HC Deb 20 March 1931 vol 249 cc2307-9

Section ten of the principal Act shall in its application to any case where the lease has been entered into after the commencement of this Act have effect as if the following sub-section were added thereto:—

(2) This section shall not apply unless a record of the condition of the holding has been made under this Act or in respect of any matter arising before the date of the record so made.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. JOHNSTON

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

This new Clause provides that a landlord's claim for compensation for deterioration shall not apply in the future unless a record of the condition 12 n. of the holding has been kept. I understand that that part is generally agreed to, but hon. Members on the Liberal benches seek to make the Clause retrospective. We have examined that suggestion very closely, but if we start to make it retrospective, we shall be up against a difficulty. As the law now stands, a landlord may have been accumulating a claim for deterioration against a tenant who is allowing his holding to get into bad condition, and it may be the last year of the tenancy. If we make it retrospective we shall be in reality taking away from the landlord the accrued right of a claim for deterioration which he has enjoyed under a previous Act of Parliament. The difficulties which always occurs in retrospec- tive legislation are very much greater than any benefits that can be secured by making this Clause retrospective. I therefore-sincerely trust that the hon. Members on the Liberal benches will see their way not to press their Amendment.

Sir F. THOMSON

We are opposed to this Clause. We are in favour of a record being kept of the condition of the holding and of the buildings, but it seems a pretty strong suggestion to make that if no record has been kept, the landlord shall not be entitled to compensation for deterioration.

Mr. JOHNSTON

In the future.

Sir F. THOMSON

Shall not be entitled to compensation in the future. I appreciate the position taken by the Under Secretary of State in regard to the past, and we resist the attempt to make such a provision retrospective. A record is an excellent thing, but why the landlord should be deprived of his right to claim compensation for deterioration in the future because a record has not been kept, I cannot understand. Why should he not have the chance of proving deterioration. He has to prove deterioration during the currency of the lease.

Mr. JOHNSTON

This applies to the future.

Sir F. THOMSON

It seems rather arbitrary to say that he shall not have the right to claim compensation in the future if there has not been a record kept. He ought not to be debarred from attempting to establish a claim for deterioration simply because there has not been a record kept. It is unreasonable to debar him of the right to attempt to prove deterioration simply because of the lack of the record. The tenant is bound to farm according to the rules of good husbandry, and, if the holding is in a bad state it is a reasonable assumption that he is not farming in accordance with those rules, and it is unreasonable to debar the landlord from proving deterioration. An argument was based on the analogy of the provision in Section 9 of the Act of 1923, where compensation for high farming cannot be obtained unless a record has been kept of the holding. That is quite a different thing. If a tenant does more than the lease requires, by some special method of beneficial cultivation, a record is neces- sary in order that it should be proved. The case with regard to deterioration is different. It is a good thing to keep a record of a holding, but it is wrong to deprive the landlord of any opportunity of proving that there has been deterioration simply on the ground that a record of the holding has not been kept.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I do not know why the Government should insert this entirely unnecessary new Clause. It is perfectly useless. It is a little more verbiage which will be of no benefit to the people concerned. Why the Government make these unfortunate people keep a lot of unnecessary records is absolutely beyond my understanding. We have been told over and over again that the object of the Bill is to simplify the position, but the Government are now inserting a new Clause which will only make matters more complicated, and I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State, who knows that I have done a great deal to help to make this a better Bill, to withdraw this new Clause. He has made out no case for it, not because he lacks the capacity, but because there is no case to be made out for it. Landlords have enough already to do in the way of keeping records, and this is a new record which is not necessary. Unless it is kept the Government propose to deprive landlords of any possible claim for compensation. That is placing them in an unfair position. I hope the House will refuse to support the Clause and that the Liberal party will support us in the Division Lobby.

Clause added to the Bill.