HL Deb 30 November 1955 vol 194 cc1001-8

5.47 p.m.

LORD BARNBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government (a) when the Royal Commission on Common Land after nomination is expected to commence its assignment; (b) whether, in the interval before its Report and any conclusive action thereon, Her Majesty's Government are able to announce any interim measures aimed at maintaining productivity on common lands derequisitioned since the conclusion of hostilities. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Question in order to call attention to a matter of urgent national importance. I am encouraged to do so because already attention has been drawn to this matter by several noble Lords, particularly noble Lords on the opposite side of the House. It is felt that a great deal of agricultural production may be lost unless some early action is taken. There may be valid reasons why I cannot expect a reply to the first part of my Question, but on the second part I hope for some information from the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, who is to reply, because I am sure this is a problem which has been receiving the sympathetic attention of the noble Earl.

The matter is surrounded with a number of difficult legal angles, but I am supported in bringing it forward by the fact that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, with his knowledge of the law, has already brought it to the attention of your Lordships and has stated that some 2 million acres of land are involved. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, speaking with the knowledge he gained as Minister of Agriculture, as well as from his wider knowledge of agricultural matters, has also drawn attention to this question. All this has resulted in the promise that a Royal Commission would be set up. I find that that was some nine months ago. Now I make bold to ask the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, when this body may be expected to make some progress.

I expected to have to-day the support of my noble friend Lord Winterton who, as your Lordships know, has a long Parliamentary experience behind him and who has made a study of this matter. He intended to speak on this matter but has had to leave London. He wrote a letter to The Times on July 28. In that letter the noble Earl set out the dangers of apathy and neglect of doing something; and indeed, he said that he had pressed for a Royal Commission because of the intricacy and antiquity of the existing laws. The noble Earl also emphasised that it was absurd that large areas of common land which were not in production should not, and indeed could not, be used for recreational purposes, and he urged that they should be brought into use for the requirements of the nation. I fully realise that any action would attract vehement opposition from the well-meaning open air societies in defence of ancient rights. I realise, too, that anybody who searches the Parliamentary records will find that in the latter part of the last century but one, the eighteenth century, there was a spate of Statutes and laws passed by Parliament on the question of common lands and their enclosure; in fact, those of your Lordships who have read Lord Airlie's book on agriculture will know how complicated this situation was. And yet, with what impressive courage the Parliament of that day dealt with the problem ! It is on those grounds that we urge that something should be done.

I would remind your Lordships that the Minister of Agriculture has emphasised that this is almost a moral issue, and it is doubtful whether there will be the right to continue indefinitely to use war-time powers, if the effect is to deprive people of the legal rights in their land. That is a very proper defensive attitude on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture. I would urge that, while it may be "political dynamite," as the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said in his letter, we should take our courage in our hands and tackle the matter. Often the best way to illustrate a problem is to give an instance, and I am going to quote from a letter from a tenant of a farm in support of this general problem (a problem which deals with an area as big as that suggested by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt) of the loss of all this land to production. It so happens that this case is well known to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, because it fell within the constituency which he, with such distinction, represented.

This is the case of a farm, and the letter was written by the tenant before the farm was derequisitioned. He says: The farm consists of 350 acres of reclaimed land, formerly common. We farm 110 acres. He then quotes the actual production from the farm, which is impressive, and goes on: The … town clerk has written to me saying that they cannot give me a lease of this land, mainly because of the legal difficulties. I think the town council are quite concerned about the mess they will have on their hands. I offered to buy the land but said I would need to keep one-third under corn in rotation to prevent the leys from going back. As a public amenity, I should say the land is much more pleasant in its farmed state than the mass of bracken and thorns which adjoin it. It has been suggested by the Ministry that modification of a completely derelict state can be brought about by putting the land back to grass. It will be within the knowledge of your Lordships, however, that it is unlikely that common land can be put to grass unless it is enclosed. How will that land he enclosed when the commoners have the right—which they will exercise—to take down the barriers that fence it? Therefore, I suggest that this is a problem which justifies attack, notwithstanding the legal difficulties involved. I would repeat that the noble Earl who is to reply has shown great sympathy about this matter. It may be that until this new Royal Commission swings into action he is limited in what he can say, but it is to be hoped he will not say—as I think the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, suggested—that we may expect a very long time before action is taken, even after the Royal Commission have reported. I hope for better things from my Question.

5.57 p.m.

VISCOUNT ESHER

My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, an anxiety about the intentions and function of this Commission. It seems to me that they are likely to reproduce that same disastrous confidence in statistics which Mr. Hammond describes in his Age of the Chartists as fell to the Select Committee of 1844. As one who will oppose this project to the bitter end, I would ask the Government whether those who look upon an Enclosure Act of this sort as expropriation under a thin guise of compensation will be called as witnesses before the Royal Commission. Your Lordships will remember that thirty-two witnesses, described as "competent and experienced," were called before the Select Committee of 1844. Those thirty-two competent men comprised two tithe commissioners, twelve land agents and surveyors, six property lawyers, one Parliamentary agent, one Parliamentary lawyer, one civil engineer and nine well-to-do landowners. I hope that that situation is not going to be repeated by this Royal Commission.

