§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
§ Clause 1 (Tenant's rights to compensation for improvements).
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out from the word "manner" in line 13 to the word "be" in line 14, and to insert instead thereof the words
"(a) in the case of a tenancy terminated by notice within one month after the notice was sent or received by the tenant; and
(b) in any other case not more than thirty-six nor less than twelve months before the termination of the tenancy."
§ Sir WILLIAM BULLI would like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether there is any precedent for putting down on the Order Paper a Bill of first-rate importance on the first day of meeting after the Adjournment, which has the effect of ruling out all the new Clauses. In consequence of the course taken by the Government, no new Clauses can be considered. I would like to know if there is any precedent for such a procedure. Today we have five hours in which to discuss the Bill. A large number of Amendments have to be inserted, and I know that a certain number of Amendments have been put down, by the courtesy of the Home Secretary, up to a certain hour on Wednesday. I do not think that, in regard to a Bill of such first-class importance as this Measure undoubtedly is, the moving of new Clauses should be entirely cut out in this way.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)This question has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman without giving me any notice, and I cannot say off-hand whether there is any precedent for a Bill of this kind being put down for consideration on the first day after the Recess. The rules are that notice must be given of New Clauses on the Report stage of a Bill, that is to say, they must appear on the Order Paper the day before the Debate comes on in the House. The Report stage has been put down for the first day after the 76 resumption of business, and as the Committee stage of this Measure was only completed in the last few days of the Session before the Adjournment, it has made it almost impossible to put down Notices at all.
§ Sir W. BULLOf course, we could not put down any new Clauses this afternoon, and now we are precluded from doing so.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI quite realise that that is so, because they would have to appear on the Order Paper.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am sorry, so far as I am concerned, for what has happened, but I have had no hand in this matter. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the business is arranged by other Members of the Government, and it is my duty to proceed in this way. As my right hon. Friend knows, if I could have done anything to meet him in this matter I would have done so. I have issued a White Paper containing these Amendments. I know there are a few more Amendments which came in last night, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will allow every latitude to hon. Members who have sent in Amendments.
I do not propose to occupy much time in proposing this Amendment. It is a very simple one. If hon. Members will look at the Bill as it has emerged from the Committee, they will see that it has been largely developed, and I think improved. Concessions have been made on both sides, and it is now a much larger Bill than it was when it was first introduced. Under Clause 1, dealing with compensation for goodwill, a certain period of notice has to be given, while in the provision relating to compensation for improvements another period of notice has to be given. I think hon. Members will realise that when a tenant, who may be going to claim compensation for improvements and also compensation for goodwill, has to give notice, it is inconvenient that he should have to put in a different kind of notice in each case. All we do by this Amendment to Clause 1 is that we put compensation for improvements into line with the provision in Clause 4 relating to compensation for goodwill. If the House accepts this Amendment, the result will be that the tenant who desires to apply to the landlord or to the tribunal for compensation both for improvements and goodwill will not have to worry about there being two 77 different days for these notices, and he will be able to put both notices in on the same day or include them in the same notice.
§ Sir HENRY SLESSERSo far as I know, on this side of the House we agree that it is satisfactory that the two notices should be for the same period.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI would like to ask the Home Secretary what is meant in this case by the word "sent."
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIt is a comprehensive word which covers the arrangement made under Clause 22.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI understand that the tenant has three months within which to lodge his claim. If we accept this Amendment that period will be reduced to a month. In that case, I think the tenant will get the worst of the arrangement.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIf the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Bill as it stands, he will see that the tenant's claim has to be made in the prescribed manner, and not less than three months before the termination of the tenancy. My Amendment applies either to a yearly tenant or a monthly tenant, and it does not apply until he has received or given one month's notice. Under the Bill, the tenant could not give three months' notice before the termination of the tenancy, because it could be terminated at a month's notice. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that we have provided for the tenant at short notice, and also for the tenant who holds a lease.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI take it that the right hon. Gentleman knew something about these matters when the Bill was going through Committee, and that at that stage he intended the Bill as it is now drafted to become an Act of Parliament; and it must have been obvious to him that the tenant who only has to give a 'month's notice could not, before the expiry of the tenancy, give three months' notice. What, then, was in the mind of the Government when the Bill was drafted and presented to us, and what has been the change of mind on the part of the Government which makes necessary the provisions proposed in this Amendment?
§ Sir GERALD HOHLERAm I not right in thinking that Clause 1 does not 78 refer to a yearly tenancy at all, but only to a longer term? If that be so, the result of this Amendment would be to extend the Clause. If my recollection be right—it is some time since we discussed the matter—and if the notice has to be given at least three months before the termination of the tenancy, it cannot apply to a yearly tenancy. My recollection is that it was not intended to apply to a yearly tenancy, or was only intended, as indicated later, to apply to a yearly tenancy under certain conditions. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend has forgotten that. At any rate, I should like him to explain how it comes about that the Clause is now to be applied to a yearly tenancy. I rather think that the drafting of the proposed Amendment is inappropriate. With regard to these Amendments generally, I have to complain that, while this one has been printed on the Order Paper, others have not, which is exceedingly inconvenient. One wanted to consider the Bill with reference to the several Amendments that have been put down. In my view, it was never considered or contemplated. when the Bill was in Committee, that it referred to a yearly tenancy, but only to a tenancy for a longer period.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir PHILIP PILDITCHI beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "or," and to insert instead thereof the word "nor."
This Amendment is intended to make clear, and not to alter in any way, the ordinary provisions of the Bill. We have always understood that the intention of the Bill, as defined by the Home Secretary in Committee, was to provide that the sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement should exceed neither the value of the holding as increased by the improvement nor the amount that it would cost to make the improvement itself at the end of the tenancy, minus the cost of any necessary repairs. I understood that it was felt, especially by those who will have to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act, that to make this intention clear the word "nor" should be used, and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that such is the case. May I say, inasmuch as this is the first of a number of Amendments which I have put down, that both this and the other Amendments which I propose to move are within the fabric of the 79 Bill as it left the Committee? As we spent three months upstairs in thrashing out all the details, with concessions on both sides, in order to produce what I think is a fairly workable Measure, it would be undesirable to attempt to fight our Committee battles again, either on one side or the other. Neither this Amendment nor any of the others that I propose to move is of that character. They are merely designed to make clear what was the intention of the Bill as it left the Committee. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree with me that the word "nor" is the correct word in the circumstances.
§ Mr. LOOKERI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThis is a very small point, and I do not think my hon. Friend has quite got the grammar correctly even now. If he had wished to say that neither (a) nor (b) should be exceeded, that would be correct. I am, however, quite willing to accept the Amendment, and if it requires alteration it can be put right in another place.
§ Sir P. PILDITCHI accept that.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI want to lodge a protest against the time of the House being used up in this frivolous fashion in discussing whether a word shall be "or" or "nor." I think the day ought to be past when we, as Labour Members, sent here, at a time when tens of thousands of our people are up against it, for the definite purpose of trying to change all this, should have to sit and listen to Knights of the British Empire and Cabinet Ministers using up our time in discussing whether the word "or" or the word "nor" shall form part of a Clause. I want to draw attention to what is really going on in regard to this Bill. Here we are discussing landlords and tenants. What is going on in the country? I have been all over Britain during—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe only question before the House is whether the word referred to shall be "or" or "nor."
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I assure you I am speaking on this Amendment—on the question of the grammar and the geography of the situation. I was going to bring that in, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought 80 in the grammar. It has a bearing on the tenant and the landlord. What is affecting us here, and what we have been sent here for, is to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the tenants in this country are not able to pay the rents. There have been increased rents—[Interruption].
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat does not seem to be in order now. The question whether the word shall be "or" or "nor" is not really affected by it.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI am keeping to the Amendment, and, if you will bear with me, Sir, for about five minutes, I will not take up any more of the time of the House. Otherwise, I may take up one or two hours. I was saying that what interests us whenever tenants and landlords are mentioned is not whether the word "or" or the word "nor" shall be used in our phraseology, but the fact that there have been great reductions of wages as far as the workers are concerned, and that they are not able to pay the rents. It was this House of Commons that increased the rents—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the question whether the word "or" or the word "nor" shall be inserted in this place. That is the question before the House; the other questions to which the hon. Member is referring are not before the House at all.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWith all due respect to you, Sir, my point is to try and show that the working class have not the wages to pay the rents, that they have not the money to go to the shops, and hence the shopkeepers are not able to carry on—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member knows very well that that does not arise on this Amendment. This is merely a grammatical Amendment on the question whether the word shall be "or" or "nor." It is a very small point. If the hon. Member continually disobeys my ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI think there is another reason why the Government should be opposed here. It was stated with some force from the Government side of the House that it is quite im- 81 possible to discuss these Amendments intelligently unless we have all the Amendments before us, because we may accept one Amendment without knowing knowing its place in the scheme of things contemplated by the Government. I think the House was entitled to a little more than a semi-apology from the Home Secretary for the fact that Amendments sent in a week ago have not been printed, and I am going to oppose this Amendment, if for no other reason, in order to enter my protest against the way in which the House has been treated by the Government. I do not know what the effect on the Bill will be; it is impossible to discuss Amendments that are in manuscript. We ought to have them here, and, if the Government found that the Amendments could not be printed in time for to-day, they ought to have rearranged the business. They control this House, and it is no use the Home Secretary throwing it on to the Chief Whip and saying, "I am only the messenger-boy of the Government, and have been sent here to do as I am told; do not blame me." That is not good enough. We all know the humility of the right hon. Gentleman, but we know that, if he had pressed for the rights of this House to be respected with the same energy with which he can press his views in other directions, the House would have been better treated. Amendments that have been proposed ought to be in print, and the House ought not to proceed to pass any of these Amendments until it finds what the total effect of all the Amendments will be. Therefore, I am going to oppose this Amendment as a protest.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEMay I put the point that it is hardly worth while spending a quarter of an hour of the time of the House in dividing as to whether we should or should not insert a word which makes this Clause entirely ungrammatical? I appeal to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) to withdraw his Amendment. The wording is perfectly grammatical as it is, and it would be ungrammatical if his Amendment were carried.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?
§ Sir P. PILDITCHI understand that my right hon. Friend would like to reconsider this particular Amendment in the form in which it is put down, with a view, possibly, to it being dealt with in another place, and, in these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw it.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIs it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment be withdrawn?
§ Mr. KIRKWOODNo! Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. RYEI beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end, to insert the words:
or(c) the amount of the loss at the termination of the tenancy sustained by the tenant.The object of this Amendment is to prevent the tenant from obtaining a profit by way of compensation for an improvement which he has made. If the House will refer to the proviso to Clause 1, they will see that it expressly provides thatthe sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed—(a) the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value of the holding as a whole which may be determined to be the direct result of the improvement; or(b) the reasonable cost of carrying out the improvement at the termination of the tenancy, subject to a deduction of an amount equal to the cost (if any) of putting the works constituting the improvement into a reasonable state of repair except so far as such cost is covered by the liability of the tenant under any covenant or agreement as to the repair of the premises.6.0 p.m.To this I want to make the addition set out in my Amendment. I would like to remind the House that in English law there can be no compensation without loss or damage. If, therefore, the landlord is able to prove at the termination of the tenancy that the tenant has, in fact, suffered no loss whatever in carrying out the improvement, but, instead, has got back his money and possibly a profit on it, then I venture to suggest to the House that there can be no question of compensation. I know that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will tell us that there is no reason why the landlord should get an improvement for nothing, but the real point here is, as the Bill was put to the 83 House on the Second Reading,. that the landlord should not be allowed to take advantage of the tenant and rob him of his improvement and, according to the later part of the Bill, of his goodwill. The tenant has made his money, or got back his money. It will not be a question of robbing him at all. He will have had the full advantage of his improvement and there is no reason, to my thinking, why the landlord, who, after all, is the owner of the house, should not take it over.
§ Mr. GATESI beg to second the Amendment.
I think this provision might very fairly be inserted as a third proviso. It may very well be the fact that the tenant, after making an improvement 10 or 20 years before the expiration of his tenancy, may make a considerable sum of money. He may spend £1,900 and may reap an advantage of £2,000, or even £5,000, and he is therefore in no way damnified, and it is only fair that the landlord should not be liable to pay compensation.
§ Mr. MacLARENI hope the House will not accept the Amendment. It is definitely laid down in paragraph (a) "the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value," with the alternative proviso of the cost of carrying out such improvement. It might possibly be construed that, irrespective of what may be termed the capitalised value of the addition to the letting value, something less than that was actually due to the tenant. Let us be frank about this. If the tenant makes an improvement he has as much right to make what profit he can out of it as the landowner has to make a profit out of the tenant, and if we are going to adopt this Amendment we are going to have prolonged discussion and inquiry as to what exactly was the net loss or the net gain of the improvement so effected. I hope the House will expedite the passage of the Bill, because while not agreeing with everything in it, some of us are anxious that it should pass as quickly as possible. The Sub-sections as they stand are definite and clear and will not lead to the complications to which this Amendment undoubtedly would lead and 84 give a bias in favour of the landlord as against the tenant. I take it this Bill is to hold an even poise between the two, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSPerhaps it will be convenient if I state the view of the Government at once on the Amendment, which is that it is against the whole intention of the Bill. When a tenant makes an improvement, with the consent of the landlord or of an independent tribunal, the whole question is whether at the end of the tenancy the landlord should take over an improvement which is of value to the landlord. That is the scope and the intention of the Bill. We have not considered either the loss or the gain to the tenant. In exactly the same way, when we come to deal with compensation we are against the tenant's view in that respect. We are not proposing to make the landlord pay by way of compensation for goodwill any loss the tenant has incurred. We are only saying the landlord shall pay to the tenant for the benefit he takes when he takes over a going business which belongs to the tenant. The two things are exactly on the same basis. This is exactly the practice under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and tenant farmers are compensated at the end of their tenancy exactly on the lines laid down in this Bill. The landlord has to pay to the tenant, irrespective of the loss or gain the tenant may have made, the value of the improvement at the time the tenancy comes to an end and the landlord takes it over. That is the law of the land today in regard to every agricultural holding. All we suggest is that we should give the town tenant of business premises compensation on exactly the same basis as it has been given by Conservative Governments in times past in regard to agricultural land.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI should like to ask whether this applies to Scotland.
§ Sir G. HOHLERI think the Home Secretary is inaccurate with regard to the Agricultural Holdings Acts. I have read them on many occasions. My recollection is that his statement is only in a limited sense true. There are cer- 85 tain improvements which may be made with consent and certain others which may not. Under this Bill no consent of the landlord is required at all, but the tenant can apply to a tribunal and the landlord is bound by its decision. In other words there are no improvements to which the landlord can dissent, as he can under the Agricultural Holdings Acts. Repairs which are obviously useful for the agricultural industry are scheduled in those Acts as repairs which can be done by the tenant without any consent. It is quite a different thing to say, as this Bill says, that everything, whether done with the landlord's consent or not, is to be compensated. In regard to the Amendment, I quite realise, and I expect my hon. Friend realises, that in this House he has no chance of doing anything without derision. I know quite well the attitude taken by the members of the Labour party in the Committee. On one occasion they promised support and they ran away. I do not rely on them now and I never did. I certainly think the Amendment is one that might reasonably be considered. If the tenant has sustained no loss I fail to understand why he should receive anything. If he has sustained loss, surely that should be the measure of what he should receive. Why should we give him more? I do not see the fairness of it between man and man. It is only because it is possible to use harsh and unjust words in regard to landlords, it seems to me, that this is really opposed. I should have thought the Home Secretary would say the Amendment seems fair. The tenant will recover any loss he has sustained, but nothing more. Take the case of a disappearing industry. A smithy is closed down and the tenant gives up his tenancy, not that the landlord has done anything but because there has been an entire change in industry, everything has become mechanical and his trade is dead. He may have built a new forge which is quite useless to the landlord. The landlord will merely have to pull it down. In those circumstances what loss has the tenant sustained?
§ Mr. KIRKWOODOn a point of Order. I was put down just before you came in, Mr. Speaker, because I was not keeping to the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman has no more point than the man in the moon.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter for the Chair.
§ Sir G. HOHLERI was putting a point that might arise in other industries. It is occurring in harness making. In the case I was citing, the amount of the tenant's loss is nothing, because he is unable to go on. It has already disappeared and the landlord gets nothing. I therefore submit it is very reasonable that this additional limitation should be put in that the amount the tenant should recover should be no more than the loss he has sustained.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYWe have listened to a very able and learned speech, but our difficulty is to take the supporters of the Amendment seriously. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that Labour Members upstairs promised support, but when it came to the critical moment they ran away. I suppose we are to assume that he is of sturdier calibre and has no intention of running away from this Amendment. But our experience to-day has been that, with a limited amount of time at our disposal and a large amount of business to be got through between now and turkey time, Member after Member on the Government side is getting up, moving Amendments, making long speeches, explaining why they should be accepted and then running away from Amendments which have only been used to waste the time of the House. I do not agree with the Amendment, but I should have more respect for it if I thought it was going to have any support given to it in the Division Lobby. If there is to be no support I must protest against this wilful waste of valuable time by supporters of the Government. The proposal in the Amendment is that the tenant having spent a certain sum of money in the improvement of the property will not be entitled to have any of that money returned to him if it can be proved by the landlord, when the lease expires, that he has already had his money back. How are you to analyse the profit made in a building and say how much of it is to be allocated to the improvement and how much to the original property?
