I beg to Move,

"That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 15, page 12, line 44; Clause 30, page 31, line 30 Clause 45, page 42, line 11; Clause 59, page 51, lines 11 and 21; and the new Clauses (Power of tenant or landlord to apply for dispossession of owner or occupier under supervision) and (Application of Part IV of Act to councils of county boroughs) standing on the Notice Paper in my name."

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, are you going to call my Amendment to the recommittal Motion—in line 7, at end, to add:

"and in respect of the Amendments in Clause I, page 1, line 7; Clause page 1, line 10; Clause 12, page 9, line 37; Clause 15, page 12, line 39; Clause 23, page 24, line 3; Clause 81, page 65, line 29; Clause 100, page 81, line 13."

I gave the Amendment great consideration, but I am afraid I do not propose to select it.

I am rather surprised at that, if I may respectfully say so, Mr. Speaker, because I thought it was the normal course, when one is advised, as we were, that an Amendment put down on Report stage would require a recommittal if it was to be discussed. For that reason we had to put down this Amendment last night, for which I apologise to the House. It was purely technical advice which we received only at the last moment. Now I understand you do not propose to call the Amendment at all. I suppose it would not be proper for me to ask if there is any reason for that?

I have told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have given the matter considerable thought. The plain fact of the matter is, if I selected this Amendment to the recommittal Motion it would be, to some extent, giving the Amendments there referred to, my approval, and it would be very harsh to the Chairman of Ways and Means, because it would mean I had already said to the House: "These are Amendments which can be selected." I did not think that would be fair on him. I tell the House quite frankly, had they been normal Amendments on Report I should not have selected them in any case. The Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, line 7, would not have been taken anyhow; the Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, had a whole day in Committee; the Amendment in Clause 12, page 9, line 37, is exactly the same, and was disposed of in Committee after some debate; the Amendment in Clause 15, page 12, line 39, is partly met by a Government Amendment; the Amendment in Clause 23, page 24, line 3, is exactly the same as an Amendment put down and disposed of in Committee; the Amendment in Clause 81, page 65, line 29, was also dealt with in Committee; the last Amendment, in Clause 100, page 81, line 13, is, I am sorry to say, out of Order on Report of the Committee in any case, because it deals with matters outside the Money Resolution. As I say, I gave the matter a lot of thought, and came to the conclusion that I had better not select the Amendment about which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me.

I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in giving us these reasons. I appreciate the point you make, that if the House accepted this Amendment to the recommittal Motion, then in your view the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee would be more or less morally bound to select the Amendments to which you have referred. Of course, that is not a matter upon which I can make any comment because obviously I do not know what would be in the mind of the Chairman, or whether he would or would not take that view. I do, however, appreciate the point. On the other hand, when you kindly pointed out that you would not yourself have selected any of these Amendments—had they been in Order on Report, without a recommittal Motion—largely, unless I misheard you, on the ground that they had been discussed considerably in Standing Committee, then I respectfully put to you that the whole object of the Report stage, surely, is that major points of importance, even if they had been discussed in Standing. Committee for three or four days, should have the opportunity of coming before the whole House, whereby 640 Members will have a chance of expressing their views as opposed to such of the 50 Members as are able to attend the Standing Committee from time to time.

I do not know whether we are to deduce from that, that if any matter is discussed at any length in Standing Committee—however important the matter may be—it will not be rediscussed in the House on reconsideration. If that line is to be taken in future, it seems to me that we must consider whether we ought ever to put down any important Amendment in Standing Committee at all, but should not rather reserve our attack on the Government on major issues until the Report stage, when we can at least appeal to the larger body of Members. I put it to you, Sir, as the defender of the privileges of the minority, it would be a very difficult Ruling for us to accept for all time, that because matters have been discussed at length in Standing Committee—even if they are important, and even if, as in the case of one of these Amendments, they come before the House at this stage, as the Minister knows, with the full support of two, if not three, partners in the industry—they are not to be discussed at this stage. We are very disappointed.

It does not necessarily follow, because an Amendment has been debated at length in Standing Committee, that I will or will not select it. I have to consider the relative importance of the Amendments as a whole; I select them bearing in mind their relative importance, and the relative periods of time that they have been discussed.

The Amendment in Clause 1, page r, line 7—at the beginning to insert:

"It is hereby recognised and declared that a healthy and efficient agriculture, providing, by good estate management and good husbandry, the most favourable conditions for the carrying on and development of all classes of agricultural production is an essential national need, and in conformity with this declaration."

—is worded differently from the Amendment which was discussed in Committee. It is true it covers to some extent, but not entirely, the same ground, and—

I do not think we ought to discuss the Amendment now. After all, there is on Report a very similar Amendment in the name of the hon. Member. He must wait and see whether or not I select it.

We were advised that it could not be taken on Report stage. It is, in fact, exactly the same Amendment and it is a matter which a large number of agriculturists in this country' consider very important. The Liberal Party put down the Amendment in one place in the Bill; we put it down in another. Apparently neither of us has been lucky enough to have the matter discussed.

This Amendment did not require recommittal at all.

We were told so by the Clerks.

I beg to move, in page 12, line 44, at the end, to insert:

"The references in this and the next following Subsection to the provision of fixed equipment include references to any improvement of fixed equipment by the enlargement of buildings."

This Amendment is one of very many, indicating that we were not only willing to listen, but, when we found that an improvement could be made, were ready and willing to make that improvement. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the class of cases in which landowners may appeal to the land tribunal against a direction under Subsection (2). At present the owner is given a right of appeal in cases of directions to provide fixed equipment. Hon. Members will recall that a good deal of discussion took place in Committee on the question of improvements to fixed equipment. It was argued lengthily, and sometimes learnedly, that it was difficult to decide between the provision of new equipment and the improvement of existing equipment. The effect of this Amendment is to confer the right of appeal on an owner against a direction requiring the improvement of fixed equipment which involves the enlargement of buildings. I think that this Amendment covers one of the more important Amendments which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was unable to move, and I hope that it will satisfy his needs. A good deal of discussion took place in Committee on an Amendment to provide an appeal in all cases of directions in respect of improvements to fixed equipment. The Amendment was lost on a Division because it obviously went too far. Hon. Members will appreciate that many improvements are a very minor matter, and that a good number of improvements consist of modernising existing fixed equipment, which should clearly be financed by landowners in the same way as maintenance and repair. In the light of the arguments advanced in Committee, I feel that the enlargement of buildings is equivalent to the provision of fixed equipment, and it would be reasonable to allow an owner a right of appeal in such cases.

This Amendment is certainly an advance on what we had in Committee, and my hon. Friends are grateful to the Minister for it. It does not go the whole way as far as we are concerned, because it leaves out two very important points. Money spent on improvements of any sort is capital as distinct from revenue expenditure. This money has often to be borrowed, and it may entail a mortgage on the property. The Minister will appreciate that in that case it is capital expenditure. In the case of maintenance an owner assumes a certain responsibility towards the tenant, but he rarely assumes or is expected to assume any contractual responsibility to finance capital expenditure on improvements. In our view, all forms of capital expenditure should be subject to special treatment. The Amendment should go further than dealing merely with the enlargement of buildings. The most common form of improvement consists, not in enlargement, but in conversion. For instance, it may be the conversion of coverage for feeding cattle to the use of milk production. In other words, it is a question of a change of use in respect of farm buildings already in existence.

As I understand it, this class of improvement is excluded from the provisions of this Clause. These improvements involve a very large cost to the owner anxious to improve his buildings, but in some cases he may be unable to do it, owing to the financial position. It is in these cases that we feel there should be an appeal to the tribunal. We cannot expect the Government to go the whole way in this matter, and we are grateful to the Minister for what he has seen fit to do. We hope that, before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, he will consider the points I have made in regard to major improvements to buildings, and will not restrict the Clause to the buildings themselves.

As the mover of the Amendment in Committee, I add my word of thanks to the Minister for having gone so far towards meeting us in this matter. Having said so much, may I add that I do not think he has gone quite as far as he seems to indicate by his hope that all large works are included in the words "enlargement of buildings." If a farmer is expected to add a small dairy to an existing set of buildings, then that will come within the scope of the Amendment. On the other hand, if it is a question of rebuilding or reconstructing a range of existing cowsheds, which may cost infinitely more, that will not come within the purview of this Amendment. Since the Minister has said that large works shall be included and trivial works shall be excluded, I should like to say that I am disappointed that he did not find a better form of worth for what I deem to be his intentions.

I appreciate the purpose of this Amendment, but perhaps the Solicitor-General can say something in regard to the wording. It seems to me that under this wording an improvement cannot be considered an improvement unless it means an enlargement. In other words, something must be made bigger, before it can be considered as an improvement. It often happens that improvements in the accepted sense, can be achieved by making something smaller, or by using a building for two or three purposes where formerly it was used only for one. Am I to understand that whatever is done will not be an improvement unless, simultaneously, there is enlargement? If that is what is meant, although we are glad to see the Minister moving in the direction we urged during Committee, this does not seem a very happy solution to the problem.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) is missing the point. A direction is given by a county executive committee for the provision of new fixed equipment, or for the improvement of existing fixed equipment. I cannot conceive a county executive committee giving a direction to a landowner to reduce a building—that is almost incredible. So long as we cover enlargement of buildings with the provision of new equipment, hon. Members are bound to agree that we shall cover most cases of heavy expenditure. It is simply a question of whether or not an owner who has been given a direction by a county executive committee shall be allowed an appeal to the tribunal. I think, therefore, that I have gone reasonably well along the way to meet as much as hon. Members opposite expected. I hope they will accept the Amendment.

Am I right in understanding that buildings, in this sense, include farmhouses as well as agricultural buildings? It is not clear whether fixed equipment means a dwelling house as well as a farm building, and it is important that we should know whether that is so, because in many cases it is desirable that farmhouses should be included.

I understand, at the moment, that as this is not a Housing Bill farmhouses will not come within the meaning of new fixed equipment or enlargements of existing fixed equipment.

The definition of "fixed equipment" includes any building or structure affixed on the land. I should have thought that a farmhouse was a building or structure affixed on the land. The Clause defines an agricultural unit as a unit together with any dwelling house. A farmhouse is part of the agricultural unit, but is not fixed equipment although it is a building.

From later information I have just had, I now understand that a farmhouse comes within this definition.

Then the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborougb (Captain Crookshank), about improvements being enlargements definitely arises. One of the problems in my part of the country is that farmhouses are too big, and should be made smaller by being divided.

Does the Minister not think that this Amendment will get us into some trouble? I can visualise a case in which a direction is given for the building of 30 new cow-stalls. Ten may be built from completely new material; 10 may be added as an extension to the existing cowhouses, but the other 10 may be made out of improvements to the old cowhouses. Those to be built separately, and those made by the extension, will be included, but those coming from the improvements to the old cowhouses will not be included. It would be better if the Minister included all expenditure which is not allowed under the ordinary maintenance claim.