The National Trust and many local authorities hold commons on behalf of the people. How are the interests of the commoners to be upheld against this suspicious and "cosy" arrangement of the two Front Benches to destroy them? The old arguments of 1844 will be trotted out: the number of acres to be improved; the prospects of scientific agriculture; what would happen in war time—although we are told by the leaders of the Conservative Party that "there ain't gonna be no war." All those arguments, as I say, will be trotted out, but I would recommend the Labour Party, whom I look upon as the renegades in this matter, to study the words of Sir Robert Peel. He said: Consideration of health and recreation are going to be set against mere pecuniary gain. I should like the Labour Party to ask themselves what has happened to their disapproval of the profit-making motive. I hope that the Government will give me some assurance this afternoon that witnesses hostile to this form of spoliation will be heard by the Commission.

6.0 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN)

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said, my reply to the first part of his Question can be stated briefly. The membership of the Royal Commission is not yet quite complete, but the Government hope to be able to announce it very shortly. As your Lordships will know, the Prime Minister has already announced that the Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment of Sir Ivor Jennings as Chairman, and the Commission's terms of reference have been drawn up. I understand that Sir Ivor intends to hold the first meeting of the Commission at the earliest practicable date and that he already has in hand provisional arrangements for this purpose.

With permission, I will reply to the second part of the noble Lord's question in rather greater detail. I should say quite frankly that we do not claim any great measure of success for the efforts we have made to this end. The highly complex and restrictive provisions of the law of common land have made our task extremely difficult. The legal obstacles to the cultivation of commons put arable cropping out of the question; and the law also stands in the way of the erection of fences and the execution of works on a common. This has seriously hindered our efforts to preserve good grazing. Where common land is due for de-requisition, our practice is to reseed it in the last year of requisition and to return it to its original status in grass.

In all such cases, where the commoners can be identified with sufficient certainty, our policy has been to associate them with the management of the grassland during the last period of requisition, and thereafter to encourage organisations aimed at facilitating the proper use of the common as pasture or for hay. Wherever possible, the provincial and county officers of my Department have sought to bring the commoners together and to persuade them to appoint small management committees which will look after the use of the land after de-requisition on behalf of the main body of commoners. There are already one or two areas where this has been done and we hope that, as further commons are released this year and next, we can make similar arrangements elsewhere.

The largest stretch of land where something of the sort may operate consists of about 900 acres of common land on or near Bodmin Moor in Cornwall. There, in spite of the great difficulties caused by their large numbers, the commoners have been associated with the management of the land for some years. Last year, as a step towards derequisition, this requisitioned land was let on licence to nominees of the commoners who are managing it with the help and advice of the Ministry's officers in Cornwall. The Minister has agreed in this particularly promising case that the land may be held under requisition until the end of 1957, so as to give the commoners a flying start and allow them to make use of the fences which are at present on the land and which, of course, will have to come down when it is derequisitioned. These arrangements are, in the nature of the case, precarious, since they depend on the co-operation of all the commoners. But we hope that they will, at least, continue long enough to tide over the period while we await the Royal Commission's recommendations for more permanent measures.

Your Lordships will no doubt know that it is open to the Minister, under Section 85 of the Agriculture Act, to purchase compulsorily land in his possession under war-time powers for the purpose of securing its full and efficient use for agriculture. About 3,000 acres of the common land which was requisitioned in war time is being purchased under these powers. When this is done, the common rights will be extinguished and the right-holders compensated, and the land will be free from the encumbrances of the law of common land. In view of the need to avoid inflicting hardship, and the strength of feeling which still exists in many quarters against inclosure, we have naturally felt obliged to proceed in this way only in those cases where we could persuade the commoners of the advantages. The purchase of this land has I turned out to be highly complicated, and I cannot yet quote any instance of common land which has actually been bought under Section 85, but we hope to complete this group of purchases over the next two years.

Before I conclude, I should like to try and answer the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. Obviously, it is not for the Government to instruct the Royal Commission as to whom they shall take evidence from. That is a matter which must be left to their discretion, and I am sure the noble Viscount would join me in not wishing the Government to have any influence on the proceedings of the Royal Commission.

VISCOUNT ESHER

If the Royal Corn-mission decided not to call any hostile evidence, there is no redress against that; we just have to accept it.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I find it almost unbelievable that in these days a Royal Commission would refuse to consider to hear evidence from all sides.

VJSCOUNT ESHER

That is better.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

In conclusion, I would stress the fact that the land to which my noble friend, Lord Barnby, is referring chiefly is really a very small proportion of the total amount of common land involved. In the war period it never exceeded 21,000 acres, and today the amount left under requisition which it is not intended to purchase is about 3,600 acres. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that we are concerned about this matter in the same way as he is concerned, but it would obviously be entirely wrong for us to set up a Royal Commission to investigate this extremely complicated problem and then to forestall the findings of the Commission by taking any form of legislative power to deal with the problem.

LORD BARNBY

Could the noble Earl give some explanation of the difference between the figure of 2 million acres that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, gave and the figure of 3,000 acres which the noble Earl gave?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

Yes, I can. The figure of 3,600 acres is the amount of common land which is still held under requisition by the Government. The total area of common land in England and Wales is between 1½ million acres and 2 million acres.

House adjourned at eleven minutes past six o'clock.