CLAUSE 16.—(Resumption of Part of Holding by Landlord.) (Hansard, 23 November 1920)

§ Mr. TOWNLEY
I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert the words Provided that in assessing the compensation payable to the tenant the arbitrator shall take into consideration any benefit or relief allowed to the tenant under the contract of tenancy in respect of any land resumed in pursuance of such provision. 270 This is merely an Amendment that the arbitrator should take into consideration any benefit which has been allowed to the tenant under the contract of tenancy in respect of land resumed in pursuance of such provision. Sometimes when the land has been taken away, further compensation has been given by the landlord for the benefit of the tenant, and that matter should be taken into consideration when the award is made. I beg to move the Amendment,

§ Captain FITZROY
I beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept it. Under the existing system hitherto with regard to these notices to quit, when a landlord gave notice to quit a portion of the holding for whatever purpose, the tenant had a right to claim that the whole of the holding should be taken. The Government have introduced into this Bill in Sub-section (a) of Section 5 of Clause 7 a provision under which, if a landlord gives notice to his tenant up to 25 per cent. of his holding, he will only have to compensate him for that amount of the holding which he takes.
I am quite clear in my own mind that the bargain of which we have heard so much in regard to compensation paid to tenants included the proposal that any notice to quit part of the holding, let us say for the purpose of establishing allotments or small holdings, in which there was an agreement in the lease, and such arrangement existed between the landlord and the tenant that the landlord should be able to take part of the holding, that under these circumstances the landlord should not have to pay compensation. I am quite certain in my own mind that was part of the agreement made which has been mentioned with regard to compensation to be paid to tenants to whom notices to quit have been given. That being so, this particular Clause, Clause 16—if that was part of the agreement, and the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me—Clause 16 appears to me not to be necessary, because it is only putting into the Clause what we agreed should not be in the Clause, and this Amendment is necessary unless the right hon. Gentleman agrees to omit the Clause altogether. That is my recollection of what took place.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
The question of leaving or not leaving out this Clause, to 271 which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred, hardly arises on this Amendment. It would have been open to my hon. and gallant Friend to move his Motion a little earlier on the Paper to omit Clause 16, or the same point practically would have arisen if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) had been moved. In this case, if that Amendment had been moved, I should have been very glad to say something about it, but we are now dealing with the matter of taking into consideration the allowance in assessing compensation and any benefits or relief's which have been allowed to the tenant under the contract of tenancy. That Amendment I am willing to accept, subject to reconsideration of the actual wording in another place.
Perhaps now I may be allowed to reply on one or two other points. There was a certain arrangement made in respect of Clause 7, in which Clause there is power taken for the payment of compensation in cases where, under the Act of 1908, the land is resumed for certain specific purposes, allotments, small holdings, and so forth. There was a difference of opinion in this. Under that Clause part of the holding, and only part, is taken. It was agreed that under those circumstances compensation for disturbance should be paid. There was not a full record kept of that particular meeting at which this arrangement was come to, and there was a perfectly honest and perfectly bonâ fide difference of opinion as to what really was decided My recollection was that under the circumstances compensation for disturbance was to be paid. My hon. and gallant Friend and others think the decision was that it should not be paid. I cannot at this stage say for certain which it was. Several hon. Members who are present are of an opposite opinion to my hon. and gallant Friend. At all events, however that may be, Clause 7 has been passed in the form that compensation for disturbance shall be paid. That being so, it seems only reasonable that the same plan should be adopted in respect to this Clause. This Clause refers to the case where part of the holding is taken under the contract of tenancy. Clause 7 (5, d) refers to the case where the part is taken under the provisions of the Act, but not under the con- 272 tract of tenancy. If you pay compensation for disturbance in the one case, it seems to me only right and proper that you should pay it in the other.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
One is a contract, the other is not?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I am merely explaining the Amendment, which would have excepted payment for disturbance under the contract of tenancy, which has not been moved.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if the Amendment we are discussing were withdrawn, it would be in order then to put in a proviso similar to the Amendment standing the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood). There is an impression, and an erroneous impression, among a good many Members of the House that on the Report stage they can not move an Amendment which is not in their own name. Possibly it was owing to that that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon was not moved. As there appears to be some doubt as to whether the undertaking was or was not given by the Government—in regard to that Amendment may I suggest, subject to your approval—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
May I briefly say that no undertaking whatever was given by the Government.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
There was a misunderstanding, and may I suggest, with your approval, that if this Amendment is withdrawn the earlier Amendment could be moved.

Mr. SPEAKER
If the Government are prepared to accept the proviso standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood), I shall raise no objection to the Amendment which is now before the House being withdrawn, and then we might go back. But I feel very strongly against this Amendment being withdrawn, and then going back to another, if it is going to be a contentious Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I could not accept the earlier Amendment. I have good reasons for that, but I am not in a position to state them now. Even if this Amendment, which I am prepared to accept, were withdrawn, and the other proviso were moved, I could not accept it.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
This is a very important point. It was through a misunderstanding that the point was not raised a while ago. The matter is very important. Of course, it can be raised in another place, but it is very much more desirable to have it discussed here. It is not only a question of whether a notice causes a breach of contract, but it is a question of a great deal of land which is now temporarily let for development purposes at short notice, on the distinct understanding that it may be resumed for development purposes at short notice, and this under the existing agreement. Exactly where we stand in this Bill is a matter of reference. It is very difficult to know. I certainly desire to raise the point, and I understood it would have been raised on this Amendment. We do not want to have two discussions on the same Clause.

