not going to press the point. As a matter of fact, I think that in certain circumstances it was possible to do this before the war under different legislation; but I am simply going to suggest to the noble Lord that if this provision could be made it would be desirable. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the size of holdings is being increased by 50 per cent., and the cost of stocking them must necessarily increase too. I do not know what would be the normal cost of stocking 75 acres. It would differ according to the different types of holding. But it would be quite a substantial sum, and it means that those setting up in these holdings would necessarily require a fair degree of funds to back them. I beg leave to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 53, line 31, leave out ("three-quarters") and insert ("nine-tenths").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I am sorry to advise the noble Earl that I am informed that it would be quite improper for me to accept this Amendment because it sends[...] to involve an addition to the fund which will be required to be voted for the purpose of the Bill in another place, and an Amendment on those lines is not quite in order.

The EARL OF SELKIRK

In those circumstances, I should beg leave to amend it; but I would point out that it would involve no increase of the fund. Up to a certain figure, there may be a higher number at a lower percentage and a lower number at a higher percentage; so that it would not necessarily involve an increase of the fund. As the noble Lord is unable to accept it, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65 agreed to.

Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.

Clause 68:

Establishment and functions of Agricultural Executive Committees.

(3) In the exercise of the functions delegated to them an Agricultural Executive Committee shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State, and a sub-committee shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State or by the Agricultural Executive Committee by whom the sub-committee were established.

THE EARL OF GLASGOW moved, in subsection (3) to omit all words after "Secretary of State," where that phrase is first used. The noble Earl said: The words I want taken out of the clause are: and a sub-committee shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State or by the Agricultural Executive Committee by whom the sub-committee were established. I think it is wrong that the Secretary of State should be able to give directions to an agricultural sub-committee. It is going against the whole principle of committee delegation as practised everywhere. A county council can remit matters to its committee, and it would be ridiculous for any sub-committee appointed by a committee of the county council to take orders direct from the county council. It is responsible to the committee which appointed it. But, apart from that, the Secretary of State has far too much to do to be able to give directions to subcommittees. These directions would come, of course, from permanent officials, and they might even be given without the knowledge of the executive committee.

My other point is that to enact that sub-committees are to comply with any directions given by the agricultural executive committee by whom they were established is entirely unnecessary. One would think that the Secretary of State was considered to be dealing with a committee of immature boys instead of with experienced experts who are well-known throughout the whole Kingdom as being extremely efficient in their work so long as they are not interfered with. This is a case where the agricultural executive committee are entirely responsible, and I am sure that they do not want their powers strengthened in regard to these sub-committees. I consider, therefore, that these words are unnecessary and I ask that they should be deleted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 55, line 23, leave out from "State" to the end of subsection (3).—(The Earl of Glasgow.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl is always commendably brief and I am sure he will appreciate my reply being equally brief. I do not quite agree with his interpretation of the clause as he has read it. I assure him that there is no question of by-passing the agricultural executive committee in this matter. Administratively, any directions to a sub-committee by the Secretary of State would be given through the main committee. Apparently, the noble Earl does not quite accept that.

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

It is not so stated.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl is not clear that that is so. I will promise him that I will myself check up on it to make certain that the interpretation which I have given—namely, that it is not intended in any way to by-pass the main committee and for the Secretary of State to go direct to the sub-committee—is correct. If it should prove that any further words are needed to make clear the intention, I will take steps on the Report stage to see that they are introduced.

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that assurance.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I just point out that the words here are absolutely clear: and a sub-committee shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State or by the Agricultural Executive Committee by whom the sub-committee were established. It is all very well to say what is the intention, but those words are perfectly clear.

THE EARL OF GLASGOW

As the noble Lord has stated that he will go into the question, I thank him, and I am quite satisfied to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 agreed to.

Clause 69 agreed to.

Clause 70:

Provisions as to appointment of additional members of the Land Court.