§ Mr. RYEMight I interrupt the right hon. Member? This might be a case of an improvement not wholly required for 87 the purpose of the business carried on. Part of the building might be sub-let, as frequently occurs in parts of business premises, and it would then be quite easy to ascertain the additional profit obtained and the actual profit made by the tenant out of such letting.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI thank the hon. Member for that correction, but I respectfully submit that if the expenditure was of no assistance to the business, it was not an improvement and should not come within the provisions of this Measure at all. We are assuming here that we are dealing with improvements of property. We are asked to believe that when a tenant spends, say, £1,000 in making an addition to the property during the period of his lease, the landlord has only to take him to Court at the end of his lease and say, "Old man, you have done very well out of the business from the £1,000 invested, and I am going to prove to the Court you have had your £1,000 back." But you do not find the same type of mind saying that a tenant should be entitled to go to the Court at the end of the lease and submit to the Court that the landlord has had in rent during the period of the tenancy the full value of the property. One might be just as reasonable as the other. But they can only see things through landlords' glasses, and they never see a subject through the spectacles of the tenant, even when he happens to be a rich tenant. I am going to oppose the Amendment, but I hope, in view of the statement that has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he is not going to run away like he said the Labour party did upstairs, but is going to give me the privilege of expressing my views of the Amendment which he has so eloquently supported.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. DALTONI beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out Subsection (2).
The Amendment which I have the honour to move is in the interests of the tenants. It is proposed by cutting out the Sub-section to remove the limit which is now imposed on the right of the tenant to obtain compensation for improvements made. At the present time, assuming that my Amendment be not accepted, 88 any wealthy landlord can deprive a hardworking tenant of the results of his improvements. We remember the case of Howard de Walden and Lewis, and many other cases might be cited. In such cases it is quite possible for a wealthy landlord in the position of Lord Howard de Walden to check any claim for compensation under this Bill by merely expressing the intention, or at any rate carrying out the expression of the intention, of pulling down the premises. It is notorious that the greater part of the centre of London is owned by four or five fabulously rich men to whom the value of one lot of premises is a trivial thing in comparison with their total wealth, and it will be quite possible for any tenant who has made himself obnoxious to his landlord to be deprived of the right of compensation under this Bill by the landlord merely saying, "I do not like you. I am going to pull down your premises."
§ Sir G. HOHLERWas not the case of Lewis and Howard de Walden one in which the point was a restricted covenant? It struck me that it had nothing to do with this.
§ Mr. DALTONI am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I stated the case of Lewis and Howard de Walden as an example of penalisation of the law, but the penalisation is a different thing from the penalisation with which I am seeking to deal.
§ Sir G. HOHLERBut in principle.
§ Mr. DALTONIf the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to state my case I shall be obliged. The intention was to suggest that if such a case were to arise and the tenant were to stand up for his rights, it would be possible, under this Bill as it stands, for justice to be denied the tenant simply because of the caprice of a wealthy man. It was that consideration, as well as other considerations, that led us to put this Amendment on the Paper. There is another point to which I referred, and which I should like to develop. The word "intended" is used here—"In determining the capitalised value," and so forth, "if it is shown that it is intended to demolish the buildings." I suggest that even the carrying out of an expressed intention should not of itself deprive a tenant of the right of compen- 89 sation. It seems to me quite possible that the interpretation of this Clause, if it gets into the Courts, may be that an expression of intention might debar for a definite time the right of a tenant to compensation. Even if that be not so, the Amendment seems to me to be extremely strong, and, if so, the case is stronger still.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that the Home Secretary has an Amendment, after the word "buildings," to insert the words "wholly or partially." I am dealing with an Amendment proposed to this very Subsection. The result of that will be that the landowner may establish in future not that he intends to demolish property but that he intends to demolish part of it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to press his Amendment. If so, may I say with all respect, he is really making I support the Amendment not for the reason stated by the hon. Member who has just moved it, but for another reason. In Sub-section (1) there is the condition that there must be an increase in the letting value of the property, but there are two other conditions which vitiate the whole Clause. The first is this: It does not apply to any improvement made before the passing of the Act. Secondly, it does not apply to any improvement effected without the consent either of the landowner or a tribunal, so that in any event the number of cases will be exceedingly small. But in addition to that, Sub-section (2) lays down two further conditions. The first is, there shall be no compensation if it is intended by the landowner to demolish the property, or to use it for a different purpose. Either of these cases can be easily established by a rich landowner against the individual tenant. You must always bear in mind that these things will have to be fought out by an individual tenant, generally not in very good circumstances, and he will have to make out his case and meet the case made by, probably, some of the best-trained minds, not only in the legal world, but also amongst the surveyors and estate agents. He is met, first of all, with this condition. He must have improved the letting value of the property. In other words, he must have added to the wealth of the landowner.
I understand that the Home Secretary has an Amendment, after the word "buildings," to insert the words "wholly or partially." I am dealing with an Amendment proposed to this very Subsection. The result of that will be that the landowner may establish in future not that he intends to demolish property but that he intends to demolish part of it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to press his Amendment. If so, may I say with all respect, he is really making 90 the Clause valueless. The landlord could say, "I do not intend to demolish altogether, but in part," and the result would be that the tenant could claim no compensation, although he has added very substantially to the letting value of the property. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment and so make the condition of the tenant infinitely worse than it is at present. I can only repeat here what I said on the Second Reading. I thought then it was perfectly valueless. Even after the Committee stage upstairs, notwithstanding the support given to the right hon. Gentleman by the opposition amongst his own friends on the other side, the Bill is not very much improved.
§ Mr. HARDIEI want to point out that under Sub-section (2) serious factors can creep in. It is all very well for Members to say that that is a very tight subsection, good grammar, or anything they like to claim for it, but it is when you get down to the practical side of business, as between landlord and tenant, that the difficulties arise. I can see and have always seen that this "intended to demolish" if taken in part, means this. A man may take down some bricks of the chimney and that will be calculated in law, if this Bill stands, as being partial demolition. That course is well known to those who have been at law in such circumstances. But what is more important is that the landlord through this Clause gets a great power. The improvement made by the tenant very often does more than increase the value of the premises improved. It improves the general amenities of the district where the shop is situated. My point is, that this Clause will give the landlord the right to say that the tenant, having spent money upon improvement, has made this district valuable, and has made the property more valuable than it was before the improvement was made. It does not matter whom you wish to compensate, and the tenant who has spent£10 or£10,000 may have recouped himself by improvements, still we have got this to retain in our minds, that, whoever has added to the value, it cannot be the landlord, who has done nothing.
That is the danger in this Clause, and that is why we on this side would like to see the whole thing deleted. The Bill as it stands is a feeble effort on a very serious question in this country, and this 91 Clause is perhaps the most feeble of all the Clauses in the Bill. The position, as far as the landlord and tenant are concerned regarding improvements, is that to-day the tenant is absolutely at the mercy of the landlord. My experience in London alone, extending over 10 weeks in relation to this subject, has shown me that the landlords are so combined in London that the business man is absolutely at their mercy. There is more than the value that can be calculated on an improvement to a shop front. There are other values that come from the industry of the business man, and the tenant in the landlord's premises, and I regret that the Government, if they are going to deal with the rights of individuals, do not include that which belongs to the value of the individual by his enterprise and industry. This Clause as it stands will not be the Clause that will give trouble to the tribunal. The tribunal will simply take the Clause in its ordinary interpretation, and following that will come the great, long, expensive legal fights in the courts. That will happen, and the landlord will be on top all the time, because the tenant will not be able to meet the great legal costs involved.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSOn this Amendment I am on the other side of the fence. The remarkable thing is that on whatever side of the fence one may be the argument is the same. This Amendment goes to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is to have no regard to questions of the tenant's loss but solely to questions of the gain of the landlord. My hon. Friends who were against me on the last occasion will be with me now, while hon. Members opposite will be against me. The principle really is the same. The landlord is only to pay for the improvement made by the tenant the benefit of which he gets. if the neighbourhood is going to be developed and the building is to be pulled down and, say, a town hall or a bank is to be built, then the improvement made by the tenant, perhaps 10 or 15 years ago, is of no value at all, and the landlord gets no additional benefit from it. In regard to that matter, this Sub-section of the Bill is right.
I should like to reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. 92 Dalton) with regard to the question of intention. He said that the landlord might change his intention, and then the tenant would get nothing. If the hon. Member will look a little further in the Bill—I give him now information which, with great respect to him, I say that he might have obtained had he read Subsection (3)—he will see that it is clear that the tribunal may authorise a further application for compensation to be made by the tenant if effect to the intention is not given within the time fixed by the tribunal. We have made it fair to both sides and, on the whole, I am satisfied that if hon. Members will take into consideration the principle of the Bill they will see that this Sub-section is quite fair to the tenant. This Sub-section is within the principle of the Bill, therefore it ought to be retained.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEI think this Clause is framed in such a way as to invite litigation and a great deal of legal trouble with regard to definitions. The Home Secretary says that the purpose of the Bill is definitely to give to the tenant only such advantage in compensation with regard to goodwill and improvements as the landlord himself would be able to take. The landlord will not be pulling down premises or altering premises except for some definite advantage to himself. Take the case mentioned by the Home Secretary as to the possibility of general improvement where a town council was pulling down a house for widening purposes or the erection of a town hall, etc. Under these conditions the compensation which the landlord would get from the town council would be certainly not on the parsimonious side. He would be compensated for the character of the improvement which the municipality was undertaking. Although I understand the point put by the Home Secretary, it seems to me that from the standpoint of justice a tenant who has been for years building up goodwill and improving a particular business is entitled, in all equity, to share in the advantage that may accrue to the landlord from improvements of that character.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI wish to deal with the point made repeatedly by the Home Secretary. He says that the object of the Bill is to prevent the landlord from confiscating the tenant's property. I should have thought that the object of 93 the Bill would be to protect the tenant. If that was not the object of the Bill, I do not think there was much sense in introducing it. As the Bill was drafted, and if this Sub-section is to be allowed to remain, you are not protecting the tenant. The Bill, as has been repeatedly pointed out, offers very little to the tenant, even at its best, and the Subsection which it is now proposed to leave out provides additional loopholes through which the landlord may escape from his obligation. If you want to protect the tenant, what has been pointed out by my hon. Friend who has just spoken is perfectly sound. A tenant improves property and improves a business. The landlord finds that by selling the property to a bank or the local authority or to any other possible purchaser he can make more out of it than he is getting out of it through a yearly rent. Under this Bill he does not need to have any regard at all for the interests of the tenant. He will only consider himself; he can sell the property to whoever will buy it for a sum that will give him a greater annual return than he is getting as rent.
The mere fact that the building is to be demolished under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament frees the landlord from any obligation to the tenant. I submit to the House that in such a case the reasonable and just rights of the tenant ought to be our first consideration and that we ought to provide that where the landlord finds it more profitable to demolish his property than to allow it to remain as the tenant is using it, the landlord should have to take into account in fixing his price the loss that will accrue to the tenant from the change in the user of the property. I submit, therefore, to the Home Secretary that the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (2) is one that should be accepted by any Government which has as its first consideration the protection of the interests of the tenant.
§ Sir P. PILDITCHDoes the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) really mean that either the landlord or anybody else should be called upon to compensate the tenant for doing something, for making some expenditure, which is of no value to the landlord or to anybody else? That really seems to 94 be what his speech amounts to. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was not in Committee during the time that this Bill was under consideration. During the whole of that period I do not think the principle of the Bill as far as this question is concerned was ever challenged, namely, that compensation should not be payable where "the improvement will not add to the letting value of the premises" after demolition or change of user. I attended every meeting of the Committee and that principle has not been challenged until the right hon. Gentleman challenged it a few minutes ago.
If the tenant makes an improvement to the premises and such improvement does improve the letting value then if the landlord takes that letting value and turns it into money, we are all agreed at this stage of the proceedings that the tenant should be allowed the value. That is an equitable principle. From my recollection, this principle was dealt with in regard to the urban tenants in Ireland in a Bill which passed Parliament. Now, the right hon. Gentleman asks us to turn the whole principle round and to say that whether it is of any value or not any expenditure made by a tenant shall be made the subject of compensation by the person who, under the circumstances described in this Clause, cannot derive any benefit therefrom. The principle point that emerges makes it perfectly clear that the landlord cannot get any benefit from this particular kind of improvement. The question may arise where the building is to be pulled down, in which case, obviously, the improvement will disappear, or where there is to be a change of user, in which case also there would be no benefit to the landlord or to anybody else by the particular improvement which had been made by the tenant. The question as to whether or not it is equitable for a landlord to compensate his tenant for improvements which he has made and which are of benefit to the landlord, is provided for. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in Committee he would have seen that we were anxious to see that justice was done to the tenant in all contingencies whether with regard to improvements, goodwill or otherwise, and I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend the Home 95 Secretary is justified in refusing to accept an Amendment which goes straight against the principle of the Bill.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThis Bill is supposed to be for the benefit of the tenant but it is not going to benefit the tenant in any way. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) asked the Home Secretary why the tenant should not be compensated for the alterations that he had made, and the Home Secretary in reply said that everybody was going to be compensated because after the removal of a building there would, in all probability, be erected a magnificent building, a bank, or municipal chambers. My point is that the landlord has no right to any increase in the value of that land. It not only does not belong to the landlord and it does not belong to the tenant; the increased value of the land belongs to the whole community. Where a bank is to erected, what is the reason? It is because of the industry of the people who have congregated around the site. In cases where municipal chambers are to be erected, we find that the value of the ground has been created by the industry of the people who surround it, and you have no right to give that value to the landlord; absolutely none. The Home Secretary had no idea that he was opening up such a grave question as far as the Tories are concerned when he raised this point. Once the working classes get a grip of this business it means an end of an Home Secretary such as we have to-day, and it means an end of the Tories in power.
§ Mr. J. BAKERIn supporting the Amendment I am not asking the Home Secretary to desert any principles announced by him when he introduced this Bill. I want him to carry those principles out, and not weaken the Bill by leaving this Sub-section in it. It has been argued that if a tenant spends money which results in no improvement he, surely, is not entitled to compensation, but this is a case where a tenant spends money which does lead to an improvement, and this Clause would deprive the tenant of any compensation if somebody expressed an intention at some time or other to pull the premises down. There would be something in the argument of the Home Secretary if he restricted the Sub-section to demoli- 96 tion for public improvements. This Sub-section does not leave it there. The landlord can express an intention to demolish the premises; and there is no definition of what demolition means. Let us take the case of public improvements. On what basis is the landlord going to sell his premises to some other persons or group of persons for demolition or for remodelling, or any other purpose? Surely it is not on the basis of the rent his tenant i5 paying. It would be on the basis of the earning power of the shop as it stands, and that earning power has been increased by the expenditure of the tenant. But we are not deciding that by this Bill. The tribunal would take all these circumstances into consideration in assessing the value of the improvements. The Home Secretary says that if he agrees to withdraw this Sub-section the tribunal would be the authority to decide whether the expenditure of the tenant had resulted in any increased earning power or improvement in the value of the shop. This Bill has been introduced because of what has happened in the City of London quite recently. It is a good thing if a person in business can kill his competitor, not, of course, by murdering him, but by buying up his premises, thus depriving him of his business, then letting the shop for something else, turning a shop which has been selling meat into a shop for selling goods and thus compelling people to come into an adjoining establishment where food is being sold. The person who owns these two establishments may earn more money—
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I submit that he is now dealing with the question of compensation for goodwill which arises under Clause 4. I am quite willing to discuss these questions, but I do not want to go over the same ground again on Clause 4.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is somewhat difficult to separate the two subjects. There will be another opportunity on Clause 4 to discuss compensation for goodwill and I hope hon. Members, as far as they can, will deal with the Sub-section we are now discussing.
