HL Deb 22 July 1957 vol 205 cc10-5

3.19 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 14 [Revocation of approval and recovery of grant]:

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words from the first "Minister" down to and including "consideration," and to insert:

  1. "(a) shall, if so requested, give to any person who appears to him to have an interest in the land concerned or to whom the relevant grant would be payable, a written notification of the reasons for the proposed revocation; and
  2. (b) shall afford to every such person"

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it will no doubt be within your Lordships' recollection that in Committee on this Bill we raised the question whether it would not be reasonable to put into the Bill some provision to ensure that where any farmer finds that approval of an improvement is to be revoked, on a report submitted, he should be given a copy of that report. I have had the advantage of conversations with the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, on this matter. He was very kind about it. We were not able to get exactly what was asked for, but I think the insertion of the Amendment which stands upon the Marshalled List, and which has been agreed, will go a long way to help any person who wants to be able to state a case for himself. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his consideration and that of his Ministry. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 40, leave out from ("Minister") to ("an") in line 43 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)

LORD WISE

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to refer to the fact that later on, in Amendment No. 3, I have down a similar Amendment which refers to a later clause, Clause 17, in which the subsection is identical in words with the present subsection. I wish to support my noble Leader in what he has said in regard to this particular alteration. I was greatly concerned to see that the tenant, or whoever is responsible, should be given, at the commencement of the proceedings, some sort of information about what was wrong in regard to the question of the grant, and also about how he should proceed. If the Government are prepared to do that, it will, I think, meet our case. When the report is received from the Minister, the person concerned will know, having, had prior information, the basis upon which the report has been made. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

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

My Lords, this Amendment requires the Minister, before using his power to revoke his approval of a proposed improvement for grant on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1), to give, on request, to anyone who seems to him to have an interest in the land, or to whom the grant would be payable, a written statement of why he proposes to revoke his approval. The clause already requires him to afford to those concerned an opportunity to make representations, but this additional safeguard will enable them to know the case for the proposed revocation, before they come to answer it. We are grateful for this Amendment, which we think is helpful. We already make similar arrangements under Section 6 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, although there is no statutory obligation to do so. We had intended to do the same under this Bill, but we are quite prepared to accept this proposal to make it a statutory obligation to do so. In our debate on the Committee stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Bathurst asked whether adequate notice of proposed revocation would be given. The answer to this is, "most certainly." The practice in hill farming grant cases will be followed.

Roughly, this is what will happen. Well before the formal procedure is invoked, we shall inform the man that it has been noticed that he has not complied with his bargain with us, and he will be asked to put the matter right. Then a period of negotiation will follow—in our experience over several months—in the hope of settling the matter amicably. If we reach an impasse, a letter will be sent to him giving him notice that we propose to revoke the approval and asking him whether he wishes to state a case, orally or in writing, to the county agricultural executive committee. If he wishes to be heard in person he will be given a date on which to appear, usually with about a fortnight's notice. After the hearing, the committee will report the matter to headquarters, where the decision will be taken. Our experience of the hill farming schemes is that, in practice, the man will always get several month's warning.

My noble friend Lord Clitheroe also asked whether the reasons would be stated in writing. This question is, of course, answered by our acceptance of the noble Viscount's Amendment. We accept an obligation to give a written explanation to any person who appears to have an interest, if he asks for it. In practice, as I explained, our reasons will have come out much earlier in the preliminary correspondence. We are also prepared, after a hearing has taken place, to give in writing the Minister's reasons for the conclusion he has reached in the light of the report of the hearing, if we are asked to do so by the person who is given a hearing or by any other person with an interest in the land who would have been entitled to a hearing.