70.—(1) The number of persons who may be appointed by His Majesty by virtue of Section three of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, to be members of the Scottish Land Court (in this Act referred to as "the Land Court") shall be increased from five to seven; and accordingly the said Section three shall have effect as if in subsection (1) for the word "five" there were substituted the word "seven."

10.0 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out the first "seven" and insert "nine" The noble Earl said: We now come to the formation of the Land Court which we have discussed earlier to-day. I frankly admit that I move this Amendment in order to ask the noble Lord what is the intention with regard to the formation and development of the Land Court. There is a vast body of additional duties thrown on to them. I have here some fifteen or sixteen clauses in relation to which reference to them is required. I want to emphasise two points. It is of the utmost importance that the Land Court should continue to do their business in outlying parts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. If they are to be tied to an office in Edinburgh, they will never retain the confidence they hold at the present time in these outlying parts. These extra duties will make a great deal of difference. The Court are being slightly increased in strength, but I wonder whether it is enough to enable them to fulfil the duties thrown upon them. Two entirely different functions are.placed upon them, one dealing with the ordinary tenant farmer and the other dealing with statutory small holders. It will require entirely different men with very different experience in agriculture to answer the different problems. I suggest that the Court could be strengthened, but the way I suggest may not be the best way. I would be grateful for some idea of the noble Lord's intentions.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 10, leave out ("seven") and insert ("nine").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

When I first saw this Amendment I thought it was possibly associated with the earlier efforts which the noble Earl intended to make, and has made, to put additional work on the Land Court. Had these earlier Amendments been carried, I think it would have been almost inevitable that we should have had to agree to some number such as he suggests, but so far the Bill has proceeded. I think neither the noble Earl nor I are in a position to decide as well as the Government what number of persons would be required for the Land Court to function efficiently. The previous clause, which enabled members of the Land Court to be increased up to a maximum of seven, is considered adequate to enable the Court to undertake all additional duties likely to fall on them as a result of the Bill. That is the information which has been given to me. I have no reason to think that the Department which came to that conclusion are so inefficient as not to know whether they would require more people. If they had not thought the number adequate, I do not think they would have put it in. I regret I am not able to accept the proposal for the increased number for another reason which I hesitate to give. The Amendment would involve additional expense.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

Would the noble Lord accept "not exceeding nine," which would include seven or eight if necessary.

LORD MORRISON

I have no authority to do that.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am not pressing this Amendment. I only cast doubt on whether much more is being done than pecking at a problem which requires much firmer handling than is given in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

moved to add to subsection (1): and as if after subsection (2) of the said section three the following subsection were added: '(3) The said persons shall include three persons experienced in agriculture and three persons experienced in the management of agricultural land.'

The noble Duke said: This Amendment is to provide that the Land Court must include some members who are experienced in farming and land management and are thus representative of farmers and landowners. I have no wish to make comparisons between the use of arbitration and the Land Court, but resulting from this Bill is to be expected not only an increase of work and responsibilities, but work of a different kind, and it will be necessary to take steps to provide for effective and impartial results from each. If it is considered that there are great advantages in having recourse to arbitration, as being quicker, simpler and more informal, that may be preferred. But it is more important than ever to ensure confidence in the wisdom and impartiality of the personnel of each, and that there should be no carelessness on the part of the Secretary of State in choosing the men. It is to be hoped that in this particular case the Land Court will be strengthened by men of experience. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD MORRISON

I think I can reasonably satisfy the noble Duke in regard to this Amendment by giving him a definite assurance that any recommendation submitted to His Majesty The King by the Secretary of State of persons for appointment to the Land Court will be made with full recognition of the nature of the duties which the Land Court will be called upon to carry out under the Bill. I can also give an assurance that the Secretary of State fully realises the necessity of including persons such as are described in his Amendment. The noble Duke may then reasonably ask me why I am unable to accept his Amendment. The short answer is that to lay down criteria which would govern the appointments to be made by His Majesty The King would be objectionable and something that is not usually done. I feel certain that the noble Duke will appreciate that I have said enough in the way of assurance to satisfy him.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord seems recently to have become very proper and respectable about what should and should not be done.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Lord does not object to that, I hope.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

