HC Deb 23 May 1930 vol 239 cc742-3

Section fourteen of the Act of 1886, which makes provision for deduction from rent in certain cases, shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. ADAMSON

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Section 14 of the Act of 1886 is now quite unnecessary. It is superseded by the provisions contained in the Acts of 1911 and 1919.

Mr. SCOTT

My colleagues and I support this Clause. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the provision in the Act of 1886 is now unnecessary, owing to the fact that there are additional powers in the 1911 Act.

Mr. MacROBERT

I do not quite follow this Clause. Under Section 14 of the Act of 1886, where a tenant has had part of his holding taken away from him, he is entitled to a deduction from rent. I rather gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said that that provision, which in itself is very reasonable, is not now necessary because there is some provision made in the 1911 Act and the 1919 Act for compensation. That may be so, but that is a different thing. The compensation is a lump sum. That may not compensate the tenant for the loss of a great part of his land or leasehold. Supposing he gets a half of his acreage taken away from him, he might prefer to pay only half, or less than half, of his rent than to formulate a claim for compensation. I do not see the necessity for this Clause. I do not see why the right should not be given to that tenant to get his rent diminished as far as the landlord is concerned. Then the tenant in that particular case would not have suffered any damage, and probably would not be entitled to any compensation; but, on the other hand, the landlord then might have a greater amount of damage, and might get compensation for that damage.

This Clause proposes to alter what, I think, is a very reasonable provision in the Act of 1886, to allow the tenant, where part of his leasehold is taken from him, to say, "I want a reduction of rent. I do not want to make any claim for compensation, or anything of that kind." If the landlord has any claim, he can make it in the proper court. Why should the tenant be forced to make a claim and instruct counsel to get compensation? It is much simpler for him to say, "You have taken away so many acres, and I want a reduction of my rent." From the point of view of the tenant, this is not an improvement. It may not affect the landlord at all, but this Clause, which will have the effect of limiting the remedy of the tenant to a claim for damages or compensation, is not one that should be passed. He should be allowed to retain the right which was given to him under the Act of 1886, and, in particular, Section 14 of that Act, and be entitled to say, "I do not wish for compensation, but I do wish that my rent shall be reduced to an amount corresponding to the acreage that has been taken away." Consequently, I do not think that this Clause is an improvement on the Landholders Act at all.

Question "That the Clause be read a Second time", put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.