CLAUSE 34 —(Variation of rent of holdings.) (Hansard, 5 June 1947)

§ Mr. T. Williams
I beg to move, in page 34, line 44, to leave out from "otherwise," to "or" in line 46.

§ Captain Crookshank
The Minister has moved the Amendment, but he has not said whether it is drafting or consequential, and I should like to know.

§ Mr. Marquand
This Amendment is bound up with the Amendment which follows it on the Order Paper, and which reads—in page 35, line 3, at the end, to insert: Provided that there shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Subsection—

(i) any increase of rent under Subsection (4) of this Section or any such increase as is referred to in proviso (i) to that Subsection,

(ii) any reduction of rent under Subsection (6) of Section seventeen of this Act or under Section twenty-seven of the Act of 1923,

(iii) any other variation of rent which under the following provisions of this Act is directed to be disregarded for the purposes of this Subsection."

§ Mr. Joynson-Hicks
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Might it not be of assistance to the House if we were given some explanation as to what the next Amendment is before we pass this one?

§ Mr. Speaker
If these two Amendments hang together, we will discuss both of them on the first one, which is quite a usual form of procedure.

§ Mr. Marquand
I think the House will agree that these two Amendments represent an improvement in the drafting of the Bill which will be to the advantage of both landlord and tenant. The purpose of the Amendments is to deal with the case where a tenant farmer is deprived of part of his holding and as a result there is a proportionate reduction in the rent. That might result from the receipt of a notice to quit coming from the landlord within the provisions of Section 27 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, or by the Minister dispossessing the tenant under Clause 17 of this Bill, which hon. Members know is a Clause where a tenant can be dispossessed on account of bad husbandry. Obviously, there can be a reduction of rent in such circumstances only if the tenant is partially dispossessed. In either case, whether under the 1923 Act or under this Bill, there will be a 462 proportionate reduction in the rent of the holding. This, however, will not be the fixing of a new rent for the bit of the holding which is left to the occupier but an apportionment of the existing rent as between the two parts of the holding, the part with which the occupier is left and the part which is taken from him. Since that is so, it clearly should not count under Clause 34, which prevents any arbitration from taking place for a further period of three years. Paragraph (ii) of the second Amendment provides that any reduction of rent under the provisions referred to shall be disregarded for the purposes of Clause 34. Paragraph (i) of the second Amendment merely repeats what is already in the Bill.

§ Mr. Joynson-Hicks
Would the Paymaster-General repeat the remarks he made in regard to paragraph (ii), because it does not conform to what is on the Order Paper?

§ Mr. Marquand
I am advised that any reduction under Clause 17 of the Bill or under Section 27 of the 1923 Act shall be disregarded for the purposes of Clause 34. If I have made a mistake—

§ Major Mott-Radclyffe
It says Subsection (6) of Clause 17.

§ Mr. Marquand
I do not wish to deceive the House. I have not the same detailed experience of this Bill as have hon. Members who sat through the Committee stage. Clause 17 is the dispossession Clause, and I am advised that any reduction under that Clause, or under Section 27 of the 1923 Act, shall be disregarded for the purpose of Clause 34.

§ Major Mott-Radclyffe
I think that probably it is a misprint, but it says here: Any reduction of rent under Subsection (6) of Section seventeen. …

§ Mr. T. Williams
I think the hon. and gallant Member has forgotten about the new Subsection (6) which was inserted during the afternoon.

§ Major Mott-Radclyffe
I hope that makes it clear.

§ Captain Crookshank
It has really nothing to do with it. I am sorry to raise this, but we must clear up the point. What we inserted this afternoon was other procedure to take the place of that which concerns a constable's right to act without 463 warrant. There is no reduction of rent whether the Minister gets a warrant or not to get rid of something. Something has gone wrong here.

§ Mr. Marquand
Evidently something may have gone wrong. I regret that it should be so, and I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment and to undertake that the matter shall be considered in another place.

§ Mr. T. Williams
I should like to apologise to the House for the apparent mistake which has been made, but I can assure hon. Gentlemen that my explanation is correct. If the Amendment is withdrawn, the matter can then be dealt with in another place; but I assure the House that the new Subsection (6) which is referred to is the one that is confusing the issue.

§ Mr. Marquand
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. T. Williams
I beg to move, in page 35, line 30, to leave out from the beginning, to "no," in line 31.
The effect of this Amendment is to leave out the words in the case of an improvement completed before the commencement of this Part of this Act. Subsection (4) provides that where a landlord has carried out an improvement on the holding which falls within paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), as set out in the Subsection, he shall be able to ask from his tenant an increase in rent of an amount equal to the increase in the rental value of the holding attributable to that particular improvement. Proviso (i) lays down, however, that if a landlord and a tenant have agreed on an increase in rent in respect of the improvement, the landlord cannot make another claim under this Subsection. In other words, if the landlord and the tenant have entered into an agreement they should stick to it.
Proviso (i) also lays down that if the landlord has increased the rent for the improvement through the provisions of Section 3 of the 1923 Act, Section 9 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1943, or Section 9 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, he cannot make another claim under the present Bill. At present, however, proviso (i) is limited 464 to an improvement completed before the commencement of Part III of the Bill. If, however, the landlord and the tenant have agreed to an increased rent for an improvement, there seems to be no logical reason why they should not stick to it, even though the improvement is not completed until after Part III of this Bill comes into operation. It is not felt that this limitation is necessary or desirable as regards other cases dealt with in proviso (i). Where an increased rent or interest has become payable under the Acts of 1923, 1943 or 1946, this would occur only where an improvement was completed before Part III came into operation; in other cases, where an improvement is not completed before Part III operates, the landlord could not claim under those Acts, but would make his claim under Subsection (4) of this Clause. For these reasons, the Amendment seeks to delete the words referred to, and I hope that this puts the matter in its proper perspective.