Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1922/may/29/allotments-bill
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:14:40+00:00

Document:
§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Determination of tenancies of allotment gardens.
§ (2) This section shall apply to a tenancy current at the date of the passing of this Act, but not so as to affect the operation of any notice to quit given, re-entry made, or proceedings for recovery of possession commenced, before that date.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (I) (a), to leave out "twenty-ninth day of September," and to insert "thirty-first day of October." The noble Lord said: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said he would give consideration to this Amendment on Report stage. He did not express a strong view one way or the other during Committee, but I would remind hint that this question is very strongly felt in the 801 north of England. The West Riding County Council has asked that the Amendment should be made on the ground that a large number of allotment holders would have their potatoes still in the ground on September 29, while in the south and west they would probably have gathered them. It is hard that these allotment holders should be obliged to leave their crops in the ground. True, they would receive compensation. The feeling of allotment holders is that they would rather eat the crops they have grown than receive compensation. I notice that in the Scottish Bill now before the House the date is November 30. The noble Earl is a large landowner in Scotland as well as in England, and in the Scottish Bill he recognises that it is necessary to have a later date than in the English Bill. If November 30 is necessary in the Scottish Bill, surely it is equally right to have October 31 for the north of England in this Bill.
My Lords, it is true that I promised to reconsider this matter before Report, and I have done so. There are certain difficulties with regard to the date in the Amendment upon the Paper, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it when I say that there is an Amendment on Clause 2 to insert a new subsection standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, and that I shall be able to accept part of that Amendment which I think will meet his case. The man who had potatoes still in the ground would thus get compensation for them if he were turned out on September 29. I hope the noble Lord will be content with that. There are difficulties in the way of altering the date with reference to Michaelmas tenants in this country, and I gather that the noble Lord is chiefly anxious that the tenant should not lose his crop without getting compensation.
I beg leave to withdraw.
§ EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection 1 (c), to leave out "by a Government 802 department or local authority or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the preceding stage of this Bill your Lordships agreed that a case had been made out for public authorities to have their land back at short notice, in view of possible damage to railway cuttings and so on, but nothing was said about local authorities. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was prepared to admit that there had been cases where local authorities had not behaved very well in regard to regaining possession of their land, and I hope he will be able to accept this Amendment. I suggest that both Government Departments and local authorities should be able to look ahead far enough to give reasonable notice to their tenants.
My Lords, paragraph (c), which was inserted in Committee, was inserted at the instigation of those who were particularly interested in public undertakings, and I am afraid I cannot consider that there is sufficient justification for the distinction in this respect between Government Departments, local authorities and the owners of statutory undertakings. In the case of a local authority, in particular, there is a considerable area of land which had been acquired for building purposes which could best be disposed of by the local authority in the public interest by immediate sale, and I am assured by the Ministry of Health that the necessity of giving three months' notice of their intention to reenter would materially hamper local authorities. I am aware that the noble Earl has certain information on this point, and it is true that evidence was brought before the Allotments Committee of one or two local authorities who acted rather unreasonably in this respect; but I do not think that this can be regarded as any real evidence that local authorities would evict their tenants unreasonably. I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
My Lords, the noble Earl says that it would hamper local authorities in the disposal of their surplus land if the necessity of giving three months' notice to the allotment holders were inserted in the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Earl has realised the implication which his argument involves 803 in the case of private owners. It appears from the case which he puts that there is no objection to hampering the private owner in the disposal of his land, but there is an objection in the case of a local authority. Why that distinction? I have never attributed very great importance to this three months' notice, so far as the private owner is concerned, for those of us who manage our estates properly are generally able to see ahead a certain number of weeks. If that be true of the private owner, it ought to be true of the public authority, and, conversely, if it be not true of the public authority, owing to some reason of which the noble Earl is conscious, I contend that it would not be true of the private owner of land. In other words, there is really no reason why there should be any distinction between the two cases.
The idea, which seems to be in the minds of some people, that an allotment holder under a local authority ought to have less security of tenure than an allotment holder under a private owner is one which, I am sure, cannot be sustained. You could not persuade the allotment holder that it is a sound argument, and, indeed, it obviously is not a sound argument. I confess that if the Government have no better argument than my noble friend has put forward, I do not think they can reasonably contest the Amendment of my noble friend behind me. Railway companies stand in a special position, because it may be necessary for them to resume occupation of their land at a moment's notice, for reasons into which I need not enter now. Such reasons do not apply to a local authority, and I cannot understand why my noble friend should not consent to this Amendment.
If the noble Earl presses his Amendment, I do not intend to divide the House against, it. I do not wish to enter into a long speech on the subject. There is a little difference, especially at the present moment, between the two cases. Take the two instances which the noble Earl quoted the other day. In both those cases the land had been purchased by the local authority directly for the purpose of building, and then, owing, as the noble Earl is aware, to the curtailment of the housing programme, this land was not immediately required for building. The local authority were not at the time aware that there was going to be this curtailment of the building programme, and consequently they turned out the 804 allotment tenants. That, I think, was the effect of the evidence which we heard. There is a little difference between land like that, which was bought directly by the local authority for the express purpose of building, when they thought they would be able to build upon it, and other land.
That might be true of a private owner.
As I say, I will not divide the House against the Amendment.
I am afraid I must press the Amendment. The whole raison dď être of this Bill is to give security of tenure to allotment holders in cases such as those which I have named.
§ EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "passing of this Act," and to insert "twenty-fifth day of March, 1922." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment, which I move on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, who is unable to be present, is that owners of land should not be able to take advantage of the time during which this Bill is passing through both Houses of Parliament in order to escape from the effects of the clause. It was argued, I think, in Committee, and I do not propose to argue it again now.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER My Lords, it was suggested in Committee that there was a real risk of tenants being deprived of the benefits of the amendment of the law now proposed by the service of notice to quit being given, or even by land being resumed, before the Bill passes into law. I think it would require a strong case for the existence of such a risk to induce your Lordships to provide that the Bill should be retrospective, so as to interfere with the operation of notices to quit given, or 805 re-entries actually made, when the law is not in force but only under discussion. There might be cases where people had actually re-entered, and would have to clear out again. Personally, I do not think that there is any such risk in this case, and, for that reason, the Amendment is undesirable. There will, however, be further time, before the Bill passes into law, during which I can consult the recognised representatives of the allotment holders, to ascertain their views on the subject. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
§ 2.—(1) Where under any contract of tenancy land is, before or after the passing of this Act, let for use by the tenant as an allotment garden, the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of this section and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be entitled at the termination of the tenancy, on quitting the land, to obtain from the landlord compensation as provided by this section.
§ (2) Compensation shall be recoverable under this section only if the tenancy is terminated by the landlord and between the sixth day of April and the twenty-ninth day of September.
§ (6) Except as provided by this section or by the contract of tenancy, the tenant of land under a contract of tenancy to which this section applies shall not be entitled to recover compensation from the landlord at the termination of the tenancy; and the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, relating to compensation, and the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, shall not apply to any tenancy to which this section applies.
§ (7) A tenant of land under a contract of tenancy to which this section applies may, before or within a reasonable time, not in any case longer than three months after the termination of the tenancy, remove any fruit trees or bushes provided and planted by the tenant during the tenancy or any erection, fencing, or other improvement erected or made by the tenant during the tenancy, making good any injury to the land caused by such removal.
§ (8) The tenant of land held under a contract of tenancy to which this section applies, made with a mortgagor which is not binding on the mortgagee shall, on being deprived of possession by the mortgagee, be entitled to recover compensation from him as if he were the landlord and had then terminated the tenancy, but subject to the deduction from such compensation of any rent or other sum duo from the tenant in respect of the allotment garden.
§ (9) This section shall not apply to any tenancy which is terminated by the effluxion of time before 806 the date of the passing of this Act, or where a notice to quit has been given, re-entry has been made or proceedings for recovery of possession have been commenced before that date.
§ EARL STANHOPE moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert "Subject to the provisions of this section." The noble Earl said: The object of this and consequential Amendments has reference to the compensation being payable, to an allotment holder for cultivation prior to receiving notice to quit.
My Lords, this Amendment must be considered in conjunction with a consequential Amendment on page 3, line 37, to insert a new subsection. These two Amendments, as the noble Earl says, are intended to raise the case of an allotment holder who is required to quit his holding in the non-cropping system, without the benefit of six months' notice of termination. It would not be possible to arrange the crops so as to be able to gather them at the end of the tenancy. I am inclined to think that there is no necessity for the introduction into this new subsection of a new basis of compensation. Your Lordships will see that the basis of compensation is already laid down, and if the noble Earl would be willing, when he comes to his consequential Amendment, to omit all the words after "under this section," I should be prepared to accept these two Amendments, subject to any drafting Amendment which may be found necessary, such as the alteration of date—the sixth day of April instead of the twenty-fifth day of March.
My difficulty is that, so far as I can see, if all the words after "under this section" are omitted there is no sense in the Amendment at all.
The noble Earl will find that the compensation is laid down in the Bill itself.
§ Page 3, lines 29 to:17, leave out subsection (8).
§ EARL STANHOPE moved, after subsection (8), to insert the following new subsection:— (9) Where the tenancy is terminated on or before the twenty-fifth day of March or on or after the twenty-ninth day of September in any year by re-entry under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the next preceding section of this Act, compensation shall be recoverable by the tenant from the landlord under this section. The noble Earl said: I will move this Amendment in the form suggested by the Government, omitting all the words after under this section."
§ The EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause: .—(1) The foregoing provisions of this Act as to determination of tenancies of allotment gardens and compensation to a tenant on quitting the same shall not apply to any parcel of land attached to a cottage. (2) In the case of any allotment within the meaning of this section (not being an allotment garden), the tenant shall, on the termination of his tenancy by effluxion of time, or from any other cause, be entitled, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to obtain from the landlord compensation for the following matters:— (a) For crops, including fruit, growing upon the land in the ordinary course of cultivation and for labour expended upon and manure applied to the land since the taking of the last crop in anticipation of a future crop; and (b) For fruit trees or bushes provided and planted by the tenant with the previous consent in writing of the landlord, and for drains, outbuildings, pigsties, fowl-houses, or other structural improvements made or erected by the tenant on the land with such consent. (3) Any sum due to the landlord from the tenant in respect of rent or of any breach of the contract of tenancy under which the land is held, or wilful or negligent damage committed or permitted by the tenant, shall be taken into account in reduction of the compensation. (4) The amount of compensation shall, in default of agreement, be determined and recovered in the same manner as compensation is, under this Act, to be determined and recovered in the case of an allotment garden. (5) The provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, shall not apply to any allotment within the meaning of this section: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the right of a tenant to claim compensation for any improvement executed before the commencement of this Act for which he could, but 808 for this subsection, have claimed compensation under the said Acts, or affect the operation of any notice to quit given in respect of any such allotment before the passing of this Act, or the right of a tenant thereof to claim compensation for disturbance in respect of any notice to quit so given, except that the provisions of this section as to the determination and recovery of compensation under this Act, and not the provisions of the said Acts, shall apply to any compensation so claimed (6) In this section the expression allotment' means any parcel of land, whether attached to a cottage or not, of not more than two acres in extent, held by a tenant under a landlord and cultivated as a farm or a garden, or partly as a garden and partly as a farm.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Amendment to subsection (6), to leave out all words after "tenancy," was the first of a series of Amendments which I have placed on the Paper to simplify the law as to tenancies of allotment gardens and other allotments. I may state the difficulties which exist in this respect, and the way I propose to deal with them. The expression "allotments" in the various Acts dealing with the matter has not a uniform meaning. In the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, it means the subject of a tenancy created by an allotment authority, and may comprise any area not exceeding five acres. In the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, the expression "allotment" means any parcel of land of not more than two acres in extent held by a tenant under a landlord and cultivated as a garden or as a farm, or partly as a garden or partly as a farm, whether attached to a cottage or not. In the Agriculture Act a new expression was adopted, namely, an "allotment garden," though the expression was not defined, and I do not think anybody at present knows what an allotment garden means.
§ In the present Bill the first two clauses deal with allotment gardens, which are defined as meaning an area not exceeding 40 poles, which is wholly or mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetables or fruit crops for consumption by himself or his family. In the public mind an "allotment" is generally considered to mean that which in this Bill is referred to as an allotment garden, but there are throughout the country a certain number of allotments under two acres to which the Act of 1887 applies, which are partly used as gardens and partly for ordinary agricultural purposes, thought the cultivation is necessarily on a very small scale. In addition, it is believed that in 809 a few cases allotment authorities have provided very small agricultural areas exceeding two acres but not exceeding five acres, which are only allotments in the sense that they have been provided by allotment authorities. They are really very small agricultural holdings, and should be treated as such.
§ It is proposed by the new clauses which I have placed on the Paper to deal separately with (1), an allotment garden; (2) a cottage garden or other allotment under two acres; and (3), an allotment provided by the local authority of between two and five acres. The result of these Amendments, if adopted, will be that the tenant of anything that can in any sense be called an allotment will not have to look at more than one Act to ascertain what are his rights and liabilities. If he holds an allotment garden, that is to say, under 40 poles of land, he will have to look to Clauses 1 and 2 and the new Clause 4 of the Bill. If he holds a cottage garden or other allotment, that is to say between 40 poles and 2 acres, he will have to look at Clauses 3 and 4. Clause 3 of the Bill, as printed, will now become Clause 5, and this will complete the law on the subject as far as he is concerned. In the case of the so-called allotment between two acres and five acres, provided by an allotment authority, the tenant will have to look at the Agricultural Holdings Act, and in this respect he will be placed in the same position as the tenant of a similar holding provided by a private landlord. I hope that the adoption of these Amendments will materially simplify the law as it is at the present time and be a real advantage to both landlord and tenant. The Amendments involve some alteration of the existing law, but this is inevitable if the present confused position is to be simplified.
After what I have just said I think that the next new clause does not require any further explanation.
§ Assessment and recovery of compensation.
§ 3. The compensation under the two preceding sections of this Act from the tenant and from the landlord respectively, and such further compensation (if any) as is recoverable under the contract of tenancy shall, in default of agreement, be determined by a valuation made by a person appointed it, default of agreement by the judge of the county court having jurisdiction in the place where the allotment garden is situated, and if not. paid within fourteen days after the amount is agreed or determined, shall be recover able upon order made by the county court as money ordered to be paid by a county court under its ordinary jurisdiction, is recoverable.
There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection: (2) The proper charges of the valuer for the valuation shall be borne by the landlord and tenant in such proportion as the valuer shall direct, but be recoverable by the valuer from either of the parties and any amount paid by either of the parties in excess of the amount (if any) directed by the valuer to be borne by him shall be recoverable from the other party and may be deducted from any compensation payable to such party.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause adopts the same arrangement as prevails under the Agricultural Holdings Act and Section 21 of the Agriculture Act, 1920. It follows the precedent of the Agricultural Holdings Act as regards expenses.
Will this be applicable only to the cases of allotments between two and five acres? It is to those allotments that the Agricultural Holdings Act applies.
Under the new clause which I have already moved, everything above two acres will become an agricultural holding, and then everything will be done under the Agricultural Holdings Act.
§ Amendment of statutory provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land for allotments.
§ EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (1), after "borough," to insert "county borough." The noble Earl said: This was an Amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill considered the words "county borough" were unnecessary, but he promised to consider the matter before Report.
This is a purely technical question, and I think it is clear that the Interpretation Act makes the expression "borough" include "county borough" unless there is something in the context to prevent this interpretation. That Act states that the expression "borough," when used in relation to local government, shall mean a municipal borough as defined in the Act.
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Powers of entry on unoccupied land.
(d) on the termination of such occupation remove any erection or work of adaptation making good any injury to the land caused by such removal.
§ (2) Before entry under this section, the council shall give not less than fourteen days notice in writing to the owner of the land, in such manner as notices may be given to an owner under the regulations for the time being applicable to compulsory hiring of land under the Allotments Acts.
