HL Deb 10 April 1984 vol 450 cc1115-22

8.15 p.m.

Report received.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 1: After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

("Duties of council.

  1. .—(1) The council shall lay down rules and standards to protect visual amenity, hygiene and such other matters as they consider appropriate.
  2. (2) The council shall keep a register of allotment holders and shall ensure adequate control of the transfer of allotments from one holder to his successor.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this amendment down for clarification because, as many of us know, many of the allotments around the country—and allotments are exactly the same as recreational gardens so far as I can see—are frequently covered with a mass of multi-coloured huts, higgledy-piggledy. Some are made of wood and some of corrugated iron, and often pigs are kept in some of them. While of course there are many recreational gardens which are extremely well run, there are many old ones which have got into a very rough state. I know of one in particular and there are many others I could think of.

I wonder whether there is sufficient control or incentive now on the part of the council to ensure that these allotments which do not rise to a good amenity scene should be got into a better state. I think that councils should ensure that their allotments are visually acceptable and hygienic, so that the pigs, poultry and so on do not attract rats and are not a menace. I am not aware that there is adequate cover for this aspect already but, if there is, it is not adequately enforced.

The second paragraph of the amendment relates to a register of allotments. I understand this has been widely discussed, but the real point of this amendment—and perhaps this can be answered—is adequate control. What happens in fact, whether one likes it or not, is that when an allotment-holder decides to give up his allotment as often as not he does not tell anybody but perhaps simply tells a friend that he can have it now, and perhaps a year later when the vegetables have been grown and the new man perhaps has even paid for the previous man's garage or lock-up, or whatever it may be, the authority will discover what has happened and it is too late by then for them to take it back. The authority probably could take it back but the pressure on allowing the new man to keep the allotment is very strong indeed. Therefore, I would hope that perhaps these two points could be explained. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

My Lords, first, I should like to welcome the sudden interest of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, in this Bill because, if memory serves me right, he did not take part in the Second Reading or at the Committee stage. However, I believe that the noble Lord is a private landlord holding allotments, and therefore, with due respect, he may have overlooked the fact that he should of course have declared an interest.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I am really referring to council allotments. It is true that I have an interest in my own allotments, and I have my own rules, but we are talking about council allotments.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

Yes, my Lords. I gathered that from the speech which the noble Lord made on 17th March 1976, to which I shall refer. The clause is unnecessary, because Section 28 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 already enables allotment authorities to make such rules as appear to be necessary or proper for regulating the letting of allotments, for preventing any undue preference in such letting, and generally for carrying the provisions of the Allotments Acts into effect. In particular, the rules may define the persons eligible to be tenants of the allotments, the notices to be given for their letting, the size of allotments, the conditions under which they are to be cultivated and the rent to be paid.

In addition, the rules must make provision for reasonable notice to be given to the tenant of the determination of his tenancy. Such rules can, of course, provide that tenants shall not rent more than one or two plots, shall not keep pigs on them, and shall neither carry out car repairs nor undertake other extraneous activities on their plots. Indeed, it is quite usual for there to be a general prohibition on the use of an allotment garden for the purposes of any trade or business.

It so happens, as I said on Second Reading, that my daughter has taken on an allotment plot in the borough of Bexley for which she is paying £13.20 a year. On the back of the conditions of the contract of agreement, which are extremely detailed and have a large amount of print, there is even a further covering note about the use of bonfires. So that there is absolute control. In addition to that, I can assure the noble Lord that allotment holders who are keen will soon deal with anybody who kicks over the traces and breaks the rules.

Under Section 30(2) of the 1908 Act, failure to observe the rules at any time not less than three months after the commencement of the tenancy will render the tenant liable to forfeit his plot and will entitle the allotments authority to repossess the allotment after serving one month's notice to quit on their defaulting tenant. For many years up to 1980, the Department of the Environment published model rules as to allotment gardens, which contained rules on all the matters of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough; and, if the present Bill is passed, paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 will provide for this excellent practice to be resumed.

I shall come back to the 17th March 1976 debate, because the noble Lord ruled out car repairs and pigs, but did not rule out pigeons, and pigeons are a menace to the average allotment holder. Last year I lost the whole of my spring greens owing to being away for one week. The noble Lord's pigeons must have come down and gobbled up the lot. So I am very anti-pigeon.

The clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, will also require allotment authorities to keep a register of allotment holders. However, under Section 29 of the 1908 Act allotment authorities are given the discretionary power to appoint allotment managers to administer the allotments on their behalf. It is now becoming increasingly the practice for allotment authorities to devolve the management of allotment gardens to a committee formed from among the plot holders themselves. An advantage of devolved management is that there is a reduction of local authority administrative costs; for example, in collecting rents and in site discipline. It also serves to stimulate the voluntary site committees and to encourage and sustain a community spirit among the plot holders, which helps the recreational and social side of allotment life. In those circumstances—and I have been quite reasonable to the noble Lord, even about his pigeons—I hope that he will withdraw this amendment.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Accounts and application of receipts]:

8.25 p.m.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 2: Leave out Clause 2 and insert—

("Rents

. The council shall charge such rents for allotments as is necessary to ensure that there is no charge on the general rate and that the land shows a commercial return.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment which cuts right across the noble Lord's Bill. It seems to me that, where allotments occupy land, that land should pay a proper return to the council—probably, at least, an agricultural return—and that, in addition, the costs of rent collection by the council should be covered by the rents. I do not see why the situation should be allowed to exist where ratepayers subsidise gardeners in their hobby. Many hobbies are subsidised—for example, sports fields—but, unlike sports, recreational gardeners can grow their own vegetables and get value out of their gardens, and it seems to me as if these gardens will continue to be subsidised by the ratepayer. There is much to be said for old-age pensioners getting cheaper rents and so on, and there is nothing to stop that, but I believe that overall these gardens should stand on their own feet financially.

There is another question which I do not think is covered in the Bill and perhaps I might have an answer to it. Very often, much to the disgust of the gardeners, allotments which are just outside the towns are sold for building. Over and over again, allotment land is sold for high prices and allotment holders are moved off somewhere else. The idea that this money should largely be put back into gardens is nonsense, and while the gardeners should certainly be re-sited in cases of this sort, they should not have more than they had before the moving. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

My Lords, I am sorry but I may have to be a little longer than I took on Amendment No. 1. This clause, if added to the Bill, will replace the present Clause 2 with a provision to the effect that the hiring of allotments shall be regarded as a commercial enterprise and not as a recreation. This clause is totally contrary to the purpose and scope of the Recreational Gardening Bill, which, according to its Long Title, is, to confirm that allotment gardening has the status of a recreation". One of the purposes of the clause is to implement the outstanding recommendations of the late Professor Thorpe. That is what Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to do.

However—and this is quite important—I am not proposing in the Bill to amend Section 11 of the Allotments Act 1950, which provides that the loss that an allotments authority may incur shall be no more than the product of a 0.8p rate.

In the case of a small parish, there is a disability here. This can be quite a small sum and this provision prevents many small parishes from purchasing allotments in the first place. On the other hand, a large borough will never need to spend the product of a 0.8p rate on allotments. This is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, himself said in our debate on 17th March 1976, at column 248 of the Official Report: For many years, allotment holders have suffered from being the first to have their land taken for development, being on the edge of towns. This has caused inconvenience bordering on distress". The sale of allotment land as building land has meant that most of the larger authorities have been able to make a tidy profit out of their allotments, as the money spent on replacement plots has been very small in comparison with the sale proceeds from the former allotment land. That is why Clause 2, as presently worded, seeks to introduce an independent check that in fact authorities have provided sufficient replace-ment plots which are in a suitable state for spade cultivation to fulfil their duties under the Allotments Acts. That is all that Clause 2 seeks to do. If there is any slight disagreement about the wording, I am quite happy to leave it to another place to sort it out.

Section 10 of the Allotments Act 1950 enables authorities to charge a lower rent if they are satisfied that special circumstances exist which render it proper for a lower rent to be charged. A number of authorities make reductions for old-age pensioners. Some provide specially adapted plots on favourable terms for disabled persons. That should be greatly encouraged. And we must not forget that special powers were given by the 1931 Act to assist unemployed persons, of whom there are, unfortunately, a large number. I doubt whether many noble Lords would argue that disabled persons and pensioners do not deserve concessionary allotment rents.

However, leaving aside the question of concessionary rents, I doubt whether the cultivation of an allotment garden can ever show a commercial return. I would refer the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, to an article in The Garden, which is the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society, Volume 108, Part 12, December 1983, pages 485 to 490, where Dr. Malcolm Sargent, Lecturer in Horticulture Economics at the University of Bath, has tried to quantify the productive potential of an allotment garden. He concludes that if gardening for food production is regarded as a leisure-time activity, only then does it provide a worthwhile return on outlay. If, however, allotment gardening is compared directly with modern commercial horticulture, it probably cannot compete. Professor Thorpe was satisfied in paragraph 366 of his report that the net value of a 10-rod plot to the average allotment holder was £20 per annum—it is not much more now, although costs have gone up—and in many cases lower still. Even at 1969 prices this is a very poor return, bearing in mind another statement from Professor Thorpe's report in paragraph 380 that the average allotment holder with a 10-rod plot estimates that he spends between 400 and 500 hours per annum upon it. I therefore conclude that from the standpoint of the plot holder there can be no commercial return and that accordingly allotment gardening can be regarded only as a recreational activity.

If the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, takes into account the 400 to 500 hours that the average plot holder works—and at times it is hard, though enjoyable and healthy work—for a commercial return the cost of that labour has got to be included. By the time he has bought his fertilisers and seeds and carried out all the work and the many other tasks, although he will get out of it a certain amount of satisfaction and some healthy vegetables for his family he will find that it is very uneconomic.

The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has tried to argue that low rents for allotments have encouraged the inappropriate use of allotment land and discour-aged the provision of new land. There is a contradiction here, as, if prospective allotment tenants are attracted by low rents, they would bring to the attention of their councils those plots which were being improperly used and would press for them to be let as recreational gardens. If the truth be known, it is that where rents are too high inappropriate uses of land become much more profitable than the traditional use of land for recreational gardening. It appears to me, therefore, that we should leave the allotment authorities to determine their own rent levels in the light of their own local circumstances. I do not find the noble Lord's new clause very helpful in that regard.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House; but a little while ago there was a case in the High Court in which judgment was given for the plot holders. I believe that it was the Reigate Borough Council which was involved, but I shall correct this statement if I am wrong. They increased the rent from £3 for a 10-rod plot to £10. My daughter was paying £13.20. The plot holders, thinking that their liberties were being dealt with unfairly, looked at the cost of tennis courts, bowling greens, swimming pools and other recreational activities and came to the conclusion that they were being dealt with unfairly, because the costs of those recreational activities had not increased by any means so much as the cost of allotment land. The High Court judge gave judgment in favour of the plot holders and awarded costs to them. Reigate borough council had to reconsider its position.

Therefore I appeal to the noble Lord to take into account the circumstances that I have explained. I am only concerned that if plot holders are displaced along the lines he mentioned there should be an adequate check that they are given reasonable justice by having land suitable for cultivation given to them in its place.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am beginning to wonder whether this is a private fight or whether anybody can join in. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, was in the Chamber last night when we discussed the Rates Bill, but my noble friend most certainly was. He spoke for the Government. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has said—and if he was not in the Chamber last night I would that he had been, because we might have been in the same Lobby—my noble friend must realise that it is entirely up to local authorities to dispose of their income in any way that seems to them to be appropriate. That has been the position during the past 50 years and I very much hope it will be the position for the next 50 years.

My noble friend seeks to introduce through this amendment a change in the way in which local authorities are required to charge rents for allotments, to the extent that there is no charge on the general rate and the land shows a commercial return. It is the case that at present—I confirm exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has just said—authorities are required by Section 10(1) of the Allotments Act 1950 to let their allotments at such rents as tenants may be reasonably expected to pay, whether this is a commercial return or not, and where the authority is satisfied that there are special circumstances they may charge a lower rent. Thus, an old-age pensioner or an unemployed or disabled person can make representations that his circumstances are such as to justify a reduction in his allotment rent.

Apart from income by way of rent, an authority must finance its allotments undertakings from the general rate fund in the usual way, subject to the limitation imposed by Section 11(1) of the 1950 Act—that is, that it shall not incur a charge on the general rate greater than that produced by a rate of 0.8p in the pound, which, again I might remind my noble friend, is somewhat less than the emergency measures proposed by such things as relief from flooding or snow dangers, as we have had in my part of the country (and, I know, in his) over the past few winters. While we would expect rents to be in line with those charged for other recreational facilities generally, all this is very much a matter for individual authorities to decide, particularly in view of the circumstances where a lower rent might be applicable.

For these reasons, although I did not speak on the last amendment—because I concur absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, whose Bill, at the end of the day, this is—I could not possibly countenance the statutory obligations which the amendment seeks to impose, whether or not my view is adhered to, which is that the statutory obligations which the amendment seeks to impose are not relevant to the situation which we are discussing this evening.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord the Minister, who was undoubtedly in the House last night during the debate and presumably voted with his Government in the Division, is now rallying to the defence of the local authorities, to do what they like with their own money.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, it is the other way around. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in his speech just now, rallied to the cause of the Government, rather than me rallying to the cause of the Opposition.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I do not think that is entirely so. Two separate questions arise out of this amendment. One concerns whether the councils should have a definite duty to charge a particular kind of rent. Here, I think it is absolutely right that they should have as much freedom as possible in this area. The second question concerns leaving out Clause 2, which in fact puts certain obligations on the local councils. They seem to me to be absolutely the right kind of obligations because they are obligations about preserving the capital value of the assets which are used by the allotment holders. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, will withdraw his amendment because I believe that both sides probably feel that the Bill is better left unamended although I realise the thoroughly admirable motives which the noble Lord has in trying to ensure that ratepayers are not in any way done down.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [Publication of statistics about allotment gardens]:

Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 6: Page 1, line 23, leave out ("waiting lists") and insert ("registers").

Page 2, line 3, after (" 1976") insert ("(recreational facilities)").

line 7, after ("1972") insert ("(disability of members of authorities for voting on account of interest in contracts, etc.)").

line 10, after ("council") insert ("or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House, as these are purely technical drafting amendments relating to previous clauses and amendments carried in Committee, that I move Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Forward to