NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages not to be taken account of for certain purposes.) (Hansard, 25 February 1929)

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to provide that relief given to occupiers of agricultural land and heritages shall not be taken into account by the Land Court in fixing what is a fair or equitable rent for the holding, or by an arbiter in fixing the amount of compensation to be given under the Agricultural Holdings Act in case of disturbance. The Clause will apply, not only to the relief given to the occupier directly, but also to the relief that he would get from the landlord.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Would it not apply to both after seven years?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND
If any relief is given, whether directly to the occupier or indirectly to him through the landlord, that relief is not to be taken into account in fixing a fair and equitable rent, nor in fixing compensation.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
There appears to be a difficulty about representatives of the Government making up their minds.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND
If I am wrong with regard to that, the Lord Advocate will correct me. In the Act of 1923 there is a Section in exactly the same terms. I understand that the interpretation of that Section is that the relief to the occupier includes the relief which he gets from the landlord. If the phraseology of the Clause is made different from the phraseology in the Act of 1923 complications might arise. Accordingly, I think that the Clause suggested ought to be carried.

§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
As I think I was the first to raise the question of adding this Clause to the Bill when the Debate took place on the Second Reading of the Bill, I should like to thank the Government for having listened to and granted my request and added it to the Bill. I would also like to remind the Committee that the Section which figures in the Act of 1923 was originally drafted by a, Member well known to Members in all parts of this Committee who sat in this House at that time and who took great interest in the question, Mr. James Falconer, Member for Forfarshire. It was owing to his initiative that this Section was placed in the Act of 1923 where it has proved a very valuable protection to the tenant. The point to which my Amendment is directed is a very important one. It is that we should make absolutely certain not only that the rating relief which comes direct to the tenant, but also that which comes indirectly to him through the landlords, should be included. If we can be assured by the Solicitor-General or the Lord Advocate that these words that I am proposing to insert are unnecessary and that the Clause applies both to the fixing of the rent of the landholder and the statutory small tenant, and also 1634 with regard to the claims for compensation for disturbance—as to which there seems to be some difference of opinion—I should desire to withdraw my Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for SCOTLAND
I was wrong with regard to that and the Lord Advocate has, of course, corrected me. It is a question of rent in both cases as stated in the Clause.

§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
Unfortunately, we could not hear the Lord Advocate's explanation which was given sotto voce. I would ask that it should be made clear how the Clause does affect both the landholder and the statutory small tenant on the one hand and the payment of compensation for disturbance on the other.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
May I say with regard to the Amendments to the proposed Clause of the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that, while I personally —and it is a matter of legal opinion—would be satisfied with the present words, I am ready to accept his Amendments so as to place the matter beyond doubt. These words have operated for five years, and no one has suggested that there has been any difficulty. With regard to the other point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised, a slight misunderstanding occurred. There might be a case where the landlord might accept the arbitrated rent. The tenant might declare that his rent was too big and offer a smaller rent. He might say: "Let me stay on for the rest of the accepted lease at a smaller rent." The landlord might say: "No, thank you, that rent is not sufficient." Then there would be time to appeal to arbitration. The result of that arbitration would not necessarily be compensation for disturbance.

§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
I understand from that that it does affect the arbitrations. As the Lord Advocate has pointed out, arbitration may result in the acceptance of a lower rent or a, claim for compensation. But in neither ease is this rating relief to be taken into account. That is absolutely satisfactory to me, and I am very grateful to the Lord Advocate.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Before the Amendments are accepted by the Government, 1635 may I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Government here are admitting a very valuable principle—the principle that this rating relief in agricultural land and heritages should accrue in a very large measure to the farmer and should not accrue to the landowner. We had that matter discussed at length the other day, and we received advice upon it, but to-day the Government tacitly admit that by putting this Clause into the Act no arbiter in future is to be allowed to make calculations upon de-rating when he is fixing rent. I should like to know from the Lord Advocate why, if this Clause is right and proper for agricultural land and heritages, something similar ought not to be imported into the Bill to deal with industrial lands and heritages. If it is right that the proprietor of agricultural land should not be permitted to absorb by means of increased rents the money provided by the Treasury for de-rating, then is it not also equally right that provision should be made in this Measure to prevent the owner of mineral royalties—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That question does not come under this Clause.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I merely want to ask for information as to why it is that the Government should differentiate. There are, in this Measure, references to industrial lands and heritages. There are references to agricultural lands and heritages, and I am simply asking for information from the Lord Advocate as to why it is that the Government should he driven at long last—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am trying to stop the hon. Member from asking the Lord Advocate a question which it would be out of order for him to answer.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Would I not be in order before I, as a Member of this Committee, consent to the insertion of this Clause to ask why there is differentiation between certain proprietors in Scotland?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member may ask a question like that and may vote against this Clause for this or any other reason, but I cannot allow the Lord Advocate to answer a question as 1636 to why he does not propose to do something which does not arise out of this Clause.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I merely want to get information.

§ Sir R. HORNE
The hon. Member is simply asking an academic question. He is not asking a question as to anything in this Clause.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
With great respect, I would draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to the fact that this applies to agricultural land. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) will permit the to say that there is a differentiation. The proprietors of agricultural land are being prohibited from raising the rents as a result of de-rating, and I am asking why a similar prohibition or deterrent should not be placed upon the owners of industrial land and heritages.

§ Sir R. HORNE
That is merely an hypothetical question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have definitely ruled that this matter cannot be discussed on this Clause. The hon. Member has given the Committee to understand that he wishes for something else to be included. He cannot go into the question here as to whether it should or should not be included.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I will argue no further about industrial land and heritages, but merely express the opinion that we have had no explanation from the Government as to why there should be discrimination against a particular set of proprietors of land in Scotland. Before this Clause passes, perhaps it may be in order to ask for an explanation from the Government as to why they are prepared to discriminate in this matter.