§ Mr. BAKERI hope I am keeping strictly within the limits of the Amend- 97 ment. This Sub-section says that if it is intended to pull down the property the man has lost his chance of any consideration whatever. That is what I am discussing. It is the case where a person may be carrying on a particular business and he has a competitor. It has nothing whatever to do with goodwill. It is the case of a person occupying a shop. He has to establish, not that he has created goodwill, not that he has attracted a lot of people to that particular shop by advertising or any other way, but that he has improved the premises by capital expenditure, that he has improved their letting and selling value. I maintain that in these circumstances the intention of the landlord or the future use to which these premises may be put should not destroy that man's claim for the increased value he has given to the property by reason of his own personal efforts, because the landlord will get that increased value in the sale of the property to other people. I hope the Home Secretary will withdraw the Sub-section because it really weakens the Bill. The speech he made in introducing the Bill was in the spirit I myself should have approached the question if I had been introducing the Measure, although I should not have expressed it half so well, but as he weakens the Bill by leaving this Sub-section in I hope he will see his way to withdraw it.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI believe the Home Secretary, if we had in the Gallery an audience of shop tenants, would agree to the withdrawal of this Sub-section. The Bill is not a very strong Measure. It leaves out people occupying ordinary houses for ordinary domestic purposes and deals only with shop tenants. In this Clause it starts by giving them some hope, but in this Sub-section it takes that hope away. If the people who had to decide this matter were those who are suffering from the injustices of the present system, this Sub-section would go. Is it really necessary? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), who leads the opposition to this Bill, is a strong defender of this Sub-section, and that alone would enlist me in favour of the removal of the Sub-section. He is a strong supporter of this Sub-section because he says that it is perfectly monstrous to allow 98 a tenant to put up any unprofitable building in his backyard and make the landlord compensate him at the end of his lease. I am afraid tenants have not the capital or the leisure to put up unprofitable buildings. The buildings they put up are such as will assist in the carrying on of their business. We have already passed the words:
Provided that the sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value of the holding as a whole.If a tenant puts up useless buildings it will not add to the letting value, and there will be no compensation for him. It is only in the case where the building is a valuable addition to the holding that we provide that compensation shall be given. Having provided that compensation shall be limited to something that is useful, you proceed to say, in Sub-section (2), "No, a landlord may find on the conclusion of the lease that he would sooner let the building for something else." That may be a decision after the buildings have been erected for which compensation was expected. A tenant may put up this building, may employ labour, may improve the property and develop the street and the neighbourhood, under the impression that under this Bill he is safeguarded, that he can claim compensation for them, but when the end comes, when he is losing his business and everything else, the landlord may suddenly say, "I know it is true that if these premises were going to remain as they are, you will get compensation, but I do not like to pay you compensation, and I am going to change the nature of the premises and turn them into something else"—a bank or a cinema. He changes his mind after the other party to the contract has spent his money, and you say that the tenant shall have no claim.Take the case of a public authority which acquire property for a town improvement, the widening of a road or the clearing of a slum, or the making of a children's playground. Why do you not treat a public authority making that compulsory purchase on the same lines? If a public authority pulls down a building, which may not be suitable for the site, it has to pay the last penny of compensation for the full value of that building, and very often a good deal more. 99 But when you are touching the landlord it is a very different pair of shoes. Then you must provide in your Bill, which is supposed to confer a benefit on the tenant, a Sub-section which takes away all the benefits. There is no certainty of any of the improved value coming to the tenant. I do not look at the Bill solely from the point of view of town tenants, although that is important, but from the point of view of the public. What we want in this country is more work—I mean useful work, not useless work. We want these buildings put up. We want every tenant to have an incentive to put up new premises, to increase his premises and to employ labour in so doing. I want him to escape rates if he improves his premises; but, at any rate, do not let him feel that by spending money on improving his premises he is absolutely throwing his money into the sewer, as is the case now. He knows that if there are only seven years of his lease to run he must pay himself back in those seven years. In that case he will not spend his money, he will not employ people, and trade will be worse. The community wants these improvements. and the community should encourage tenants to make these improvements. You attempt to give some slight encouragement to the town tenants to improve their property and then you take it all away. I think there is every justification for urging that this Sub-section shall come out of the Bill.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. RYEThe right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in his somewhat lengthy argument has overlooked one fact, and that is that the property belongs to the landlord. It is a trivial matter and does not concern him very much, and I do not know that I altogether blame him for having come to the conclusion that the landlord is not so much concerned with his own property, because this Bill takes away so many of his rights. But the fact is that it is the landlord's property. I have no doubt certain hon. Members opposite would like to take away a landlord's property from him altogether, but as the law stands the property is the landlord's, and no one can say that it is reasonable to suggest that a tenant, acting under an order obtained from the tribunal, should be 100 entitled to claim for improvements when the landlord decides to pull down his own property. When the landlord finds that the improvement which has been carried out by order of the tribunal is not required by the incoming tenant, what does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that the position should be? When the premises come into the possession of a landlord—if indeed they ever do under this extraordinary Bill—and he has an opportunity of letting them to a new tenant and the new tenant says, "Yes, I will take the property, but I want the right to take out that which was considered by the tribunal to be an improvement "—for example, a shop front—"I do not want that shop front and I will not have it, and I want you to put in another," what is the landlord's position then? First, he has to put in that new shop front before letting to the new tenant, and then, according to the right hon. and gallant Member, he has to pay the outgoing tenant as well. I have heard some extraordinary arguments put forward by the hon. and gallant Member at one time and another, but I doubt whether I have ever heard a more extraordinary, fallacious, and, if I may respectfully say so, futile argument than that which I have heard from him this evening.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI want to ask the Home Secretary to answer one point which has been emphasised, but which has not been covered by the reply. Where a property has been enhanced and the proprietor finds it desirable to sell or reconstruct in order to sell the property or where a public authority has made a proposal to purchase it, will not that landlord naturally make a claim for the increased value, and, if so, why should not this Clause be taken out in order to see that the tenant shall get that which the landlord would be perfectly entitled to receive? As has been said, there is a strong desire that the provision of the Bill should be extended to Scotland, and I hope we shall hear something about that.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI cannot speak twice on the Report stage, but, by the leave of the House, I want to say that we tried very hard to keep ground values out of the Committee stage upstairs, and, like King Charles' head, it cropped up 101 from time to time. There is no more right for the increase which is due to the public ground value to belong to the tenant than to the landlord. The question of ground values is an arguable point, but it is not arguable on this Bill.
§ Mr. MacLARENI quite appreciate the point. There has been a rather interesting suggestion that where the landlord may sell property, with advantage, to some local authority, the increase should be divided between himself and the outgoing tenant. That is just about as immoral a contract as I have ever heard. One point has emerged, namely, the case of the tenant who has effected certain improvements, and there comes a time when the owner is going to demolish that improvement. The tenant, according to the Sub-section, is not entitled to receive compensation for the improvement effected nor to
§ gather into his own pocket some share of the increased ground revenues, but surely in the case of disturbances the landowners always get very liberal allowances where land is taken, and why should not the tenant in this case? Cannot the Home Secretary meet us in some way by putting something into the Bill whereby a tenant who is honestly disturbed in the ordinary sequence of the use of his improvements shall receive some form of compensation. If the Home Secretary would meet us in that way, it would go a long way towards meeting Members on this side who feel that there is a real hardship in the case of the tenant in circumstances like that.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'the,' in line 22, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 139.
103| Division No. 316] | AYES. | [7.6 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut,Colonel | Clayton, G. C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Albery, Irving James | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Harlington, Marquess of |
| Alexander. E. E. (Leyton) | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Cooper, A. Duff | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Willfrid W. | Couper, J. B. | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hawke. John Anthony |
| Astor, Viscountess | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Atkinson, C. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Balniel, Lord | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Hilton, Cecil |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cunlifre, Sir Herbert | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Holt, Captain H. P. |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Bennett, A. J. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar) |
| Berry, Sir George | Dawson, Sir Phillip | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Dixey, A. C. | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Drewe, C. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Huntingfield, Lord |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Elliott, Major Walter E. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Ellis, R. G. | Hurst, Gerald B. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Fleiden, E. B. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Forrest, W. | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Kindersley, Major Guy M. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Gates, Percy | King, Commodore Henry Douglas |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Grace, John | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Cassels, J. D. | Grant, Sir J. A. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Long, Major Eric |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Looker, Herbert William |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Lumley, L. R. |
| Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E. | MacAnorew, Major Charles Glen |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Christie. J. A. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hall, Lleut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | MacIntyre, Ian |
| McLean, Major A. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Remer, J. R. | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Macnaghten. Hon. Sir Malcolm | Remnant, Sir James | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Slr W. Mitchell |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Margesson, Captain D. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Ropner, Major L. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Meller, R. J. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Merriman, F. B. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Meyer, Sir Frank | Rye, F. G | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Salmon, Major I. | Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Moore, Sir Newton J. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Colonel J. C. T. | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Wells, S. R. |
| Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Sandon, Lord | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew,W) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Shefield, Sir Berkeley | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Nicholson. O. (Westminster) | Shepperson, E. W. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'lid.) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd) |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Skelton, A. N. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Smith. R. W (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Pennefather, Sir John | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Penny, Frederick George | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Withers, John James |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Perring, Sir William George | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Pilditch, Sir Philip | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Pownall, Sir Assheton | Storry-Deans, R. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Preston, William | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | |
| Price, Major C. W. M. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Radford, E. A. | Styles, Captain H. Walter | Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hardle, George D. | Scurr, John |
| Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Harney, E. A. | Sexton, James |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hayday, Arthur | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Baker, Walter | Hayes, John Henry | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hirst, G. H. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smillie, Robert |
| Briant, Frank | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Broad, F. A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Snell, Harry |
| Bromfield, William | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kennedy, T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buchanan, G. | Kirkwood, D. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Cape. Thomas | Lansbury, George | Strauss, E. A. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawrence, Susan | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Clowes, S. | Lawson, John James | Sutton, J. E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lee, F. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Livingstone, A. M. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lowth, T. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton. E.) |
| Connolly, M. | Lunn, William | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cove, W G. | MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dalton, Hugh | Mackinder, W. | Townend, A. E. |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | MacLaren, Andrew | Trevelyan, Rt, Hon. C. P. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Viant, S. P. |
| Day. Colonel Harry | Malone, Major P. B. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermiline) |
| Dennison, R. | March, S. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. J. (Rhondda) |
| Duncan, C. | Maxton, James | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Ounnico, H. | Montague, Frederick | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Edge, Sir William | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Murnin, H. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Naylor, T. E. | Westwood, J. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Oliver, George Harold | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Owen, Major G. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Garro-Jones. Captain G. M. | Paling. W. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gosling, Harry | Pethic-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Potts. John S. | Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Riley, Ben | Wright, W. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Ritson, J. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwlch) | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Rose, Frank H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley. |
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after the word "buildings," to insert the words "wholly or partially."
I gather from hon. Members opposite that they do not like these words, but I think that they are right, and they bring this part of the Bill into conformity with the compensation provision of Clause 4, in which in Committee the words "wholly or partially" were incorporated. An hon. Friend desired to include the word "reconstruction," but you cannot have reconstruction without whole or partial demolition. Therefore, the better way of meeting his view and making this Clause coincide with other Clauses is to insert the words of the Amendment. I do not think they will affect at all seriously the right of a tenant to get his compensation. An hon. Member made the suggestion on the last Amendment that if you took three or four bricks off the top of a chimney of an enormous building, that would be partial demolition. With great respect I do not think that a tribunal composed of even moderately intelligent people would accept that view.
§ Mr. HARDIEWould the right hon. Gentleman say that the intelligence of the great legal Bench of this country, which has given decisions, is less than that of the tribunal to be set up under the Bill?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI cannot make any suggestion as to the decisions of a Bench without knowing all the facts of the case as put before the Bench.
§ Mr. HARDIEYou can find that in the Library.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIf the hon. Member can find it, he can study it himself. I am satisfied that a tribunal under the Bill would not come to any such absurd decision as the hon. Member has suggested.
§ Mr. TINKERI oppose the Amendment, as, no doubt, the Home Secretary would expect. I would draw his attention to the Workmen's Compensation Act and to decisions on such a question as to what is a building 30 feet high. When that difficulty has arisen in the case of a more important Measure than this, it can very well be understood that the introduction of the word "par- 106 tially" might lead to difficulty here. The Amendment seems to take away whatever right the tenant may have, and to give the landlord every opportunity of making this Clause ineffective. If this Amendment is important, how is it that it did not strike the Home Secretary when the Bill was passing through Committee? Is it the case that members of the Opposition have been using their influence during the Recess and have brought the right hon. Gentleman's mind to bear on the point? I hope they have not, because during the Committee stage the Home Secretary fought most strenuously to keep the Clause intact.
§ Sir WILLIAM PERRINGI suggest to the Home Secretary what seems to me a better word than "partially." I am sure that the Home Secretary desires a word which is not capable of any misinterpretation, and one which will not act adversely to the tenant. I suggest the word "materially." I do not know what my right hon. Friend will think that "materially" implies, but it seems to me that the word "partially" is capable of the interpretation that where a very slight alteration has been made it would deprive the tenant of some benefit. The word "materially" is less ambiguous, and with its incorporation the instructions to the tribunal would be clearer and more definite. The introduction of such a word would give considerable satisfaction to many people who now look upon the word "partially" with a good deal of suspicion.
§ Mr. BANKSSurely the hypothetical case put by some hon. Members opposite cannot operate in practice. It is suggested that some landlords, by removing a few bricks from an improvement in certain premises, might defeat the right of the tenant—
§ Mr. TINKERThe case I mentioned was not hypothetical at all.
§ Mr. BANKSThere was a hypothetical case put by another hon. Member. It was suggested that a landlord might defeat the right of a tenant to get compensation for improvement merely by the removal of some bricks from a chimney or by some trifling alteration. In practice that will not be so, because the words which my right hon. Friend proposes to insert, "wholly or partially," are subject to the condition that under such 107 demolition, wholly or partially, the improvement will not add to the letting value of the premises. You have to show, before the tenant's compensation can even be reduced, that the improvements have failed to add to the letting value of the premises. If the demolition is of such a character that it has not destroyed the additional value produced by the premises, the right of the tenant to get compensation is not affected. These words "wholly or partially" are quite properly in this Subsection, because they govern the words in the next Sub-section, "no compensation or a reduced amount." It may be that the entire demolition of the premises in ordinary circumstances would mean that no compensation would be paid, but it might mean that half the improvement has to be removed. In that case the compensation would be properly reduced by one-half, and so on, until you come to the very trifling alteration my right hon. Friend mentioned, in which case there would be no reduction of the compensation payable.
§ Mr. SEXTONI have no doubt of the Home Secretary's intention; I have never doubted his good intention. But when he tells us that the tribunal would not come to such decisions as have been suggested, I would supplement the instance quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) by giving the right hon. Gentleman another. It relates also to the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and a case which was argued for weeks and eventually went to the House of Lords. The question to be decided was whether a well, 31 feet deep, down which a man fell, was a building 30 feet high. The decision was given against the man. We have had some experience of these legal definitions and are suspicious of them. Therefore, I think the Home Secretary would be right to use language which really defines what is meant.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESAn improvement has been effected by the tenant, say, by putting in a plate-glass window, and all that the landlord has to do in the future, in order to escape payment of compensation, is to destroy that improvement alone. Under the Bill he has to demolish the property. Under the Amendment he has only "partially" to demolish it. A tenant puts in a claim, and the landlord 108 comes along and says, "No, I will not pay it, because I intend to demolish the property." Take the analogy of the Agricultural Holdings Act. The Home Secretary on the first Amendment said that he intended merely to put the town tenant in the same position as the tenant of agricultural land. But that is exactly what he is not doing. A landlord cannot, by demolishing in whole or in part the improvement made by the agricultural tenant, deprive a tenant of compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act. That was a subject of great debate in 1906 with reference to the case of Colonel Kenyon Slaney. But the law has been altered. Under the existing Acts it is provided that the tenant is entitled to compensation for any improvement he has made, regardless of the fact that that improvement may be of no value to an incoming tenant.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI dislike the Amendment for many reasons. In the first place it is bad English. The Home Secretary is usually a stickler for good English, and he should have seen that this Amendment was made so as to read. I do not know what is meant by demolishing a thing wholly or partially. How can you partially demolish anything? My next objection is, that I do not understand the Sub-section without these words in, and it is made much more difficult by including the words. What are the buildings referred to in the Sub-section? Are they the improvements or are they the whole holding, the old buildings and the new? What is going to be demolished here? As far as I can see, if these words are put in, what may happen is, that the landlord will pull down all the old premises and leave the new additions of the tenant untouched. That will be partially demolishing buildings. What is meant by the words "buildings"? If it is a question of buildings as a whole, if we put in "wholly or partially" obviously what is made possible is that the old buildings will be pulled down and the new buildings left standing, and because of that the tenant will have lost any chance of compensation. Is that really what the Government intend? Complete demolition is understandable, but directly you admit a word like "partially" you give cause for all sorts of counter-claims against the tenant's compensation. 109 It is not a question of whether a tribunal will think the change is material or not. The landlord simply has to prove that partial demolition has occurred and, if he proves that, the tribunal will be compelled to accept this wording. They will be forced by the addition of these words to consider a fact not an assumption. "Has the property been partially demolished?" or as I should prefer to put it in good English, "Has the property been altered or demolished?" That, I take it, is the correct English translation of what this Sub-section would stand for with the addition of the proposed words. If the property has been altered and the tribunal cannot possibly help seeing the alterations, the tenant's claim for compensation is changed. I will not say that his claim vanishes altogether but it will be changed. Therefore, looking at it from the point of view of the lawyer the man is put info a false position because the owner of the premises has altered them or has decided that there should be a change of user. I think it desirable that the Home Secretary should retain his first impressions of justice, sanity and good legislation in this connection. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman defended admirably, in words far better than we can attempt to use, the exclusion of these words in Committee. Now he proposes to accept them. He has been forced against his better intentions. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw these words I will sit down at once.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have listened carefully to this discussion and have consulted my hon. Friends who put forward this Amendment and, if it meets the views of the House—hon. Members know I want to get this Bill—I shall temporarily withdraw the present Amendment and consider between now and a further stage in another place the various words "wholly," "partially," "reconstructed," and so forth, in order to see whether I can find any better wording.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ CLAUSE 2.—(Limitation on tenant's right to compensation, in certain cases.)
§ Mr. MacLARENI beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out paragraph (a).
110 We had a long discussion on this point in Committee and I do not suppose we shall be much more successful now than we were on that occasion. I know that some distinction of this kind must be made in bringing in new legislation, and I am sorry to admit that while moving the deletion of this paragraph we have not put down any words laying down a term of years in retrospect. I will content myself by moving formally the deletion of the paragraph.
§ Mr. HARDIEI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 3, line 1, after the word "improvement" to insert the words:
made in pursuance of a statutory obligation or of an improvement.The effect of this Amendment is that if there is a statutory obligation to make a particular type of improvement, that is an improvement in regard to which the tenant should have no claim for compensation.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out the word "at."