(b) by not less than one month's notice in writing given by the owner to the council in any case where the land is reasonably required for any purpose other than the use of the land for agriculture.
§ (4) A tenant to whom land is let by a council under this section and whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the right of occupation of the council shall, unless otherwise agreed in the contract of tenancy, be entitled to recover from the council such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit given by the council.
§ Provided that a periodical payment of compensation in the nature of rent shall not exceed the rental value of the land as defined by this section.
except land being the property of a local authority or forming part of any metropolitan common within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or any land which is subject, or might be made subject, to regulation under an order or scheme made in pursuance of the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or under any local Act or otherwise, or land which is or forms part of any town or village green, or any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden, or pleasure ground, or for use for the purposes of public recreation, or land funning part of the New Forest (as defined in the New Forest Act, 1877), or of the trust property to which the National Trust Act, 1907, applies.
§ EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out all words after "for" and to insert "an industrial purpose." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this was moved in Committee, and the noble Earl said he would consider whether the words "industrial purpose" were better than those which appear in the Bill. The Amendment uses the same words as appear in the Interpretation Clause, and I suggest that it is better to use these words than to say that land can be resumed where it is not required for agriculture.
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl quite realises the position. The suggestion of the Committee over which I presided was that resumption should be allowed for any purpose Which was more remunerative to the owner, and though I do not see my way to adopt this phraseology, I have endeavoured by the provision in 814 the Bill to arrive as nearly as possible at the same result. There is reasonable ground for making a distinction between provisions for resumption in the case of land occupied under Clause 7 and in the case of land to which Clause 1 applies. Land affected by Clause 1 is land actually let for allotments, whereas the present clause deals with land which is taken from an owner without his consent because it is unoccupied. It is a more drastic action. If he desires to re-occupy the land the case for depriving him thus summarily of the right of occupation disappears, or, at any rate, is considerably weakened, and I have no reason to think that the allotment holders' representatives regard paragraph (b) of this clause as unreasonable. I hope the Amendment will not he pressed. We think there is real difference between these two classes of land.
§ EARL STANHOPE moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this deals with the case which I brought up during the Committee stage, under which, if a road has to be dug up for the provision of allotments, the cost of re-making that road can only be met by repaying by instalments in sums that are not to exceed the actual rent from the land. As the clause refers entirely to derelict land, obviously the rent that could be received for the land in that condition is practically nil. The clause in the Bill endeavours to pay the capital lost by sums which are so small that they will never achieve their object;. It is a complicated matter, because subsection (5) refers, as far as I can see, to capital losses, and goes on to refer to the method in which they should be repaid. Then, in subsection (7), it says that the rental value, which is the method by which repayment is to be made for the capital loss, is limited to what might be expected from the rent of the land in its then derelict condition. I failed to understand the clause in Committee, and I am afraid I do not understand it any better now.
My Lords, I admit that the question is not a very easy one, and, perhaps, I did not make myself quite clear in Committee. The payments which the Ministry are making now are being made on this principle, because, of course, the matter is going on now, and land is being retaken which was taken under D.O.R.A. In many cases we find that a capital sum has to be paid for damage to the ground, as in the case I gave of a road which had been dug up and allotments made on the site. In addition to that, we had to make a payment by way of rent also in compensation, because I think the noble Earl will admit that there is a difference between absolutely derelict land and land which has some rental value. It is not all derelict land. Some of this land might have, and has, a rental value.
If the noble Earl looks at subsection (7) he will read— The expression rateable occupation' means such occupation as would involve liability to payment of the poor rate or any rate leviable in like manner as the poor rate. I cannot give him a better example than the case of an empty house in London. There is not a rateable occupation; at the same time, the house has a rental value. In many cases there is land at present which is not rateable because it is not occupied; at the same time, it has a rental value. If you seize this land from the landlord he will expect to realize some rent—perhaps not much, but some rent.
What happens when he does not expect any?
But he cannot save his capital loss.
I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with my explanation. The clause may not be very clear, but cases arise where both the capital compensation and a compensation in the way of rent have also to be paid.
I certainly will not press the Amendment. I cannot see that it will do any harm; on the other hand, I think there are many cases where it certainly will not do any good.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (6), after "authority," to insert "or land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock or canal undertaking." The noble Earl said: These words ought to have been put in during the Committee stage. They were accepted in Committee, but were omitted from the reprinted Bill.
§ LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (6), after "recreation," to insert "or land which has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, clock or canal undertaking." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of the same kind as the last. It has already been dealt with in that Amendment.
§ ".—(1) Where land has been let to a local authority or to an association for the purpose of being sub-let for use as allotment gardens, or is occupied by a council under the powers of entry conferred by this Act, and the landlord, or the person who but for such occupation would be entitled to the possession of the land, proposes to resume possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of this Act for any particular purpose, notice in writing of the purpose for which resumption is required shall be given to the local authority or association.
§ "(2) The local authority or association may by a counter notice served within ten days after receipt of such notice on the person requiring possession demand that the question as to whether resumption of possession is required in good faith for the purpose specified in the notice shall be determined by arbitration under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.
§ "(3) Possession of the land shall not be resumed until after the expiration of the said period of ten days or the determination of such question as aforesaid where such determination is demanded under this section.
§ "(4) This section shall not apply to any case where resumption of possession is required by a corporation or company being the owners or lessees of a railway, clock, canal, water, or other public undertaking."
§ The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one question on this rather long new clause. In reference to subsection (3) which says: "Possession of the land shall not be resumed until idler the expiration of the said period of ten days or the determination of such question as aforesaid where such determination is demanded under this section," we have already agreed that there should be a right of re-entry at three months when the land is required for industrial purposes. I now understand that arbitration can take place over this question, and I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can give me any definite undertaking that if there is a case of arbitration possession will still be able to be obtained at the end of three months.
No; ten days I should have said. If I explain the object of this new clause I think it will be clearer. The clause is proposed to carry out the arrangement. which I indicated in Committee for securing some method of determining disputes which might arise as to whether a notice to quit purporting to be given for a legitimate purpose was, in fact, given for that purpose, and not for some other purpose. It is not suggested that such a dispute will often arise, but there have been cases in which it has been represented to the Ministry that when applicants have claimed to resume possession of their land for building or some other urgent purpose the applicant has not been acting in good faith. This question is, of course, a very different question from that as to whether land is reasonably required for a specific purpose, because "reasonably" may mean a good deal more. There is a good deal of difference between whether a man has acted in good faith or has acted reasonably. In the former case it might have been possible to raise the question as to whether or not re-entry might not have been avoided; for instance; by the use of some other land for the purpose specified. It may, no doubt, be a matter of some difficulty for the local authority or the association to establish a case of bad faith on the part of the landowner, but if it feels that it has good ground for an objection 818 of this kind it is desirable that some method should be adopted for disposing of such dispute.
The clause provides that the landowner shall give notice to the authority or association of the purpose for which resumption is required. This is not made an essential part of the notice requiring possession, as to do so might possibly invalidate a perfectly proper notice. The landowner, having informed the local authority or the association of the purpose for which he requires the land, will not necessarily be delayed in any way in resuming possession in consequence of the necessity of his waiting for ten days to see whether an appeal is lodged; but, of course, if an appeal is lodged, it is obvious that the resumption cannot take place until the dispute is settled by the arbitrator. The clause applies only to cases where the land is in the occupation of a local authority or an association, as it is felt that the extension of the provision to individual allotment holders to whom land has been voluntarily let by a landowner might lead to cases where such an individual allotment holder might, quite unreasonably, demand an arbitration and, for want of means, be reckless as regards any risk of having to pay the costs of an arbitration which the arbitrator aright consider to have been unreasonably instituted.
The clause does not apply to resumption of land by railway and other statutory undertakings, as it is recognised that the case of urgency as regards such bodies is not infrequently so great as to make the risk of any delay due to arbitration quite incompatible with the proper exercise of their statutory functions. I think the noble Lord will see that I have answered his question, because the only question is the expiration of the ten days. Naturally a man cannot resume possession until the case has been decided, and he ought, in the first instance, to give notice to get back the land and also state the purpose for which he wishes to regain possession.
I understand that if the counter notice is given frivolously—because even, local authorities occasionally behave frivolously —there will be power in the arbitrator to give costs against the local authority. I am afraid I cannot expect the noble Earl to answer that question, but perhaps he will be good enough to make a note of it. 1e want to protect the owner from a 819 frivolous counter notice, and the way to do that is to provide that there shall be costs against the offender if frivolous notice is given.
I can answer the noble Marquess now. I think that in the arbitration cases costs can be given against a frivolous offender.
§ Time limit for serving notice to treat for compulsory acquisition of land.
§ 8. Where an order has been made for the compulsory acquisition of any land and notice to treat there under is not served by the acquiring authority within three calendar months of the said order, or where confirmation of the said order is necessary, then from the confirmation thereof the same shall become null and void.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out "same" and to insert "order so far as it relates to land in respect of which notice to quit has not been so served." The noble Earl said: There is a misprint in this Amendment: it ought to be "in respect of which notice to treat has not been served" and not "notice to quit." Perhaps I may be allowed to move it in that form? In Committee this question was raised by Lord Dynevor, and I promised that I would place on the Paper an Amendment to meet as far as possible the Amendment moved by him, which I did not see my way to accept.
§ It is quite right that the owner of land should be afforded reasonable protection against liability to a repetition of orders dealing with the same land, but, in practice, it may be found that where an order has been made authorising the acquisition of land, and particularly the hiring of land, it is for some reason impracticable to put the order in force. For instance, the land proposed to be hired may be in excess of the area required owing to some applicants withdrawing their applications, or it may be found that a re-adjustment of boundaries would avoid difficulties as to severance or otherwise, which would reduce the compensation which would have to be paid. I suggest to the noble Lord that the protection proposed by my proposed new subsection is sufficient to protect the landowner from being unreasonably harassed by proceedings of the local authorities, as the second order could only be conferred if a special case were made for relief from the general principle involved in the earlier 820 part of the Amendment. I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.
I am much obliged to my noble friend, and I am ready to accept the Amendment which he has proposed.
§ Allotment committees of urban authorities.
§ 10.—(1) The council of every borough or urban district with a population of ten thousand or upwards shall, unless exempted by the Minister of Health from the provisions of this section, establish an allotments committee, which may be an existing committee of the council or a subcommittee of an existing council, and all matters relating to the exercise and performance by the council of their powers and duties under the Allotments Acts as respects the provision of allotment gardens (except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money) shall stand referred to such committee, and the council before exercising any such powers shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the committee with respect to the matter in question, and the council may delegate to the committee, with or without restrictions, any of their said powers except as aforesaid.
§ (2) An allotments committee established under this section shall comprise persons, other than members of the council, representative of the interests of occupiers of allotment gardens in the borough or district, provided that such co-opted members shall be less than one-half but shall not be less than one-third of the total number of the members of the committee.
§ (3) The accounts of any receipts or payments by or to a committee under powers delegated under this section shall be accounts of the council and made up and audited accordingly.
§ (4) In the case of a county borough, the council may appoint their small holdings committee, if constituted so as to comply with the provisions of this section, to be their allotment committee under this section.
§ LORD ERSKINE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "shall" and to insert "may." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, which stands in the name of Lord Strachie and myself, is, I think, one of considerable importance. The object of it is to leave to borough and urban district councils discretion as to the establishment of an allotments committee. The importation of another certificate of exemption by the Minister of Health is, I think, an unnecessary interference with the proper functions of local government by locally elected bodies charged by Parliament with local duties. It is obvious that the multiplication of statutory committees tends more and more to make too onerous the duties which a local council is called upon to perform. There can be no doubt that in many places the type of person whom it is desirable to have on the local governing bodies of the district is deterred from taking part in the local government of his district by the increasing calls on his time which membership of a local body involves. I have in my hand two letters, one from the Urban District Councils' Association and one from the County Councils' Association, both strongly urging that this Amendment should be accepted. I will ask the noble Earl if he will be good enough not to think my Amendment has anything to do with co-opted members. That Amendment will come on later.
§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 14, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Erskine).
My Lords, I do not wish to repeat at any length the arguments which I used in Committee against this Amendment, but I must state again that the clause on which this Amendment is moved is one to which the representatives of the allotment holders attach the very greatest importance. I am afraid that there are cases, though they may not be numerous, in which councils entrusted with allotment powers for various reasons do not take a very active interest in the provision of allotments, and the representatives of the allotment holders expressed strongly the view that the allotment powers are unlikely to be administered generally in a careful spirit unless a committee is constituted for allotment purposes, anti that that committee contains persons representative of the allotment holders in the district. The present arrangement, under 822 which an allotment authority has power to appoint allotment managers of the land already acquired for allotments, is inadequate to meet the point, and, though urban district councils have already power to appoint committees for the exercise of any powers of the council on which they can co-opt person, who are not members of the council, they have not used the power in many cases. Borough councils have no such power.
I recognise the force of the argument that as a general rule local authorities should be allowed to manage their own business in such manner as they think best, but allotment holders have strongly impressed upon the Ministry the view that if there were some committee on which the allotment holders were represented, though not in such numbers as to be a preponderating influence, this would ensure proper attention being given to the problem. The noble Lord, in his speech, said that lie was not referring to the co-option of members. This point, from the allotment holders' point of view, is most important. The noble Lord mentioned the County Councils' Association, and I would point out that this clause does not refer to county councils at all. I can only repeat what I said when the Bill was in Committee that the allotment holders feel that this is one of the most important parts of the Bill to them, and, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Committee over which I presided, if these committees were set up with co-opted members, a great deal of the friction and agitation that now exist would be done away with. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
My Lords, I am sorry the noble Earl has dealt with the Amendment coming later on in regard to co-option. I will not attempt to go into that now, because I shall move an Amendment later in regard to it, and shall press that Amendment. The noble Earl has expressed surprise that the County Councils' Association are supporting this view of the municipal and urban district councils. I cannot see any reason why the County Councils' Association should not come to the assistance and support of the minor authorities. I will not say that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, sneered at the suggestion last week, but he rather intimated that the County Councils' Association were not generally inclined to help these local authorities.
Please read the words. I want to see if there was a sneer in them.
I did not say there was a sneer. I said "I will not say sneer." I said that the noble Earl suggested that the County Councils' Association was a body that was not inclined as a rule to do anything to assist minor authorities, but rather was inclined to go against their wishes. As to the appeal made by my noble friend (Lord Erksine) to give this discretionary power to minor local authorities, the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, himself said in Committee that he recognised the force of the argument that as a general rule local authorities should be allowed to manage their own business in such a manner as they think best, and as their experience has shown, but that, unfortunately, as regards the provision of allotments, the existing position was not satisfactory, taking the country as a whole. It would have been much more satisfactory if, instead of making a vague statement like that, the noble Earl had given us instances-in which there had been recalcitrant local authorities, and where, taking the country as a whole, there had been minor authorities who were so obscurantist and foolish as to refuse to appoint allotments committees. Had the noble Earl done that he would have furnished a weighty argument for his case.
I have had a good deal to do with local government, both in the county councils and in the minor authorities, and I have never known a single case in which the local authorities were not quite ready to set up an allotments committee, and anxious to promote the provision of allotments. The noble Earl ought to have given seine good reason; he ought to have shown that there were authorities which had been recalcitrant. As he quoted no such case, I think it is rather doubtful whether there have been any. He said the Committee expressed this view, but the difficulty of dealing with the Report of that Committee is that it has not been published, and it is very unfair for the noble Earl to found so many of his arguments on the Report of a Committee as to which no member of your Lordships' House is able to judge the evidence given.
That is an accusation that I have acted unfairly. What I said was that the witnesses we 824 heard from different allotment associations all made this a great point, and they all complained, rightly or wrongly I cannot say, that there were many cases in which no interest was taken in the question of allotments.
I am not saying that the Report ought to have been published, but as the Report has not been published it is not very reasonable to ask your Lordships to accept the mere ipse dixit of the Committee when we are unable to sift the evidence given on both sides. The noble Earl is rather too fond of quoting this Committee when we are unable, by reading the evidence, to judge on what his statements are founded. I hope he will recognise, as he did in Committee, that local authorities ought to be masters in their own house.
My Lords, I do not see how the Government could have adopted any other course than the one they have adopted to-day. I speak with the utmost respect, having very little knowledge of the procedure of your Lordships' but in the other House it is the generally accepted principle, if a question has been fully debated and decided in Committee and nothing fresh is adduced in support of a particular Amendment on Report stage, that the House generally supports the line taken in Committee. That is the position in which your Lordships find yourselves to-day.
I understand the noble Lord's feeling indeed, I share it—that the less we put compulsion on local authorities the better; but at the same time noble Lords who are speaking as the champions of local authorities must not carry that argument too far. Parliament has frequently, especially of recent years, laid new duties upon local authorities, notably when they transferred practically all the duties in respect of public elementary education from Whitehall to the county councils. They then not only transferred all the duties, but laid it as an obligation on county councils that they should conduct the education work through a committee. The difference between saying that they shall have an ad hoc committee and enacting that their work shall be done through a committee is very small. I do not depart from the view I expressed in Committee, but I have heard nothing fresh to lead me to believe that the Government would be wise to 825 change the line they then took. Lord Strachie has complained somewhat of the use made by the noble Earl of the Departmental Committee's Report. That is the invariable practice unless you have a public Committee.
What I complained of was not that the Report was not published but of the use made of a Report the evidence of which has not been given.
I fail to see why the noble Lord interrupted me. I said that he complained of the Report, and he says so himself, especially in regard to the evidence. That is the whole matter. The result of this Committee was an agreement, or arrangement, between those who are feverishly anxious for allotments and those who are responsible for providing them. I had the advantage of an interview with representatives of allotment authorities and I know they attach enormous importance to making this an obligatory duty on local authorities. I still believe that if local authorities are determined not to provide allotments you will not compel them to do so by making it obligatory on them to appoint a committee. This is a difficult and delicate question. There is a very strong feeling amongst certain sections of the people that they are not quite fairly treated, and if we can remove that feeling I think it is well to do so. I must support the Government in their decision.
My Lords, I should be very sorry if the noble Viscount thought we were negligent of the very salutary rule that where a matter has been discussed and decided in Committee it requires strong additional arguments before it is wise to reverse it upon Report. I do not know whether the noble Viscount was present when this was discussed in Committee, but I am informed that it took place in rather peculiar circumstances. It so happened that there were not a large number of your Lordships present, and there is a stage when the attendance may be so small that if a matter is pressed the proceedings on a Bill come to an end. That was represented to my noble friends on this occasion, and, studying the convenience of your Lordships' House, they did not go on with the discussion.
The noble Viscount will agree that they are not quite open to the rebuke he properly administered of trying to reverse on Report what has been decided in Committee, because the decision in Committee was made in such special circumstances as hardly to come within the ordinary procedure. I do not think we ought to blame my noble friends for raising it upon Report; I should have done so myself if I had been in their place.
On the merits of the case I confess that my feelings are with my noble friends in support of the Amendment. I feel strongly what Viscount: Long has said about the delicacy of this question and the feeling it excites. I think, however, your Lordships should reflect on two points. The first is the great objection there is, unless the case is very strong, to interfere with the discretion of local authorities. They are the elected representatives of the people and it is for them to decide whether or not a committee is necessary. The second important question is that the multiplication of committees on local authorities is becoming rather an abuse. I do not serve on a minor local authority, but I am a member of a county council, and I know that the enormous multiplication of committees on that body has approached the point of straining the resources of the council. It must not be forgotten that the two great associated bodies which represent local authorities, as far as I can gather, are unanimously against this proposal. I think the County Councils' Association and the Urban District Councils' Association, at any rate, are against it; and that is an important point. In these circumstances I think the Government would have been wise to have given way; but I can feel the strength of the point which my noble friend opposite has put.
My Lords, I confess that I am rather impressed by what Lord Salisbury has recalled to the House about the conditions under which this was discussed on an earlier occasion, and if, as seems probable, the matter will have to receive a more definite issue than it received the other night, I would ask permission to say a word before the House concludes its views upon the subject. I do not myself remember the protest from the Association of Municipal Corporations.
I do not press that. I did not know it of my own knowledge.
I can say, of my own knowledge, that they do object.
As a society? LORD STRACHIE: Yes.
I beg your pardon. I do not remember receiving it myself. I think that, when they consider it, they will see that this committee is hedged about by so many restrictions and so many reservations that it does not constitute any real infraction of liberty. In the first place, no such committee can be formed without the local authority having the right to appeal, not to the Minister of Agriculture, but to the Minister of Health, who is more in touch with local government than the Minister of Agriculture. In the second place, the corporation has the right to use an existing committee. It need not set up a fresh committee. Finally, it can use an existing sub-committee; so that the freedom of the local authority remains pretty considerable.
§ ance than of a real one. You can tackle a real grievance, you can grapple with it and force a man to bring it to the hard test of fact and cross-examination. So long as you have an unreal grievance, a hidden, subterranean grievance, these men feel that, somehow or other, they are not being fairly treated. That is the light in which every public authority ought really to weigh the opinion of those who assure them that these grievances exist.
§ Lord Strachie complains that no evidence was brought. That is not uncommon, and I do not think that one must condemn a section of an Act of Parliament because it is based upon general views of that kind. But I think many of your Lordships know, as I certainly know, that this grievance does exist, and that many of these allotment holders think that they have no proper court before which they can bring their grievances and state their case. All that is asked is that the local authority shall have a tribunal before which these men can talk. They can do no more than talk. It is an advisory committee, with no executive powers, and if the Ministry of Health is satisfied, as every urban authority has the right to satisfy them, that there is no adequate case for the establishment of this committee, the Ministry can give exemption. Under those conditions, I really think that the course of prudence is to allow these people who say they have grievances to bring them before the proper committee. I am sure that is the right way to dispose of the grievance. If it be justified, we can trust the local authority to remove it; and if it be unjustified, great benefit has been conferred upon the local community by forcing a grievance into the open.
§ Their Lordships divided—Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 21.
Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.) Stamford, E. Dewar, L.
Lansdowne, V. Cave, V. Gorell, L.
Ancaster, E. Gosehen, V. Joicey, L.
Bradford, E. [Teller.] Peel, V. Lee of Fareham, L.
Derby, E. Armaghdale, L. Redesdale, L.
Eldon, E. Ashton of Hyde, L. Roundway, L.
Lucan, E. Cawley, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
Mayo, E. Clwyd, L. Treowen, L.
Onslow, E. Colebrooke, L. Wavertree, L.
Crewe, M. Novar, V. Lawrence, L.
Midleton, E. Denman, L. Raglan, L.
Morton, E. Erskine, L. [Teller.] St. Levan, L.
Stanhope, E. Islington, L. Terrington, L.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the first "shall" and to insert "may." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment raises an entirely different question, a very grave question indeed, namely, that of compulsory co-option. I move this Amendment on behalf of the County Councils' Association, of which I have the honour to be president this year. They feel it is their duty to support the minor local authorities, such as the Association of Municipal Corporations, and also the Urban District Councils' Association. The Municipal Corporations' Association feel very strongly indeed about this question. Up till now they have always been successful in opposing in Parliament any compulsion as regards co-option on their committees. Neither that body nor the Urban District Councils' Association object to the principle of co-option, which may be desirable in certain cases, but they consider that they are the better judges, and not a Minister sitting in Whitehall, whether or not it is desirable to co-option experts from outside.
§ Now that does not seem to me a very unreasonable matter. You entrust these local authorities with enormous powers of rating, and we know how those powers are exercised. If you allow them those enormous powers of rating, subject only to the control of the electors, it is surely only reasonable that in regard to a matter of so much less importance than rating the discretion should be 'left to them. I would remind your Lordships of a matter which is very germane to this question. It is that in 1918 this very question of whether co-option should be optional or mandatory on the local authorities was raised on the Maternity and Child Welfare Act. Anybody who followed that debate will remember that in another place there was a most 830 interesting debate in Committee on this question. Lord Downham, then Mr. Hayes Fisher, opposed the striking out of the words which made co-option on these maternity, and child welfare committees obligatory, but the discussion in the House was so strong that Mr. Hayes Fisher, the Minister in charge, having undertaken to reconsider the matter; on Report himself moved the omission of the mandatory part, leaving it entirely optional whether or not the local authorities should co-option any members from outside. There was this one exception, which does not apply here, that as it was a question dealing with women and children it was provided that two women should be co-opted on those committees.
§ I have here a very strong argument to address to the same Government whose representative on that former Bill abandoned compulsory co-option and left the matter optional. There is the further fact to consider that under this clause it is proposed that the local authorities shall co-opt representatives of the allotment holders themselves. It has generally been the practice of all legislation that a committee should be perfectly independent, and that you should not specially put on committees representatives of any particular section. It seems to me that this is another reason against the clause, but the argument on which I most strongly rely is that these local authorities, win are entrusted to rate us so highly, and who can be turned out every three years if they are not behaving themselves properly, should be trusted to use their own discretion in this less important matter. I can assure the noble Earl that even if he is successful in defeating this Amendment, he has not done with the matter, and that he will find in another place it will mean a long and argumentative discussion. I venture to think that he will be well advised if he accept the Amend-merit at once, instead of allowing the matter to be fought out again in another place.
§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 30, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Strachie).
My Lords, of course, it is not for me to say what is likely to happen in another place. There may be a debate on this subject there, but what we have to do here is to consider the Amendment on its merits, or demerits. The proposal that allotments committees shall necessarily include co-opted members, representative of the allotment holders, is an essential part of the scheme proposed by the clause. Without such co-option the clause merely provides for an allotments committee, which may be the existing committee, and would make no material change in the present system.
§ EARL STANHOPE had an Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out "representative of the interests of" and to insert "who are themselves." The noble Earl said: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill also has an Amendment on the Paper which I prefer to mine, and I therefore do not move.
I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.
§ rendered nugatory, because the authorities who may be the worst offenders, and who now pay the least attention to the allotments question, are just the authorities which will refer the question to one of their existing committees, to which the representatives of the allotment holders object at present, because they will simply ignore the subject, and the case will be very little better in the future than it is at the present time. I have already dealt with this question in Committee, and I hope your Lordships will not support the noble Lord's Amendment, but make the co-option of these members compulsory.
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 20.
Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.) Cave, V. Ernie, L.
Ancaster, E. Gosehen, V. Hylton, L.
Derby, E. Armaghdale, L. Roundway, L.
Onslow, E. Clwyd, L. Terrington, L.
Shaftesbury, E. Colebrooke, L. Treowen, L.
Stamford, E. Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Wavertree, L.
Rutland, D. Allendale, V. Lamington, L.
Mayo, E. Denman, L. Raglan, L.
Midleton, E. Dynevor, L. St. Levan, L.
Portsmouth, E. Forester, L. Wyfold, L.
§ Power for county councils to let land for allotments.
§ 11. A county council may let land acquired by the council for small holdings for cultivation as an allotment., or to a local authority or association, being an association to which land may be let by a council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919, for the purpose of being sub-let for such use.
§ EARL STANHOPE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: Provided that where such land is not the property of the, council and is pasture land, the consent of the owner of such land shall have previously been obtained.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause refers to land which has been taken over by a county council for the purpose of small holdings and it is proposed that part 833 of the small holdings should be turned into allotments. During the Committee stage the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, in reply to an Amendment in a somewhat similar sense, by which I tried to ensure that a county council which had taken over land should not be allowed to plough up pasture for the purpose of making allotments, said: "What about land which is already the property of the county council, and which they have already purchased from a previous owner?" Both in my Amendment and in that of Lord Dynevor, which follows mine on the Paper, we meet that case of the noble Earl by leaving the power to county councils to plough up their own land for allotments, but we deprive them of power to plough up the land which they hire from private owners. My Amendment gives power al consent to the owner, and allows a county council, with that consent, to plough up the land. Lord Dynevor's Amendment does not allow any such power to the council. I leave it to your Lordships to decide which Amendment you prefer.
§ There are many eases in which an owner might very well let land for a small holding as a small pasture farm. Having done that, he would find that the county council, under the powers given by this Bill, would be able to plough up one of his fields for the purposes of allotments, thereby ruining the farm. When the land is handed back to the original owner, the owner would perhaps find one of his best grass fields ploughed up, without his having had any say in the matter. That is not a thing to which your Lordships should readily agree.
My Lords, the trouble that has arisen over this question is due to the Government's having used the word "acquired," which covers two meanings—namely, purchase and hire. If the Government had originally introduced their Bill with the word" purchased, "not" acquired, "no trouble would have arisen. In order to leave the county council with full power to deal with their own land, if they so desire, I propose to add the words which stand in my name— Provided that, if the said land has been acquired otherwise than by purchase, no letting as aforesaid shall take place unless the said land was already in use as arable at the date of its first acquisition by the Council. 834 This will prevent the breaking up of pasture land. I myself, and I dare say a great many of your Lordships, have let extremely valuable pasture land for the purpose of small holdings. In fact, I have let on lease for thirty-six years pasture land which would have let for £3, El and an acre. County councils readily agree that land shall remain pasture land. Under this Bill as it stands a county council can divert land from the purpose of small holdings and let it for the purpose of allotments. It naturally follows that it will be broken up from pasture.
I should like to point out this difference between the Amendment of my noble friend, Earl Stanhope, and mine. The question arises under this cause as to whether the county council has power to break existing contracts. I have asked the opinion of two or three people on the matter and I understand that it is an open question whether that power does or does not exist. Lord Stanhope's Amendment enables this to be clone if the owner consents. If he is approached for his permission and refuses, friction, no doubt, will follow. I think the landowner would be in a rather invidious position if he refused to allow his pasture land to be turned into allotments by the local authority. My Amendment would prevent this in connection with existing contracts. As regards the future, my Amendment does not prevent a council approaching an owner and obtaining his consent to land being broken up. Of the two Amendments I prefer my own, but if the noble Earl thinks that my noble friend's Amendment is the better I shall certainly not object.
My Lords, in answer to the question the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, has put to me, I am advised that the extension of the powers of letting their land which is given to county councils under this clause would not enable a council or their lessees to break up any pasture land in contravention of any covenant contained in a contract of tenancy by which the council holds the land. I expect, in all the cases to which the noble Lord refers, he has got a covenant in the contract of tenancy that the grass land shall not be broken up.
If there is such a contract of tenancy, I am advised 835 that the county council have no power to break up that land, if the noble Lord is not satisfied on this point I am prepared to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, upon the understanding that in another place the proviso may, if necessary, be so amended as to make it clear that it was inserted solely for the purpose of preserving existing restrictions on the user of the land.
Will the noble Earl kindly explain what he means by "existing restrictions"? Does he mean that if there is nothing in the lease saying that pasture land shall not be broken up, then it shall be done?
The position is this. I am accepting the noble Earl's Amendment; but I do not think the Government are prepared to go the full length, and if there is no restrictive covenant of that description there should not be power to break up the land. I cannot pledge the Government to that, but I will accept the noble Earl's Amendment, and it will be for another place to decide whether that Amendment shall be amended or not.
Would it be possible for a local authority to acquire land in the future for the purpose of small holdings and, having done so, to evade the decision to which your Lordships came the other afternoon by subsequently saying that they meant to use it for allotments and then breaking up grass land for the purpose? That is the point we want to get at.
Surely those who fear anything of that kind should arrange by a covenant that it should not be done.
I was talking of compulsory acquisition.
In the case of compulsory acquisition, you can put in restrictive covenants.
If they said: "It is of no use to us; we must have the land and break it up," then you could claim a great deal more compensation.
§ Limitation on expenditure on allotments and rents to be charged.
§ 13.—(1) A council shall not take any proceedings under the provisions of the Allotments Acts relating to allotments, unless in the opinion of the council the expenses of the council incurred under those provisions (other than such expenses as are hereinafter specified) may reasonably be expected, after the proceedings are taken, to be defrayed out of the receipts of the council under those provisions.
(c) sinking fund charges in respect of loans raised in connection with the purchase of land.
§ (3) Land let by a council under the Allotments Acts for use as an allotment shall be let at the best rent that can be reasonably obtained for such use, and not more than a quarter's rent (except where the yearly rent is twenty shillings or less) shall be required to be paid in advance.
§ EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (3), after "use", to insert, "after taking into account the cost to the council of acquisition, adaptation and equipment thereof and of other land let by the council for the like use." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is to provide that land shall not be let at a rack rent. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 13 (3) it is provided that "land let by a council under the Allotment Acts for use as an allotment shall be let at the best rent that can be reasonably obtained …." This Amendment ensures that land shall be let at a reasonable rent, and that the council shall not endeavour to get the very best possible rent in order really to make money out of allotments. The whole object of this Bill is, of course, the obtaining of allotments and, I presume, the letting of them at as cheap a rent as possible to allotment holders, provided that the corporation or local authority does not lose money.
§ If the noble Earl is going to argue that the letting of allotments is to' be taken as a means of assisting the rates, we shall know where we are; otherwise; I submit 837 that this Amendment really ensures that land shall be let to allotment holders at a reasonable price, it also meets the point which was raised in Committee, that where land was taken at a very cheap price and, therefore, could be let cheaply to allotment holders, and where land was taken subsequently at a high price and, therefore, could be let at a high rate to allotment holders, it would be obviously unfair to charge one lot of allotment hollers a low rent and the other lot a high rent. It was suggested that there should be a pool. Your Lordships will see that a pool is possible under the Amendment, because it says that the rent shall be sad as is necessary after taking into account the cost to the council of acquisition, adaptation and equipment of the land and of other land let by the council for the like use. That enables a local authority or a corporation to make a pooling arrangement by which land which has cost them a great deal of money can be pooled with land which cost them very little, and let at a fair rent to the allotment holders. I hope the noble Earl will accept my Amendment.
My Lords, subsection (3) of Clause 13 provides that each allotment shall be let at the best rent that can reasonably be obtained, and the existing requirements will no longer prevail. What is intended is that the local authority shall charge a full rent for each allotment, and that it shall restrict its allotment proceedings to such as, in its opinion, will put the undertaking on a self-supporting basis. The proposed Amendment, though I do not think it is very aptly worded, appears to be intended to preclude a council from charging rents in excess of the aggregate amount required to defray their expenditure. I cannot think that there is any serious risk of their doing so, as in most cases it is found that there is great difficulty in making both ends meet. As was mentioned by Lord Harris, in Committee, if any case should arise where the council were in a position to acquire by means of fair rents some surplus on the working for their allotment undertaking there seems to be no reason why this should not be permitted. I think the cases would be very few and far between.
838 Some doubt was expressed as to whether the expression "best rent" did not mean something in the shape of a rack rent, which, to the lay mind, suggests extortion, but the expression "best rent that can be reasonably obtained" is a very common expression in Acts of Parliament, and the Settled Land Act, under which a good many members of your Lordships' House draw up your leases, requires that every lease shall reserve "the best rent that can reasonably be obtained." I have never heard any complaint that this compelled landowners to charge extortionate rents. This being the case, I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
My Lords, I think I agree with the noble Earl that this is not a difficulty which is likely to occur very often, but most of your Lordships realise exactly what is meant by the term "rack rent." It is not an extortionate rent. A rackrent is the competition rent—the rent which any hereditament will fetch in the market. As the noble Earl has frankly admitted, there may be cases in which by charging this rent a council will make a profit—that is to say, they will got more rent than is necessary to defray the reasonable expenses and the interest on their loan.
Therefore, the question before your Lordships is a perfectly simple one. It is whether there shall be power vested in these councils to make a distinct profit out of their allotment business. While I agree there are not very many cases where that would occur, nevertheless some might occur in places where there is great demand for allotments. The price there would rise, following the ordinary laws of demand and supply, and in such cases it would be quite possible for a local authority to charge rents which were sufficient to yield a profit, and enable local authorities to make a commercial business out of allotments. That is really the point.
It may be argued, as Lord Harris argued in Committee, that there is no great objection to that, but it is clear that the effect would be that the profit on the allotments would go to the reduction of the rates of the local authorities, and I do rot think that is the intention of Parliament in providing allotments. When we take all this trouble to provide allotments, and when we say that all sorts of ordinary rights are to be superseded in order to supply allotments, we 839 do not intend the local authority to make a profit out of them. I should say that clearly is the intention of Parliament, and, that being so, we ought to carry out that intention. My noble friend's words, as far as I can make out, do very aptly provide what is required, and I do not see why the Government should not accept them. I shrink from the conclusion that the Government really intend the allotment authorities to make a profit, and I think they ought to provide words to prevent it.
My Lords, the object of the Amendment is to prevent a profit being realised, or at any rate to ensure that, in assessing the rental, things other than those mentioned in the text of the Bill shall be taken into account. Lord Stanhope says that the council must take into account the cost of acquisition, and the adaptation of the equipment. of these holdings, and, indeed, of other land let for the same purpose. Is it quite sure that the effect of putting in these words may not tend to raise the rents of the allotments rather than to reduce them? Lord Salisbury speaks as if Lord Stanhope's words would help the allotment holder. Is it quite sure that they would do so? Might not they have the effect of raising his rent?
Surely not. The words of the Bill are "the best rent that can be reasonably obtained for such use."
Reasonable use—there is that limitation. The authority has to say: "We will charge this quarter acre at such and such a price, which is reasonable for use for that purpose." Lord Stanhope goes on to say: "In reaching that figure you have to take into account certain things that are not mentioned here." The result may be to put up the rents rather than to keep them down. I do not know if that is Lord Stanhope's intention. It certainly is Lord Salisbury's intention that the effect of the Amendment should be to keep the rent low. I think the effect of it may be to make the rent high. "The best rent" is a term that is used in nine cases out of ten under the Settled Land Act, but when Lord Salisbury says that "the best rent" is a competition rent, there again I am inclined to criticise. It is not a true competition rent, because the only competition can be the competition of other allotment holders.
That enormously limits the connotation of best rent, and makes the use of rack rent as an analogy or simile in this case quite out of the question. This is a matter on which anyone can take any view he likes. I do not see anything immoral in a public authority making a profit. Why should they not make a profit? It is better that public authorities should make a profit on public utility services—and this ranks as one—than that they should do what we all deplore, incur terrific losses on such services as trams, and so on. I hope your Lordships will not lay down a rule that an undertaking of a local authority must not be looked upon as a commercial business.
May I say that I quite agree with every word my noble friend has just said, except in this respect? Here we are superseding the rights of landowners, and giving all sorts of special powers. If the authorities were acting in the ordinary business of their own work there would be nothing to be said, but it is because of this superseding of rights and the granting of special powers that they ought not to be allowed to make a profit.
That applies equally to trams, housing, electric light, and very often water and gas. I point that out to your Lordships rather as a general caveat; I do not want to argue it on this Bill. It is a big question. I hope that where the local authority can make an honest profit it will not be precluded from doing so.
I do not press the Amendment, but I suggest that it is a reasonable one.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause: . Where a council purchases land under the provisions of section fifteen of this Act, the council may resell such land on the same terms as acquired by the council to an allotment association whose rules conform to the regulations prescribed by the Treasury.
§ The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, said in Committee that I should put this Amendment down for Report. I shall not go into detail, because it speaks for itself. I beg to move.
My Lords, the noble Lord, when he moved this Amendment in Committee, explained that it was intended to enable a council to re-sell land to an allotment association. I am wholly unable to understand why the existing law is insufficient for this purpose. Under Section 27 of the Act of 1908, as amended by the Act of 1919, an allotment authority is authorised to sell land acquired by the local authority to an association having the prescribed rules restricting the division of profits. The Acts do not prescribe the terms on which a sale can be effected, and, so far as I am aware, there is nothing to prevent a sale, if so desired, upon terms which would authorise the purchase money to be paid by instalment.
