HC Deb 24 June 1910 vol 18 cc636-41

Where a tenancy has been terminated before the commencement of this Act and the tenant proves to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that he has incurred any loss or expense for which he would have been entitled to compensation under the foregoing Section of this Act if the tenancy had terminated after the commencement of this Act, the Board may, out of the small holdings account, pay to the tenant such compensation for such loss or expense as they think just. Provided that no compensation under this Section shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before the 1st day of September, 1910.

This new Clause, as the Committee will see, is retrospective in its character. I was strongly urged on the Second Reading by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), and in other quarters as well, to show some consideration for the tenant who had left his holding previous to the passing of the Act. I expressed my entire sympathy with that, although I thought there might be some difficulty in carrying it out, but I gave a promise to consider the point. This new Clause is the result, and it gives to the tenant who otherwise would not come under the Act the opportunity of making good his claim to compensation in the same manner as the existing tenant, the only difference being that he must appeal to the Board of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division suggested that there would be very few cases coming under this provision, but I think he will find more than he anticipated. At any rate, that is the conclusion the Board of Agriculture has come to, but the hon. Gentleman having made an estimate with the assistance of the officials of the Board of Agriculture, we have estimated that the amount of the compensation to be paid under this new Clause will not amount to more than £1,000. In order to make ourselves perfectly safe, the Treasury have been good enough to give sanction to our spending a sum not exceeding £2,000, and thus it is certain that anyone who has a fair claim to compensation under the Clause will not be barred by a lack of funds. The whole object of the Clause is perfectly clear on the face of it. It is to put a tenant who has quitted his holding before the Bill becomes law in the same position as a tenant in his holding, although he may be under notice to quit.

Mr. HICKS BEACH

I am sure Members in all portions of the House are grateful to the hon. Baronet for inserting this Clause, and I think everybody agrees that it is one which ought to be adopted. There is only one point to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the proviso which says, "No compensation under this Section shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before the first day of September nineteen hundred and ten." I want to make a suggestion that the Board of Agriculture should ask the various county councils to send out copies of this Act or a copy of this Clause to those tenants who have been dispossessed by the county councils or by landlords, and to whom this Section would apply. I think the hon. Baronet will recognise that Bills are not circulated very freely in the country districts, and it is at present quite possible that certain tenants who may be entitled to this compensation would not know the exact conditions under which they might claim until after 1st September. I hope instructions of that kind will be issued.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

There is. I think, one suggestion which might be made to meet this point. As it stands now the tenant has to make his claim before 1st September, whereas if this is intended to be retrospective, and to put the old tenant in exactly the same position as the new tenant, it would be a great deal better if these words were "within three months from the passing of the Act." We do not know when the Bill will receive the Royal Assent, and supposing that takes place in August there will be no time for the tenant to make his claim. If therefore the words "within three months from the passing of the Act" were put in it would be much more convenient. I hope the hon. Baronet will be able to accept that suggestion.

Sir E. STRACHEY

I can assure the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) that we will certainly do as he asks, and call the attention of the county councils to this Act, so that they may take any opportunity open to them of making it known in their districts, but I think the hon. Gentleman is unduly anxious about the matter. I believe the tenant farmers of this country are watching this Bill in its progress through this House, and will be quite aware when it becomes law. They will know, in fact, quite as soon as the county councils, and therefore do not require notice. As to the point of saying "three months from the passing of this Act," I think it would be rather difficult to put in words of that sort. I think it would be better to have some definite words in the Bill itself, and the reason why we put 1st September is to give the tenant farmers an opportunity of sending in their claims under this Act. They will not have to send in lengthy details; they have only to give the Board of Agriculture notice that they are sending in a claim, and 1st September will not be confused with the other date mentioned in the Bill in connection with the first Clause. I think the hon. Member will see that it is quite unnecessary to extend the time from 1st September, as that will give the tenant an opportunity of making a claim, but he will not, I am sure, be required to make a full detailed claim. If he only gives notice that he is going to make this claim he will be given time to-investigate.

1.0 P.M.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I will not press the matter, but it may be that the tenant may only be given a fortnight or three weeks. The Bill may not receive the Royal Assent until the middle of August, and it is possible that the tenant may have only fifteen days in which to make his claim.

Sir E. STRACHEY

If the Bill only received the Royal Assent on 15th August, an alteration of the time at which the provision would come into operation might be made in another place.

Mr. CARLILE

The hon. Baronet says the tenant will only have to give notice of his claim, and that he can send in the details later, but then I think he should say so in the Bill, because the proposed Clause reads that the claim for compensation should be made before 1st September. I am quite certain of this, knowing farmers pretty well, that the period is too short if the farmer is to formulate his claim. He does not know at the present time that he has to make one, but he will have to formulate it, and it will be a considerable time before he can do so. It would be different if the hon. Baronet only said that merely notice would have to be given of an intended claim. That would be a different thing, but as it stands, the time is really unreasonable, and in order to test the opinion of the Committee I will move to substitute for 1st September the 31st December.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot do that until we have read the Clause a second time.

Clause read a second time.

Mr. CARLILE

I beg to move, in the new Clause, to leave out the words "first day of September" ["claim for compensation is not made before the first day of September "] and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-first day of December."

That will give the tenants time to give notice of their intention to apply for compensation, and also to formulate their claims, which the date given in the new Clause manifestly will not.

Sir E. STRACHEY

The difficulty with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member is this, that if you extend the time to December then you will mix up the two sets of claims, and there will be confusion. As to what the hon. Member says about the farmers not having sufficient time, or that there might be danger owing to the shortness of time that they would not be able to give the details, I can assure him that the whole object in carrying out this Clause will be to deal in the most liberal way with the tenant farmers. Any technical point as to the claim not being in sufficient detail will not be taken, and when the claim is brought in we shall not ask the tenant on 1st September to give further details. Still, we must have some date at which to receive notice of the claim, but I should be the last person in the world to debar any single tenant from claiming under this Clause from want of opportunity.

Mr. CARLILE

I would point out that with all his good will the hon. Baronet is bound by the Statute and cannot strain it. It is much better to have these things in the Bill, as we have often had assurances from right hon. Gentlemen who are Members of the Cabinet on all sorts of points, and when we have the Act of Parliament we have found that they are not contained in it. I think the date I propose is not unreasonable.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. WATT

I would suggest that the word "may" should be left out, and "shall" inserted.

The CHAIRMAN

The word "may" does not occur after the words which we have just decided shall stop in. The hon. Member cannot go back to words that come before that.

Question proposed, "That the Chairman do Report the Bill, as amended to the House."

Lord HUGH CECIL

I should like to offer a word of explanation as to what happened a few minutes ago. I think hon. Members who are not experienced believe themselves to be precluded from moving Amendments which stand in the name of other people. That is really a mistake, and hon. Members should not be; so to speak, taken advantage of.

Sir E. STRACHEY

I am rather surprised that the Noble Lord should use such an expression as "taken advantage of." Nothing of the sort. What I explained was that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Laurence Hardy) told me he would not move those Amendments, and I very naturally asked whether the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) had been asked to move them.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I did not mean that the hon. Baronet intended anything unfair.

Mr. WATT

May I ask if it is in order on Report for any Member to move an Amendment which is in the name of another?

The CHAIRMAN

Of course I am not in charge of the Report stage, but I can assure the hon. Baronet that it is in order.

Bill reported, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.