With respect, I am perhaps not so proper as the noble Lord in these matters.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl flatters me.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

There are plenty of examples and, if I may say so, the Land Court themselves have some description of the persons who ought to be appointed. Is that not correct? I do not think there is anything improper in putting in the broad qualifications of persons to fill certain offices. I should have thought it would greatly assist the Secretary of State to have some idea of the type of men who should fill posts of this character, which we consider of great importance.

LORD MORRISON

I am glad the noble Earl has complimented me on becoming so moderate, so respectable and constitutional. It shows that his efforts during all these months have been very successful indeed. Possibly, if we go on in the way we are doing, the noble Earls, Lord Selkirk and Lord Airlie, will be over here, and I shall be over there.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I would not be a bit surprised.

LORD MORRISON

I can only repeat that if the noble Earl will look at the Amendment, he will see that it says: The said persons shall include three persons experienced in agriculture and three persons experienced in the management of agricultural land. Those are the words that would have to be submitted to His Majesty the King. At the risk of again being rebuked by the noble Earl for being too constitutional, I say that that is the sort of thing that is just not done.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

Surely, it can be put the other way round. In the event of His Majesty being advised to appoint certain persons who ought not to be there, the Secretary of State, before he goes to His Majesty, is bound to find out who those people are, so as to save himself from advising His Majesty wrongly.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I would remind the noble Lord that, in England, the tribunals who are the counterpart of our Land Court consist of a chairman with legal qualifications, a landowner and a farmer. I thank the noble Lord for his statement, which I think is reassuring, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71:

References to the Land Court

(2) On any such reference the Land Court shall determine—

1. (a) whether the conditions as to which the Secretary of State must be satisfied before taking the action are fulfilled, and
2. (b) whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph and to all the circumstances of the case, the Secretary of State should or should not take the action proposed,

and shall report to the Secretary of State accordingly; and the Secretary of State shall forward a copy of the report to any person who availed himself of an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State afforded to him under the provisions in question of this Act.

10.12 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) And reference to the Land Court under any of the provisions of this Act shall be heard by not less than three members of the Court. The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the work of the Land Court. The Land Court is an extremely flexible institution and can, in fact, operate with a single member—such are the powers of delegation. I suggest to your Lordships that a single member is not enough for the duties which fall to the Land Court. I do not wish to enumerate them, but they are fairly important, and I think they are not such as was contemplated would fall to the work of a single person. I suggest in my Amendment that a quorum of the Court should not be less than three persons. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I do not think I can do better than quote from Section 25 (5) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, which reads as follows: Three members of the Land Court shall be a quorum: Provided that it shall be lawful for the Land Court to delegate such of their powers as they think expedient to any one member or to any two members of the Court, with or without the assistance of one or more land valuers, assessors, or other skilled persons, and from time to time to revoke, alter, or modify any such delegation of powers; but any order or determination arrived at under such delegation shall be subject to review upon appeal by three or more members of the Court (including, where such court of review consists of three members, not more than one member who was a party to such order or determination) sitting together, one of whom shall be I he Chairman of the Land Court. I think perhaps that will be fairly satisfactory to the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

On the contrary; that seems to put the case even more strongly than I imagined. I had read that section, but the point I am making is that it seems to me you are now putting in a third stage of appeal. One proceeds, in the first place, from the Secretary of State to a sub-committee consisting of one member. And then appeals from the sub-committee to the main Land Committee—that is, three separate stages of appeal. I should imagine that that is both unnecessary and undesirable. I should think it would be much better to go from the Secretary of State to the Land Court, consisting of three people. I submit that that is the proper way of doing it.