The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is already provided for by the existing law, but in any case I could not accept the Amendment in its present terms. It refers to cases where the council purchases land under the provisions of Clause 15. and that section does not relate to purchasing but to borrowing of money. If the noble Lord will discuss this matter again with the allotments association he will find that what they really want is the same borrowing facilities from the Public Works Loan Commissioners as the council, and a new clause of an entirely different character would he required to effect their object. At the moment the council have power to sell land.
Then I am quite satisfied.
§ ".—(1) In addition to the powers conferred upon them by any other enactment the Public Works Loan Commissioners may out of funds at their disposal advance on loan to societies on a co-operative basis having for their object or one of their objects the provision of profitable working of allotments which are entitled to any land for an estate in fee simple, or for any term of years absolute whereof not less than fifty years shall for the time being remain unexpired, and any such societies may borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners such money as may be required for the purpose of such provision or profitable working of allotments whether in relation to the purpose of requisites, the sale of produce credit banking insurance or otherwise.
(a) Any such advance may be made whether the society receiving the same has or has not power to borrow on mortgage or otherwise, independently of this Act.
(b) The period for the repayment of the sums advanced shall not exceed eighty years.
(c) No money shall be advanced on mortgage of any land solely, unless the estate therein proposed to be mortgaged shall be either an estate in fee simple, or an estate for a term of years absolute, whereof not less than fifty years shall be unexpired at the date of the advance.
(d) The money advanced on the security of a mortgage of any land solely shall not exceed one moiety of the value, to be ascertained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, of the estate or interest in such land proposed to be mortgaged.
§ (3) For the purpose of provision or profitable working of allotments every such society as aforesaid is hereby authorised to purchase, take, and hold land, and if not already a body corporate shall, for the purpose of holding such land under this Act, and of suing and being sued in respect thereof, be nevertheless deemed a body corporate with perpetual succession."
§ The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment that I put down for Committee stage, when the noble Earl said lie would consider it on Report. It is the point to which he has just referred, by which properly constituted societies can raise money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners in order to purchase laud for allotments. The National Union of Allotment Holders are in favour of this proposal. It enables these corporations to purchase land for allotments, and thus gives them that security of tenure which the noble Earl is anxious to secure by this Bill. The more we get these allotment holders in as holders of land the better for the security of the country. They will look with a more friendly eye on agriculture and on country questions generally.
My Lords, I recognise that there is a good deal in what the noble Earl says. Whether the Amendment amounts to very much I do not know. Under this Bill allotment authorities will be able to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners and loan it to these allotment 843 associations. The stumbling block will be the Public Works Loan Commissioners. They still object to lend money to associations for this purpose, and naturally, because they have only the security of the land. When they loan money to allotment authorities they have not only the security of the land but the security of the rates as well. I cannot accept the Amendment, but if the noble Earl presses it I shall not divide the House against it.
I caution your Lordships that this is an Amendment of a financial character, and I do not think the case made out by the noble Earl is very strong.
I do not want to detain your Lordships on this question, but this is a matter about which allotment holders are very keen, and my proposal would give them more out of this Bill than anything already in it. There will not be many cases in which applications are made, but where they are made suggest they should be considered. We have the many cases referred to by the noble Earl in which possession of the land is resumed by a private individual or the local authority. Where the allotment society is able to purchase the land it is able to get complete security of tenure for the allotment holders, which is a matter of considerable importance to allotment holders themselves, and a really good thing for the security of the country. It is certain that a man who only holds 40 poles of land feels a greater interest in the country than he would otherwise feel, and that is a feeling which it is desirable to support by every means.
The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said that this was an Amendment of considerable financial provisions. Surely that is a case fox the Public Works Loan Commissioners. If there are many applications they will say that they have not the capital for the purpose, and if they prefer other methods of investing their money they will refuse them. But there will be cases, I hope, where they will look favourably on the application of allotment societies. This Amendment only gives power to the societies to apply to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a loan. It does not compel the Public Works Loan Commissioners to grant the loan.
My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. It raises very important financial questions. The way in which applications are now being made by all kinds of societies for public money has within it the elements of great danger to the financial security of the State, and upon the broad ground of the financial position of the country at the moment I should much object to the opening of another door by which pressure could be put upon the Public Works Loan Commissioners to make grants for this purpose.
§ LORD DYNEVOR moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause: . Notwithstanding the provisions of section sixteen, subsection (1), of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, no land shall be acquired date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house or which forms part of a holding of fifty acres or less in extent.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this new clause I am carrying out the request made in Committee by the noble Earl. I then moved an Amendment to the Schedule deleting Section 16 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, which allows the park and home farm attached to a mansion house or land which forms part of a holding of fifty acres or less, to be acquired by the county council. The noble Earl rightly pointed out that my Amendment would cover small holdings as well as allotments. He asked me, therefore, to put down an Amendment for the Report stage in the shape of a new clause, but to restrict its application to allotments. I have done exactly what my noble friend asked me to do, and I assume he will accept the Amendment.
My Lords, I have not looked through my speech in Committee, but I hope I did not give an undertaking that I would accept the Amendment. The section referred to enables land to be acquired for the purpose of small holdings or allotments, provided that the order is confirmed by the Ministry and subject to the qualification that the Ministry must be satisfied that the holdings are under fifty acres. I do not know whether 845 the noble Lord has any evidence of orders having been unreasonably made which affect any part. It is unreasonable that you should allow acquisition for small holdings, but should not allow acquisition for allotments. When Section 16 was under discussion, it was pointed out that there are many small holdings of 50 acres or less which were held in connection with other holdings, and that total exemption from compulsory acquisition of all holdings under 50 acres had proved unnecessarily restrictive, particularly in the case of the acquisition of land for Allotments. I suggest to the noble Lord that the partial repeal of Section 16 cannot be justified, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to reply to my noble friend. May I point out to him that, in the Committee stage, he raised no objection on the question of holdings of 50 acres? His objection was to my having raised the question in the Schedule. I should like very shortly to read out to my noble friend the exact words which he used, because I do not wish to misrepresent him. He said— I appeal to the noble Lord that t is not quite right to move such a substantial Amendment by merely including a provision in the repeal Schedule. If the polite Lord wishes to repeal Section 16 of the Act of 1919, I would ask him to do it by putting down an Amendment for the Report stage in the shape of a new clause, and, in order to bring it within the scope of the Bill, that he should restrict its application to allotments. I have done exactly what the noble Earl asked me to do.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "where the context permits." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment, to correct a mistake in the Bill.
§ The expression "sinking fund charges" includes any charges for the repayment of loans whether by means of a sinking fund or otherwise.
(b) where the land has been sublet to him by a local authority or association which holds the land under a contract of tenancy, the land shall be deemed to have been let to that authority or association for the purpose of being sublet for such use as aforesaid.
§ Page 12, lines 2 to 9, leave out from ("Fisheries") in line 2 to the end of line 9.
Session and Chapter. Short Title. Extent of Repeal.
8 Edw. 7. c. 30. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. Subsection (3) of section twenty-five.
Subsection (1) of section twenty-seven.
10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 76. The Agriculture Act, 1920. Section eleven.
Your Lordships are aware that there is some difficulty as to the discussion on Irish matters to-morrow. It was originally arranged that the debate should take place to-morrow, but it seems quite possible that the discussion will have to be deferred until Wednesday, in which case it may be convenient to take the Third Reading of this Bill to-morrow. That is entirely as your Lordships think most convenient. I shall certainly not press it, if your Lordships would prefer it to be postponed until Wednesday, but I think that under certain conditions it might be well to take the Bill to-morrow, or at any rate to put it down for to-morrow, and if the Irish debate makes that course impossible, it could then be deferred until Wednesday. May I take it that your Lordships agree to that course? Then I will put down the Third Reading for to-morrow.

References: § 2

§ 3

§ 8

§ 10
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 

§ 11

§ 13