§ Lords Amendments considered.
§ Consideration of the Lords Amendment in the Title, line 9, postponed till after consideration of the subsequent Amendments.—[Mr. Nugent.]
§ Clause 5.—(POWER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL TO AWARD COSTS.)
§ Lords Amendment: In line 42, leave out "may."
§ 10.8 p.m.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a small drafting Amendment. This one word was left in by mistake, following an Amendment made earlier.
§ Clause 6.—(POWER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL TO REFER QUESTIONS OF LAW TO HIGH COURT.)
§
Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 2, leave out from "so" to end of line 5 and insert:
effect shall not be given to the Tribunal's decision unless and until the Tribunal otherwise order after the proceedings in the High Court and any proceedings arising therefrom have been concluded (or the right to take or continue any such proceedings has lapsed); and any such order of the Tribunal shall, where necessary, modify their decision so as to give effect to the decision on any reference to the High Court and, in a case relating to a notice to quit,
§ Mr. NugentI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) pointed out to me shortly before the Bill left the Commons that, as this Clause stood, an agricultural land tribunal, though it had the power to suspend the operation of its decision when a reference on an application was pending in the High Court, was not obliged to do so. There is, in fact, little doubt that an agricultural land tribunal will always take whatever steps are necessary to hold up the operation of its decision until the High Court has pronounced on a point 1587 of law. This Amendment provides for the automatic suspension of the decision of the tribunal pending the completion of proceedings in the High Court. I think it is entirely a reasonable Amendment.
§ New Clause A.—(AMENDMENT AS TO OPERATION OF NOTICE TO QUIT AGRICULTURAL HOLDING.)
§ (1) The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, shall have effect as if in paragraph (g) of subsection (2) of section twenty-four (by virtue of which the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to a notice to quit cannot be required under subsection (1) of the section if the notice is given within three months after, and by reason of, the death of the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made), the reference to the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made were, in the case where the contract was made with two or more tenants jointly, a reference to the survivor or last survivor of them.
§ (2) This section shall apply to any notice to quit given after the commencement of this Act."
§ Lords Amendment: In line 23, at end, insert new Clause A.
§ Mr. NugentI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was moved in another place by Lord St. Aldwyn, and accepted by the Government. Under Section 24 (2, g) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, a landlord can serve a notice to quit on his tenant, without the tenant having any right to require that the consent of the Minister be obtained where:
the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made had died within three months before the date of the giving of the notice to quit.That is a quotation from the Act. It is only in that event that the landlord can give this notice to quit without the tenant having any right of appeal to the Minister.In the case of Woodward v. Earl of Dudley, 1954, Volume 1, All England Reports, page 559, on 10th February, 1954, Mr. Justice Danckwerts held that if a holding had been let to two joint tenants, it was necessary that both of them should have died within the three months' period preceding the giving of the notice to quit if the paragraph (g) mentioned above was to be given effect.
1588 The result of this decision was to deprive a landlord of his right to serve a notice under paragraph (g) in a case where one of the two joint tenants had already died, and only the survivor had died within the three months' period. This is anomalous when contrasted with the right of the landlord to give a notice under paragraph (g) in a case where the contract of tenancy was made with a single tenant. The Amendment will enable a landlord to take advantage of paragraph (g) in a case where only the survivor of two or more joint tenants dies within three months before the giving of a notice to quit.
It is in accordance with the views of the C.L.A., and the N.F.U. do not object to it, and it removes an obvious anomaly where the executors of the survivor of the joint tenancy, when he died, would have a permanent tenancy. That clearly was not the intention of the Act. I want to make it clear, in case there should be any confusion, that in the case of a joint tenancy, when the first of the joint tenant dies, the second joint tenant has a completely secured tenancy in the ordinary way and it in no way interferes with the main position.
§ Mr. George Brown (Belper)I beg the pardon of the House for keeping them a little later, but I am not happy about the effect of this Amendment, and it ought to be thought about again.
I see the point that it applies in the case of the survivor of the two tenants, but in the case of a single tenant surely, if the landlord wants to give notice without the tenant having the protection of being able to require the consent of the Minister, he has to give it within three months of the tenant dying? If he does not give it within three months, whoever goes on with the tenancy has the protection not of a permanent occupation but that he cannot be removed without the consent of the Minister being required.
In the case of two joint tenants, the first one may have died 10 or 20 years earlier and somebody has taken over the tenancy and may have been there for 10, 20 or more years, to take an extreme case. If this Amendment is made, when the second of the original tenants dies, the landlord will be enabled at any time to give a notice turning out the fellow who 1589 has been the effective tenant for 10 or 20 years, without that tenant being able to claim the operation of the provision that requires in such a case that the consent of the Minister shall be given.
10.15 p.m. I cannot understand why that should be wanted. The man who has been there all that time by then ought to be protected, otherwise there is an enormous weakness in the whole procedure. I do not know whether the Government can take time to think about this, but I feel that we are slipping it through very quickly. We are making a major change in the whole provision and we are wiping out the protection for the sitting tenant of requiring the Minister's assent. It is wrong that we should make a major change which will certainly bring considerable hardship to a certain class of tenant. Since half of his party abstained from the last division, perhaps the hon. Gentleman might consider thinking about this Amendment again in case they have to do it again.
§ Mr. NugentThe right hon. Gentleman says that half of my party abstained. I sympathise with him in that only one-third of his voted. I may have failed to make plain what the Amendment does, but the position if the Amendment is agreed to is that the second of the two joint tenants, the one who survives, has his tenancy protected just as any other tenant. He can only be given notice subject to appeal to the Minister. The only effect of the Amendment is that when the second surviving tenant dies the landlord can give notice to the executors of the first tenant, provided it is done within three months of his decease, so it only puts the second and surviving tenant in exactly the same position as any other tenant. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the only effect of the Amendment.
This has only arisen from the judgment of Mr. Justice Danckwerts and the Amendment does no more than put the survivor of the two joint tenants in the same position as any other tenant before the law. Had this been a larger point we should certainly not have brought it before the House at this stage. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends accept that assurance.