LORD MORRISON

I am somewhat alarmed by the way in which noble Lords opposite endeavour to restrict everybody, when I understood that their great campaign was to "Set the people free." This is another example of their endeavour to restrict the discretion of the Court. Surely, if you appoint people in whom you have confidence, they should be allowed as much liberty as possible, and you should not insist that a certain number be present on each occasion.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I must ask the noble Lord this question, because I think it is not unimportant that we should understand this. Are we to take it that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that there should be an appeal which lies, in the first place, from the Secretary of State to a delegated committee of the Land Court, and that thereafter an appeal will lie to the main Land Court—or, shall I say, to at least a quorum of three? Is it the intention that there shall be a two-stage appeal to the Land Court? I feel that that is not intended.

LORD MORRISON

The answer is perfectly clear. In the case of the Government it would be unreasonable to stipulate that in all cases, whether important or trivial, the Court should be required to undertake the hearing. To do this would undoubtedly restrict the discretion of the Court and would inevitably involve an increase of the membership of the Court beyond that contemplated by the Bill.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think the noble Lord has given me what I wanted. That is to say, if the Court are to deal with all the cases it would inevitably mean an increase in the numbers. That is the point I have been making. I think that is the only way in which the Land Court will be able to get through their work. I think that to use the word "trivial," in the sense in which the noble Lord used it, is a little out of place. I am not going to press this matter, but I should like to have further examination of this point on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after the second "shall" and insert "decree accordingly" The noble Earl said: This is another point dealing with the Land Court. I should like to have some explanation of what is intended in the procedure of this Court. The Land Court have been changed in their use and purpose. Clause 71 says: "…and shall report to the Secretary of State." I have never heard of any court of law reporting to the Secretary of State. I do not know that the Land Court have ever done so. They are a Court of the land and make a decree. That decree is effective and it is on that decree that execution can proceed. This is a very curious procedure, and it does not appear to be strictly necessary. I do not see why it is necessary for the Court to take an entirely different course from that which they have taken in the past. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 33, leave out from ("shall") to the end of the subsection and insert "decree accordingly."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

There are two types of case which will come before the Land Court under the Bill. The first consists of matters which require a judicial or quasi-judicial decision. In these cases the order of the Court will be final and binding. The order will, in fact, be a decree or determination, in the sense suggested by the Amendment. The second type of case consists of matters which either of the parties concerned may require to be referred to the Court. In these cases, in effect, the Court will make a report upon the question at issue for the guidance of the Secretary of State. There is no question here of a final Court decree. The subsequent action to be taken following the Court's report is of an administrative nature, for which the Secretary of State is responsible under this Bill. In order, however, to ensure that full recognition shall be given to the Court's report, it is provided in subsection (4) of the clause that in all cases in which reference to the Court is required the Secretary of State shall act in accordance with the report of the Court, and not otherwise. I hope that clears the matter up a little.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he says. He has certainly cleared one point. There are two entirely separate sets of cases which come before the Land Court. The first is what are generally called "proposals" They come under that general title. There are seven of them, which I have noted down here. The others are of a different category, and they are about six in number. I am not sure which is intended to be the legal one and which the administrative one. In both of them there seems to be an element of law and of administration. I do not distinguish very clearly between them. Why should it be divided in the way it has been? May I put it in this way? If it is really the intention of the Secretary of State simply to follow the Court, why is it not done in the ordinary course of events by the execution of the Court? I cannot quite understand why this procedure should be adopted. Why should not the Court have their own executive officials? Why should the Court not execute their own affairs? May I ask one further question? Are the items which are marked "proposals" legal or administrative?

