AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL (Hansard, 23 March 1923)

I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time.'

The Title of the Bill is rather alarming, but really it is simply a one-Clause Bill to Amend a legal technicality. Not being a lawyer, I feel somewhat at a disadvantage in bringing forward a Bill of this sort, but I hope that hon. and learned Members will understand that, although I hope the House will concede the principle of the Bill, I shall be very glad in Committee, if they think the legal phraseology does not carry out the object, to accept any Amendments that are necessary. The object of the Bill is simply to prevent the vendor of an agricultural holding depriving a quitting tenant of the compensation to which he is entitled by the 1921 Act, by the simple process of withholding from him the identity of the purchaser. The best way for me to explain the Bill is to try, very shortly, to give a case that was brought up in the Courts. It was the case of Dale v. Hatfield Chase Corporation. The landlords in February, 1919, gave the tenant a year's notice. They arranged for him to stay on in his house till May, a few months after the expiration of the notice. That was all in order. The tenant, on getting his notice, himself gave notice to the landlord in March, 1919, a month afterwards, that he intended to claim the compensation for disturbance to which he was entitled under the Act. He did not give the details of his claim until April the year after, but I do not think that matters. In the meantime, the landlords sold the farm in three different parts. One on 25th November, 1919, another part on 24th December, 1919, and a third part on 24th January, 1920. They did not however, notify the tenant who were the purchasers. Meanwhile the tenant had removed his furniture to another farm. Some of it he removed in 2957 November, 1919. He sold part of his live and dead stock in April, 1920, and he removed the rest of his stock to his new farm in May, 1920, when his lease was up. Then he applied for compensation for disturbance. The original landlords argued that they were not landlords at the termination of his tenancy within the meaning of the Act. The County Court Judge, before whom the case came, said that the tenant's claim for compensation for disturbance came within the meaning of Section 48, Sub-section (2), of the Act of 1908. I have looked up that Sub-section, and it reads: The designation of landlord and tenant shall continue to apply to the parties until the conclusion of any proceedings taken under or in pursuance of this Act in respect of compensation for his improvements or under any agreement made in pursuance of this Act. It will be noticed that the Act only refers to compensation for improvements, that being before the passing of the Act of 1921, which gave to the tenant the right to compensation for disturbance—which is what this tenant was claiming. Although, therefore, the County Court said that his claim came under this Section of the Act of 1908, the higher Court to which the appeal was taken ruled that it did not come under that Act, and that, although he might have been entitled to claim compensation for improvements, his claim for compensation for disturbance did not come in. Lord Justice Eldon Bankes, in the higher Court, said: It seems to me that the Legislature should make some provision for a possible change of landlord between the time when the tenant serves his notice of intention to claim compensation and the time when the compensation becomes payable. The tenant may be quite unaware that any change has taken place. That is what happened in this case. The learned Judge went on to say: On the other hand, if a change does take place, the landlord can always protect himself by providing who, as between himself and the assignee, shall pay the compensation. The Court gave leave for a further case to be stated by the arbitrator, and it was heard on the 26th July, when Lord Justice Eldon Bankes repeated what he had said before, namely, that the case disclosed what appeared to him to be a defect in the existing law, which required consideration at the hands of the Legis- 2958 lature. That is what this Bill seeks to carry out. If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that it says: Unless or until a tenant of a holding shall have received notice in writing from the person to whom he is under … informing the tenant that some other person is or will from a date named therein become entitled to receive the rents and profits of the holding and giving the name and address of such other person, any notice … which the tenant shall serve or have served upon or deliver … to the person … shall be deemed to have been served upon or delivered to the landlord of such holding for the time being as defined by Section 48, Sub-section (1), of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. That simply means that, until a tenant has received from his landlord notice of a sale, any claim for compensation which ho has made on the old landlord will be deemed to hold good. That is what ought to have been the case, and was the intention, under the previous Act, and that is what would happen if a sale had not taken place. I am sure that when the Act of 1921 was passed the occurrence of this case was not contemplated. As the learned Judge pointed out, it is a case which the Legislature should seek to rectify, and I hope that this Bill does that. It is brought in on behalf of the National Farmers' Union, and has been drafted by their lawyers. It has been looked over by the lawyers of the Central Landowners' Association, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leamington (Sir E. Pollock) has been good enough to look into it and suggest an alteration, which has been added. I hope that hon. Members will see in Committee that it is so adjusted as to carry out what it is intended to do.

I should like to point out to hon. Members of the Labour party, who often tell us that any legislation we propose is only for the good of the landlord, that this Bill will help to promote good relations between the tenant and the owner, and, of course, if it does that, it will be good for the landlord. I do not mind confessing it. I would also point out that, in the happy state of things which those hon. Members propose to inflict on this country, when we shall have all the land nationalised, the land will be administered by Government Departments and public bodies, and in the particular case to which I have referred the owner was a public body and not a private owner. 2959 Therefore, although we may alter the law of property in this country, this particular amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act will be found to be of even more importance under public bodies than under private enterprise. I am glad to say that the Bill is thoroughly approved by the Central Landowners' Association, and, I am sure, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), who represents the Land Union. As a landowner myself, I would ask the House, on behalf of the tenant farmers, who have enough troubles at the present time to put up with, to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act in this respect, as a matter of common equity and justice.

§ Mr. CAUTLEY

I desire to support the Second Reading of this Bill, which is really a very small Measure, and has only one object, namely, to set right a flaw that has been discovered in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. That flaw was only discovered in the recent case of Dale v. Hatfield Chase Corporation. The House will possibly remember that, under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, when a tenant quits his farm and has a claim to make on his landlord for compensation, either for improvements he has done to his farm, for his tenant right, or for wrongful disturbance, he has to give notice of his claim in writing, and he has to give that notice to his landlord. The landlord is defined in the Agricultural Holdings Act as the person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of any land. The flaw that was discovered was this: A notice of claim was given to the landlord who had granted the lease, but after the notice was given, the landlord unknown to the tenant sold the property, and the person who is bound to pay the compensation is the landlord at the termination of the tenancy. The notice, however, has to be given prior to the termination of the tenancy. Therefore, when the case came on for hearing before the arbitrator, the point was taken by the new landlord that, although he was the person to pay, he had had no notice of the claim; and the Court of Appeal 2960 decided that that was a good point, because, when the notice was served, it was served on the old landlord, and he was not the landlord who had to pay. If an arbitrator had been appointed before the new landlord bought the land, the proceedings would have been all right, because, since the proceedings commence with the appointment of the arbitrator, they would have enured for the benefit of the tenant as against the new landlord; but, owing to the time which elapsed, and the fact that the notice was given to the old landlord prior to the appointment of an arbitrator, it was held that this poor tenant was deprived of his compensation, which would have amounted to a very considerable sum of money. That was a very gross hardship upon him, which no one in this House can defend. All that the Bill does is to put right that flaw. It provides that if land is sold after notice of claim has been given for compensation by the tenant, unless either the landowner or the new landowner does what he ought to do and give notice to the tenant of the sale and of the name of the new purchaser, so that the tenant can serve the proper notice on the new purchaser, the old notice which has been given to the old landlord shall be deemed to be a good notice on the new landlord, the proceedings shall not be inoperative and the tenant shall get his compensation. That is the sole object of the Bill. There cannot be a word said against it. It is for the defence of tenants against gross wrong. There is no more to be said and the Bill should have a Second Reading.