§ This is a drafting Amendment and corrects a mistake in the wording of the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from "willing" in line 24, to "having" in line 23, and to insert instead thereof the words:
lessee other than the tenant would agree to give and a willing lessor would agree to accept for the premises.This is in favour of the tenant. Hon. Members opposite say I am not fair and that I am putting in Amendments which are in favour of the landlord. Hon. Members should recollect that the Minister in charge of a Bill must have a receptive mind. He must be open to the influence of the arguments put before him. I think it is quite clear that the sitting tenant might be able and willing to give a higher rent than anybody else, and that should be left outside consideration in the settlement by the tribunal.
§ Amendment agreed to.
111§ CLAUSE 3.—(Landlord's right to object.)
§ Mr. WITHERSI beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after the word "holds," to insert the words
and will not prejudicially affect the amenities of the neighbourhood.This is the Clause which enables the tribunal to insist upon an improvement being made. The conditions which, according to the Bill as it is now drafted, have to be satisfied are, first, that the improvement is shown to add to the letting value of the property; secondly, that it is reasonable and suitable to the character of the premises; thirdly, that it will not diminish the value of the lessor's other property and, fourthly, that it will not diminish the value of the superior landlord's property. I suggest the addition of the words "and will not prejudicially affect the amenities of the neighbourhood." That proposal I think is in the interests of the public. An improvement might fulfil all the requirements of the Bill and yet it might be greatly against the public interest. For instance, it might be proposed as an improvement in a beautiful country village street to erect a huge chimney—perhaps next to a church and spoiling the view of a place which people came to see and which ought to be preserved. Secondly, I think this proposal is of great importance from the point of view of reasonable town planning. A tenant might be able to say to a landlord, through the tribunal, "I insist upon this or that so-called improvement," and the alteration might be perfectly sound under the particular conditions laid down here, but it might be of such a character as to make town planning quite impossible. I move this Amendment in the interests of keeping the picturesque parts of our country intact and in the interests of town planning.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI hesitated about these words when my hon. Friend the Mover put them before me. We all desire to keep the picturesque parts of the country unblemished and to preserve its amenities, but I ask the Mover to consider what is involved in this proposal. This is a Bill relating purely to landlord and tenant. My hon. Friend wants me to 112 import into the discussion between landlord and tenant of improvements which the tenant desires to make and which the landlord may be quite willing to accept, something which is quite outside the Bill. I am not at all sure, Mr. Speaker, whether I should not call attention to the Amendment as not being within the scope. of the Bill. My hon. Friend proposes that the tribunal should take into consideration the amenities of the surrounding district in regard to private improvements to be made by the tenant with the consent of the landlord or the tribunal. The object of the Bill all the way through and, particularly in the appointment of this tribunal, is to save legal costs. If the Amendment were carried it is clear that the local authority or any body of people interested in the amenities would be entitled to go to the tribunal and to instruct legal representatives and put a great deal of expense on the unfortunate landlord and tenant who might be quite willing to agree to an improvement. They would be compelled to fight a question of taste as to whether a particular improvement was or was not against the amenities of the district.
Let me point out that nine cases out of ten—probably ninety-nine out of one hundred—will be settled by agreement between landlord and tenant. The tenant and the landlord have a perfect right to make an improvement in the property without going to the tribunal at all and it is only in the case where the landlord differs from the tenant that the tribunal is called in and it is only a question of the cost and expense. It is only in those rare cases that the landlord will drag the tenant before the tribunal and only perhaps in one per cent. of the cases would the Amendment have any effect at all. I know my hon. Friend is a purist in the law and, with great respect, I hope I am too; but I think he is wrong in seeking to import into this Bill a proposal of this kind which might perhaps, be inserted in the Town Planning Bill of the Minister of Health but is not I think suitable in this Measure. The tribunal is only set up to inquire whether an improvement is for the benefit of the property or whether it will injure that property of the landlord or other property of the landlord. It is not right to import into the consideration of those questions another matter which involves 113 all kinds of evidence from people in the locality and perhaps from outside. The Automobile Association for example might come along and say, "Our members are fond of going through this particular village and we object to the improvement because it is not in accordance with the amenities." That may be quite right but it is not right in a landlord and tenant Measure and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will see that I have made out a case that the discretion of the tribunal in the purely personal matter between landlord and tenant should not be fettered by any considerations of this kind.
§ Mr. RYEI wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken into consideration the fact that, in the ordinary way, the landlord himself who has respect for the amenities would never allow a proposed alteration or improvement such as has been suggested. In these circumstances, I cannot help thinking that the Amendment is right, and I venture to go further and to suggest that it might be amplified by adding the words
or interfere with or destroy any historical or architectural feature attached to any part of the premises.I suggest that, because I have in mind a case some years ago when a tenant tried to take out an old shop front and the landlord quite properly said, "I object to this. This is the last of the old Heppelwhite shop fronts in the whole of London." It is there to be seen to this day. It is the shop front of an Italian restaurant, and it is a very beautiful work of art; and but for the landlord's refusal, that very beautiful work of art, which should be retained there in situ, would have been destroyed. I can see that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and the tribunal is the deciding factor, the individual of which the tribunal will consist may be a man of no taste whatever, and he may say that Heppelwhite shop fronts make no appeal to him of any kind at all, and that it is a reasonable proposal of the tenant to take out a beautiful work of art and substitute a new one of modern type. I venture to suggest, therefore, that the Amendment as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University should have the consent of the House; and I hope if it does I shall be allowed to add the words I have mentioned by way of Amendment.
§ Mr. TINKERI am wondering whether we are not over-riding the powers of the local authorities. The local authorities have power to sanction plans for the alteration of buildings, and if this Amendment be included, it will over-ride their authority.
§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISONI wonder if the Home Secretary could, as he did in a previous Clause, take time between the passage of the Bill here and its introduction in another place to see if some words could be inserted to meet the point raised, and which at the same time will not encourage litigation or cause an expense to the landlord or tenant by the Automobile Association or some local authority. Would not it be possible after the words "reasonable and suitable to the character thereof" in the Clause to insert "having regard to the amenities of the neighbourhood"? That would be just an indication to the tribunal to meet such a case as that urged by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) to consider that the landlord was not unreasonable in refusing his consent to a particular improvement because it was something which, though desirable from the mercantile point of view, would interfere with the amenities of the district or of the particular building concerned. I quite agree it is very difficult to put words at the moment into this Clause without leading to the difficulty which the Home Secretary indicated; and I think many of us would be very pleased if he could, between now and the discussion of this Clause in another place, consider whether any words, without materially altering the Clause, could be put in which would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) and the hon. Member for Loughborough, which all parties of the House have at heart, namely, that the landlord should not be compelled to give his consent to an improvement which materially alters the character of a neighbourhood like a garden city. It might be very undesirable for all classes if some particular garage or some workshop were put in one of the residential streets. We would be very much obliged if the Home Secretary would take time between now and the Bill going to another place to find some words to meet that point.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI hope the Home Secretary will not be driven into leaving too many matters for further consideration. On this particular Amendment I am certain that my hon. Friends here will want to support anything that will improve the amenities of a neighbourhood, but the case put by the Home Secretary is a fair case. I have considerable experience in acting for the defence committee of a very large trading movement, and we have already quite sufficient handicap in what I may call legitimate building development in town planning schemes. There may be other Members in the House who have similar experience. While I believe that the people for whom I speak would not desire to develop business which would be inimical to the best amenities of a particular neighbourhood, we should view with considerable alarm a Clause like this which would leave in the hands of the landlord of any premises in which we carried on business the power to drag us before a tribunal to settle a question of this sort, and to leave open to other parties, apart from the landlord, a right to raise this particular issue. I have, as a matter of fact, two cases before me in my office of this sort of thing—not affected by a Bill of this kind, but by the Town Planning Act; and while I am anxious not to interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, I suggest that the local authorities have very wide powers in the case of a garden city or any area that has been scheduled, and it would only handicap enterprise and trade considerably if an additional power of this kind were given.
§ Mr. BANKSIf you, Mr. Speaker, have allowed discussion of this Amendment we can take it that it is in order, but it does seem to go rather outside the scope of the Bill. Surely the purpose of the Bill is to regulate the rights of landlords and tenants inter se, and neither to expand their rights nor contract their rights as they are in regard to the general public. It would be a dangerous precedent to introduce into landlord and tenant legislation matters which will take us very far into the question of the rights of public authorities and the public at large.
Marquess of HARTINGTONI hope the hon. Member will leave the Amendment over to be considered later on. It has the effect of allowing the tribunal to say whether they think it reasonable of the landlord to withhold his consent on the ground that the alteration destroys the amenities of the district. I should like to give an example. I have in mind the case of an individual who wants for trade purposes to change his shop front into an appearance of a Moorish kiosk, or something of that kind. In the case of a tobacco shop, that might be an advantage to the tenant for his own particular business, but it would undoubtedly have a serious effect on the amenities of an English eighteenth century street; and I think the House will take the view that in a case of that kind the landlord would be justified in saying: "No, I object to that alteration because it destroys the character of the street."
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI want to make quite clear the difference between the action of the landlord and the tenant combined and the action of the tenant with regard to an outside body. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Withers) will try to draft something and put it to me, I shall be very glad to consider it.
§ Mr. WITHERSI beg to thank the Home Secretary for his kind attention. I will do what I possibly can. The idea was this, that as you are giving statutory powers to a tribunal you ought to limit it in the interests of the public. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
The following Amendment stood on, the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GATES: In page 4, line 29, at the end, to insert the words:
In the event of the tenant agreeing with his immediate landlord that a structural alteration may be made, such alteration may not he made, unless the consent of all superior landlords has been obtained.
§ Mr. GATESWhen I put my Amendment down I had not foreseen the Amendment which stands in the name of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary proposes in page 4, line 37, alter the word "agreement," to insert the words 117
between the tenant and the landlord or landlords affected.I think that that meets my point. What I have in view was that the tenant and the immediate landlord might come to an arrangement behind the back of the superior landlord. That might be awkward for the tenant, because the superior landlord would have rights under his lease and he might bring an action and make himself disagreeable. I think my point is met by the Amendment which the Home Secretary is going to move.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 4, line 37, after the word "agreement," to insert the words:
between the tenant and the landlord or landlords affected.We find there are in London cases of a chain of landlords one behind the other, and that an agreement come to between the tenant and one landlord might not be sufficient, and he would have to make an agreement between himself and the successive landlords in order to get a complete agreement. I think the words I suggest here meet my hon. Friend's case.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 5, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
and where proceedings have been taken before the tribunal, the tribunal shall not make any order as to costs until the expiration of the time so fixed for the completion of the improvement.8.0 p.m.The point which this deals with is this. It has been suggested—I do not think it very often happens in practice—that the tenant might worry his landlord by going to the tribunal and saying, "I want to make a certain improvement," and he brings witnesses and puts the landlord to the expense of bringing witnesses, and obtains an order from the tribunal for leave to make improvement, and obtains an order for costs on the assumption that the landlord has improperly forced him to go to the tribunal. It is quite true as the Bill stands that it would have been open to the tenant to say, "I have dealt the landlord a good blow in the face; I have got an order for costs against him; now I shall not worry about the improvement and I shall not make it." That would be a scandalous state of affairs to be within the provisions of the Bill. It was put before me by 118 a responsible organisation, and therefore I propose this Amendment.What I propose is that the tribunal shall not make an order granting costs until the tenant has made the improvement.
§ Mr. DALTONI am sorry the Rome Secretary has been subjected to pressure from certain organisations behind the scenes to put this Amendment on the Paper. He said he had received representations from a certain organisation of property owners. It would be interesting if he were prepared to give the name.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe National Federation of Property Owners and Ratepayers.
§ Mr. DALTONWe are interested to see the channels—sometimes, I may say, the almost too usual channels—through which things move, and those of us who hoped, when this Bill was introduced, that it would do something genuine for the tenants are getting more and more despairing in view of the way in which stronger and stronger influence is being brought to bear. I regard the Amendment as absolutely unnecessary and as likely to cause a serious grievance to the tenants. A case may arise in which an improvement may take a long time to complete, and the tenant, if the improvement is one which is proper and is going to enhance the value of the premises, is surely entitled to receive some payment on account, as it were, if the period of completion is long. I see no reason for making this very definite restriction. When I remember the way in which a very reasonable proposal, advanced in order to safeguard tenants against hypothetical and perhaps unlikely possibilities of being worried by their landlords, was brushed aside as being completely unnecessary, on the assumption that all landlords were sensible and honest people, it is rather discouraging to find that similar assumptions cannot be made in favour of the honesty of the average shop tenant. I think the Amendment is quite unnecessary and would inflict hardship in many cases on hardworking men who had been endeavouring to improve their premises within the limits of their right to compensation as laid down in the Bill; and we, on this side, shall oppose it.
§ Sir G. HOHLERSurely the speech just delivered has been delivered under a misconception. I thought that no compensation was payable until the end of the tenancy. I do not know of any provision in this Bill which makes compensation payable from time to time during the tenancy. On the contrary, as I understand the whole thing, either the landlord consents or he dissents, and they go to the tribunal, which makes an order. I do not understand that the landlord at that period has to find any money at all. It is at the end of the term that any compensation is payable, and, therefore, it may be said that these words are surplusage.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERThe position put by the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) is very clever, but it does not detract from the case put from this side. It is not the business of this House, in framing legislation, to provide only for the normal case; this House has to cover the abnormal case as well, and it is quite conceivable that under a Clause of this kind really big issues in regard to improvements will be taken to the tribunal, and that very considerable legal charges will he entailed.
§ Sir G. HOHLERI gather that we are dealing with the costs of improvements for the moment. At any rate, it seems to me that the Amendment can only relate to improvements, but these must be made three years before the termination of the lease.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERWhat I say is, that under the Bill as drafted, when you are dealing not merely with the small trader but with large businesses as well, it may be that questions raised by either tenant or landlord will involve quite considerable costs, and that a period may be fixed by the tribunal in favour of a tenant during which the improvement in dispute shall be completed. It may be a very considerable hardship on the tenant in such a case that there shall be no possibility of the tribunal making an order as to costs until the completion of the improvement. That is the whole point that is behind our objection to this Amendment. As I have said, you cannot, when you are drafting a Bill, conceive of all the contingencies that are likely to arise. You may get a very large issue arising in regard, say, to large business premises in the West end of London, 120 and there may be all kinds of difficulties which intervene, from a tenant's point of view, preventing his actually completing his improvement in the time first given by the tribunal. He may lose the whole of his legal costs, because of a decision of that kind, whereas, from the point of view of justice, if the tribunal's decision is, in the first place, in favour of the tenant, surely he ought to be given his costs at once. I hope the House will reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. HARDIEThe wording of the Amendment does not seem to be quite clear. Costs here, read with the other parts of the Clause, would mean costs of improvements, whereas there may be costs quite apart from improvements. If we are going to be fair to the tenant who comes to the tribunal under any head of improvement, the moment that decision is given the question of costs should be dealt with finally, because, if you have some lease that extends for seven or 10 years beyond the date of the decision as to costs being given, what you seek to do now is to carry forward those costs until the end of that lease. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to alter this Amendment.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI think I might make a slight improvement here. I can understand the point raised by the hon. Member opposite, that a tenant would not know whether or not he was going to get his costs. The point that I made in my opening remarks was that it would not be fair to allow the tenant to pocket costs from the landlord, and then to say, "I have changed my mind, and 1 am not going to make the improvement at all." That, clearly, would be wrong, and I suggest that when proceedings are taken, the tribunal may suspend the execution of any order as to costs until the expiration of the time given for completion of the improvement. They would give the order and tell the tenant he would have his costs, but suspend the execution until he had made the improvement. I think it is clear that he is not really entitled to take the costs unless he is bona fide going on with the improvement.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)I think the best procedure would be for the Home Secretary to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and then to move it in another form.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI will do that.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 5, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
and where proceedings have been taken before the tribunal, the tribunal may suspend the execution of any order as to costs until the expiration of the time so fixed for the completion of the improvement.That leaves the matter in the hands of the tribunal, and either party can apply to the tribunal again, which, I think, would meet all possible doubts.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the consideration he has given to what was said from this side, though I do not think it quite meets the whole point that I put. I would have preferred that the order for costs should be made subject to completion of the improvement. It would then be much more certain that the tenant who gained the day would get his costs, and if he were in an embarrassed financial position, it would be easier for him to raise money. At the same time, I am obliged to the Home Secretary for his consideration.
§ Mr. G. JONESI agree with the Amendment, but the question of costs is provided for in Sub-section (4) of Clause 20, where it says:
Subject to rules made by the Reference Committee the costs of any proceedings before the tribunal shall be in the discretion of the tribunal, which may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid, and the tribunal may in any case disallow any costs which the tribunal considers to have been unnecessarily or unreasonably incurred.I would suggest, with respect, that it is better to keep the subject of costs in one Sub-section, instead of having a portion of it in one part of the Bill and another portion of it in another part. Personally, I think Subsection (4) of Clause 20 is sufficient without any Amendment at all. The tribunal has ample power to deal with oppressive applications by tenants, but if it is desired to put in an Amendment, I suggest, in the interests of good draftsmanship, that it should be done in the appropriate part of the Bill.