§ Mr. E. WOOD
I understand from my hon. Friends that the discussion that has taken place on this Clause has been taken on the Amendment that is now before us. I only rise now because I am told by my right hon. Friend behind me that the reason—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
May I interrupt my hon. Friend for one moment? I have no objection whatever to discussing the Amendment. In fact I accept discussion. I do not want to burk it. You said, Sir, that you were prepared to go back if I were prepared to accept the withdrawal of the Amendment. That is another matter. I cannot accept the earlier Amendment, but I am perfectly willing it should be discussed.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
On this actual Amendment may I raise a point which it is important should be raised? It is practically universal that where land is let in the manner described it is expected to be taken at short notice, and can be taken at short notice under agreement for purposes of development, and when that consideration is given; and because of that it is let at a lower figure than it would otherwise be let for continuous and ordinary tenancy. It is a temporary letting, and as such is often let at a very low figure. A consideration of that kind would be a consideration which would come under this Amendment, and I suggest that that point might be raised upon it.

Mr. SPEAKER
If the Government are willing to accept the Amendment what is the use of prolonging the discussion upon it?

§ Mr. PRETYMAN
I wanted to ascertain exactly how far consideration could be given in this Amendment. If it met the point I should be perfectly satisfied. If the Minister will tell us, in this Amendment we are now discussing, if he can give us an assurance in accepting the Amendment that the arbitrator would be able to take into account the whole of the conditions, and whether the land was let at something below its full economic rent for the full tenancy, that would go a long way to meet my objection.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
It is difficult for me to say exactly at the moment; but I rather think the relief would be covered in the way my hon. Friend has just said. Might I, however, suggest that we should accept these words, and then leave the matter for the consideration of my Noble Friend in the House of Lords. As a matter of fact, I quite expected it would be raised on Clause 7. It has not been so raised, and there is a difference of opinion as to what the agreement was. That is my view. Personally, I think the whole matter should be considered in a perfectly open manner, and the Government are in no way bound. Meantime, I propose to accept these words, and I will draw the attention of my Noble Friend to the matter, and tell him there was a difference of opinion as to what was the arrangement.

§ Colonel Sir A. SPROT
May I ask the Secretary for Scotland a question or two with regard to the application of this Act to Scotland? In my experience it is quite a common thing that a farm near a town should be let with this proviso, that if any portion of the farm is required for building—that is to say, if what we call feting in Scotland shall take place, the farmer shall receive in respect of the small portion of the farm which is resumed, in addition to the compensation for unexhausted manures, and so forth, the reduction of his land to a certain figure which is mentioned in the lease. It is usually a figure higher than the rate per acre he is paying. That is a very common arrangement in my country. I should like to ask 275 the Secretary for Scotland to tell us the application of this particular Clause in such a case. It is a very common case.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I do not think we can deal with the application Clause now, because that question can be discussed when the Clause comes up. We are now dealing with an Amendment to the Clause.

§ Sir A. SPROT
I think this Amendment, if it is adopted, would clear up the point which I have tried to put before the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to give an answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question, because we are really in a fog in this matter.

§ The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro)
It is quite impossible for me to be in two places at the same time, and I cannot reply to a question which I have not heard.

§ Sir A. SPROT
My point is that in Scotland farms are often subject to the proviso that if a small portion of the farm is taken for feuing there shall be given to the tenant when that is done, in addition to compensation for unexhausted manure, a reduction of his rent at a certain rate per acre, which is usually rather higher than the rate he is paying per acre for the farm. My question is whether the compensation for disturbance would apply under such a contract, and whether the Amendment which is now proposed would relieve the owner from the payment of compensation for disturbance in addition to the other things which he would have to pay for.

§ Mr. MUNRO
As far as I understand the question, it seems to me that a complete answer to it is given by the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend. Under that proviso the arbitrator is bound to take into consideration any benefit or relief under the contract of tenancy. That seems to me to entirely cover the case raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. If the hon. and gallant Member thinks there is any Scottish peculiarity involved, I shall be happy to discuss the point on the Scotch Clause.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not quite understand what this Amendment means, but I think we might have some little explanation of it.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I think it is a little unusual, when I move an Amendment which is a concession, that I should be asked to explain the Clause. Honestly, I think my right hon. Friend ought to make himself acquainted with the meaning of the Clause.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I have tried to, but I cannot.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
In a case which was decided not long ago, there was a holding where the tenant on a farm could not recover compensation for improvements because the whole of the property leased did not come within the definition of a holding under the Act of 1908. Where there is a holding, part of which is not agricultural and does not come within the Act of 1908, the tenant cannot get compensation for the part which is agricultural. The decision in this recent case has put the matter in a worse position than it was before. The Clause provides that provision as to compensation now applies to a part of the agricultural holding as if it were a separate holding, but it does not apply to anything which is not agricultural. We are covering, by this particular Amendment, cases where there has been a previous contract of tenancy arising.