§ Without prejudice to the provisions of Section two of the Act of 1911 so far as mire-pealed by this Act:
- (1) In the Landholders Acts the word "holding" means and includes, as from the respective dates after-mentioned, every holding which at the commencement of this Act is held by a statutory small tenant to whom in respect of such holding the Act of 1911 applies (hereinafter referred to as an existing statutory small tenant) provided that this Section shall apply in every case where a period of renewal of tenancy, current at the commencement of this Act, shall have bean fixed by order of the Land Court or by agreement, as from the expiry of the period thereby fixed, and in every other case as from the expiry of the year of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act;
- (2) In the Landholder Acts the word "land-holder" means and includes, as from the respective dates above-mentioned, every existing statutory small tenant and the successors of every such person in the holding, being his heirs, legatees, or assignees.— [Major M. Wood.]
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Major M. WOODI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The effect of tins would be to abolish the statutory small tenant altogether. He was set up by the Act of 1911, and was the result of a compromise entered into at the eleventh hour. The statutory small tenant is a hybrid, who stands half-way between the ordinary agricultural tenant and the smallholder. According to the definition, a statutory small tenant is the tenant of a holding the greater part of whose improvements have been carried out by the landlord. If the landlord has not carried out the greater part of the improvements himself it becomes an ordinarily small holding. Under the Act no new statutory small tenant can be created. The class, therefore, is bound to diminish, and is becoming rapidly less. 291 Under Section 32 of the Act many of them are being declared statutory small tenancies, because the landlord has not been carrying out improvements and has not been keeping up buildings in the way the Land Court thinks he ought to have done. The statutory small tenant has to a large extent the same fixity of tenure that the landholder has. I make no complaint about the landholder on that score. The real difficulty with regard to the statutory small tenant is that he does not get the benefit of the improvements carried out by himself or his predecessors. Take, for instance, a small tenancy the value of whose improvements amounts to £500 Supposing the landlord has himself carried out £251 worth of these improvements, the tenant gets absolutely no consideration whatever when it comes to his leaving the holding, and the fact that he has carried out £249 worth of improvements does not entitle him to ask the Land Court to take it into consideration in fixing his rent. If, however, he has carried out £250 worth of improvements and is giving up the tenancy, that is taken into account, and he is able to get fair compensation for the work which has been carried out on the holding by himself or by his predecessors. What reason is there for giving him compensation when he has carried out improvements of the value of £250 and denying it when he has only carried out improvements to the extent of £249? It is not a question of being unable to do it because the Land Court is quite capable of apportioning the compensation in proportion to the improvements actually carried out. I suggest that something should be done to guarantee to the statutory small tenants the full value of the improvements which they carry out. I should like the Secretary for Scotland to tell us on what principle it is alleged that we can properly give the statutory small tenant the benefit of improvements when they extend to £250 and deny them when they only go the length of £249. Another grievance that statutory small tenants have is that they cannot obtain an enlargement of their holdings compulsorily. If a statutory small tenant has only 20 acres and there may be any number of acres lying beside him, he cannot get an increase of his holding. He may get some extra land as a landholder, but he must have it in two different ways. There are a number of small technical differences 292 between a statutory small tenant and a landholder, but the important one is the difference in the matter of compensation. I would ask the Government to do something to remove a grievance which is very acutely felt throughout the whole of Scotland.
§ Mr. J. BROWNbeg to second the Motion.
I think a great many hardships have been inflicted under the Small Statutory Tenants Act, and if the Secretary for Scotland accepts this, he will remove a great many grievances which have existed amongst persons who have done everything in their power to improve small tenancies, but because they had not the greater part of the money to carry out the improvements they were held as not coming under the compensation Clause.
§ Mr. MUNROI appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to press this Clause. He has raised what is, obviously, a very important question, but it also has been an acutely controversial one. The institution of the statutory small tenant was the result of Compromise arrived at after much deliberation in 1911. The statutory small tenant belongs to a fixed class which is rapidly diminishing, and to alter his position at present would be to reopen the whole question which was discussed so much in 1911 between the North and the South of Scotland. I hope we shall not reopen that question here, or else I am afraid we are in for a very long Debate. After all, the statutory small tenant is not so badly off. I am not aware that he complains of his position. So far as I know there has been no suggestion of complaint made to the Board of Agriculture and I am not surprised when one remembers his rights. He has security of tenure, which is the most valuable thing of all. He has the right of bequest, and Iris successor may enjoy a similar right, and not infrequently the tenure is really hereditary. This alteration was not even proposed in the Bill presented by the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), who surveyed the whole situation with great care and brought forward proposals for the alleviation of all existing grievances. It is significant that that omission should be found in the Bill of which we have heard so much recently. It is undesirable to force upon statutory small tenants, who are not complaining, an alteration in status which is quite different from any- 293 thing they have ever contracted to secure. If we have a long discussion on each Amendment I ant very much afraid the safety of the Bill may be imperilled.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.