I beg to move, in page 31, line 30, at the end, to insert:

"(e) for excluding the application of Subsection (1) of this Section in relation to sub-tenancies in such cases as may be prescribed, and for making such provision as appears to the Minister expedient for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of sub-tenants, including provision enabling the Minister or the Agricultural Land Tribunal, where the interest of a tenant is terminated by notice to quit, to secure that a sub-tenant will hold from the landlord on the like terms as he held from the tenant."

This Clause provides that notices to quit, given in respect of agricultural holdings, shall not have effect, except in certain cases, where they are disputed by the tenant. As the Clause is at present drafted, it does not contain very adequate provision as to what is to happen to the sub-tenant. The Clause deals with the position where the freeholder gives notice to his tenant, and the tenant disputes it. In the event of a dispute the Minister, or the tribunal, will have to decide between them. That is in the case of all notices to quit, except in the exempted cases referred to in Subsection (2). On further examination of the Clause, it has become apparent that there may be curious anomalies arising out of the position of sub-tenants.

I will give the Committee some examples. Supposing the landlord, the freeholder, gives a notice to a tenant having himself obtained planning permission to use the holding for non-agricultural work, with the result that his notice to quit would be excluded from the operation of the Clause by virtue of Subsection (2, c). The notice, in those circumstances, would be effective against the tenant. But supposing the tenant had let to a sub-tenant who was in occupation of the holding, the question would arise whether the subtenant could be given notice, and compelled to leave the holding. As the Clause is at present drafted, this situation might well arise. The tenant, having been given notice by the landlord, when he in turn came to give notice to his sub-tenant, the sub-tenant would be entitled to dispute the notice under the terms of Clause 30, and the tenant could not possibly get the sub-tenant out, because the tenant could not say that he himself came within the provisions of Subsection (2, c). He would not be able to show that he wanted to use the agricultural holding for the non-agricultural purposes for which planning permission had been granted. The position would result that notice against the tenant would be effective, but notice against the subtenant would be ineffective.

A similar situation might arise in a hardship case. The freeholder with a strong hardship case might give notice to the tenant. The tenant might dispute it, but not have hardship grounds himself to dispute it successfully. But when that tenant, having let to a sub-tenant, came to give notice to the sub-tenant in order to get him out, he would not be able to do so because the sub-tenant might be able to say, against the tenant, that it would involve greater hardship to him if he were evicted, than it would to the tenant. There, again, you would have a case where the notice would be good against the tenant, but not against the sub-tenant.

In order to protect the interest of the sub-tenant this situation should be considered. The landlord, the freeholder, gives notice to the tenant. The tenant disputes the notice. Justice would seem to require that inasmuch as the notice might result in the sub-tenant having to go, the sub-tenant should be given a voice on whether the freeholders' notice to the tenant was good or bad. There is another case which requires some provision and that is where a freeholder gives notice to the tenant, but the tenant is not interested, is not concerned to dispute that notice, and does not take any of the necessary steps. It might well be that the subtenant would be very anxious indeed to dispute that notice. In those circumstances, it would be unfair to compel the tenant to dispute it, because the tenant might be content to leave the holding. Justice seems to require, in that case, that the sub-tenant should be entitled to say to the Minister or the tribunal, "Put me in the shoes of the tenant, and let me dispute.the notice which has been served on the tenant."

Those are several alternative sets of circumstances which I give as examples to satisfy the Committee that some sort of further provision is necessary for, the purpose of protecting, in one case, the landlord and, in another case, the tenant. I hope that from what I have said it will be apparent that the circumstances which may arise would be of extreme complication. The way in which we have sought to deal with this is to ask for powers to make regulations. We could, of course, have sought to introduce into the Bill a Clause which would have been extraordinarily long and elaborate. I would add in support of that assertion that the question of deliberate evasion also arises. To frame a Clause which would not only deal with the circumstances which I have adumbrated, but also be effective against any possible attempt at evasion would result in one of those extremely long Clauses which one sometimes sees in the Income Tax Acts, running into several pages. I hope that the Committee will think that we have taken the proper course in asking for powers to make regulations to deal with these circumstances. I would remind the Committee that the regulation-making power is limited to the case of sub-tenants, and as time goes on, if we do not want the regulations which we first thought would be required, we shall be able to modify, abandon or cancel them. In order to meet the needs which I have described, we are asking for powers to make the regulations with the object set out in the Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will think that is the proper course.

I did not fully comprehend how far this Amendment takes us. I should like to be assured by the learned Solicitor-General that the making of regulations will not include the regularisation of irregular sub-tenants. As the Minister is aware, a large number of tenancy agreements contain clauses prohibiting sub-tenants without the approval of the landlord, and it may be that regulations made under this Amendment would have the effect of regularising any subtenancy.

While I think we agree that on the whole, this proposal improves the Clause, I do not think the statement of the learned Solicitor-General should be allowed to pass unchallenged, that a Clause to deal on this matter effectively would have been of inordinate length. This Clause, as it stands covers two and a half pages of the Bill. I think that it is hardly open to question that when we are legislating, as we are here, for a considerable period of time, the length of the Clause scarcely matters at all, provided the object is achieved. The Government when they first drafted the Bill should have drawn the Clause, whatever its length, so as to meet the purposes they had in mind. This is my main point. They failed to do that, because the burden on Parliamentary draftsmen at this time has become quite intolerable, and the surfeit of legislation, which we in this House find hard enough, bears even more hardly on those servants of the State whose task it is to draft these Parliamentary Bills. Had they a lesser burden, they would have done their job properly, and the excuse of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not have been necessary. I think that I express the view of all on these benches in saying that this Amendment is a slight improvement, and that we are prepared to accept it for what it is worth.

May I have an answer to my question? If not, I am prepared to elaborate it. I think that my contention is one that should be met.

The learned Solicitor-General has explained the complicated nature of this Amendment. We all desire to see the position of subtenants and tenants and the position of landlords amply safeguarded, but I think that the question which the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) has put, regarding the possible regularisation of the irregular sub-tenant by the insertion of these words, deserves an answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think that there are many cases—I speak with knowledge of Scottish agriculture only—in which sub-tenants are very much in vogue, but no doubt the hon. Member for Ripon, who represents an important agricultural area in Yorkshire has some special cases in mind. Speaking for Scotland may I say there are cases where arrangements of an irregular character have been entered into in the past between Owners and tenants-in-chief regarding leases or tenancies, and there have as a result been serious disputes, often involving litigation. I am speaking only of leases between landlords and what I describe for want of a better definition as tenants-in-chief. How much more desirable it would be that there should be no element of doubt whatever as between tenants and sub-tenants whom have—

This Bill does not apply generally to Scotland.

It is clearly laid down that the part of the Bill under consideration shall apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland, otherwise I should not have intervened. I want to impress on the Solicitor-General that he should try to give a fairly detailed answer to the question which has been put. I am against sub-tenants in agriculture, as I am against sub-tenants of most kinds, but we all know that sometimes there is inserted a clause in an original lease which says that the landlord's assent should not be unreasonably withheld, and the question of the acceptance of sub-tenants may arise. I think that the learned Solicitor-General should be in a position to make it clear that there will be no question whatsoever under this proposed Amendment of regularising agreements entered into between the original tenant and sub-tenant which will make permanent an arrangement entered into which might give rise to all sorts of inconveniences to the parties concerned.

This does nothing to regularise irregular sub-tenancies.

I asked for an assurance that the regulations that are made under this Amendment will not include provisions the effect of which would be to regularise irregular tenancies.

I beg to move, in page 42, line II, to leave out "and of every county borough council."

Hon. Members will recall that in Committee upstairs there was a good deal of discussion on the wisdom of allowing every county borough council to become a smallholding authority. This Amendment simply leads up to a new Clause which is on the Order Paper. I do not think I need dwell upon this point at the moment, since perhaps I can give a more prolonged explanation when we come to the new Clause itself.

I beg to move, in page 51, line 11, to leave out "or county borough."

This is a similar Amendment, leading up to the new Clause.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Yesterday, on the Industrial Organisation Bill, I did what I believe the baseball players call a piece of "pinch hitting" for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was regrettably absent through indisposition. I should like to say how much I regret that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is also unable to be here this afternoon owing to a serious illness, and, if I may be allowed to continue my metaphor for a moment without any disrespect for the Committee, I hope that in this game my amateur status may give me a little indulgence.

The purpose of this new Clause is to deal with a point arising out of the discussion in Committee on the certificate of bad husbandry procedure contained in the Fifth Schedule. The Schedule provides that where a tenant farmer has been placed under supervision, the landlord should not be able to apply for a certificate of bad husbandry. The reason for this is, of course, that if an application for a certificate of bad husbandry were to be allowed in respect of a tenant under supervision, it would automatically have to be granted, as a farmer can be placed under supervision only if he is not farming in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. It would however be a mistake to grant a certificate of bad husbandry while a farmer was under supervision; the purpose of supervision, after all, is to give a man a helping hand so as to enable him to improve his standard of farming. However, while a tenant is still under supervision, it is perfectly open to the landlord to go to the committee and make representations to them to the effect that the tenant has not shown satisfactory improvement in his standard of farming, and therefore ought to be dispossessed. If the committee agree with that view and dispossess the tenant, he will quit the holding without compensation for disturbance in exactly the same way as he would have done if a certificate of bad husbandry had been applied for and granted. Moreover, the time will be the same in each case, since the notice to quit with a certificate of bad husbandry must run for at least 12 months, while a supervision order must equally run for a period of 12 months before a tenant can be dispossessed.

As the Bill is drafted however there is one material difference between the two procedures. Under the certificate of bad husbandry procedure, if a landlord's application for a certificate is refused he can appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. Under the supervision procedure, if the landlord's request that his tenant should be dispossessed is refused, he has no right of appeal to the tribunal. The purpose of this Clause, therefore, is to eliminate this difference between the two procedures and provide that where a tenant is under supervision and the landlord makes a request that he should be dispossessed on the ground that he has not shown satisfactory improvement, and this request is not accepted by the committee, the landlord should have a right of appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. The question which the tribunal will have to consider will be whether, during the period of supervision, the tenant has not shown satisfactory improvement and whether, in all the circumstances of the case, he ought to be dispossessed.

Clearly, the landlord cannot be allowed to ask for a tenant's dispossession except at periodical intervals, and the Clause, therefore, provides that the landlord may only make such a request on the occasion of each annual review of a supervision order. The result of this change in procedure will be that the landlord will have exactly the same right to get rid of a tenant under supervision without the payment of compensation for disturbance as he would,have had under the certificate of bad husbandry procedure in respect of a tenant not under supervision. The only difference will be a matter of the machinery which the landlord will use. Therefore, we feel that we have definitely met the criticism that the result of placing the tenant under supervision is to take the whole question of getting rid of him completely out of the landlord's hand. The landlord will have his remedy of requesting dispossession in exactly the same way as he would have had the remedy under the certificate of bad husbandry procedure if a tenant was not under supervision.

If the landlord is given the right to ask for the dispossession of a tenant under supervision, it is clearly necessary, and only logical, that a tenant whose landlord is under supervision ought to have the same right. The Clause, therefore, provides that where an owner of land is under supervision his tenant has the right to request the committee to dispossess the owner on the ground that he has not shown satisfactory improvement in his management during the period of supervision. If the committee do not accept the request, the tenant is given a right of appeal to the agricultural land tribunal in the same way as the landlord has been given a right of appeal. I hope that with this brief explanation the Committee will feel that the point raised in the previous discussion has been adequately met, and will agree to insert this new Clause in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman having, with great accuracy, read his brief, I wonder if he would now b good enough to explain to us the text of the new Clause in his own words?

I wanted to mention one point which I made on the Fifth Schedule, of which this new Clause has largely taken the place and which the Minister said he would look at again. The Minister does not seem to have done so. I am concerned about Subsections (3) and (4) of this new Clause. I feel it is a mistake to put into legislation this form of procedure. Subsection (3) says:

"If the Minister proposes to refuse such a request he shall give notice in writing of his proposal to the owner and to the occupier."

That is all right, but Subsection (4) says:

"If … no notice has been given … of a proposal to refuse the request … the Minister shall be deemed to have given notice of his proposal to refuse the request."

I do not see why he should be deemed to have done it. He should either do it or not do it, and we ought not to give this slipshod sort of power to the Minister, so that if the time expires and nothing has been done, he shall be deemed to have taken action which he could have taken and ought to have taken if he had acted up to the earlier part of the Clause. The Minister said he did not like that kind of thing and would look at it again, but he has not made the necessary correction.

I think that my right hon. Friend, in saying that he would look at this again, also said that he had every intention of doing what is suggested here, namely notifying the occupier in writing. He intends that his administrators who will be carrying out the provisions of this Bill for him shall do that, but at the same time lie has to safeguard himself against the possibility of some error.

Yes, but not by being deemed to have done something which he has not done. If he has to safeguard his position in respect of a mistake made by an official of his Department or by himself, there ought to be a regular procedure under the law as to what happens when people do not carry out their jobs. Certainly they should not be deemed to have carried them out if they have not done so.

Under Subsection (2) of this new Clause:

"Where such a request is made the Minister shall not comply therewith unless he is satisfied that the management or farming, as the case may be, has not shown satisfactory improvement while the supervision order has been in force,"

—so that a satisfactory improvement has to be made before the Minister entertains a request. It goes on:

"but save as aforesaid may, subject to the provisions of this section, either comply with or refuse the request."

If there has been improvement during the period, such a request cannot then be entertained by the Minister. There is the situation where a notice is in force and no improvement has taken place. In those circumstances it can be entertained by the Minister, and under the Subsection if the Minister proposes to refuse such a request it shall be done in writing. It is an odd position if where it is established that there is no improvement at all during the tenure of the notice it is still permissible for the Minister to refuse the notice. Where there is no improvement and there is negligence during the period, why not enforce the order at once?

I think the hon. and learned Member has got this all wrong. If a tenant farmer be under a supervision order and if he has made no progress or improvement, clearly the Minister would be justified in receiving representations from the landowner, but if the person under supervision is making some improvement and is responding to the advice, guidance and leadership, then clearly a certificate of bad husbandry ought not to be granted. It seems on the face of it that it is contradictory, but, in fact, it is not so.

I see one small difficulty at which I wish the Minister would look. Where there is a notice of a proposal to refuse such a request, it follows automatically that the proposal shall be referred to the agricultural land tribunal. Supposing there is no such proposal, what is to follow? Who is to know whether there is going to be a refusal or not and what is going to be the position of the agricultural tribunal?

Is not this new Clause, in fact, an intermediary stage between Clause 12, which is supervision, and Clauses 16 and 17 which deal with dispossession? In other words, is it not going half way towards an appeal to the agricultural land tribunal so much desired by Members on this side of the Committee? The point I want to make is, if a man is put under supervision under Clause 12, then if either the landlord or the tenant feel that their opposite number is not making sufficient progress, he should be dispossessed. In other words, either can apply to the Minister, and if the Minister takes the same view and agrees, the landlord or the tenant can apply to the agricultural land tribunal to have the matter finally settled. That takes place before Clauses 16 and 17 operate.

I am rather sorry for this confusion, because I thought my hon. Friend the Paymaster-General was clarity personified in his explanation, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). In Committee it was suggested by hon. Members opposite that a person under supervision has apparently not farmed up to a reasonable standard, otherwise he could not be under supervision. It was urged, therefore, that the landowner ought to be allowed to apply for a certificate of bad husbandry and get rid of his tenant without compensation. Our submission was, of course, that a person was under supervision because the county executive committee were trying to help him to improve his standard, and it would, therefore, be unreasonable to allow a certificate of bad husbandry to be granted at that time. However, as a result of consultations since the Committee stage, we have devised ways and means of doing what we regard as justice both to the landlord and the tenant. We have completely conceded the point made by hon. Members opposite who now seem to be engaged in the difficulty of explaining away the concession we have actually made.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the implications of Subsection (4) of the new Clause? I understand Subsection (3) which lays down that if the Minister proposes to refuse a request a notice in writing will have to be given, but I am still not at all clear as to the object of this extraordinary phrase in Subsection (4) that in default of any decision either way:

"the Minister shall be deemed to have given notice of his proposal to refuse the request."

Before the Minister answers that point, might I take it a little-further and ask him to include in his reply some reference to the first line of Subsection (4) of the proposed Clause, where it says:

"If before the expiration of the prescribed period from the making of such a request …"

I have not had the advantage of participating in these proceedings upstairs and I would be grateful if the Minister would say a word on the prescribed period as envisaged in this Subsection. The interpretation Clause refers to the prescribed period and says:

"'Prescribed' has are meaning assigned to it by the last foregoing Sections."

The last foregoing Section is Clause 106, and Subsection (2) says:

"In this Act the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister."

Might I ask the Minister about the regulations which are to be made in regard to the fixing of the prescribed period? Will the prescribed period be the standard prescribed period in all cases, or will it be a variable prescribed period? Further, if there is to be a prescribed period in this way, then surely it adds force to the contention already made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in regard to the unsatisfactory provision as to the notice being deemed to have been given. Surely the Minister will agree that if he is making the regulation to prescribe a period, the matter must be present within the minds of his Department, and it should not be necessary to incorporate this astonishing phraseology into an Act of Parliament to cover possible slips in a Government Department. I will put one further point, which is in regard to Sub section (3) of the new Clause as to the notice in writing of the Minister's proposal to refuse. Is that notice of refusal a formal thing, or will it be accompanied by a reasoned statement as to why he has come to this decision?

The notice, I understand, will be merely a notice that the Minister has either refused the request or otherwise. I do not see why there should be any lengthy and detailed explanation as to why the Minister has reached that decision. With regard to the other point, about the expiration of the prescribed period, it seems to me quite dear that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker- Smith) destroyed his own case because if a period is prescribed under Clause 106—it may be a month or two months or a week or two weeks—it will be prescribed, but the time period will vary according to the circumstances in differing cases. If, therefore, a prescribed period is known and the Minister by that time has not given his assent, the last two lines of Subsection (4) indicate that he shall be deemed to have given notice of his proposal to refuse the request. At the end of the prescribed period—say a month—if the Minister has not accepted or has, in fact, done nothing, it is made clear that he has refused, and therefore there cannot be any doubt about the matter.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

In Committee there was a good deal of criticism of the inclusion of county boroughs as smallholding authorities under Clause 45. It was pointed out that many county boroughs, although primarily urban, had really no agricultural land within their boundaries, and following the discussion at that time I promised to look into the matter between then and the Report stage. The purpose of this new Clause is to deal with that point. Its effect will be that county boroughs will not automatically become smallholding authorities for the purposes of Part IV of this Bill. Any county borough will, however, be able to apply to the Minister to become a smallholding authority, and the Minister will have power on such application to direct that a county borough council shall become a smallholding authority for the purposes of Part IV. When such a direction is given, the county borough council will have exactly the same powers as any county council under the terms of the Bill. The Minister can also revoke such a direction, either on his own initiative or on that of the county borough council concerned.

In view of this change it is clearly necessary to deal with the case of county borough councils which already hold land for smallholding purposes, or which be-tome smallholding authorities and acquire land, and subsequently, as the result of a revocation of a direction, cease to be a smallholding authority. Arrangements must be made to meet that situation. The effect of Subsections (3) and (4) of the new Clause is that where a county borough council hold land for smallholding purposes they will continue to have all the necessary functions, powers and duties under Part IV of the Bill in relation to that particular land. They will not, however, have power to acquire additional land except after a direction made by the Minister. This new Clause, I repeat, is intended to meet the point raised by hon. Members in Committee. Also for their satisfaction I would say that it has been discussed and agreed by the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept it.

I think the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the objections we raised from this side, but the point we made in Committee, and which should be made again here, is that the amount of land available in the whole country is limited, and that any allocation of smallholdings in county areas will cause a good deal of trouble. If the allocation is in any way overweighted by the demands of borough councils to whom the Minister gives permission, that will inevitably take away from the total area available in those parts of the country where agricultural workers are far more numerous. I want to enter that caveat because I feel that large-scale demands will upset the balance of the whole scheme, making land available for agricultural workers in county areas and, to that extent, making fewer smallholdings available for agricultural workers outside the county boroughs.

I am certain that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be grateful to the Minister for having introduced this new Clause because we do not want to upset any existing arrangement where the county councils have smallholdings. On the other hand we do not wait to enforce them to provide them where that is impracticable. There are some words in Subsection (5, a) which I do not quite understand, and I should be grateful if the Minister will explain them. It is quite obvious today that allotments are a very important factor in producing food, and allotment holders are crying out for security of tenure. They also need loans to help produce the food, and protection against the Town and Country Planning Bill. Subsection (5, a) says that agricultural matters may be referred to the Smallholdings Committee. It goes on to say that in connection with allotments:

"those matters shall not be referred to the smallholdings committee unless a sub-committee of the smallholdings committee is constituted."

It appears to me, therefore, that matters concerning allotments may not be referred to this sub-committee unless there is a special sub-committee of the sub-committee itself to deal with allotments. Surely, allotment problems must come under discussion from time to time by county councils, and it seems that they should be allowed to put their problems before the sub-committee irrespective of whether or not there is a special subcommittee to deal with allotments. I would ask the Minister for some explanation on this point.

As I read Subsection (5) of the new Clause it in no way alters the existing conditions, I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that allotment holders are calling aloud for security of tenure, but I am afraid we cannot deal with allotments in this particular Bill.

Allotments are being dealt with in this Bill, and the new Clause says that nothing can be done about them unless a sub-committee of the smallholdings committee is constituted. This seems to rule out any question of matters connected with allotments being dealt with under this subsection.

I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Its object, roughly speaking, is as follows. Hon. Members will remember that Clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill have the effect that in certain circumstances the liability to repair and maintain fixed equipment can be transferred from the landlord to the tenant or vice versa from the tenant to the landlord. During the discussion of these two Clauses in Committee it was pointed out that apparently the effect of that would be that in the event of such a transfer, and of the landlord or the tenant, as the case might be, committing a breach of his obligations before the transfer, the parties would have to wait until the termination of the tenancy before damages could be claimed for that breach. It was further pointed out that that was unsatisfactory, and the argument was adduced that supposing, in the event of such a transfer taking place, it became apparent that the landlord or the tenant had committed a breach of his obligation to repaid and maintain fixed equipment, it should be possible there and then for the wronged party to claim damages or compensation for that breach.

What this new Clause seeks to do is to bring that about. If they will look at it more closely, hon. Members will see that Subsection (1) provides that in the event of there being a transfer of liability the landlord may ask that the arbitrator should determine his claim for compensation. Subsection (2) is machinery, intricate and complicated, and I think the House would not want me to go into much detail about it. It impinges upon Clause 28, and is necessary in order to prevent certain results from ensuing under that Clause. Subsection (3) enables a tenant to have his claim adjudicated upon by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. The tenant's normal remedy in regard to a breach of obligation would be to sue for damages under his contract, and he will still be able to take this course if he wishes. The advantage of Subsection (3) will be that he can adopt a more convenient procedure by having his claim dealt with by arbitration under the Act of 1923 if he wishes. Subsections (4) and (5) are only drafting and machinery provisions. If hon. Members will look at Clauses 36 and 37 they will see that Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 36, and Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 37 are identical in wording. The proposed new Clause gathers these parts of those two Clauses together, for the sake of brevity. Later Amendments will deal with other aspects of the same matter.

I should point out something which was referred to during the Committee stage. If hon. Members will look at the last line of the proposed new Clause, they will see that it brings about the result that the award is to operate with effect from the date of the order, or from such later date as may be specified. In other words, it cannot be made to operate retrospectively. In Clauses 36 and 37, orders can be made to operate retrospectively, but now they have to start at the date of the award. I hope that the House will think that the new Clause is satisfactory and meets the objects for which it was designed.

We have given careful consideration to the proposed new Clause, and we are grateful to the Solicitor-General for the explanation he has given. We agree that it is a little definite improvement in the drafting of the Bill, and we thank the Minister for it.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "appropriate Minister," and to insert "Minister."

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Am I to understand that you have passed over my proposed new Clause—[Co-operation among producers]?

The hon. Member's proposed Clause has not been selected by Mr. Speaker.

We had a discussion in Committee on the points raised in the Amendment which I have moved, but for the benefit of hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee I should mention that the "appropriate" Minister whom we wish to see removed from Clause 3 and from subsequent Clauses is either the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Home Secretary in relation to Northern Ireland, or the Minister of Food. Those who have studied the Bill will realise that in these Clauses very wide powers are given to the person described "the appropriate Minister", who I take it will be either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Food. That Minister will have power, when it appears to him expedient or in the public interest, to vary the guaranteed price for any particular agricultural commodity He can also limit the quantity to which the price is applied and can vary the methods by which the price is paid. I think hon. Members will agree that questions of price and method of payment are essentially agricultural matters, and should be the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture.

In the Committee, the Minister answered the case which we put forward with a very plausible, and in some ways a reasonable argument. He said that in the conditions we have in the country today, rationing being in force, many questions as to price had been settled by order or by regulation under the authority of the Minister of Food. That Minister had power to do it, and it was administratively convenient that he should do so. The Minister of Agriculture went on to say that he, as Minister of Agriculture, took full responsibility although he may not have made the orders himself. On this side of the House we hope that existing conditions will not prevail for very much longer, and that we shall soon see the end of the present system of rationing. We feel that it should somehow be made clear in the Bill whether the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Food is responsible on these vital questions affecting the agricultural industry. If the Minister cannot accept this Amendment and the consequential Amendments, we hope that he will give us some firmer assurances than we have had so far that this procedure will not be extended indefinitely. We hope that he will take the earliest opportunity to get back for the Minister of Agriculture those powers which, in the opinion of hon. Members on this side of the House, should be vested in him, and in him only.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Amendment brings up the very important question of the power of the Minister in relation to other Ministers. The essential thing is co-operation. I had down a new Clause relating to co-operation among, smallholders which was not called. Here I am talking about the co-operation of the Minister. All will agree that Ministers working separately will not do so effective a job as Ministers working in close co-operation with one another. If the Ministers are co-operating they will be anxious to see that the smallholders are co-operating. I hope the Minister will accept this suggestion and see that a great deal of co-operation takes place. We are often told that those en- gaged in agriculture work "from see to can't see," from early dawn till the last hour of night. They have to exploit their own living to make a livelihood, and it is hard work. I have had some experience of this. I remember on a hot summer's day standing with the sweat running down my forehead watching the wife cultivating the garden. Recently she has revolted and she now does the watching and I do the groaning. The smallholder can only hope to make a success of his smallholding if we have co-operation between the Ministries and co-operation to the utmost among the smallholders.

I know from the Debate we had in Committee that hon. Members opposite do not like the Ministry of Food. They made that very plain, but their reasons, I thought, were very thin. The effect of this and other Amendments on the Order Paper is to preclude the Ministry of Food from taking any action under the Bill. It is clear to me that hon. Members are not quite seized of how the Clause will work. Certain actions under the Bill which are of vital importance are reserved exclusively for the agricultural Ministries, and there is co-operation between those three Ministries. The three agricultural Ministries are responsible for conducting the annual price reviews and for extending the powers under Clause 4, should that be necessary to give effect to their reviews. They are also responsible for fixing the periods during which minimum prices for livestock shall apply. The remaining functions and duties are concerned with the carrying out of the decisions taken by the three agricultural Ministries following upon these price reviews. Those functions may devolve upon any one or all three of the agricultural Ministers, or upon the Minister of Food. It is right that it should be so. I must repeat my statement in Committee that while food rationing remains, it is absolutely necessary that the Minister of Food should make the appropriate orders when prices have been fixed for various commodities. It is necessary for the Minister of Food to continue to purchase or control practically all rationed foodstuffs but he only makes an order following a price review. The Minister of Food purchases practically the whole of our meat. Therefore, once a price has been fixed for meat it is for the Minister of Food to make an Order giving effect to that decision. Similar considerations apply to milk and cereals.

This Amendment would, quite unnecessarily, complicate food administration in this country. This Amendment and the 13 or 14 Other Amendments on the same subject are therefore pointless. It is true that if at a later date it became necessary for the agricultural Ministers to make arrangements for the payment of guaranteed prices, it would still be inconvenient if they had in all cases to act jointly. Methods sometimes differ between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Bill distinguishes between those functions which are part of the determination of guaranteed prices which are a joint responsibility of the three agricultural Ministers and those other functions which are concerned with carrying out the various decisions taken. I could not possibly accept this Amendment. While the Minister of Food is responsible for purchasing and controlling all rationed foodstuffs he is the right and proper person to take action under Clause 3 following upon the price reviews. I hope hon. Members will see the wisdom of not pressing this Amendment, since it would completely upset the rationing system of this country.

I am sure that the Amendment has served its purpose in getting the explanation which has just been given—

Is the hon. Member asking a question? He has already exhausted his right to speak.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend has not yet spoken.

I am informed that the hon. Member seconded the Amendment. That being so, he has exhausted his right to speak. If he wishes to ask a question, that would be permissible.

May I ask the Minister a question? I do not think he was quite accurate when he said that the Minister of Food will only make orders as a result of annual reviews. The Subsection reads that the appropriate Minister can vary prices and so on:

"… when it appears to him expedient so to do in the public interest."

There are, later, certain safeguards to the effect that he cannot reduce the prices. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not quite accurate to say that these orders can only be made as a result of annual reviews and that he is, therefore, directly responsible for the orders.

I think that is so.

May we take it from the Minister of Agriculture that the Minister of Food will, definitely, be the servant of the Minister of Agriculture in all matters connected with agriculture?

I should be very sorry to employ any servants, let alone a Ministerial servant. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that my right hon. Friend would not willingly become the servant of myself or any other Minister.

But as the Minister of Food has already said that he will buy the food in the cheapest market, how can he be anything but the servant of the Minister of Agriculture in these matters?

The hon. and gallant Member seems to have forgotten that once the review has been conducted and the price fixed, it is the Minister of Food alone who provides the order to give effect to the conclusions.

Can my right hon. Friend clarify the position with regard to the fixing of prices for horticultural products? There is no question of any annual price review, but horticulture is covered by the Bill, and is the responsibility of the Minister. It appears, however, that there is no relationship in the fixing of horticultural prices, and that no responsibility attaches to the Ministry of Agriculture. There is, then, the extraordinary position that, for example, the price of tomatoes is fixed at 2S. 5d. a lb. Can my right hon. Friend tell us to what extent horticultural prices will come under review by the Ministry of Agriculture?

I also would like to ask a question about horticultural prices. Horticulture is to receive a certain amount of direction and supervision, but it is not to receive any guarantee in regard to the commodities that have been mentioned. Some hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee that considered this Bill, and who come from horticultural districts, are very perturbed about the matter, as is also the National Farmers' Union.

I am afraid that if I were to attempt to reply to these questions, I should be out of Order, since the price review affects only the commodities mentioned in the First Schedule.

I should like to refer to what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) might have said a few moments ago if he had not already exhausted his right to speak. This short Debate has been well worth while in that it has drawn from the Minister an assurance that there will be no statement with regard to prices made by the Minister of Food without prior consultation with the Minister of Agriculture. That, of course, is what the farmers throughout the country want to know. If they were under the impression, as a result of reading the Bill and not knowing Parliamentary procedure too well, that the Minister of Food could one day make an announcement without having previously consulted his colleagues in the Government, they might feel unhappy about their future. It is clear from what the Minister has said that that is not likely to happen, and I hope that will reassure the farmers that their position will be safeguarded by the Ministers in conference, and that the appropriate Ministers will invariably consult with the Minister of Food before any announcements are made.

I beg to move, in page 3, lint 13, to leave out "as nearly as may be."

The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that in fixing or varying prices and quantities, all the factors shall be taken into account by the Minister at the time. We are anxious that the Minister in using the machinery of price fixing, should make a clean job of it once a year, and not have it at the back of his mind that he can fiddle about with one or other of the factors in the price structure and thereby alter the effects of the price settlement which in future years, we hope, will have won the approval of the farming and consuming community. We want to make sure that the Minister will make a clear job of price fixing once a year. It is very necessary that the farmers should be able to look ahead with confidence to definite guaranteed prices and markets. In the past it has been the curse of the agricultural industry that it was so often left open to the whims of imports, and that the farmers never knew how the market would settle down six, 12 or 18 months ahead. One of the virtues of the Bill is that it puts stability into the market for the British farmers and, therefore, for the British farm workers, so that they will know where they will stand 12 or 18 months ahead. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment. In Committee he went a good deal of the way to meet us and expressed a good deal of sympathy with us, and, therefore, I have some confidence that he will accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I cannot see why the words "as nearly as may be" are necessary in the Clause. I should have thought it would have been quite possible in the price review to fix the quantity as well. Personally, I hope it will never be necessary for quantities to be specified. It has always been the contention of hon. Members on this side that there should be no limitation of quantity as long as the farmers are able to produce at a reasonable price. I would like to point out a difficulty that might arise if prices and quantities are not fixed at the same time. For instance, would it be possible for the Minister to fix the price of, say, sugar beet in a February price review, and then at some later date before the beet was harvested to limit the quantity of beet that was to be accepted for sale?

It would be impossible.

If the Minister says it would be impossible, that helps, but I still think that the words "as nearly as may be" are unnecessary, and I hope the Minister will agree that, when fixing prices, he should fix the quantity at the same time.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said in Committee that he viewed a similar Amendment with sympathy, and would consider whether it might be administratively possible to agree to the exclusion of these words without causing administrative inconvenience. My right hon. Friend has considered the matter again with great sympathy. I think hon. Members recognise my right hon. Friend's desire to do his best at all times in price fixing, to safeguard the interests of the producers, but he finds that it would be administratively inconvenient to remove these words. The effect of the Amendment would be that, if the appropriate Minister found it necessary to limit the assured market quantitatively, he would not only have to announce his decision on this point at the same time as he announced the prices and other factors, but would have to include it in the same order as that relating to prices and other factors. It is here that the point of administrative inconvenience arises. My right hon. Friend does not feel certain that it would at all times be possible for him to do this, and if it were difficult for him to do it, surely the effect would be that when he was ready to announce a price he might have to hold up the announcement of the price until the other Minister engaged in the consultation was fully ready to make an order concerning quantity. Surely that would be a disadvantage to the producers? Surely they would like to know as early as possible what the price is to be, instead of having to wait for some short interval to see if there is to be any change of quantity? My right hon. Friend has already given an assurance that he will, wherever possible, do this at the same time or make the interval as short as possible, and therefore we feel unable to accept the Amendment.

I do not think my hon. Friends on this side of the House are at all satisfied with that reply. The Minister must make up his mind what quantities of any commodity he wants and, having decided on the amounts, he fixes a price

Not impossible.

I will read out exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said:

"I am informed it would be administratively inconvenient, though perhaps not utterly impossible. [OFFICIAL REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE A, 18th February, 1947; c. 124.]

Now time has passed and the Minister has looked at this point again. He has failed to meet us on this side of the House and I feel that we should register our protest.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, to leave out from "land," to "is," in line 7, and to insert:

"whether treated by itself, or as affecting other land."

We have left chapter 1 of this Bill, with its limited blessings, and have arrived at the longer chapters, with their almost unlimited sanctions. Clause 10 attempts to define the rules of good estate management. That has not previously been attempted in any Statute. As at present drafted, Subsection (1) makes rather heavy weather of the definition.

I think it might be an advantage if we discussed at the same time the next two Amendments together—in page 7, line 10, after "husbandry" to insert:

"or such an occupier of other land affected by the adequate management of the first mentioned land."

and, in line 16, after "owner" to insert "has been and."

Subsection (1) as I say, attempts to define what is and what is not good estate management, and the Amendment which I move is purely administrative. It attempts to improve the definition, but not to undermine the 'principle which is in this Clause, and more particularly in this Subsection. As the Subsection is at present drafted, an owner

"shall be deemed to fulfil his responsibilities to manage it in accordance with the rules of good estate management in so far as his management of the land and (so far as it affects the management of that land) of other land managed by him is such as to be reasonably adequate."

That means that if a man owns two farms, one slightly further up the valley than the other, and allows the drainage from the slightly higher farm to flood the slightly lower farm, then in considering the management of the lower farm acts of neglect which are presumed to have taken place in respect of the higher farm are likely to be taken into account. We consider that that is the wrong way round. If any complaint is to be made about the management of the higher farm, the whole question of whether or not that land is being managed according to the rules of good estate management should be limited to the top farm, and not approached by the very devious and intricate means of going into the management of the farm lower down the valley. This view was put forward by my hon. Friends in Committee, and commanded a certain amount of sympathy from the Minister. On a previous Amendment this afternoon, the Solicitor-General suggested that it was necessary to avoid inordinately long Clauses. I am sure it -is also necessary to avoid inordinately confusing definitions. The difficulties which will arise in assessing whether or not land is managed according to the rules of good estate management, unless these words, or something similar to them, are accepted, will be extreme, and will give rise to an enormous amount of dispute.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish also particularly to support the second Amendment which has been referred to. These two Amendments would work together. We shall find great difficulty in deciding these matters if we have to take into consideration more than one particular piece of land. I hope the two Amendments will be inserted in the Bill.

Both the mover and seconder have sought to justify this group of Amendments on the ground that they clarify the definition contained in Clause to (1). That is a laudable motive, but I must ask the House to reject the Amendment now before us, because as I see the position, the words which it is sought to substitute for those which at present appear in the Bill not only do not clarify the position, but, on the contrary, introduce a great deal of obscurity. I know hon. Members will say "If it is only a matter of drafting, surely you can improve the words and to that extent assist us?" I would if I could, but there is a fundamental vice underlying the Amendments—that if an owner manages land in such a way that it affects any other land, whether in his ownership or not, then he is guilty of bad management, if that effect is injurious. That is obviously much too wide.

What the Clause seeks to do is this: Supposing there is an owner who own plot A and also owns or manages plot B, and his management of plot A adversely affects the management of plot B, he comes within the terms of the Subsection. The Amendment would result in a much more indefinite position. Its result would be that, supposing the owner of plot A so manages it that it injuriously affects, in the wide sense of that word, any other land, say plot X, Y or Z, in which he has no interest, which is owned and managed by completely different people, and which may be at a distance from plot A, he comes within the scope of the Subsection. I am sure that hon Gentlemen do not wish to bring about that position. It would impose an intolerable burden upon the landowner, and greatly multiply the responsibilities placed upon him by Clause to. In contradistinction to that, we say that we are only concerned, in Clause 10 (1) with holdings or areas of ground which can fairly be said to be managed by the landowner, that is to say plot A, which he owns, and plot B, which he manages, in the sense that he may have let it out to a tenant. Therefore, in considering whether he is within the purview of the Clause we simply say that consideration must be limited to those two plots. The Amendment would require that the area all round, which could in no sense be said to be under that person's ownership or management or under his responsibility, would have to be considered. I ask the House to say that the Amendment not only does not improve the Clause but that in so tar as it is easily intelligible—I do not mean that in any depreciatory sense—it would impose an intolerable burden on the landowner. Indeed, the word "affect" being of such general significance in the context of the actual Amendment, in which it is used, it is impossible to see how far its extent would go.

Having heard the explanation of the Solicitor-General, I am not yet satisfied that the original terms of the Bill really meet the point, though I am prepared to admit that the Amendment, as drafted, may not be in the appropriate words to effect what we desire. The point we want to make clear is whether when this Bill becomes an Act it will be right to bring in the management of other land when deciding whether an owner is fulfilling his responsibilities of management in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. We do not like the wording of the Clause as it stands. We appreciate the point made by the Solicitor-General and on behalf of my hon. Friends, I would ask whether the Government, appreciating our point, with which I believe the Minister is much in agreement, will look at these words again before this Bill becomes an Act. We ask them to see if the words can be made clearer than they are at present, and at the same time to bring out the point about considering the effect on other land, when deciding whether an owner is fulfilling his responsibilities to manage land in accordance with good husbandry. Could the Solicitor-General give an undertaking that he will look at these words, and see whether they meet the point which my hon. Friends have made?

I confess I am rather muddled as to exactly what these words mean. From what the Solicitor-General said and from my reading of this Clause, it would appear that if an owner owns land in one county, and also owns land in another county or another part of England, it is possible to consider these two separate pieces of land in conjunction when deciding whether he is carrying out his responsibility for good estate management. The Solicitor-General said that the words we desire to have included in the Bill would make the Clause far too wide, and would involve consideration of how the management of one piece of land affected neighbouring farms. It seems to me reasonable that that should be taken into account—far more reasonable than to take into account how the owner concerned was managing another piece of land, very widely separated from the land in question.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 16, after "owner," to insert, "has been and."

Subsection (2) of Clause 10 is important because it lays down the rules of good estate management by which owners will be judged. We are a little afraid that if the words in that Subsection are not altered a rather too narrow construction may be placed upon them. As now drafted the Subsection reads:

"In determining whether the management of land is such as aforesaid regard shall be had, but without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection, to the extent to which the owner is providing, improving, maintaining and repairing fixed equipment …"

If a too narrow interpretation is placed upon those words, it might apply only to actual current expenditure. That would be an unfair yardstick because, first, on a great many estates it has been the custom to do repairs on farms in rotation and, second, the actual current expenditure on fixed equipment is no criterion of whether a landowner is able or willing to do his job properly. Owing to the extreme difficulty of getting licences and permits to do essential work, landowners who may be anxious to get the work done are sometimes unable to do it in terms of current expenditure. We feel that if a man's future tenure of land is to be judged in the narrow sense of this Subsection, it would be fair to take into account past expenditure in addition to current expenditure.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Whereas maintenance and repair are primarily matters of small outlay to meet current deterioration, provision and improvement constitute large outlay. That is what we are thinking about. Often such improvement cannot be arranged on every holding on an estate except at an interval of so many years. Normal standards of good estate management in this country allow for major expenditure to be carried out on holdings in rotation. It might very easily be argued that if the Clause is left as at present drafted, considerable expenditure which took place when a tenant came in—and one is glad to say that tenancies are, on the whole, of very long standing—would be ruled out completely from consideration when a dispute arises. If these words, "has been and" are inserted, then where previous expenditure is relevant it will not be excluded from consideration. At the same time, it does not compel undue consideration of that expenditure, because it is always possible to argue that it was reasonable at the time but that it has no particular relevance to the present. The acceptance of these words would not weaken the case at all. I feel that it would be a great deal stronger in some instances and a great deal fairer.

I follow the motives behind the Amendment, but I must advise the House that the fears expressed are not well founded. If I can summarise them, it is feared that the word "is" is too narrow. It was argued that it would shut out anything that had gone before and anything that came after, and would involve simply looking at me actual state of affairs at the moment by reference to which one is judging. The advice I give to the House is that the word "is" in this context permits and indeed requires a general circumspective view. It requires the consideration of a trend: not only the state of fact at the moment. If the words which are sought to be introduced, "has been and," were in the Clause, the position would be very much more difficult and it might be unfair to the landowner.

Suppose there was a case of a landowner who in the past had done very little in the way of good estate management. There may have been a great deal of complaint and it may be that latterly he had entirely changed the position and put in a good deal of work, greatly improving the position of the holding. The result of introducinc, the words of the Amendment would introducing that in a case of that sort one would not only have to say to oneself, "At present the estate management on this farm is excellent," but one would have to discount that by reference to the fact that by looking back two or three or five or six years, one found that under the management of the same landowner the farm was in a very bad state. It would be very bad luck for the landowner if he had done a great deal to improve the farm and had brought it up to the requisite standard, that one should have to say, "Because in the past you have neglected this estate, we shall write you down and we shall, condemn you for your past record. We shall not allow you to gain the credit of having effaced that, and having brought your estate up to a very good pitch of management." That would be the effect of these words.

As the Clause stands, anybody considering the position must look at it generally and consider what has gone before, what exists at present and what is likely to be the trend in future, to see whether it can fairly be said to be in a state of good management. One is not tied down to discounting a good present record by a bad past record. If one were tied down to that—and one would be if the Amendment was accepted—it would be very bad luck on a landowner in some cases, and in others it might advantage him. It would impose an entirely unnecessary and unfortunate restriction. It would work very unfairly in many cases. The Clause is sufficiently widely worded to enable a general view to be taken, making due allowance for all the relevant considerations which one would consider in asking whether an estate is properly managed.

I do not think that the Solicitor-General's argument is satisfactory. If the landowner in the past has not been doing well, there is no reason why that fact should not come out. If he is now doing the work in a proper manner, it shows that he has improved and is getting on with the job. There is no reason why his past record should not be known. If it happens that a man has had a good past record, the words, "is providing," do not mean that one can consider that past. There are many great estates in this country where the work cannot be done in one year or two years. What has been done on farm A last year, is done this year on farm B, and perhaps next year on farm C, before it is done again on farm A. That cannot be taken into account under the words "is providing." "Is" denotes the present; "has been" the past. If a man did work two years ago and he intends to do it again in the cycle, that can be considered under the words "has been" It will be very hard on the man who has done good work if it is not recognised because the word "is" is in the Subsection.

The argument put forward by the Solicitor-General was quite extraordinary. He said that if these words were accepted it would be bad luck on the landowner. It would be bad luck only on the man who is a bad landowner. There is the case of the man who had ignored his land for years, and I think that the Solicitor-General or the Minister should give a rather better explanation than that to which we have listened. My hon. Friend pointed out that it has been impossible for the last few years to do these repairs, had the landlord wished to do so, and, therefore, landowners who spent large sums of money in keeping their holdings up to date before the war are not going to get any benefit at all when their cases are considered. I hope we shall have a more helpful explanation in answer to the arguments put by my hon. Friends.

I would like to ask whether hon. Members of the Opposition are really urging that the legislation which we are now framing should be made retrospective.

The term "is providing" cannot possibly be strictly interpreted as meaning what the landlord provided before the war. That is seven years ago, and, grammatically, it does not seem to me that, if a landlord provided certain improvements seven years ago, we can say that he is providing them now. That was seven years ago, and the term "is providing" cannot mean what was done seven years ago.

Why not? The buildings are still there.

We certainly cannot say that a landlord "is improving" if the last improvement which he carried out on his land was done before the war, and it seems to me to be very hard indeed that somebody who is interpreting this Bill strictly at a later date may be able to argue that these improvements which were carried out before the war should not be taken into account. Very little was done during the war, and it is exceedingly difficult to do anything now. I suggest that there is another form of words which might appeal to the Minister, and it is this: "The extent to which the owner provides, improves, maintains and repairs fixed equipment on the land." I think that would convey the sense which we all intend to be conveyed, and that is that, over a period, the owner does provide these things, and not that he provided them seven years ago and is not providing them now, or that he is not providing them now when he did so seven years ago. It would convey, generally speaking, that he does provide what is required for the working of the farm.

It would be very unfortunate if the idea got abroad that the past record of an owner may not be taken into account. The learned Solicitor-General, I think, gave a very cogent and clear explanation. It is perfectly clear from the language of the Clause that the past record is to be taken into account. What this Clause does is to say that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions in Subsection (1), nevertheless, in order to get a balanced view of the contributions which the owner has made in the way of maintaining and repairing machinery and so forth, we are to take account of what is being done at the moment. That seems to me to be very sensible and fair. Supposing the' owner's previous record has not been so good, but that he is trying to make up for past faults by doing more at the present time. It is provided that all that shall be taken into account, in order to give him an opportunity to satisfy the test whether there is an attempt at good management or not. That does not mean that the past is to be cut out. Supposing, on the other hand, his past record has been good. That will be taken into account with what he is doing now. His general record will be taken into account, and this Clause is intended to be the means of getting a balanced view of the whole situation. It takes the past completely into account with the present in order to get that balanced view, and, in my submission, the argument of the Opposition on this point is misconceived.

I think the syntax of this Clause is perfectly good, and that what Opposition hon. Members are seeking to do is to make the Clause very much worse for themselves than it is now. If we say that a farmer is providing certain things, it must be, by and large, everything on the farm in the way of buildings and so on. He is providing and continuing to provide them at the time. If a barn was built 100 years ago, and it is still in use, the owner is still providing it, and, in. fact, everything which is provided and which is continuing to be used he is providing at the moment. If the owner knocks down that barn, or it is destroyed and he does not put it up again, he would not be providing it, but, if it is still there, he is providing it. Hon. Members opposite are trying to make the Minister look back into the past, when he will find out something which I think will make this an infinitely worse Clause from their point of view.

I think it is obvious that this Clause requires reconsideration. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) and the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) have all spoken of this Clause in three different senses. Surely, there must be some very good reason for this confusion? The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester said that the Solicitor-General gave a cogent and fair answer. It may have been cogent, but it was not fair, according to the hon. and learned Member, because the two arguments were entirely contradictory one with the other. The learned Solicitor-General argues that it would be extremely bad luck if the past record is taken into account. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester says that the past record would be taken into account, and if it is bad luck that the past record should be taken into account, and, at the same time, it will be taken into account by this Clause, then, surely, it follows that there must be something wrong with the Clause? The hon. Member for Epping says that if a farm building was built 100 years ago and is still being used, the owner is providing it. No doubt, that is true, but what we are concerned with at the moment is the fact that where, owing to an act of God, an act of the Government, or an act of somebody else, the barn or fence has fallen down, in present circumstances it is not possible to carry out repairs, not for any lack of good will on the part of the person concerned, but because one cannot get repairs done. I agree with the argument of the hon. Lady that, when the building is not usable, then we cannot say that the owner is providing it. That is a very cogent argument, but it surely follows that this Amendment should be accepted and not rejected, or, at least, if the Amendment is not accepted, that the Clause should be looked at again and redrafted. I would appeal to hon. Members opposite to recognise that they have demonstrated the cogency of this Amendment even more convincingly than have my hon. Friends on this side of the House.

I would like to lend my plea to the eloquent effort of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown). We have heard three different explanations of the Government attitude towards this Amendment. We heard the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) who, on the Agricultural Committee, we described as the "legal conscience of the Socialist Party," and, may I say—I hope in Order and in parenthesis—there was a moment when we feared we might be losing his services—that some service outside might take him away—but we were glad to hear that there was unlikely to be a by-election—

I have very great difficulty in finding anything in the Amendment related to that matter.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for letting me get so far. Then we heard from the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) what appeared to be the only logical and commonsense defence of the Government's point of view. If her reading of the present position is that what grandfather provided should be maintained for the use by a tenant, then there would be reason to think that there was some sense in it. But even on that reading, owing to the difficulty of maintaining in proper repair what grandfather provided, one might well find oneself legally compelled not to provide something which one is only too anxious to provide. Taking all these things together, surely, in fairness to the Committee and to the House, the Government should withdraw this Clause and think again.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, at the end, to insert:

"and to the rental value of the land having regard to the economic condition of that section of the agricultural industry which comprises produce of the kind produced by the occupier of that land."

The object of this Amendment is to protect the landlord, which I know is something not very popular in this country at the present time. But landlords are a long-suffering race, and, therefore, I think it is our duty to be reasonable towards them. The Amendments seeks to protect the owner of a farm from having to erect or provide some fixed equipment for which the farm is not suitable. As far as I can see, there is nothing in this Clause to protect the landlord by way of appeal if the executive officer or the sub-committee appointed decide whether fixed equipment shall be provided or not. As an instance of what might happen, I would point out that, at the present time, grass drying is a very popular job and plants for this purpose are being erected at considerable expense all over the country. It may well be that the executive officer for a district is a grass-drying maniac and that there may be some tenant in the area who is also a grass-drying maniac. He may decide that the landlord should erect grass-drying equipment which might be wholly unsuitable for the land on which it is erected. I know it may be argued that if such equipment is erected, the landlord can get a re-assessment for rent, and that he is protected in that way. But that is no protection at all, because the tenant, after carrying on for one or two years, may find that grass drying on that particular farm is not an economic proposition, and may then give notice to quit, and the landlord would then be left with the uneconomic equipment, which may have cost him several thousands of pounds to provide, and which another tenant may not be willing to take over. I feel that there should be some protection for the landlord from anything which is not fair, and, therefore, I would ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, or to insert some words on the lines of this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I endorse all that my hon. friend has said. It is most important that we should not force a landlord to erect some equipment which is uneconomical and expensive, and which is only likely to be used by one particular man.

