HL Deb 24 June 1976 vol 372 cc437-41

3.30 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 13 [Agricultural holdings in England and Wales: further restrictions on operation of certain notices to quit]:

Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 1: Page 15, line 8, leave out lines 8 to 27.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with the leave of the House, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. In Committee I moved an Amendment which aimed to cut short the procedure provided in the Bill under what was then Clause 12, when a tenant was given a notice to quit after failure to remedy a breach of his agreement under Section 24(2) (d) of the 1948 Act. Clause 12 gave him the option at the notice to quit stage either of going straight to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to decide whether the notice should he effective, or first to an arbitrator and then, if he was dissatisfied with the arbitrator's decision, he could still go to the ALT after that. My fear was that in a bad case the tenant might try to drag out the proceedings by this means and harm would be done by neglect to the farm and its buildings.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, argued that one might get borderline cases where the tenant had failed perhaps by a very short margin of time—the noble Lord quoted the case where a tenant had not, for example, tidied up a hedge for a few weeks—and then the arbitrator would have to say that the notice to remedy had not been complied with and the notice to quit must operate, and that was the justification for what was the old Clause 12. We all agree that there might arise some hardship where in a minimal number of cases an arbitrator had no discretion. I withdrew that Amendment saying that I thought that probably the best thing to do was to cut out the arbitrator altogether at the notice to quit stage, leaving the tenant with the one option of going to the ALT to decide the matter. On further reflection, this seems to me to be the neatest way of solving the problem. I still feel that there can be no case for having both arbitration and termination by the Tribunal after the tenant has failed to comply with the notice to remedy.

This series of Amendments provides that the notice to quit, if contested, will go to the Tribunal only; arbitration is cut out. The Tribunal will decide whether the reason stated in the notice to quit is valid and whether to give consent to its operation, and this is no different from the function of the Tribunal when the landlord seeks consent to the operation of a notice to quit served for one of the statutory reasons under Section 25(1) of the 1948 Act. It is well within the ambit of the ALT to decide, after having expert evidence, whether a notice to remedy has been complied with especially since, as I suggested in Committee, they can sit with assessors. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett)

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, these three Amendments follow the discussion we had in Committee on what was then Amendment No. 2. In replying to that Amendment, I tried to make it clear why the Government felt that an appeals procedure was required in the case of notices to quit founded on failure to comply with a notice to do work. I think that Lord Middleton has now accepted that this sort of appeals procedure is desirable and I am delighted to see that these Amendments do not strike at that principle. I cannot however accept the second part of what the noble Lord said; I do not agree that in practice everybody would go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, as he suggested in Committee. This seems to me to ignore the realities of the matter and to miss the main purpose of this provision, which is to provide an appeals procedure against the unfair use of the notice to do work procedure.

Under the existing provisions of Clause 13, a tenant farmer served with a notice to quit founded on failure to comply with a notice to do work has several options. The tenant can, first, refer the notice to quit to arbitration; and secondly, if the notice to quit is upheld, require the landlord to seek the consent of the Agricultural Land Tribunal; or, thirdly, the tenant can refer the notice to quit to the Agricultural Land Tribunal without arbitration; or, fourthly, decide to do nothing and allow the notice to quit to have effect. I must emphasise that when we prepare the revised Statutory Instrument we intend making it clear that the Agricultural Land Tribunal will not concern themselves with whether or not a notice to do work was valid and soundly based. They will be concerned solely with whether or not a fair and reasonable landlord would, in all the circumstances, insist on possession.

I suggest to the House that the realities of the situation are these. Bearing in mind what I have just said about the Agricultural Land Tribinal's role in these matters, I suggest that where a notice to quit is soundly based and fair, the tenant will not wish to go to arbitration. Instead, he will either throw himself on the mercy of the Agricultural Land Tribunal or, if he knows that he is guilty of poor work, he may decide to forgo the expense of a hearing before the Agricultural Land Tribunal and allow the notice to quit to take effect. But where the tenant considers that the notice is invalid, either because it is legally at fault or is unfair or just not true, he will naturally wish to refer the matter to arbitration. And depending on the arbitrator's finding, he will then decide whether to press his case to the Agricultural Land Tribunal or to give in. I just do not accept, as I think has been suggested by noble Lords opposite, that a tenant will deliberately take his landlord through all the hoops just to embarrass the landlord financially. It is a fact that the complaints of harassment have come from comparatively small farmers and I do not believe that they would deliberately incur the heavy expense associated with arbitrations and references to the Agricultural Land Tribunal unless they had a genuine sense of grievance.

This brings me to the substance of the Amendment, to which I have two objections. First, it ignores the fact that Clause 13 is primarily an anti-harassment provision; the Amendment assumes that every tenant in a dispute will wish his complaint to go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I do not think that that will be so. The representations which the Ministry of Agriculture has received from the NFU, the professional bodies and others, have all been to the effect that the existing arrangements for arbitration must remain in being; they are a simple, quick and cheap way of settling the majority of disputes. Secondly and with equal force, I would say that it would be highly undesirable for the Agricultural Land Tribunal to start dealing with matters which have hitherto been the responsibility of the arbitrator, whether or not the Tribunal are assisted by assessors, as Lord Middleton suggested they could be. The ALT is similar to a court of law and disputes about matters of fact, such as whether a hedge has been cut properly or a field is infested with weeds, are not for their consideration. The role of the Tribunal is to consider questions of opinion as typified by the fair and reasonable landlord test.

I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. As I say, it is not acceptable to the representatives of the tenant farmers, it is not acceptable to the professional bodies concerned and it is certainly not acceptable to the Government.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I thought that we were not all that far apart because this Amendment has gone a long way to meet the points which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made in objection to my noble friend's previous Amendment in Committee. It is a simplification of the process, and it is in order to try to deal with the person who has manifestly not carried out his work. These cases are bound to be very few and far between.

But what in fact is the case? If a tenant is not looking after his place properly, and is asked by the landlord to repair the fences, the buildings, or the gates, but does not, he is then given a notice to remedy. The tenant can then take that to the arbitrator, and under this Bill the arbitrator can change the stipulations in the notice to remedy. The arbitrator will say that the tenant can use different materials or can have a longer time in which to do the work. But let us suppose that the tenant still does not do what he is supposed to do. In those circumstances it is reasonable for the landlord to bring into effect the notice to quit. The fact that that notice is brought in when the tenant has manifestly not done that which even the arbitrator told him was reasonable to do in logic seems to be sensible.

Our only point here is that the tenant, having got a notice to quit, goes to the arbitrator and asks whether it is fair, and the arbitrator says that it is. The tenant then has to go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, say that he has received a notice to quit which the arbitrator says is fair, and then ask the Tribunal to rescind it. That seems to be an unnecessary link in the chain. What our Amendment would seek to provide is that when the notice to quit has been made, because the tenant has not carried out the repairs which the arbitrator himself said were fair and reasonable, the tenant should then go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal and say, " This is what I have been presented with. I don't think it is fair. Will you or will you not permit this to go ahead?" I do not think that there is very much between us on this matter, although in his final remarks the noble Lord said that the Government were against this. I should think that what is proposed here would improve the Bill and improve the process. Not for one minute do I believe that it would he at all antagonistic towards the tenants, because, having had the notice to quit, they have the right to go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal.