§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move, in page 39, line 30, to leave out from "or," to "under," in line 31.
Clause 39 provides for a charge in favour of a tenant in respect of payments due to him under the provisions of the Measure. If hon. Members will look at Subsection (2) they will see that it also relates to charges under Sections 15 and 41 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. Those Sections of that Act provide that where a tenant is a tenant of a mortgagor who is indebted to him in respect of sums due under that Act, the tenant shall have a certain right against the mortgagor, which shall be by way of charge on the holding. Section 41 does very much the same thing where sums of money are due to the tenant from a landlord who is not a landlord in his own right, that is to say a landlord who is a trustee for some beneficiary of the land. In those circtimstances, Section 41 likewise gives the tenant a charge against the holding in respect of sums due under the 1923 Act. Clause 39 (2) contains what is really a defect. It says:Any charge in respect of sums payable to a tenant created under this Section"—"this Section" being the Clause which creates the charge— 478or after the commencement of this Part the Act under Section fifteen or Section forty one of the Act of 1923 …shall be enforcible, etc., andshall rank in priority to any other charge, however and whenever created or arising.Then it goes on to say thatany charges on a holding created under this Section or the said Sections fifteen and forty-one shall rank in the order of their creation.The net effect of that is fairly clear—that charges under the Clause and charges under the 1923 Act shall, in the first place, rank in priority to all other charges, and in the second place, shall rank chronologically according to the time they were created. That is the object of Subsection (2). At the moment, however, Subsection (2) is drafted so as to exclude charges made under Sections 15 and 41 of the 1923 Act before the passing of this Bill, although it would include such charges made under the 1923 Act after the passing of this Bill, which is an anomalous position. We also feel that this is not quite consistent with the last two lines of Subsection (2) which say that these charges are to rank in order of priority chronologically. If one excludes charges which were made before the coming into effect of this Bill, one is, in a sense, going counter to that provision. One is putting first charges made after the passing into effect of this Bill, and putting after them charges made before the earning into effect of the Measure. We seek by the Amendment to bring within the purview of Subsection (2) charges made under the 1923*Act notwithstanding that they were made before the coming into effect of this Measure. It makes all charges rank in priority according to the time they were brought into being.
§ Amendment agreed to