In considering this Clause, we must remember the background of the whole Bill, which is intended to give stability to the agricultural industry by means of guaranteed prices and assured markets. In return for this guarantee of stability, the State very reasonably imposes certain requirements of good management which are set out in the Bill. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) seem to fear that, somehow, the Bill is going to be 'administered by maniacs. I agree, of course, that if the Bill is so administered it will not work. It may be, of course, that in the neighbourhood of their own constituencies there are some maniacs in the employ of county agricultural committees. I can see that my right hon. Friend will have to look into that possibility, but, as regards the rest of the country, there is no reason to fear on that score. I feel that to suggest that the criteria of good management as set out in this Bill, which are criteria of the equipment and the provision of adequate facilities on estates, should be extended to include monetary gains which may be made, is quite unacceptable. Therefore, we could not agree to this Amendment. It is perhaps remarkable that the mover and seconder of this Amendment have not suggested that any similar provision should be inserted in the rules of good husbandy. They are seeking to differentiate between the owner and the occupier, a differentiation which we have been careful to exclude from the Bill. For these reasons, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

I was unable to follow the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite. If I understood him aright, he said it would be wrong to take into consideration the economic position of the farm, the money which can be made out of it, when telling the landlord to provide certain equipment. If that is what the hon. Gentleman meant, it is quite wrong, and this Amendment should be accepted. In order to illustrate his point, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) gave what was obviously an extreme illustration. But the fact that an extreme illustration was made, should not make it possible to say that there is a much narower margin between what can be provided on a farm and what cannot be provided. It is obvious that on a small farm a certain amount of profitability can be taken out; it is equally true that if a certain amount of equipment is put in and capital spent on it, the output and the consequent profitability of the farm is increased. But there comes a moment when any more equipment that is put on the farm becomes an uneconomic proposition, and, as my lion. Friend the Member for Leominster said, it is no good increasing the rent, because if the point is reached where the tenant cannot pay the rent, it is obviously unsatisfactory for everybody.

The object of this Amendment is to give a direction as to what equipment can be put on a farm, and to guide people so that the economic position and the increased profitability of a farm should be assessed in conjunction with the equipment that is put on it. If the case of the Government is that such matters should be taken into consideration, I do not quarrel very much with the Minister, but, if I understood the Paymaster-General aright, he said that the question of how much money is made on a farm should not be taken into account, and if he means that, I for one am prepared to support the Amendment in the Lobby.

Everybody sympathises with and appreciates the difficulties of the Paymaster-General in assisting the Minister of Agriculture in this Debate because, through no fault of his own, he was not a member of the Standing Committee. Nevertheless, I was surprised that he advanced the argument that the economic aspect of a farm in relation to repairs and fixed equipment should not be taken into consideration. Does he follow the logical implication of that argument? Supposing a landowner is ultimately dispossessed for being unwilling or unable to provide fixed equipment, the Land Commission will take over. Will the Land Commission carry out to the farm buildings improvements which, owing to the nature of the farm, are entirely uneconomic? If so, the uneconomic expenditure will be at the expense of the taxpayer. I was surprised that the Paymaster-General should argue that there was no need to protect a landowner from being asked to provide fixed equipment for a farm which he knew to be uneconomic, because the farm in question was unable to carry the extra rent which that capital expenditure would involve.

I was surprised at the speech of the Paymaster-General. He began by pleading amateur status, and I think he gave us a demonstration of the little connection he has had with the practical side of agricultural management when he asked the House to reject this Amendment. He said, quite rightly, that stability is one of the things we want in agriculture, and then he discounted instability which resulted from over-capitalisation. He then apparently forgot that the history of agriculture, which is repeating itself today, is a history of the advice of faddists; and if one reads books of the 17th and 18th centuries one finds an immense amount of advice put forward by faddists, much of which has been forgotten and only about 5 or 10 per cent. of which is bound up with our agricultural progress. Therefore, it is as well to bear in mind that in a few years' time, something between 5 and 10 per cent. of present advice will have passed the test of time. Another point is that at the moment in this country there is a great dearth of professional men whom one can call consultants in farm buildings. I know the right hon. Gentleman is hoping to appoint a certain number of people to such positions, but the professions as such have among their ranks very few architects or surveyors with a specialist knowledge of agriculture and of farm buildings. I do not refer to people who can put up buildings, because anyone can do that. I refer to people with the knowledge to advise in a consultative capacity in relation to what is right and wrong.

The hon. Gentleman said he was surprised that we had not tried to insert similar words affecting the farm tenant. I do not think the situation is exactly parallel, but if it were, I for one, and, no doubt, my hon. Friends, would immediately accept any form of words which would put the farm tenant in the same position. The illustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was ridiculed on the grounds that it was exaggerated. No one can say it is, exaggerated when one remembers that in this country there are at least a million acres of marginal land, and that every day a great number of occupiers of that land suggest to land agents, owners and others how much better it would be if this, that or the other could be done on their farms, but that when it is explained that the economic return for such an improvement will add so much to the rent they think again and say it is not worth while. That is because Part I of the Bill, which is intended to be so strong, has a number of inherent weaknesses. So long as we have limitations on the production from marginal and other land, so long will those weaknesses remain when one tries to expend capital in a big way economically on marginal land. Therefore, the House would be right in rejecting the argument of the Paymaster-General and in accepting this Amendment.

I intervene in this Debate with diffidence. I do a little farming myself, but I had not the advantage of being on the Committee. I fail to understand the arguments which have been put forward, particularly those put forward by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). This Subsection specifies one consideration that is to be borne in mind, but it follows a Subsection which contains the main points which have to be considered. Those main points are:

"the character and situation of the land and other relevant circumstances."

I find it impossible to see how anybody, having looked at those points, should omit to consider the marginal character of the land or, having to consider other circumstances, should fail to consider the rental value. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to add the proposed words to Subsection (2). Moreover, I find the greatest difficulty in understanding what the Amendment means. If it said,

"and to the rental value of the land,"

and stopped there, I should have had some idea, but the remainder of the Amendment seems to me, with all respect to those who moved it, to be bad grammar and extremely bad sense. After the words,

"and to the rental value of the land,"

it goes on to say:

"having regard to the economic condition of that section of the agricultural industry which comprises produce of the kind produced by the occupier of that land."

That, I think, is rather horrible English, anyway. We were given the case of the grass-drying maniac. I assume that a farm would, at any rate, produce grass, since otherwise the maniac would have no room in which to exercise all his frenzied activity. Therefore, we have to look at

"the economic condition of that section of the agricultural industry which comprises produce of the kind produced by the occupier of that land."

What do we have to look at? Mixed farming, grass, arable, or what? I would have thought that the acceptance of this Amendment would produce a state of affairs which the ordinary landlord or farmer would find extraordinarily difficult to understand. I would like hon. Members opposite, since this is their Amendment, to tell us what they suppose it really means, because so far I am quite unable to understand it. Let them give us concrete cases, and. explain the application of these words, for example, to the case of an ordinary mixed farm.

I understand the feelings of those who put down this Amendment. It is simply to ensure that landlords should not be expected to provide more fixed equipment than is economically reasonable. There are always a certain number of tenants who desire to have all kinds of improvements, which may not be economically sound. I understand that point of view. However, I do not think this Amendment achieves the object which they have in mind. I follow the lion and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in saying that this is covered in Subsection (1). The relevant part of that Subsection is in the last few lines which, paraphrasing them, state that a landlord will be doing his job if he provides the sort of equipment which is necessary to enable a farmer to farm properly. Now, farming properly is not grass-drying. I approve of grass-drying, and do it myself, but it is not the sort of farming which any war agricultural executive committee could expect the landlord to provide.

There are difficult marginal cases. There is no limit to the amount of fixed equipment that the tenant farmer can use. He can always use more hay boxes; he can always use more covered yards. But that, I think, is covered by Subsection (1). I do not think that the war agricultural executive committees, composed of farmers and landlords, will expect a landlord to provide an unreasonable amount of equipment. That is the second safeguard. Therefore, I do not think that this rather complicated addition would add clarity to the definition of the good management of land.

The real danger in this Amendment lies in the fact that it is, so far as one can understand it, a very muddled Amendment. It appears to be designed to ensure that the farmer will not get necessary improvements, or will find it difficult, if not impossible, to get them. Therefore, it is something of which we should be very wary. Surely, the really operative words in Subsection (2) are:

"to enable an occupier of the land reasonably skilled in husbandry to maintain efficient production.…"

If he is to maintain efficient production all the extravagant and extreme cases which have been suggested are quite unnecessary. I am sure hon. Members opposite would find it impossible to indicate any part of the Bill which would compel landlords to put in the different kinds of equipment such as they have suggested might be found necessary under the Clause as it stands. Marginal land was mentioned, and the new improvements needed to bring it up to a certain state of efficiency. Surely, the point is that husbandry on marginal land must be related to that land, and efficient husbandry on that land must have regard to the condition of the land? I suggest that this Amendment, so far as I can understand it, would be detrimental to the tenant.

I regret that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) do not understand the Amendment. I thought the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend about the economic conditions had made it quite clear.

On a point of Order. I hate to intervene between the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and the House, but, surely, on Report hon. Members can speak only once, unless they have the leave of the House?

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. When a Bill comes to the House from a Standing Committee the mover of an Amendment is entitled to speak again. That is in Standing Orders. I was just looking it up as the right hon. Gentleman rose. The hon. Member is entitled to speak again.

Having been caught out once this afternoon, I did not intend to be caught out a second time. What we are nervous about is, who will decide the revelant circumstances. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for North Cumberland thought the wording of the Clause protected a landlord from having to do something which was not economical. I contend that it does nothing of the sort. The word "maniac" has been used. There are extremists, shall I say, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) said, have appeared throughout the centuries, who have insisted on a particular line. At one time it is all silage, and the next time all grass drying. There may be an executive officer in the county who is all for one particular form of farming, yet that particular form will not last. The executive officer may force a landlord to put up some building —and I will stick to grass-drying—which will not prove economical to that farm. Who is to decide—and I hope the Minister will think this is sufficiently important to tell us—whether that fixed equipment is necessary, or is an economic proposition?

The Paymaster-General said that I was visualising these executive officers as maniacs. I did not quite mean that, but I will say there are extremists. If he thinks they do not exist I will give him a concrete instance, not from my own county—where he thought we had maniacs—but from an adjacent county. The executive officer for that county was what I call a "ploughing-up maniac." A client of mine had an order to plough up 202 acres of a 240 acre farm; he knew it was not ploughing-up land, and had not been ploughed up during the previous war, and he refused to do it. Consequently, he was dispossessed, and he is still out of that farm today.

We must protect farmers from those executive officers who get a bee in their bonnet, and who compel landlords to do something which is not economical. That is all we are asking. We are not retrograde; we want to see proper equipment put on the farms, but we also want to see that it is proper equipment and not merely something which is not worth while being forced on a landlord. We want to see that the equipment is necessary. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) said they would provide the necessary equipment. But the landlord is not protected; there is nothing to say what is necessary and what is not necessary. We say the landlord should be protected from extremists; that is all.

Could the hon. Member tell us the meaning of the words after "rental value"?

The hon. and learned Member says he is a farmer I wish he got his living at it, because then he would probably have more sympathy with the people on the land. I mentioned grass drying. Would the hon. and learned Member suggest that it is an economical proposition to put a grass drier on an ordinary mixed farm, probably of hilly land, of 150 acres? It is nothing of the sort. There is an economic level at which a grass drier could be put in.

Could the hon. Member now tell us what the words mean?