§ Mr. GARDNERI hope this Amendment will be withdrawn, because while 122 I recognise the validity of the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary in a specific case, one's experience of the ordinary Rent Acts now in operation is that there are some landlords who will always resort to litigation, because they know that their tenants are victims of economic circumstances and are unable to meet the liabilities which litigation entails. Take the case of a shopkeeper who applies to his landlord for permission to make a bona fide improvement. He feels convinced that the improvement is necessary and will be advantageous to his business, but nevertheless the landlord refuses consent, and thereupon he goes to the tribunal, which decides against the landlord. Let it be assumed that the tenant has counted upon accommodation from a bank or from a friend or from a moneylender to make the improvement. The tenant might subsequently find himself in the position of not being able to carry out the improvement. Is he then to lose the advantage of having proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he was entitled to make the improvement, and to lose the costs, as he would do if the Home Secretary's proposal were accepted? That would be deplorable; and in view of the Home Secretary's opening observation that he had been subjected to pressure from the National Federation of Property Owners—
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI did not say that.
§ Mr. GARDNERYou accepted the implication.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI said I had received representations. I have received many representations. I have received two to-day. Representations have come to me on many points, and it is my duty to receive them and to consider what they say.
§ Mr. GARDNERShall I say, "You received them very favourably?" That is the point. Judging by this little white leaflet, you have apparently received many other people very favourably. The whole purpose of this Bill is to give justice to the tenant, but I suggest that by this proviso you are going to create an injustice, and I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
124§ The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 115.
125| Division No. 317.] | AYES. | [8.20 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Gates, Percy | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Albery, Irving James | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Pennefather, Sir John |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Grace, John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Apsley, Lord | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Perring, Sir William George |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Atkinson, C. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Balniel, Lord | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Preston, William |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Hammersley, S. S. | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Barclay-Harvey C. M. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Radford, E. A. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Hartington, Marquess of | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Remer, J. R. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Haslam, Henry C. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Hawke, John Anthony | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Berry, Sir George | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Hilton, Cecil | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Rye, F. G. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Savery, S. S. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Huntingfield, Lord | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hurd, Percy A. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hurst, Gerald B. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Casseis, J. D. | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Christie, J. A. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Clayton, G. C. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Cope, Major William | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Couper, J. B. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish universities) | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Tinne, J. A. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Livingstone, A. M. | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Long, Major Eric | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Looker, Herbert William | Ward Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Lumley, L. R. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Wells, S. R. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Dixey, A. C. | McLean, Major A. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Drewe, C. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Malone, Major P. B. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Edge, Sir William | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Margesson, Captain D. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Meller, R. J. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Merriman, F. B. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Withers, John James |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | |
| Forrest, W. | Morden, Colonel Walter Grant | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Captain Lord Stanley and Mr. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Penny. |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hayday, Arthur | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hayes, John Henry | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smillie, Robert |
| Baker, Walter | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Snell, Harry |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Kelly, W. T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Briant, Frank | Kennedy, T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Broad, F. A. | Kirkwood, D. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromfield, William | Lansbury, George | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Bromley, J. | Lawrence, Susan | Sullivan, J. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lee, F. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Buchanan, G. | Lowth, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cape, Thomas | Lunn, William | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) |
| Charleton, H. C. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Clowes, S. | Mackinder, W. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cluse, W. S. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Compton, Joseph | March, S. | Townend, A. E. |
| Connolly, M. | Maxton, James | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Cove, W. G. | Montague, Frederick | Vlant, S. P. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Murnin, H. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Naylor, T. E. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Webb, Rt Hon. Sidney |
| Dennison, R. | Paling, W. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Duncan, C. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Dunnico, H. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Westwood, J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Potts, John S. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gosling, Harry | Riley, Ben | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Ritson, J. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Rose, Frank H. | Windsor, Walter |
| Groves, T. | Scrymgeour, E. | Wright, W. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Scurr, John | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Sexton, James | |
| Hardie, George D. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley. |
§ CLAUSE 4.—(Compensation for goodwill.)
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, to leave out the words "from year to year" and to insert instead thereof the words "terminable by notice."
This Amendment and the next two Amendments on the White Paper are intended to provide a proper definition of the two classes of tenancies which are dealt with. In paragraphs (a) and (b), a distinction is drawn between tenancies from year to year and tenancies for a term of years. This is not a correct distinction having regard to the law under which leases for life may be determined by notice.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made:
§ In page 5, lines 18 and 19, leave out the words "to quit."
§ In page 5, line 20, leave out the words "the case of a tenancy for a term of years" and insert instead thereof the words "any other case."—[The Solicitor-General.]
126§ Mr. ATKINSONI beg to move, in page 5, line 24, after the word "to" to insert the words "be paid by his landlord."
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALMy hon. and learned Friend's Amendment seems to me merely to say at greater length what I think is the intention of the Clause, but I am willing to accept this Amendment subject to my right to revise it later on.
§ Mr. ATKINSONThe same words are to be found in Clause 1.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI would suggest the insertion of the words "to be paid compensation by his landlord for goodwill."
§ Mr. ATKINSONThe words I have suggested have been taken from the corresponding Clause in the Bill. If a reference is made to Clause 1, Subsection (1) of this Bill you will find there the words "to be paid by his landlord compensation in respect of any improvement."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) read, and I will put the Amendment as it has been moved.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYHere we have an example of the difficulties which I pointed out at the beginning of the Debate this afternoon. The House has been asked to accept words without having had any opportunity of reading them, much less studying them. Consequently, we do not know exactly to what we are assenting. I understand that the leaders of the Opposition have had a copy of these Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I know there has been some conversation between the representative of the Government and the Mover of this Amendment. The representative of the Government admits that he has not seen the words which he is now asking the House to insert in the Bill, and besides this there seems to be a little difference of opinion between you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the Solicitor-General regarding the words which ought to be inserted. We are not quite clear as to the words used by the Mover of the Amendment which have been accepted by the Solicitor-General. I protest most emphatically against this method of procedure.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House proceeded to a Division. Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON and Mr. PENNY were nominated Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Member willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERSir Philip Pilditch.
§ Sir G. HOHLERMay I point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have an Amendment in line 24, following the word "goodwill"? I handed it in some days ago to the Home Secretary.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThat comes after the Amendment of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch).
§ Sir G. HOHLERMy Amendment is in page 5, line 24, after the word "goodwill," to insert the words 128
but excluding from such goodwill anything that is attributable to the situation of the holding.This Clause is one which proposes to give compensation for goodwill to a tenant whose tenancy determines if he has been a tenant for seven years—
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member has handed in an Amendment, but it is put down as being in line 34. Do I understand that it is in line 24?
§ Sir G. HOHLERIt should be line 24.
§ Mr. WHITELEYOn a point of Order. Is the Opposition not entitled to have some idea of these Amendments? We have no knowledge of them whatever, and it is absolutely impossible to follow them.
§ Mr. LEEMay I point out that the Home Secretary has an Amendment in line 25 in almost identical terms?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERWe are discussing this Bill in circumstances of considerable difficulty, but it often happens on Report that manuscript Amendments are put in, and, of course, in existing circumstances, there is more reason for them, after the long Recess, than usual. Technically, I should be entitled, I think, to refuse to take the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, but, as its being put down in line 34 instead of in line 24 is obviously purely a lapse, I am not disposed to refuse it. I would, however, suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should read it out slowly at the beginning of his speech, and again at the end.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYOn the point of Order. I submit to you that it is customary for the Chair and for the Leaders of the Opposition to be furnished with copies of such Amendments. In the discussion on the last Amendment, I pointed out exactly this difficulty. Now we do not know where we are. We do not know whether this Amendment will be in line 24 or in. line 34, or whether it will be prior or subsequent to the Amendment we have just adopted. I again appeal to you, Sir, to protect the House against these indignities, and to see that the House is in possession of data that will enable it to arrive at an intelligent conclusion on the questions that are being submitted. I submit that the House 129 is not being properly treated, and I protest against this Amendment being taken at all.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI see no question of indignity that arises, though I do see questions of inconvenience. In all the circumstances, however, as the Bill has been set down for consideration to-day, and Parliament has not been sitting for three months, I do not think I can refuse Amendments which read, merely on the ground that they have not appeared in print; but, undoubtedly, the position is rather a difficult one, and I would ask the hon. and learned Member to be as explicit as he can.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI beg to move,
That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.I do so in order that the House may have an opportunity of having these Amendments printed and properly considered.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALThe circumstances in which this Bill has been put down for to-day are that the House was supposed to be anxious, as I believe it is, to proceed with the Bill, and it has been put down, accordingly, on the earliest day on which we resumed. Certain difficulties are, no doubt, inherent in the position in which we find ourselves, as some hon. Members have had no opportunity, or, at least, not a long opportunity, in the latter part of the Session, of putting down Amendments; but such difficulties are made to be overcome by people who want the Bill to go through, and those who do not wish the Bill to go through can, naturally, use those difficulties to suggest that its further consideration should be adjourned. I am not able, on behalf of the Government, to accept this Motion, and I hope we may be allowed to proceed with the consideration of the Measure.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASIt is perfectly true. I believe, that the majority of the House desire this Bill to go through, but that does not necessarily mean that the Bill should go through in an imperfect form. What is far more important is that the House should know exactly what it is passing. The only object of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is that we shall be able to apply ourselves 130 intelligently to a proposal that has been made. I submit. that we cannot apply ourselves intelligently to something that we do not understand, and the only object of my right hon. Friend is that the House itself may know exactly what it is discussing. I can quite understand that the hon. and learned Member who is responsible for this Amendment may do his very best to elucidate his proposal, but I do not think for a moment that he will claim that it would be as intelligible as if it were before us and we knew exactly what it meant.
§ Sir G. HOHLERI do not agree with that.
§ Mr. THOMASThat is to say, the hon. and learned Member believes that he is far more intelligent than anything he could put on paper. That is the only possible interpretation that can be put upon his interruption.
§ Sir G. HOHLERThe intelligence must precede the paper.
§ Mr. THOMASThat, however, is not the point that we are discussing. The object of this Motion is not to block the progress of the Bill, or to retard it in any way, but to ensure that the Members of the House of Commons, when they explain to their constituents what they were doing, will be able to say, "We did it with a full knowledge of all that it meant, of all its implications, and were quite sure as to its results." I cannot conceive of anyone taking exception to a situation of that kind and I am sure the Solicitor-General must feel himself embarrassed. He above everyone else has a moral, apart from a legal, responsibility. He has not the remotest notion what the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say. [Interruption.] That makes it worse. That is what I suspected. The Solicitor-General says, "Never mind what the rest of the House may feel about it, I am quite clear because I have already got it in front of me."
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALThe only reason I have it in front of me is that I paid attention to my hon. and learned Friend, and took his words down as he spoke them.
§ Mr. THOMASI accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, but we are not all shorthand writers. More- 131 over, those who know the hon. and learned Gentleman are quite satisfied that he will not say the same when he gets up next time. The Solicitor-General is the one person above all others to whom we have to look for guidance, the one person who has to say, as Law Officer of the Crown, "I have given careful and mature consideration to this proposal," and when the Question is put he will say, "In the time at my disposal, I think so-and-so, but do not pin me to a definite opinion." The people in Lancashire say that what they say to-day the world will say to-morrow. We apply that to Bristol, and in this case I cannot understand the hon. and learned Gentleman doing other than welcoming the commonsense proposal of my right hon. Friend. For all these reasons, I hope he will say, "This is an important matter; there is a great legal point involved, and, as Law Officer of the Crown, mature consideration compels me to agree to the Motion."
§ Captain GARRO-JONESIf we could project ourselves into the right hon. Gentleman's mind, I think the rejection of this Motion is not due to his desire to support the Bill but to his desire for the convenience of the House. I submit that the interests of the Bill ought to come before the interests of the House, and for the very reason that I am a supporter of the little this does for the tenants, I am supporting the Motion for the Adjournment. There is a White Paper that is supposed to have been sent to every Member of the House. I have not received a copy to begin with, and there
§ are others who have not received it. Even if we had all received it, is there any precedent for dealing with an important Bill in this way? Has there ever been a case where an important Bill like this has been set down for the first day of the Session and a White Paper full of Amendments been circulated to Members in some cases, and not in others, before the Bill comes on? If there be such a precedent, I should like to know something about it. I am very suspicious about all these Amendments. I have not had time to go into them. To take one example, the present Amendment proposes that compensation for goodwill should not be given if that goodwill arose out of the position of the holding. It seems to me that any sort of goodwill could be claimed on the ground that it arose out of the position of the holding. In every goodwill that was ever conceivably created, the position of the holding must have played a very important part. It is obviously a wrecking Amendment. It is going to detract from the few things that it proposes to do for the tenants, and goodness knows it is little enough as it is. There are many similar Amendments on the White Paper. The Solicitor-General is not able to weigh up the merits as they are brought forward. There is peril in every one of them, and I support the Motion, in the interests of the tenants, that the Debate should be adjourned until we know where we stand.
§ Question put, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 207.
133| Division No. 318.] | AYES. | [8.53 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hardie, George D. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Dalton, Hugh | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Hayday, Arthur |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Hayes, John Henry |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston) | Day, Colonel Harry | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Baker, Walter | Dennison, R. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Duckworth, John | Hirst, G. H. |
| Barnes, A. | Duncan, C. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Edge, Sir William | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Briant, Frank | Fenby, T. D. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) |
| Bromfield, William | Gardner, J. P. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Bromley, J. | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Gibbins, Joseph | Kennedy, T. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Gosling, Harry | Kirkwood, D |
| Buchanan, G. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lansbury, George |
| Cape, Thomas | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Charleton, H. C. | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lawson, John James |
| Clowes, S. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lee, F. |
| Cluse, W S. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lowth, T. |
| Connolly, M. | Grundy, T. W. | Lunn, William |
| Cove, W. G. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) |
| Mackinder, W. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Viant, S. P. |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Sitch, Charles H. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| March, S. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Maxton, James | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Montague, Frederick | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Murnln, H. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Welsh, J. C. |
| Naylor, T. E. | Snell, Harry | Westwood, J. |
| Oliver, George Harold | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Paling, W. | Stamford, T. W. | Whiteley, W. |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Stephen, Campbell | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Potts, John S. | Sullivan, Joseph | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Sutton, J. E. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Riley, Ben | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Ritson, J. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Windsor, Walter |
| Rose, Frank H. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Wright, W. |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Thurtle, Ernest | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Scurr, John | Tinker, John Joseph | |
| Sexton, James | Townend, A. E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Charles Edwards. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Lumley, L. R. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Lynn, Sir R. J. |
| Albery, Irving James | Everard, W. Lindsay | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Fielden, E. B. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Apsley, Lord | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Atkinson, C. | Forrest, W. | McLean, Major A. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Bainiel, Lord | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Ganzoni, Sir John | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gates, Percy | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Margesson, Capt. D. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Grace, John | Meller, R. J. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Merriman, F. B. |
| Berry, Sir George | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Morden, Colonel Walter Grant |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Duiwich) | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hammersley, S. S. | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Pennefather, Sir John |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Haslam, Henry C. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hawke, John Anthony | Perring, Sir William George |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Pilcher, G. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hilton, Cecil | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Preston, William |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Christie, J. A. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Radford, E. A. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Remer, J. R. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Cope, Major William | Hume, Sir G. H. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Couper, J. B. | Huntingfieid, Lord | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Hurd, Percy A. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Hurst, Gerald B. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Rye, F. G. |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Savery, S. S. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Drewe, C. | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Long, Major Eric | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belf'st.) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Looker, Herbert William | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Tinne, J. A. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Wallace, Captain D. E. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Storry-Deans, R. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Styles, Captain H. Walter | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. | Withers, John James |
| Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Warrender, Sir Victor | Womersley, W. J. |
| Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Tasker, R. Inigo. | Watts, Dr. T. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Wells, S. R. | |
| Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | Major Sir George Hennessy and |
| Mr. Penny. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Sir G. HOHLERThe Adjournment of the Debate was moved by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), and I am not sorry he moved it. I equally protest that these Amendments were not printed; still I voted against him. I did my best to get my Amendment printed. Last week I wrote a letter addressed to the Clerk at the Table. I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to get it printed, but it all failed. However, there it is. I think that time has not been wasted by what the right hon. Gentleman has done, because since he objected to these manuscript Amendments I have read the White Paper, and he will be pleased to hear that I have found in page 6 that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has an Amendment to Clause 4, page 6, line 25, to insert the words:
and shall disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises.That will do for me very well. I thank him, and I shall not move my Amendment.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it has been ruled an abuse of the Rules of the House to speak on an Amendment and then not to move it.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI submit that it is altogether against the custom of this House to refuse the Adjournment in order that we may have an Amendment printed and then for the Mover of the Amendment to come and contemptuously say to the House, "I am not going to move it."
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI have just expressed an opinion on that point.
§ Sir P. PILDITCHI beg to move in page 5, line 26, after the word "title," to insert the words, "since the commencement of the tenancy."
The object of this Amendment and a few other Amendments to the same effect 136 which stand on the Paper in my name, is to make it clear that "predecessors in title" in the Bill are the predecessors in title of the tenant of the holding in question. That is what the Bill is, no doubt, intended to mean. I understand there is some legal authority for the belief that these words, taken without qualification, might include owners of some other interest than that of the tenant himself; and it is with a view to making that clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that I propose this Amendment and the other Amendments which will follow shortly afterwards. I have put down as an alternative an Amendment to Clause 24, which is the interpretation Clause of the Bill, to add these words, which will define what "predecessor in title" means:
The expression 'predecessors in title' means any person through whom the tenant has derived title whether by assignment, by will, by intestacy or by operation of law.If my right hon. Friend agrees that that is the best way of dealing with this point, then I shall not move either of the Amendments which stand in my name dealing with the words stated and shall leave the matter till the interpretation Clause comes up and deal with it then. I rather hope my right hon. Friend will agree to that.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERDo I understand that the hon. Member moves or not?