LORD MORRISON

I cannot answer that question, but I can give the noble Earl this information. The matters finally to be determined by the Land Court are to be found in Clauses 7, 20, 38, 41, 45 and the Ninth Schedule. A report by the Land Court, followed by action by the Secretary of State, is to be found in Clause 5 (1), the Second Schedule, Clauses 31, 32, 36 and 36 (6) (b). These last six that I have quoted are those which will be followed by action by the Secretary of State because, according to the decision of the Land Court, he has made a decision on matters for which the Secretary of State is responsible. Therefore, the action must be referred to him.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lord for this information. I cannot say that it entirely meets the point that I have in mind, but I will not press the matter at this moment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 71 agreed to.

10.22 p.m.

Clause 72:

Proceedings of the Land Court.

72. The provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, with regard to the Land Court shall, with any necessary modifications, apply for the purpose of the determination of any matter which they are required by or under this Act to determine, in like manner as those provisions apply for the purpose of the determination by the Land Court of matters referred to them under those Acts.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to omit "with any necessary modifications." The noble Earl said: May I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Polwarth? This Amendment refers to the modification necessary for the Land Court in dealing with the additional work which falls to it. The words which I am proposing to remove are: "with any necessary modifications" The point there is that the Land Court have already a procedure. We should like to ask: How far is that procedure actually being altered? It is suggested that it can be altered by regulation. Am I correct in saying that? How far is it intended to alter the basic arrangements of the Land Court? I feel that it should not be necessary. The Land Court are an extremely flexible body, as the noble Lord said. I do not disagree with him on that. They are a flexible body, and have been flexible from the beginning. I am not clear why it should be necessary to make any changes in the general procedure which applies to the Land. Court. I think it should be extremely easy to adapt the Court to meet the necessary requirements without any major alteration. Secondly, I should like to ask whether it is intended that any considerable changes will take place; and if so, what they are likely to be. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 57, line 13, leave out from ("shall") to ("apply") in line 14.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I am not sure that I can answer the question. The only answer that I can give now is that the inclusion of words such as those contained in Clause 72 are quite common form, and that there is a precedent in Section 39 (2) of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, which is in exactly the same terms. So far as I know, no objection has been taken to that. If the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in whose name the Amendment stands, had been here, I intended to tell him that I was a little unable to understand why he wanted to delete words which are necessary to provide flexibility in the procedure to be adopted by the Land Court. As the noble Lord is not here, I will not ask the noble Earl that, because he has just said that he and I do not differ on that point. But this is merely common form in the circumstances, and has already appeared in previous Bills.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Clauses 73 to 82 agreed to.

Clause 83: [Service of notices]:

10.26 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to the Clause: (5) No error or invalidity in a notice to quit or in the service thereof given by a landlord to a tenant, shall prejudice the tenant's claim for compensation in any respect, where the tenant acting on the notice given, quits the holding.

The noble Earl said: This is a very short point, and it deals with serving notice on tenants to quit. It covers a very narrow circumstance in which a tenant actually quits without having been given legal notice; and as the result of quitting.without getting legal notice it is thought that he might conceivably not be able to claim compensation. It is a very narrow case. It assumes, in the first place, that the tenant is a fool, secondly, that the Landlord is a knave, and lastly, that neither of them takes very much interest in the state of the law. I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 64, line 4, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I hope I can satisfy the noble Earl. The assumption behind his Amendment appears to be that a landlord might serve on his tenant a notice to quit lacking in some of the statutory formalities, and then, after his tenant had removed in pursuance of the notice, the landlord might claim that the notice was invalid, and that the tenant had, therefore, left of his own free will and was not entitled to compensation for disturbance. As the noble Earl has put it, obviously the landlord is a knave and the tenant a fool. I am advised that this assumption is a mistaken one. The formalities attached by lie Bill to a notice to quit are attached for the protection of the tenant, and it is open only to the tenant to challenge the notice as invalid for want of any of the statutory formalities. If the tenant chooses to accept the informal notice and act upon it, the landlord cannot thereafter plead his own informalities in his own favour. I think, therefore, that perhaps the Amendment is not necessary.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thank the noble Lord for a very sensible interpretation of the law. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 83 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule:

Applications for certificates of bad husbandry.