Perhaps I might be allowed to speak again, with the leave of the House. I may have replied a little shortly and cavalierly to the remarks of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). The arguments which he and his hon. Friend advanced were so thin that I felt they could not mean them sincerely, and I answered in a rather flippant way. I do not wish it to be thought for a moment that we do not attach importance to the general economcis of the situation. I do not wish it to be thought we do not recognise that a reasonable return on capital has to be earned, or that it is possible to over-capitalise. I thought that all these matters were adequately covered in Subsection (1) by the words "other relevant circumstances," and, therefore, I was addressing myself to the Subsection to which the Amendment relates Subsection (2) has to be read in relation to Subsection (1). All that is at issue is whether these Subsections will be reasonably and sensibly administered, and whether there will be regard to economic circumstances. I would point out to the hon. Member for Leominster that the authority to determine these matters will be the county executive committee. They must have regard to the relevant circumstances, and it will not be one of their officers exercising dictatorial powers. As he knows, the county executive committees consist of practical agriculturists.

It does not say that there is any form of appeal to the county executive committee. Is it a fact that the county executive committees have to decide this point?

I am sure that that is so. The officer concerned is only the servant of the committees, and it is certainly possible for the individual owner to approach the committee if he dislikes something their servant has done.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown.

On a point of Order. I have put down a very good Amendment and it is apparently being passed over. I cannot understand it.

The hon. Member may have thought it was a very good Amendment, but, unfortunately, the Chair did not think so, and it is not being selected.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, after "satisfied," to insert:

"on representations by the appropriate County Agricultural Executive Committee appointed under Part V of this Act."

We are now moving from the stage where one is expected to be a good boy in farming and. coming to the stage where the big stick is appearing. According to the Minister, supervision is better than lifting up the big stick. We think that this Amendment should appear at this stage in the Bill, to make quite clear who it is that will advise the Minister in future. We all agree that this will be done by the county executive committees, but that is only for the moment, and this Bill will last a long time. It should be stated that the people who are to advise the Minister are the committees, so that there is no chance of it being said that the Minister did not take the advice of a committee but did something off his own bat. I am not saying that this will be done now, but it is a possibility which may occur in the future. During the war we found that certain committees were not doing all that the Minister or the farmers thought they should do, and there will be a chance in a few years that a Minister may be tempted to say that he could not go to a committee because he knew it was not doing its job properly. We do not want to see that happening. We want it to be clear that the committees are the people to advise the Minister and we want to see it laid down in black and white.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Ministers occassionally have representations made to them by individuals who may have a particular axe to grind. There are such things as anonymous letters and signed letters which are written out of spite to a Minister and serve no good cause. It is most desirable, therefore, that the Minister, in his own interest, should safeguard himself by acting only on the advice of the county executive committees. By doing that he will reinforce the good relations between the committees and the Ministers, because nothing' is more injurious to good relations than for the committees to feel that someone is going behind their backs and getting some action taken by the Minister If this part of the. Bill is to work at all, it will be dependent on the fullest confidence between the Minister and the executive committees. We do not want to see Ministers acting on a few private words, but on the recommendations of the committees.

I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) should have associated himself with this Amendment. I am sure he knows that the county executive committees are the only bodies from which the Minister would expect to receive representations and advice. The insertion of these words is both unnecessary and undesirable. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) cannot get out of his mind that Part II of this Bill is a big stick. He is willing to accept Part I, but is very reluctant to accept Part II. We have witnessed this on a fairly wide scale from the Opposition Benches. We made rapid progress on Part I, but the moment we came to deal with Part which introduces a quid fro quo in the form of control, our progress was very different. The Bill has been drafted on the basis that the Minister will be delegating his functions under Clause 69, subject to such conditions or restrictions as he may consider desirable, to the county executive committees. The county executive committees should be made absolutely and entirely responsible for day-to-day administration. It would be entirely wrong to attempt to circumscribe the Minister's powers of delegation in the way suggested. Nothing could then be done until after representation by the Minister's own agents to the Minister, which would be an absurdity, and no one knows that better than the hon. Member for Newbury.

If a county executive committee, responsible for day-to-day administration, is not to be able to place a person under supervision, or to give a direction until it has, first of all, made representations to the Minister, for him to say, "Yes, go ahead," then the whole business will be held up. The Government's intention, in producing this Bill, has been to set up county executive committees consisting of practical agriculturalists, men who have the confidence of their counties and the agricultural industry. They are to become the Minister's agents, under Clause 69, when power is delegated. Therefore,it is absurd that, having been appointed agents they can do nothing without first of all making representations to the Minister, and getting his word to go ahead. That is the object of the Amendment.

While the county executive committees are responsible to the Minister for day-to-day administration, the Minister is responsible to Parliament for all their actions, and it is constitutionally undesirable to insert a provision in the Bill requiring the Minister to be satisfied, after representations have been made to him by his own agents, before they can do anything. That seems absurd, and could only retard and delay the county executive committees in doing their work. Further, if these words were inserted here, they would have to be repeated throughout the Bill. I hope hon. Members opposite will take it from me that there is nothing sinister in this form of administration. It has been going on for seven years; it was very effective during the war. I hope my predecessor did not act on the basis of an anonymous letter, or because someone whispered in his ear. I hope he acted, through his county executive committees, on the basis of their practical knowledge and good sense. Unless those committees carry with them the goodwill of the industry, administration will suffer. I hope the House will not accept this Amendment.

I do not like this Amendment, and I did not like the remark made by the Minister, that it would only be from the county agricultural executive committees that he would take advice: They are not elected to be the sole parties who can give the Minister advice. It may be that a Member of Parliament, carrying out his job, will discover a situation which requires attention. He should be able to give the Minister advice. During the war, I had to raise, with the then Minister of Agriculture, questions about the bad advice and attitude of certain county agricultural committees. I had to fight against some of them occasionally. It is possible to have a county committee in one area which has a bias for grass. That would be dangerous. The decline of agriculture in this country, before the war, was due to the neglect of millions of acres of land. Special inducements had to be given to plough up that land. We have to see that the correct balance is maintained. As things are going at present, we are drifting back to where we were before the war.

The hon. Gentleman must not now discuss an Amendment which I did not select.

I would not wish to do that, Sir. I only want to draw attention to the fact that it would be a bad thing for the Minister to leave these matters entirely to the county agricultural committees. A committee in the north of England may adopt quite a different attitude from a committee in the south. There may be bias in favour of a particular form of management that would unbalance agriculture as a whole. I therefore ask the Minister to make the fullest possible use of the advice given by the county committees, but always to be prepared to take advice from Members of this House. We must ensure that an effective and efficient balance is kept between the county agricultural committees and the land that is under their consideration, so that our agriculture can prosper and not decline as it did before the war.

There is nothing sinister in this Amendment at all. All we are seeking to do is to ensure that not merely will justice be done, but that it will seem to be done. Nobody is suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman would act against a farmer as a result of a whispering campaign, any more than anyone would suggest that his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) had acted in that way. But we feel that where a supervision order is pending—which is a serious matter for the farmer concerned —it is only right that the farmer should be certain that the Minister has acted only through his responsible agents, the county agricultural executive committees.

The Minister seemed very uncertain in his opposition to this Amendment which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) has just pointed out, has nothing sinister about it. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was unnecessary and undesirable to put these words into the Bill, because the county executive committees were the only people to whom he would look for advice. Then, towards the end of his speech, he said that the business of considering whether or not a supervision order would he made would be held up if the Minister had to wait for the advice of the county executive committees. The two statements do not tally. Either the right hon. Gentleman is going to take the advice of those committees or not. I do not know on which leg the right hon. Gentleman wants to stand.

Both.

Splendid. Then the right hon. Gentleman had much better do what we say and put these words into the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman also said that it was the intention that agricultural executive committees should be absolutely and entirely responsible in these cases. If that is so—I do not quarrel with the decision that it should be so because that is what we are trying to put in as an Amendment—it is much better to put it in. We have heard, time and time again throughout this Bill, that the Minister is to do something about which we all agree but, unfortunately, it does not appear in black and white in the Bill. Here is a sample case. He says that he will take the advice of the county agricultural executive committees because that is the only way the Minister can be satisfied on a matter of this kind. If he says that he is to take that advice, I cannot see why that should not be put in the Bill. He said something to the effect that it would be unconstitutional. I do not know from where he got that. Is it unconstitutional to put in the fact that the Minister will take advice from his own servants? I do not know whether "unconstitutional" is the right word, but in a Bill we do not say that the Minister shall be guided by any servants in his own Department. Obviously, that is why they are there — to advise, guide and help. I did not think, until the Minister used that argument in that context, that anyone in the world thought that the county agricultural executive committees were servants of the Minister in that sense. He does not mean that these gentlemen, or ladies, who are to sit on these committees are to be held in the same position as the ordinary civil servants in Government Departments from the point of view of giving advice. Surely not; but that is what he implied in using that argument. If he likes to withdraw that—

The Minister does not mean to withdraw it.

The position then becomes more confounded. Are these committees to be considered as civil servants giving advice in the Civil Service sense of the word, or are they not? We say, "No." We agree that they are there to give advice. The Minister also agrees that they are to give advice, and he would not dream of acting in cases of this kind without their advice. Having agreed to that, the obvious thing to do is to put the words in the Bill I cannot see that there is any argument which the Minister has given against it, and unless he changes his mind, I would advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.

In view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's determined effort to confuse the issue, I think that I should say a further word, with the leave of the House. That is, to remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he will read the first few words of Clause 12 he will see that where the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is satisfied, he may do certain things. Clause 69 states that the Minister may make regulations providing for the delegation to a county agricultural executive committee of certain powers. The county executive committee, therefore, will be an executive body—an executive body acting for the Minister which need not tell the Minister every little thing they do during their day to day administration. That is why we call them county agricultural executive committees. There is no reason, therefore, to have these words in the Bill.

The Minister's further remarks have done nothing to close the dangerous door left open by the Minister in Clause 12. I do not think that the Minister can, deny that under Clause 12, as it stands, it would be legally possible for him or one of his successors to act independently of representations and advice of the executive committees. I he fact that under Clause 69 the Minister may delegate such of his functions as he cares to specify does not mean that the danger will be removed. The Minister may so frame his regulations delegating powers to the executive committees as still to leave it open to him to carry on independently of them. That being so, and in view of the Minister's

It seems that the Amendment which the Opposition are proposing to press is at complete variance with everything that they have said so far as the application of this Bill is concerned. They have always argued that they do not want farming from Whitehall, but the implication of this Amendment is that every supervisory order that is issued should come from Whitehall, after they have received the advice of the county agricultural executive committee.

The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) has put forward an argument which is equally incomprehensible. There is nothing in this Amendment which suggests that supervisory orders should be issued. The question of the extent to which supervisory orders should be issued is not touched by the Amendment. It is simply whether the Minister should have power to issue them uncontrollably or under certain circumstances, and the hon. Gentleman's argument, therefore, seems to be completely nonsensical.