§ Sir P. PILDITCHYes, Sir, I do move, subject to the suggestion I have made. [Interruption.] I thought I had explained that it is desirable that the term "predecessor in title" should be made clear. I do move the Amendment.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI have looked at the Amendment which my hon. Friend proposes to move in Clause 24, page 21, line 42, defining predecessors in 137 title, so as to make it quite clear who are included in the expression. When that Amendment is moved I propose, or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes, to accept it. In these circumstances, perhaps my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment now.
§ Sir P. PILDITCHI am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODAre we to understand that the Amendment which is to be accepted by the Solicitor-General in the interpretation Clause carries out the purpose of the Amendment which the hon. Member has now proposed? If so, it is most dangerous. Does the House appreciate what the words mean? if the words now proposed by the hon. Member were accepted, the trade would have had to be carried on by the predecessors in title since the beginning of the lease, and any change in the business would vitiate the claim for compensation for goodwill. Goodwill can be claimed for a period of not less than seven years; but seven years is obviously in the majority of cases much less than the length of the lease. If the hon. Member now is to put in a provision that the predecessors in title since the commencement of the tenancy must have carried on the same trade, it means that in most cases the words "for a period of not less than seven years" will be utterly futile. The tenancy may have to have been carried on 99 years. I hope the Solicitor-General is not accepting an Amendment which will in any way vitiate the right of the tenant to secure compensation for goodwill if he and his immediate predecessors for seven consecutive years have carried on the business.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend at once that there is no such intention. The intention is that if the business has been carried on by himself or his predecessors in title for seven years compensation, subject to the terms of the Act, shall be payable. The only question is as to what precisely the term "predecessors in title" means. Is it to include the landlord, or is it to include persons from whom he derives his title by assignment, or something of that nature? I can give the hon. and gallant Member the assurance which he desires most explicitly.
§ Sir P. PILDITCHIn view of that statement, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir W. PEPPINGI beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out the word "seven" and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
When the Bill passed its Second Reading there was no qualifying period in it enabling the tenant to secure compensation if he complied with Clause 4. I very much regret that any period has been put in the Clause. The Government, in view of representations, moved an Amendment in Committee to make the term five years but, unfortunately, they were defeated and the term seven years was inserted. The principle of the Bill is that where the tenant can prove under Clause 4 that he has added to the value of the premises and, if I might use the language of the Home Secretary, "the landlord might walk off with it," the landlord should compensate him. I submit that there is no qualifying period because first of all the tenant has to prove that he has created goodwill before he can even be entertained by the tribunal. If he can prove—I do not say that he can prove it—that he has created goodwill in twelve months, the principle of the Bill should entitle him to have the benefit of it. It is not a question of five years or seven years, it is entirely a question of the landlord enjoying some advantage as a result of the efforts of the tenant in creating goodwill.
In suggesting seven years we are going to inflict in a good many cases a serious hardship on tenants who hold yearly tenancies. Men who have been in occupation for five years may then receive notice from their landlord to quit under the terms of this Bill and be deprived of advantage, even although they can comply with Clause 4 and prove to the tribunal that they had created a goodwill with which the landlord would walk off. I am sure that the Government have no desire to do that and that they have no desire to inflict a hardship on the poorest class of tenant who may be taken advantage of by his landlord. I realise that even if we insert a term of five years it will be possible for the landlord to make terms with his tenant for five years to-day and by that means deprive the tenant of the 139 advantage of the goodwill, if he has created one. I do ask the House to narrow down in some measure this seven years term and bring the advantages of the Bill to people who will not enjoy them if the term remains at seven years. In view of the fact that the Government recommended the Committee to accept a period of five years, I suggest that they should now ask the House to accept what they could not secure in Committee, and thereby confer a benefit upon a considerable number of small tenants, yearly tenants, and less than yearly tenants, who if the period of seven years operates will be deprived of an advantage which they would otherwise get.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI beg to second the Amendment.
I can understand the reasons which may have prompted the insertion of some words fixing a period of years, although I think it would have been better to have had no term of years inserted. I can understand that there might be some point in the contention that frivolous applications might be made and that the tribunal would be overweighted with applications from tenants who had only used the premises for a short time, and that the time of the tribunal might be taken up in that way; but I suggest that seven years is far too long a period. Five years is a very considerable time, and that would rule out any frivolous cases. Perhaps some hon. Members who have not read the Bill may imagine that it is proposed in all cases to give compensation to the tenant, whether it be in respect of seven years or five years, on account of goodwill. That is not the case.
The tenant in every instance has to prove that the goodwill has actually been created and is attached to the premises. Some tenants will create goodwill very quickly, and others may create no goodwill at all even though they may be there for five, seven, 10 or 15 years. It is the tribunal which has to decide the question. What the House has to settle now is whether any case shall lie before a tribunal unless at least a tenancy of seven years has taken place. I suggest that that is entirely unreasonable. If a tenant who has only been in occupation for five years or six years is able to show that during that time he has created con- 140 siderable goodwill and that that goodwill is attached to the premises, the fact that he has not been in the premises more than that period ought not to be a bar against his being heard before the tribunal, and, if he can prove his case, getting compensation under this Clause.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERALThe difference between five and seven years is obviously not of very great importance. I am not sure that a five years' goodwill is worth much to anybody. There may be cases now and then in which goodwill after five years may be worth a small sum, but I do not think there are many such cases. I should have been prepared to do whatever the general sense of the House suggested as between five and seven years but for one fact. There was a long discussion in the Committee upstairs, and two votes were taken on the matter. On each occasion there was a majority in favour of seven years as against five. The actual votes were in the one case 16 to 6 and in the other 14 to 9. It is no part of my duty to throw over lightly a decision of a Committee, come to after very considerable discussion, unless there is a strong opinion in the House that five is a better figure than seven. As the Committee upstairs thrashed out the question, in detail, and as seven years was deliberately accepted by the Committee, I submit to the House that it is better to adhere to the decision of the Committee; that after a much shorter and less satisfactory discussion the House should not depart from the figure.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI wish on this occasion we could be favoured with a document containing the printed arguments put forward by the representative of the Government when they move in Committee that the period should be five and not seven years. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General says that there is very little in it, but that was not the tone adopted by the Government when the Bill was before the Committee. He now tries to shelter himself behind the decision of the Committee and says that if there is a strong view expressed in the House in favour of five then the Government would accept it. Of course, the Government would have to accept it or resign. But what we are interested in is not so much how we are to impress the hon. and learned 141 Gentleman's mind, but how he proposes to lead the House. I submit that it is the duty of the Government to give a lead to the House on an important question like this. It is not enough to say, "We will accept the decision of the House." We want to know the view of the Government. If you accept five years and delete seven years you will bring into the provisions of the Bill, and any benefits there are in it, a large number of very poor and worthy people. It is the large wealthy capitalists who can afford to maintain premises over long periods of years. The small shopkeeper, as a rule, is often in insolvent circumstances during the course of seven years. We want to protect small shopkeepers from rapacious landlords. The Government want to exclude as many people as possible from the provisions of the Bill. I shall vote for the Amendment, and I cannot see how a Government with any credit to itself can refuse to accept the protection of the House against interested parties who upstairs compelled them to accept a decision they did not want.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYI desire to appeal to the Solicitor-General to allow us to have a free vote on this question. I served on the Committee upstairs dealing with this Bill and I know something about the manœuvres that took place in order to get the seven years inserted. We were told by the representative of the Government that the period in the Bill would be five years, and those of us who had the interests of the tenants at heart were prepared to accept that as a compromise. A certain section of my own party, who were in persistent opposition from the very beginning, tried all they could to get 14 years inserted, and then they said that as a compromise they would accept seven years. I know that the Home Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, had a very trying day—he had more than one trying day—and I can quite understand his saying, "Let seven go," in order to get the matter through. I think the House has a right to a free vote on this matter, and we can then take it as the decision of the House. It is not fair to ask us to take the decision of the Committee, secured by a certain small section, as a decision by which the House must stand.
§ Sir W. BULLDo hon. Members really suppose that any goodwill can be created 142 in five years' time? Hon. Members opposite talk about goodwill being created in a year or two. It could be done by a very popular owner of a shop, but the moment that owner goes out the goodwill has gone. I do not believe there is a single person who believes that anything like a valuable goodwill, or anything worth paying for, can be accomplished in a period of five years, and I suggest we should stick to the compromise of seven years.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESIt is not difficult for us on this side of the House to understand why hon. Members opposite cannot see how any goodwill can be created in five years. They have been labouring to create goodwill in the country for the past three years and have been singularly unsuccessful. Those who know how logical the Solicitor-General's arguments usually are were surprised to hear him say that, because the Committee upstairs came to a certain decision, this House on Report stage ought not to alter that decision. If that be so, what reason is there for a Report stage at all if the decision of the Committee is to be held out as an argument why we should not alter it? I should like to know on what grounds the right hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) says that no goodwill can be created in five years. What is goodwill? It is nothing more or less than the habit of certain citizens going to one shop for their produce rather than to another. It may be because they like the personality of the proprietor, or because it happens to be 50 yards nearer than the next shop. But in any case it is a habit, and it is a habit which can be entered into after five months or 12 months. Goodwill is created progressively, from the moment the tenant commences business. If the principle be accepted that goodwill after 20 years must be credited to a tenant in negotiations with his landlord, then, logically, he should have a proportionate credit for goodwill created in one year or two years. I think five years is an extremely reasonable period, and I shall support the Amendment. I hope the Solicitor-General will leave it to a free vote of the House.
§ Mr. G. JONESI hope the Government will leave this matter to a free vote. When the Committee upstairs came to a decision on this point less than one 143 half the members were present. There were 60 members on the Committee and only 25 to 30 were present. I entirely agree with the observation that a lot of manœuvring went on by those who were systematically opposed to the Bill throughout the Committee. The idea of putting a period in the Bill came from those who tried to wreck the Measure. The Government themselves wanted no period; there was no period in the Bill. The Government were right, and I am extremely sorry that they tried to compromise. It only shows the folly of trying to compromise. The Government suggested five years, and immediately the anti-Bill elements, realising they were in a majority in the Committee, rushed through seven years. It is a wonder they did not rush through 14 years. The argument that you cannot create goodwill in five years leaves me quite cold because, if you cannot create goodwill, then there will not be any compensation payable. Why should there be all this fuss to protect the landlords from having to pay compensation for goodwill unless they fear that compensation is payable? If the tenant does not create goodwill, he will not get compensation. If he does create goodwill in five years, it is contrary to the principle of the Bill that he should be deprived of compensation. It is wholly unjustifiable that he should be deprived of compensation by a provision of this sort carried in the teeth of the Government by snap Divisions.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe question before the House at the moment is the rather humiliating one of whether enough of us can speak to impress the learned Solicitor-General with the fact that the House cares enough to induce him to take off the Whips. He has admitted that the only reason for opposing this Amendment is that it was carried against the Government upstairs.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI said that in the absence of a good reason for preferring "five" to "seven"—which I am bound to say I have not heard yet, although hon. Members have expressed their personal views—I thought it reasonable to stand by the Committee's decision. Until I hear some good reason I shall not alter my opinion.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI am glad to hear it is an open question still with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure he sees clearly the advantage of no period at all over seven years. The whole basis of this Amendment is that goodwill should be paid for, and that the man who has created goodwill and can prove that he has done so should be compensated. This is not a question of expediency but of justice, and those who say that all the people who can prove they have created goodwill but have not been in a place five years should not be compensated are actuated not by justice but by a desire to save the landlords from a number of perfectly justifiable claims. The House will agree that goodwill can be created in a very short time. Undoubtedly every Member of this House goes to the same tobacconist, paper-shop, provision dealer and chemist. They probably do not know the name on the shop, but they go to the tobacconist at the corner, or the chemist across the road. The fact that that shop has been there a certain time creates a goodwill for that class of business at that particular spot. Whether that goodwill can be estimated and proved to the satisfaction of the court is another matter. It certainly can be created in less than seven years. Of course, it is not merely a question of situation. If the shop you go to supplies good chocolates you go to that one in preference to another one and go to it year after year. Sometimes you effect a change when the account you have run up is rather more than you can liquidate, but, normally speaking, you go on dealing with the same shop.
If it be just to compensate for goodwill when the tenant has been a long time in occupation, it is equally just to compensate when he has been a short time in occupation. Of course, in nine eases out of 10, the man does not want to shift at the end of his lease but wants to keep the same business on. Under this Bill he is provided with a feeble lever to enable him to continue his tenancy and to get a re-lease of the premises. It is not usually a question of the landlord claiming hard cash; it is a question of the tenant, with this Bill behind him, saving to a landlord, "If you do not give me a re-lease on terms I am prepared to pay, then I shall go to the Courts and demand com- 145 pensation." That man ought to be supported by this House. We know the cases of injustice that have occurred through a man working up a business and then being turned out. Leave the small chance those men have here to use the pressure of a claim for compensation for goodwill to induce the landlord to grant a fresh lease of the premises.
§ Mr. ATKINSONAlthough I am in favour of this Amendment, I am convinced there ought to be no period at all. At any rate, it ought to be a very short period. My reason is that it is so easy for a landlord to drive a coach-and-four through this provision as it stands. If you have a seven-year period, there will be no more seven-year leases after this Bill passes. By agreement among the landlords there will only be six and a half year leases, and the moment the term is up then another will be granted. You may say that if a five-year period is fixed, there will be four and a half year leases. That is not so likely, because the landlord, after all, wants a reasonable period, and is far more likely to grant leases of over five years than under five years. Take away the period altogether and you do away with all these difficulties. My objection to any period at all is that it enables a landlord to drive a coach-and-four through the Bill by granting leases shorter than the period.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNThe Solicitor-General said he had heard no good argument in favour of the Clause. There are two or three very good reasons in favour of it. One is that the Amendment will more nearly carry out the original intention of His Majesty's Government in drafting the Bill, and will do it in favour of that class of tenants, the small tenants, who most need protection of that kind. Secondly, I would point out that the Government representative himself on the Committee stage moved an Amendment providing for a period of five years. Unfortunately for the Committee that day, and for the tenants holding short leases, the Home Secretary was not present. The House is entitled to hear his views on this question. Unfortunately for the tenants, too, the representative of the Government was rather weak in his speech. He said that this Amendment had been agreed to in principle, and it was highly probable that goodwill would 146 not arise when the tenant had been in occupation for a short period only. It was a question of whether it should be five or seven years. He could go as far as seven years if the Committee thought it desirable, but he would be glad to hear the views of the Committee before they came to a decision. In other words, he was asking, as we are asking the Solicitor-General now, for a free vote on this matter. The Government themselves have no opportunity of making up their mind as to what the time limit ought to be. Then I come to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chorley (Captain Hacking), and I find that in summing up the discussion he said this:
I think it might be a reasonable compromise to accept five years because those who have been speaking for the tenant have advocated three years, and those who speak for the landlord have advocated seven years.I suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that that is a powerful argument in favour of five years, because it comes midway between the contention of the one side and that of the other. With regard to the point made by the right hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) about short tenancies and goodwill, I would call attention to the fact that the Home Secretary supplied the Standing Committee with a very delightful suggestion as to the way in which goodwill can be built up in a short time. He was talking about going home at night:I may say that when I lived on that line I went home sometimes with a good pineapple, and my wife would say the following week, 'We have some friends coming in to dinner; do buy another pineapple.' Thus the goodwill of this shop may be of two kinds. There is the personal goodwill owing to the ability of the man to carry out his business perhaps better than a greengrocer in the immediate neighbourhood. Secondly, there is to some extent the site goodwill attaching to the particular spot, which the man could not move."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, (Standing Committee B), 31st May, 1927, col. 304.]The point is that a man may have a site which is a good site and which he himself makes valuable because he is a keen business man and puts an attractive proposition before his clients. He is the very man who might to have full advantage of the original intention of the Government. I hope that either the Government will accept the proposal for five years or leave the matter to a free vote of the House.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI have had the privilege of having had reported to me while I was snatching a frugal snack the eloquence that has been used on this question, and I have had the advantage since I came into the House of listening to the hon. Member opposite. I have a suggestion to make. Nearly everyone wants this Bill. I think that even those who say that it does not go as far as it might go would like to see the Bill passed. The House has discussed this question at considerable length. If I let it go to a free vote of the House, may we take the decision at once? I should be quite willing in that case not to put on the Government Whips.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "premises" in line 29 to the end of line 30, and to insert instead thereof the words:
by reason whereof the premises could be let at a higher rent than they would have realised had no such goodwill attached thereto.We come to a very important question here. Under the provisions of Clause 4 the House will see that the person who wants to get compensation for goodwill has to prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal "that by reason of the carrying on by him or his predecessors in title at the premises of a trade or business for a period of not less than five years goodwill has become attached to the premises, which will in the absence of arrangements to the contrary be of pecuniary advantage to the landlord." The House will notice the words "pecuniary advantage to the landlord." In Committee there was a long discussion in trying to find out how this could be settled. As I have said, the whole foundation of this Bill is not that the tenant is to be compensated for his loss. There may be a very large loss indeed to a tenant in giving up possession of his premises. The basis of the Bill is to remedy an evil which has been complained of for many years, in London and elsewhere in country towns, that the landlord was able, at the termination of a lease, to appropriate to himself the goodwill created by a tenant who had carried on business in one of these shops.As was said on Second Reading, everyone knows that a goodwill is built up in 148 every well-conducted shop by every well-conducted and hard-working shopkeeper. At the end of the tenancy, up to now, that goodwill disappears. The tenant has been bound at the end of the lease to clear out if the landlord desired it, and the landlord has been at liberty the following morning to let the shop to someone carrying on a business similar to that of the departing tenant. It is quite clear that if the incoming tenant was in the same business as the outgoing tenant, he would appropriate to himself a certain proportion, if not the whole, of the goodwill built up by the first tenant. Of course part of it would go to the landlord, who would be able to get a higher rent from the new tenant than from the old. We have to find some method of preventing the landlord appropriating to himself for his own pecuniary advantage, that goodwill which the landlord has done nothing whatever to create but which is the creation of the outgoing tenant. After a great deal of consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the best way of making this really fair between the parties is the Amendment which I have moved. It is a plain and straightforward way of arriving at a decision. It is suggested to the House after very full consideration by my legal advisers, and I think it will give the benefit neither to the landlord nor to the tenant, and will be perfectly fair.
