§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey)I beg leave to ask permission to introduce a Bill to provide compensation to tenants on whom notice to quit is served with a view to the use of the land for the provision of Small Holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.
It is not in the least surprising that in the Small Holdings Act, which has been in force for over two years, some amendment might be required. I think it is only due to the fact that the Small Holdings Act was carried through this House with such tact and ability by the First Commissioner of Works that up to now so very little friction has arisen in the working of the Act. There is undoubtedly one case where friction has arisen and where there is a genuine grievance. This Bill is brought in by the Government to provide compensation for tenants who have been obliged to quit their farms to enable the county councils to provide small holdings. The Bill applies in such cases the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, which gives compensation to tenants turned out of their farms by their landlords without good or sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. Up to now, farmers who have been disturbed by a council, and who have had their land taken for the provision of small holdings, have received no compensation, the reason being that under the present law the provision of small holdings is held to be good and sufficient cause for a council giving notice to quit. Though that is so it is undoubtedly a great hardship that the tenant should be excluded from compensation. This has been recognised, I believe, in all quarters of the House, and Bills to remedy an admitted grievance have been introduced on both sides. The Government, therefore, to meet the general desire of the House for legislation, have decided to introduce, and I hope with the help of all parties, to pass into law a Bill to place the tenant of a council in as good a position as the tenant of a private landlord.
The Bill is a short one of only two clauses, and I will briefly state its provisions. The Bill provides that in all cases where the council, or the landlord at the written request of the council, terminates a tenancy by notice to quit, compensation shall be paid to the tenant by the council 2101 in a similar manner to that provided by Section 11 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, except that Sub-sections (b) and (c) of that Section are omitted. Sub-section (b) is not consistent with Sub-section (3) of the Bill, which provides for compensation if notice to quit was given before the commencement of the Amending Act, and Subsection (c) limits compensation to a living tenant and excludes the representatives of a, deceased tenant. There seems to be no reason in this Bill for such a limitation, and it is left out therefore. Sub-section (2) of the Bill provides that the Board of Agriculture shall repay to a council all compensation payable by them to the disturbed tenant. Where there has been no arbitration, and the parties have agreed between themselves as to the amount of compensation, it is provided that the Board of Agriculture shall have a discretionary power to pay only such expenses as seem reasonable to the Board. While I think it is very unlikely that it will be necessary for the Board to use that discretion, the House will probably agree that it is very proper that there should be some provision of this kind in order to guard the expenditure of public money for this purpose. Further, the Board will have power to repay to the county council any expense reasonably incurred by them, such as valuation fees and costs of arbitration. The last, but not the least important provision in the Bill, is that the compensation repayable by the Board of Agriculture shall be out of the Small Holdings Account, The reason why this repayment to a council is to be out of the Small Holdings Account is that if the county council had itself to pay compensation to a disturbed tenant, one of two things would have to be done. Either the council would have to take the money out of the funds raised for general expenses, with the result that the ratepayers generally would suffer, as the rates would be increased; or, on the other hand, it would be necessary to increase the rent of the small holder. I think the House will agree that in the interest of the extension of small holdings, it is not desirable that either of these contingencies should arise. I beg to move.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Edward Strachey and Mr. Harcourt. Presented accordingly, and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Monday next.)