The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked on the Committee stage what was the real reason for refusing to let a man see the cause upon which the revocation was based. It is clear from what I said earlier, that we are ready and willing to give in advance the reasons for the proposed revocation, in order to enable the man to defend himself, and, after the final decision has been taker, to explain why. The only question left is whether all or part of a certain report should remain confidential to the Minister. Since I gave our views on this matter in Committee, the Report of the Franks Committee has appeared, and this of course, has provided a fresh starting point for consideration of the whole question of disclosure of reports of officers holding inquiries. So soon after publication of the Report, it would be idle for me to pretend that I can state a Government view on the matter; and, indeed, the considered views of other sections of opinion have yet to be formulated and expressed. For the present, it would clearly he futile to try to settle, in relation to this Bill, dealing with agriculture, a procedural question of so great general significance. I would therefore suggest that we must leave the matter there for the present and await the outcome of the Government's consideration of the Report.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16:

Grants towards costs of amalgamation

(2) An application under this section may be made within the time within which applications under section twelve of this Act may be made and may propose any transactions necessary or expedient for securing that agricultural land which is not an economic unit, hut which together with some other agricultural land could form an economic unit, shall be owned and occupied with that other land and the said costs are surveyor's fees and legal costs, stamp duty on any conveyance, tenancy agreement or mortgage, and any compensation for disturbance payable under section thirty-four of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.

3.26 p.m.

LORD WISE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "mortgage." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. In order to inform noble Lords as to what is the meaning of this Amendment, may I read the words at the end of Clause 16 (2) which I seek to leave out? They are: and any compensation for disturbance payable under Section 34 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Under Section 34 of that Act compensation is payable to a tenant for disturbance on an agricultural holding, for various reasons; and I think I should make plain exactly what these reasons are, in order to show why I seek to have this Amendment made to the Bill.

The two reasons for disturbance are these. There is, first, the notice given by the landlord to the tenant to quit the holding, for which compensation may later be payable. Secondly, there is the case of a counter-notice by the tenant. Under Section 32 of the Act, which deals with the taking of portions of farms, if portions are taken, it is possible for the tenant to give notice by counter-claim that he will quit the whole of the farm. Compensation is payable under these two sections of the 1948 Act, provided that certain matters referred to in Section 24 of the Act do not apply. These particular matters which do not apply refer to the bankruptcy of tenants, to the nonpayment of rent, to the non-carrying out of certain things, and matters of that sort which affect the landlord. If the tenant does not do them, then he has no claim for compensation for disturbance.

If compensation for disturbance is payable, the amount of the compensation is arrived at in this way. Generally it is reckoned to be one year's rent, but it may rise to as much as two years' rent, provided that the tenant has given notice to the landlord that he is also to have a sale of his stock and implements and the rest of it, so that the landlord can value them. In such a case he can then claim on his loss of sale, but no more than the equivalent of two years' rent. Under the present provision, if there is an amalgamation of holdings and a grant is payable, the tenant who is disturbed can claim compensation, and it may quite well be that if a portion of a farm is taken over for this particular purpose under this Act, the tenant can give to the landlord notice that he desires to quit the whole of the farm, and compensation may have to be paid for disturbance upon the whole of the farm, subject to the various qualifications which are outlined in the previous Act of 1947.

The point that I have in mind is that it might be possible for a fairly heavy claim for compensation to be made, and whereas the landlord is under an obligation, under the two previous Acts of 1947 and 1948, to pay a disturbance claim if notice to quit is given by him, it does not seem right that if certain other circumstances arise the State should, under this particular Bill, come in and relieve the landlord of one-third of the obligation which he would have had to meet had he given notice under the previous Acts.

I feel it is important that we should take note of this particular deviation in this Bill from the two previous Acts, for it does not seem quite fair that when a disturbance claim has to be made and where the circumstances of giving notice are similar to those under which notice has been given under the previous Acts, the landlord should be relieved not only of legal and other costs but also of one-third of the disturbance claim which he might have had to meet. For that reason I seek to amend this particular Bill. The additional cost may be heavy and may arise in many hundreds of cases of amalgamation of farms and land. I hold the view that as the liability has already been provided in certain circumstances under previous Acts, this particular Act should not now relieve the landlord of one-third of his liability for a disturbance claim. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 39, leave out from ("mortgage") to end of line 40.—(Lord Wise.)