There is the simple case of the pineapple and of the fruiterer who built up-quite a good business by his strict attention and industry. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye), who interrupts me, is a very bitter opponent of this Bill, and he is trying to put into my mouth things which I do not intend. The question of the station yard in quite a different matter. Here is a shop, anywhere you like, in the City of London or in the outskirts of London, where a man by attention to his work has built up a good fruiterer's business. It may be rented for 14 years at £100 a year. When the tenant goes out it may very likely be that that goodwill will be taken by another tenant, because customers who have been to the shop regularly under the old tenant will continue to go to it under the new tenant, assuming that the business remains as good. The landlord may be able to get £200 a year for the premises. He may not have a higher offer than £150 from a 149 butcher or baker or anything of that kind. If, however, a butcher is prepared to give £200 a year, it is prima facia evidence that the goodwill of the outgoing fruiterer is of no value. The goodwill of the fruiterer would be of no value to the butcher. I am assuming for the moment that he would be prepared to pay the same rent as any other fruiterer. If by reason of that goodwill the landlord was able to collect a higher rent than the premises would have realised had no such goodwill attached thereto, that I think is the measure of the compensation which the landlord ought to pay to the tenant. I have thought this subject out with care, and I have tried to put the matter carefully and fairly between the two parties, and I submit that the words which I now propose to insert are fairer and simpler than the other words, and that they are words which will be easily understood by landlord and tenant.
§ Mr. RYEI have no objection to the Amendment provided it does in fact carry out the intention of the Home Secretary. He told the House on Second Reading, and repeated it on no less than nine occasions during the Committee stage, that if the landlord let the premises for another purpose and did not attempt to take advantage of the goodwill, then there was to be no payment of compensation. With that view I am in agreement. I also agree—in consequence of correspondence I have had with the right hon. Gentleman—that if the landlord were deliberately to take a lower offer from a person carrying on the old trade, then, as the Bill is drawn, compensation should be paid, but I hope it will be made clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment carries out his intention. As I read the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman is merely asking the outgoing tenant to go to the tribunal and prove the obvious. All the outgoing tenant has to do is to say to the tribunal that the premises were worth more by virtue of the fact that he had carried on a fruiterer's business there for 21 years than they would have been worth had there been no fruiterer's business there. That would be stating the obvious, and the result would be that the tribunal would be forced to award compensation even in a case 150 where the landlord had not let for the purpose of a fruiterer's business, and even in a case where the landlord had actually pulled down the premises or intended to pull them down. I do not think any Member of the House would desire to see a landlord who had never attempted to take the goodwill, who had done no harm to the tenant, mulcted in compensation even where he had pulled down the premises. That is the point which I wish to emphasise, and I suggest that a manuscript Amendment which I have handed in would make the position clearer, particularly if taken in conjunction with the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of other hon. Members on page 6 of the White Paper—in page 6, line 25, at the end to insert the words:
(e) No award of compensation shall be made if the landlord proves:(i) That he has let or intends to let the premises for a trade or business other than that carried on by the outgoing tenant.(ii) That the premises are required for occupation by himself or by his wife or by a son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age for the purpose of carrying on a trade or business other than that carried on by the outgoing tenant.(iii) That he intends to pull down or remodel the premises.(iv) That vacant possession of the premises is required in order to carry out a scheme of re-development.(v) Where the landlord is a Government Department or a local or public authority, or a statutory or public utility company, that the premises are required for the purposes of the Department or authority, or of the undertaking of the company.Provided always that if the award of compensation is refused by the Tribunal on any such grounds as aforesaid the Tribunal may make it a condition of refusal that if the landlord except in circumstances beyond his control fails to carry out his intention within such period as may be fixed by the Tribunal the landlord shall pay such compensation as would but for Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, have been awarded by the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall on application by the tenant fix such compensation accordingly. Provided further that notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-clause (e) hereof the Tribunal shall be entitled to award compensation if the tenant satisfies the Tribunal that the landlord is not acting or has not acted with the bona fide intention of utilising the premises to the best advantage, but for the express purpose of avoiding a claim for compensation.It does away with my fear and also with the fear expressed by the Home Secretary that there might be an unscrupulous landlord who would deliberately let the 151 premises at a lower rent than he was receiving from the tenant carrying on the old business to some other trade or business and so cheat the outgoing tenant of his right to compensation. The Amendment set out on page 6 would cover both those fears whether they be real or not. To take my proposed Amendment, I have put down the following: "In page 5, line 29, to leave out from the word 'premises' to the end of line 30, and to insert instead thereof the words'by reason of which the landlord had let the premises to another tenant for the carrying on of the same trade or business as that of the outgoing tenant at a rental in excess of that offered by or obtained from another tenant requiring the premises for a different trade or business, or in the absence of any such offer in excess of the rental which in the opinion of the tribunal the landlord could obtain if he let for any other purpose whatever.'
§ Mr. G. JONESIs that different from the Home Secretary's Amendment in any respect except that it is longer?
§ Mr. RYEIn my view, all that the tenant need do under the Home Secretary's Amendment is to state that which is obvious and prove what is obvious to the tribunal and get an award. Under my Amendment, he has to show that the premises would command a higher rent than from any other trade or business. If he can show that and can then show that the landlord is seeking to let for another trade in the circumstances indicated the claim for compensation would lie. That point should be made clear beyond the shadow of a doubt. No doubt the Home Secretary will tell me that the provisions already made dealing with the question of demolition or change of user cover the point, but I do not think it should be left in that vague form. It should be made quite clear as is set out on page 6 of the printed Amendment that no award for compensation shall be made if the landlord proves that he has the intention to let to another trade; that he requires the premises for the occupation of himself, his wife, his son or daughter; that he intends to pull down or remodel the premises; or that possession of the premises is required to carry out a scheme of redevelopment. If that Amendment is inserted in the Bill, there will be no doubt whatever; if such words are not put in, we may find that a landlord who has not taken advantage of the tenant in any way, who has pulled 152 down the premises or has let them for an entirely different trade, will have to face a claim for compensation. Members of the House in all parts I am sure would consider that a grave injustice and it would not be in accord with the statements of the Home Secretary and particularly his statement on the eighth day of the Committee proceedings. I hope therefore, the Amendment will not be accepted, but that another Amendment in the form I have suggested will be found acceptable by the House.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI am sure that we had to listen very carefully to understand all that is implied by the manuscript Amendment suggested by the last speaker. But I do not want to comment on that. I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is important, from the point of view of traders who have acquired premises and become landlords during the period of a tenant's lease and want to take the user of the premises when the lease has expired, that there should be a really adequate interpretation in the Bill of what is meant by pecuniary advantage to the landlord. I appreciate that the Home Secretary has tried in this Amendment to lay down what shall be in the view of the tribunal the actual pecuniary advantage to the landlord, but in the whole of his explanation to the House it seems he was visualising all the time only one class of landlord, and that was the class of landlord who enters into the original lease. He is not visualising a class of landlord who would buy the premises, which are leased by the sitting tenant, during the course of the lease with the intention as soon as the lease has expired of entering into occupation, not of necessity for carrying on the same class of business, but perhaps for quite another purpose. It is quite clear in another Clause of the Bill that the Government have made some provision for alternative user, but it seems to me that they might do something to say what would be the actual pecuniary advantage to the landlord in the sort of case I have put to him, so that there shall be no doubt or confusion when the tribunal comes to adjudicate upon the matter.
I want to make it perfectly clear that while I am thinking of the very large interest with which the Home Secretary knows the Co-operative Members are concerned, and who have continually in order 153 to deal with the extension of their business to acquire large properties which are in the course of lease to the sitting tenant, I do not want to suggest anything to the House which would be in any way inimical to the structure of the Bill, or to the genuine interests of the sitting tenant. We are anxious that we should have some better definition in the Bill as to what is pecuniary advantage to the landlord, a landlord who has bought premises in the middle of a lease with the object of taking the premises for genuine business purposes—not necessarily the same class of business—and what should be proved to the tribunal in such a case. I cannot see that the words of the Home Secretary can be applied except in a case where the landlord intended to relet the premises on the expiration of the lease.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESUnder this Bill, the landlord can destroy the goodwill of a professional man or a trader, and there is no protection either for the professional man or the trader. An analogy has been drawn with the agricultural tenant, but the Bill does not extend to the town tenant the protection which has been given to the agricultural tenant. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act there is provision for compensation. When the landlord determines a tenancy, the tenant of the farm can get compensation. There is no protection here for the tenant, but there is every protection for the landowner against any claim which is made by the tenant for compensation.
May I come back to the question of goodwill. I remember the discussion on Second Reading when an hon. Member opposite gave his own experience of where shops were let at a nominal rent to introduce customers into that particular locality, and when that was effected the landlord claimed the right to put up the rent, not because he was going to let the premises for the same trade or same purpose, but because in the meantime a goodwill had been created in the district. I think there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion that goodwill attaches to the property and not to the person. The hon. and learned Member opposite just now suggested that it was a case of whether or not a man was a good fellow, but I would remind him that the legal definition of goodwill has nothing whatever to do with persons, but has to do with the prob- 154 abilities of the customer returning to the same premises—not necessarily to the same business. I do suggest that the provision here is quite inadequate to meet the case of the town tenant.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HARDIEThe last speaker made reference to goodwill resting in the property, and we had an echo of that in the approval from the other side. The goodwill is something that does not belong either to the property owner, the tenant, or what is called the intermediate landlord. The goodwill belongs to the community absolutely, and I want to make this quite clear. We have been told that you cannot have a goodwill in seven years. Some say five years. Suppose you take communities that have grown up within the last two years. I know of two areas, one of 500, and the other of 700 houses. They are both new areas. As soon as the houses were occupied, the shops began business. The goodwill exists the moment these houses become occupied, because they are dealing with the nearest shop, but that goodwill is not a value that can be claimed by the owner of the property, the owner of the land, or the shopkeeper. That value comes from the fact that there you have a community of people creating a value and that value ought to go back to the people who created it. If you take the site of a shop near a station, how can anyone say they claim the goodwill? The railway company has as much claim as the man in the shop. The whole thing becomes something that can be divided and split in every way until you give it a real basis which is that these values belong to the community. The goodwill belongs to the community. It is created by them, and when we come into power, and it will not be very long, we shall see to it that a big sense of justice will apply to all the work we put in in this House.
I was surprised that the question of multiple shops was not brought up in the Debate. We all know the effects of the multiple shop in a single street, and how it has power to determine exactly what takes place. What protection is this going to give in such a case? None. There is no protection here at all for the man who really has need for it. Apart altogether from the question of goodwill and the question of site, the question of the 155 protection of a man interested in a business should be dealt with. I speak from an experience in London extending now over four years, but including a very intense two months spent in finding out the details of this Bill in Committee. I find that things might improve if you were dealing direct with the landlord, but when you come into the hands of agents, God help you. I have had enough experience in 10 weeks in London, in connection with looking for a house, to prove to me that the whole of what I call the low-down grievances between landlord and tenant are due more to the agent than to the landlord.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 5, line 39, to leave out the word "value" and to insert instead thereof the word "addition."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. If the House will look at proviso (a), they will see that the words are:
the sum to be awarded as compensation … shall not exceed such addition to the value of the holding,and then, lower down, it says:in determining such value the tribunal,whereas it ought to read:in determining such addition.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 5, line 41, after the word "different," to insert the words "and more profitable."
The point is, that if the landlord is going to let premises either to be demolished or to be used for a different purpose, it is too wide, and having regard to the words inserted just now in regard to goodwill, I think it should be:
used for a different and more profitable purpose.As I said when we were discussing the question of claims for improvements after demolition, similarly here I think it would be right that if the landlord is going to utilise the premises, not altogether for a different purpose, but for a different and more profitable purpose, either to himself or to the public interest, then he would himself receive no benefit from the gift of the goodwill that remained in the premises, but for 156 another reason, it may be the improvement of the whole district, which enabled him to get a higher rent. I am afraid the tenant would not be entitled, under the Bill as drawn, to any compensation from the landlord, because in that case it would be clear that the landlord was using the premises for a different and more profitable purpose than that of letting to my hypothetical fruiterer, but the landlord should not in those circumstances get any goodwill from the fruiterer who had previously carried on the business. If the landlord gets no pecuniary advantage by reason of the element of goodwill left by the fruiterer, I am afraid, under the provisions of this Bill, it is right that he should, not be entitled to receive compensation.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 6, line 7, after the word "willing," to insert the words "and able."
The House will see that the tenant is not entitled to compensation for goodwill if the landlord serves on the tenant notice that he is willing to grant to him a renewal of the tenancy. He might say he was willing to grant it, but he might have so short a term himself that he would not be able to grant it. Therefore, I propose to insert the words "and able." It has always been put to me that what the tenant really prefers more than compensation is an extension of his lease. Therefore, if the landlord, though he might not himself be able, having a short term, is able to get from his superior landlord power to grant a lease of 14 years to a tenant, that would be more advantageous to the tenant than any mere pecuniary compensation, and I think it would be to the advantage also of the landlord, who might not be able to produce the large sum of money necessary to pay the tenant compensation, but who would, at the same time, be able, either himself to grant, or to obtain a grant of, a new lease to the tenant.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 7, after the word "tenant," insert the words "or to obtain the grant to him of."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 6, line 25, at the end, to insert the words: 157
and shall disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises.I am sorry to move all these Amendments, but I promised from time to time, during the very long and exhaustive Committee stage upstairs, to consider various points, and I promised the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) to consider this point. We had a very grave discussion, in which hon. Members opposite took part, and particularly the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who spoke a little time ago, on the subject of ground or site value, as to how far the goodwill was attributable to the industry and energy of the tenant or how far it was merely attributable to a tube station coming next door or to the general rise in value of property in the neighbourhood. It may be due to both. The hon. Member for Cambridge University will realise that a shop which has been carried on by a fruiterer outside a tube station may have a goodwill and an additional value given to it partly from the industry of the tenant and partly from the fact that the tube station has come there and brought a very large amount of business to it. Therefore, I think there is justice in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University, and I propose, if the House agrees, to insert there the words that the tribunalshall disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises.That would mean that the value derived from the energy and ability of the tenant who has built up his fruiterer's business by his own industry and energy could be made the subject of compensation by the landlord, but that the value attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises would not be taken into consideration by the tribunal.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI wish to oppose this Amendment, principally for the reason that we are putting upon the tribunal a burden which it is perfectly impossible for any judicial machinery to bear. Let us consider what this tribunal have to take into account. They are, first, to have regard to the operations of the tenant, and then they are to disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises. How can they possibly tell how much of the value is attributable to the 158 one matter or to the other? I submit that by these directions as to what has to be regarded and what has not to be regarded, which have been piling up, one after another, we are putting upon this body an impossible burden and imposing obligations such as no tribunal can satisfactorily fulfil. It would be very much better that things should stand as they are at present in the Bill, where the tribunal are told what they must have regard to and thereafter are left with discretion to say what they think relevant and what they think irrelevant. If we try to think of every possible contingency which may arise and tie up the mind of the tribunal so that they cannot apply a free and unfettered judgment, using their discretion, to the actual facts, then I think the whole machinery of this Act will break down.
Apart from that, I do not believe it is possible for a tribunal to ascertain what is the value attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises. How is it to be done? How is that value to be divorced from the rest of the value? You will find when you come to analyse it that the question of the situation of the premises and the question of what has actually been attributable to the energy of the tenant are indissolubly bound together. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will not press this Amendment, but will leave the Measure as it stands. Already the tribunal have enough statutory directions to make it almost impossible for them to come to any conclusion. There will be endless more opportunities for argument, and that will increase the costs, because every one of these directions as to value or absence of value will mean more evidence, and then in turn more contradiction of that evidence, and there will be more difficulty in the working of the scheme. We ought to hesitate before we burden further a scheme already overburdened with machinery.