4. Where notice of a proposal is given or deemed to have been given under the last foregoing paragraph the landlord may require that the Secretary of State's proposal to refuse a certificate shall be referred to the Land Court or the tenant may require that the Secretary of State's proposal to grant a certificate shall be so referred and the provisions in that behalf of Part VI of this Act shall apply accordingly.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in paragraph 4, to omit "Where notice of a proposal is given or" and insert: Within one month of notice of a proposal being given or being The noble Duke said: I beg to move this Amendment to the Second Schedule which is concerned with certificates of bad husbandry. The object is to avoid delay and to expedite reference to the Land Court of appeals in cases where the certificate of bad husbandry has not been granted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 70, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("deemed") and insert ("within one month of notice of a proposal being given or being").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD MORRISON

I will reply to the noble Duke with equal brevity. I think the suggestion made in this Amendment, to fix a time limit of one month within which such a requirement should be made, is reasonable, and I have much pleasure in accepting it.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

It has taken a long time.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I thank the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment, and I should like to say how much I appreciate the patience which he has shown.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third to Seventh Schedules agreed to.

Eighth Schedule [Agricultural Advisory Committees]:

LORD MORRISON

moved, after paragraph 4, to insert: 3. If in relation to any appointment of a nominated member it appears to the Secretary of State that the college, council or organisation concerned have failed, within a reasonable time after he has called upon them by notice in writing so to do, to nominate a person for the appointment, the Secretary of State may, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule, appoint as the nominated member in question such person as he thinks fit. 4. A Committee shall be deemed to be duly constituted and shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy among the members thereof.

The noble Lord said: Before I move this final Amendment, may I express my thanks to the Committee for the way in which your Lordships have assisted me to get this Bill through this stage to-day? It has been a very long sitting and I am afraid that I have had to be—not entirely through my own fault—somewhat tiresome and annoying to many of your Lordships. The part which I have had to play has had rather a flavour of Mr. Molotov—too much so to please myself. But, as your Lordships know, these matters are not altogether decided by me. I thank your Lordships most sincerely. This Amendment will permit greater flexibility in setting up the Agricultural Advisory Committees.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 35, at end, insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask whether the words "within a reasonable time" are the most appropriate words to use here? Some of these bodies may meet only at quite considerable intervals. What may be a reasonable time for answering a letter may, in some cases, be rather a short time for making an appointment. I am afraid that I have no personal knowledge of any of the bodies concerned. I am speaking without authority. The word "reasonable" can have so many different meanings. I should have thought that what was wanted here would be some such words as "or unreasonably refused to appoint a member." After all the Secretary of State wants these bodies to appoint members, and it is not a matter for any great hurry. It might take as much as three months. But three months, after all, is not a long time in some circumstances, though in other circumstances it might be considered an unreasonable time. I throw this out merely as a suggestion to the noble Lord.

LORD MORRISON

I rather think the case that is required to be covered in this connection is the case where an invitation to appoint a member has been sent and the people who have received it have not troubled to reply, and in fact have no intention of taking any action. They have, in short, been invited to nominate a member and have failed to do so. Clearly, some period of time must be allowed to elapse. I think this would cover the sort of case in which the Secretary of State may receive information that the people concerned are not sufficiently interested and are not troubling to nominate a member. In a case of that sort the Secretary of State will have power to act.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

We are in agreement about the purpose of the Amendment. I am saying merely that this phrase does not appear to me to be as suitable a one as might be chosen. May I be allowed to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Morrison for the patience and courtesy with which he has listened to us and has dealt with our Amendments? I think that at one time it rather looked as though there was going to be a quarrel with Lord Ammon on the question of adjourning for dinner, but I am glad to say that it did not materialise.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

May I also tender a word of thanks to Lord Morrison? He very nearly had a maiden over, but we did manage to get one Amendment through the slips.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.