§ Mr. WITHERSAs I have been the villain of the piece, so to speak, I think I ought to try to justify this Amendment. Under the present law goodwill which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises belongs to the landlord. If this Amendment be not inserted that goodwill will pass to the tenant. As a matter of fact, it does not belong to either, it belongs to the community. It 159 is a very poor law which takes property away from one person to whom it does not belong and gives it to another person to whom it does not belong. That is one argument; and I put forward a further argument. Some day a party will come which will try—and in my opinion properly try—to tax this unearned income. Just look at what will then happen if you do not accept this Amendment. When you go to the landlords and try to tax them they will say, "Tax us! Why should you tax us? We have paid for this. It belongs to the tenant. You must tax the tenant." A nice chance that party will ever have of getting anything out of the tenants! This will not wash; it will not be possible. The only thing to do is to exclude the goodwill which is attached only to the premises; I think that on consideration everybody will agree that there is no alternative.
§ Mr. HARDIEThe speech to which we have just listened confirms our suspicions of this kind of Amendment. It has already been admitted that the additional value really belongs to the community but the hon. Member who has propose this Amendment has never done anything to secure that value for the community. The only result of this Amendment will be to lay down that the tenant will not have any claim to the goodwill, and it leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the landlords. In the ordinary way, the landlord will say: "This is a good site," and he will use that fact as a lever by which to obtain a higher rent. If this Amendment really sought to take that which has been created by the community, it would place things in such a position that neither the landlord nor the tenant would get the benefit. As a matter of fact, this Amendment really strengthens the hands of the landlord. At the present moment, there is a contention with regard to the value of the site and the value of the premises from a trade point of view, but if this Amendment is carried it only places the tenant more in the hands of the landlord. There is no question as to whether it is a good or a bad site, but it is a question of the situation of the property. This is really the most reactionary Amendment that has been placed before us. It is simply a proposal which plays into the hands of the landlord, and if 160 we are going to vote upon it, I hope it will be left to an open vote of the House, and in that case I am sure that the good sense of hon. Members will wipe out this Amendment.
§ Mr. G. JONESI agree with the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) to the effect that this Amendment will put upon us an almost impossible task. This point has already been dealt with in the previous Sub-section, and we have accepted an Amendment defining goodwill as something which has become attached to the premises by reason whereof the premises could be let at a higher rent. That is quite intelligible. You consider the value of the premises without the trade and the value of the same premises with the trade. That is a plain proposition, and it is followed up by the provision made in paragraph (a) of the proviso in Subsection (1), which provides that:
The sum to be awarded as compensation for such goodwill shall not exceed such addition to the value of the holding at the termination of the tenancy as may be determined to be the direct result of the carrying on of the trade or business by the tenant or his predecessors in title.I hope the Home Secretary will take the view that the directions to the tribunal have already been given and can easily be understood. It is almost impossible for any tribunal to say what is the value attributable to the situation of the premises. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds that every one of these directions means more expense and increased complications. If we have a clear definition to the effect that the tenant is to be compensated for his business, it is far better than having these hair-splitting points which make the administration very much more expensive. I hope, therefore, that the Government will withdraw this Amendment, as being quite unnecessary and only adding to the difficulties of the Measure.
§ Sir G. HOHLERI hope that the Home Secretary will not withdraw this Amendment. It will be within the recollection of the House that, having at a late moment discovered this Amendment, I withdrew an Amendment of my own in favour of it. We are confronted by these figments which never really exist in practice—difficulties which we think no 161 tribunal can determine, though the description is generally modified by saying that they are exceedingly difficult to determine. Taking the law without any question of unearned increment duties, which may or may not come in our time, I venture to say that it is only just that the direction should be given to the arbitrator or referee as to how he is to ascertain what is to be the compensation. One knows that in great thoroughfares in London, like the Strand, the value of the goodwill is only due to the passersby and to the fact that a good commodity is sold. The instance of a fruit shop was given in Committee. I do not know that particular fruit shop at Cannon Street Station, but I know other fruit shops at stations. To whom do they belong? To limited companies. And whom do they put in? A manager. That is the only way in which they can do it. The landlord is the railway company, and it is the people hurrying to the train, and having no time to shop elsewhere, who call in for their fruit, or it may be their fish, or other articles of that kind which they desire to take home.
Why should not that belong to the railway company? Why should the whole of this turnover, which is entirely brought about by what the railway company has done, be given to the tenant? It is really on the probability of doing trade and the situation of the premises that the rent is paid. If the whole of that is given to the tenant, and he is allowed to bring it into his goodwill, it means taking from the landlord practically the whole value of his property. I submit that that is most unjust, and I welcome this Amendment of the Home Secretary. If it be not carried, I wonder what the position of any landlord might be. This subject is always discussed on the assumption that all landlords are rich and well-to-do, but that is not always the case. I will undertake to say that this Measure will affect the poorer landlords—people who have invested their savings in small properties, and let out shops to tenants and are living on the proceeds—to a greater extent than it will affect the bigger ones.
I cannot conceive of any principle upon which this Amendment can be validly excluded. It is a direction to the referee. Where would be the difficulty? He would, I suppose, examine the books, and ascertain who are the regular customers to whom goods are sent at a distance, and 162 probably he would say that that is not attributable to the situation of the premises. But suppose that a man can produce no books, but simply shows a number of cash transactions and does not know the names of the customers, who buy the goods and walk away with them. I should have said that that was solely due to the situation of the premises, and had nothing to do with the tenant at all. Therefore, so far from thinking that this would make matters more difficult, I think it would be easier. When this matter was discussed in Committee, I believe the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) was present, and he never spoke against the Amendment. It may be that he voted against it: I do not know; or it may be that he was not present; but we put forward our views in support of it. Now the Home Secretary has introduced this Amendment to meet the views expressed by the Committee, and, as I have said, I withdrew my Amendment earlier in favour of this Amendment, although I should have liked to have left out the word "exclusively," so that it would read:
and shall disregard any value which is attributable to the situation of the premises.I think that that would be fairer; but the Home Secretary has gone to the trouble of using the word "exclusively," which is in favour of the tenant. I hope he will adhere to his Amendment, and will, if necessary, press it to a Division.
§ Mr. DAVID REIDI quite appreciate what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend, but this short Debate has had one prominent result. We have had a repudiation of the idea that it is possible to estimate the value that attaches to any premises by reason of the situation. That is the basis of the whole of the land taxation policy of the Opposition. That policy has been repudiated officially from the Front Bench, and that is the best proof that you are dealing with an impossible problem. We have had agreement from the Opposition Front Bench and I suggest that, both sides being agreed that they are asked to estimate something that it is impossible to estimate, the Amendment should be withdrawn.
Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAMBULLERI hope the Home Secretary will stick to his Amendment. The object 163 of the Bill seems to be quite clear—to prevent the landlord from taking part of the goodwill which has been built up by the tenant. With that object I am in complete sympathy. We are dealing now with a goodwill which is not in any way built up by the tenant, but is merely applicable to the situation of the premises. That is a totally different case which was never contemplated by the Bill. But the other question arises, whether it is necessary or not to put in this Clause for the guidance of the tribunal. A good many attempts were made in Committee to define goodwill, but every attempt failed. As it is impossible clearly to define goodwill under the Bill, it is all the more necessary to explain as far as possible what is the intention of the Government. Hence the advisability of putting in the Clause for the guidance of the tribunal. For these reasons I hope the Home Secretary will stick to the Amendment.
§ Mr. MacLARENThe hon. Gentleman has spoken of the difficulty found in defining goodwill in the Committee. I tried to disintegrate these two somewhat mysterious elements, one called goodwill and the other called site value. I do not know that I would not rather accept the words proposed by the Home Secretary in view of the discussions on the Finance Bill later on. I am only intervening now because I want to press home the lesson. I am utterly opposed to any tenant receiving something for what he is pleased to call goodwill which is entirely site value, but I fail to see that any words included in this Bill are going to disintegrate these two elements. I rather agree that they were both one thing, namely, site value. I do not know how far my colleagues on this side of the House are going on this matter, but for reasons which I have already hinted at, I would rather support the Home Secretary and allow the words to remain.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. GATESI beg to move. in page 6, line 25, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
but no compensation for goodwill shall be payable in the case of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors when the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused.I can conceive that it would be very hard to put upon a landlord a claim 164 for compensation when his tenant had so conducted the house, either by doing an illegitimate business or by carrying on the business contrary to the law and so getting the licence refused and the value of the premises to the landlord seriously impaired. I submit that it would be contrary, not only to all right and equity, but to the best interests of police administration and licensing administration that any claim should be allowed under the circumstances. I hope the Home Secretary may see his way to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI think, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend who has been to see me and has talked this matter over with me—and I suggested an Amendment to him—his Amendment is quite unnecessary. If the licence has been taken away for any cause at all the landlord gets possession of the premises which has no licence and which cannot be used for the goodwill by anybody but the licensed victualler. The goodwill is for the licensed victualler, and as the licensed victualler cannot use the premises because the licence is taken away, it is clear there is no goodwill where compensation should be granted. The words, if put in, would, in my humble judgment,, only complicate the Bill, and I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The following Amendment stood on, the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RYE and other hon. Members: In page 6, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
§ (e) No award of compensation shall be made if the landlord proves:
§ (i) That he has let or intends to let the premises for a trade or business other than that carried on by the outgoing tenant.
§ (ii) That the premises are required for occupation by himself or by his wife or by a son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age for the purpose of carrying on a trade or business other than that carried on by the outgoing tenant.
§ (iii) That he intends to pull down or remodel the premises.
§ (iv) That vacant possession of the premises is required in order to carry out a scheme of re-development.
§ (v) Where the landlord is a Government Department or a local or public authority, or a statutory or public utility company, that the premises are required for the purposes of the Department or authority, or of the undertaking of the company.
165§ Provided always that if the award of compensation is refused by the Tribunal on any such grounds as aforesaid the Tribunal may make it a condition of refusal that if the landlord except in circumstances beyond his control fails to carry out his intention within such period as may he fixed by the Tribunal the landlord shall pay such compensation as would but for Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, have been awarded by the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall on application by the tenant fix such compensation accordingly. Provided further that notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-clause (e) hereof the Tribunal shall be entitled to award compensation if the tenant satisfies the Tribunal that the landlord is not acting or has not acted with the bona fide intention of utilising the premises to the best advantage, but for the express purpose of avoiding a claim for compensation.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) and other hon. Members would make the Clause quite unreadable.
§ Mr. WITHERSI beg to move in page 6, line 32, after the word "authority," to insert the words "or a charity."
The object of this Amendment is to put charities, by which is meant universities, colleges and public schools not run for profit, on the same basis as statutory or public utility companies. I should like to point out that ex hypothesi, it is not a question of compensation for goodwill. My suggestion is that as these bodies are for public benefit and cannot carry on a business, they should be in the same position as public authorities, statutory or public utility companies. There is really nothing more to say than that.
§ Mr. G. JONESI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI accept the Amendment.
§ Sir W. PERRINGI am rather surprised that my benevolent Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) should introduce such an uncharitable Amendment on behalf of a charity. They are appealing every day to these tradesmen for their charity, and they now turn round and suggest that they should have preferential rights over ordinary individuals. It means this, that the charities are going to impose a compulsory contribution on tenants whether they desire it or not. The tenant is entitled to compensation under the Bill; if 166 he is not, he will not receive compensation; but having established a claim for compensation, he is to be asked to waive that claim because his landlord is a charity. I cannot understand the Home Secretary so readily accepting this Amendment and permitting a charitable organisation to inflict an injustice upon the tenant. There is the case of a tenant who has established a goodwill. Under the Bill he is entitled to compensation, but it is now suggested that because it is a charity it should be privileged to take from the tenant something that he has created, and let the premises for an enhanced rent. It enables a charity to get away with the advantage which a tenant has created and pay no compensation. It enables a charity to let the premises, if they so desire, for an increased sum, thereby gaining an advantage at the expense of the tenant. I am sure my benevolent friend has no desire to do that.
§ Mr. WITHERSIf my hon. Friend will allow me, that is not so. The Clause will read:
where any Government Department, or a local or public authority, or a charity.The reason for the Amendment is this. Suppose a house adjoining one of the colleges at Oxford or Cambridge is wanted for the actual extension of the college, they will be able at the expiration of the existing tenancy to take it and use it for that purpose.
§ Sir G. HOHLERI rather think this is going too far. If I recollect rightly, when this Bill was introduced in the House a question was directly put as to a Government Department and we were told that they would be treated just as other members of the community. I can see no reason why, if the Bill is sound in principle, a Government Department or a public utility society, or anybody else, should be treated in a different way to any other landlord. These charities are always claiming, and no doubt rightly, that they are doing great public work. We have often had the case of charities put in regard to relief from Income Tax. Take the case that has been put for this Amendment. I am speaking on the assumption that this Bill is just, but I must not necessarily be taken to affirm that. On the assumption that the Bill is just, what is to happen? Apparently a charity is entitled to support itself on 167 what it receives from its tenants, and I do not suppose that a charity is more charitable to its tenants than any other landlord, and then, for some reason, they determine the tenancy. In such a case, why should not they pay compensation to the tenant? A disability is to be created in respect of the tenant of a charity. Under this Clause it is provided that a Government Department or a local or public authority or other like bodies may determine their leases and escape the burden of paying the compensation which this Bill is throwing on other landlords. The Clause says:
Where any Government Department, or a local or public authority, or a statutory or public utility company have, in pursuance of the powers contained in the lease, terminated the lease by resuming possession of the premises for the purpose of the Department, or any other Government Department, or of the authority, or of the undertaking of the company, or where premises the tenancy whereof has expired by effluxion of time are required for any such purpose no compensation shall be payable under this Section.There is no limitation in that paragraph with respect to a charity requiring premises for their own purposes. If I wanted to make more money for the purpose of the charity and I saw the opportunity of doing so, I could say "Gentlemen! We will determine the lease. We can make more money by doing so." Such a course might be permissible if language in any loose way is to be admitted. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers). I know what he has in his mind. He is thinking of collegiate charities and so on, but I submit that they ought to be treated just as any other landlord.I deplore this Clause. On the assumption that this Bill is just, it is unfair that because a tenant who happens to be under the Crown or under a local or public authority or a statutory or public utility company is to be subjected to a disability, that disability, is to be extended to the tenant of a charity. Surely they ought to bear their just obligations. I suppose it is too late to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. I think there is some collusion between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cambridge University. They are always patting one another on the back. 168 The Home Secretary gets up and says, "I accept this," although we are trying to keep him right. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to accept the Amendment and we know that the Government Whips are on, it is impossible for us to carry our point.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 6. line 38, after the word "authority" insert the words "or of the charity."—[Mr. Withers.]
§ CLAUSE 5.—(Right to new lease in certain cases.)
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in page 7, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words "entitled to claim" and to insert instead thereof the words "he would be entitled to."
This is rather a technical drafting Amendment. At the beginning of Clause 5 it says:
Where the tenant alleges that, though entitled to claim compensation . . .It is clear the words "though entitled to claim" are not the right words. The whole world could claim. I propose to insert the words, "though he would be entitled to claim compensation." It is a more correct and stronger expression. He must satisfy the tribunal that he would be entitled to compensation under Clause 4 before he can be entitled to go for a new lease under Clause 5.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir G. HOHLERI beg to move, in page 7, line 24, at the end, to insert the words "but such new lease shall in no case exceed the landlord's interest in the premises."
§ Mr. MacLARENWhich landlord do you mean?
§ Sir G. HOHLERThe immediate landlord of the tenant. I submit that that is just and that if you do anything more you are creating not only a novel departure but one which will prove the ruin of many and in my opinion will mean the destruction of progress in building and improvement. No one can doubt that in our lifetime London has been enormously improved. If this Bill had existed no such progress would in my opinion have been made. Take the case of a man who has the fag end of a lease and who wants to sell the business. He may assign the 169 residue of his term to some new tenant who may thereupon claim under these Clauses for a lease saying that he prefers it to compensation. In other words, with only a short term remaining of an old lease, he can go into possession and demand a renewal as against not only his immediate landlord but as against the owner of the reversion.
If there are a number of lessees intervening between the owner of the reversion and the man who is claiming the lease, this tenant who has got this short lease may claim not only compensation but a new lease. I submit that that is an innovation which we ought not to pass lightly. Who has ever heard a proposition advanced that it is just that a tenant should have a right as against the man who is not his landlord at all? He can enter into his bargain. He can inquire, when he is negotiating with his immediate landlord, "What is your term? Five years? That is not enough for me, and I will not take it." It may be six years or ten years or anything else. The man is quite enabled to do that. He knows that he has taken premises for a short term, and that at the end of the lease he will have to go out. Now he can claim that his short lease can be converted into a term of 14 years. What an injustice that is! It does not end there. There is the right of the tenant to goodwill up to the date of the renewal, and yet he can create a new goodwill against the new landlord after the 14 years have expired. So you are encumbering a property which has been let on a long lease, which has come to an end; you are encumbering a property in the hands of the reversioner after the 14 years term, and there is the liability to pay for goodwill at the end of that term. It is most unjust.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThere is hardly time to answer the speech of my hon. and learned Friend. If the words of the Amendment were inserted they would knock the bottom out of one of the most important Clauses of the Bill. You might have one landlord behind another. It is impossible to say that a lease of possibly three days should be compensated for goodwill. Under the provisions of the Bill notice should be served by one landlord on the other, and the tribunal may decide what length of lease should be awarded by the two landlords in conjunction. I can see no real hardship in that proposition, and I hope the House will agree that the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend would be a knock-out to one of the main provisions of the Bill, and will support the Government in this matter.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI have been listening with great interest—
§ It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.
§ The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.