SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL. (Hansard, 27 August 1907)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
In regard to the Small Holdings Bill there are only two points of difference outstanding between the two Houses. The first of the two points is this. Your Lordships, in Clause 21, page 10, line 20, inserted a proviso that "no dwelling-house shall be erected for occupation upon any allotment of less than three acres." The Commons agreed to that Amendment, but proposed to leave out "three acres" and insert "one acre." That is the first point which arises between your Lordships.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I beg to move that the House agree to the Commons Amendment leaving out "three acres" and substituting "one acre."

§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
I cannot say that I like the change, but, on the other hand, the Amendment is better than 370 the Bill as it stood originally, and at this stage of the proceedings I imagine that your Lordships will desire to agree to it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The second and only remaining difference between the two Houses is as follows. Your Lordships will recollect that on the First Schedule, page 25, line 40, the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, moved an Amendment. I do not know that I need read it to your Lordships, but it was an Amendment providing that any matter of difference before the commencement of the tenancy by compulsory hiring should, on the application of one of the parties, be referred to an arbitrator with the proviso that the Board might discriminate as to what was the extra cost involved in going to arbitration. The Commons disagree to that Amendment, but propose to insert in lieu thereof other words on the First Schedule, page 25, line 17, providing that if the land hired is in the occupation of a tenant he may, by notice in writing to the council before the termination of his tenancy, require any claim by him under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1906, to be referred to an arbitrator under those Acts, and that in such a case those claims shall be determined by arbitration under those Acts and not by valuation under this Act. That is the second and only remaining point of difference between the two Houses.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I beg to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment to the First Schedule, page 25, line 40, and agrees with the Commons in their Amendment to the First Schedule page 25, line 17, to insert certain words.

§ * VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN
After what passed on this matter this evening I did not anticipate that His Majesty's Government would agree with my Motion, 371 but I own that I did expect that they would have gone somewhat further than they did in the direction of allowing arbitration in certain cases in the interest of the tenant. That point was very much pressed upon your Lordships, and, I think, quite rightly pressed by my noble friend Lord Onslow, who has taken such a very active part in the matter of small holdings generally. I think that your Lordships felt that the interests of the tenant had been much neglected in the past proceedings on this Bill, and that the matter which my noble friend and myself brought to the notice of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture, was one that well deserved the consideration of the Government and required an Amendment in the interests of the larger tenant farmers whose land may be taken under this Bill. The noble Lord on the Woolsack rather damped our expectations by saying that the Amendment which His Majesty's Government were prepared to accept did not extend to the matter of severance. I understand that the Solicitor-General has explained in another place that if a yearly tenant had to give up his whole farm, practically there would be no claim for severance by way of compensation to him, and, if he remained as tenant of part of the holding compensation would practically be settled under the provisions of the Bill by a change in the rent which he would pay. I wish that the Amendment which has been accepted by His Majesty's Government had gone somewhat further, but I think in the interest of the tenant it is better than nothing, and I imagine that your Lordships will not desire to insist on the Amendment which was placed in the Bill, but will accept what is proposed as being certainly an improvement on the Bill as it originally stood.

§ LORD CLINTON
said the noble Viscount who had just spoken had accepted this Amendment as in some way a concession to the tenant farmer, but he (Lord Clinton) rather doubted whether it was a concession at all. Was it not the case that a tenant 372 farmer at the present moment could claim compensation by arbitration for all improvements on his land? Whatever the Amendment said, in this Bill a sitting tenant at present was entitled to compensation for all his improvements under the Agricultural Holdings Act. He hardly thought the Bill would have altered that without repealing the Agricultural Holdings Act. Might he ask the Lord Chancellor to tell the House whether that was not the case?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble Lord has asked me off-hand, and I will tell him off-hand what I think. I think it is undoubtedly true that a tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act would be entitled to compensation by arbitration, but that is where a question arises between him and his landlord or the incoming tenant. Now the Bill comes in and comes down upon the transaction and interposes from the outset. My recollection and belief is that the arbitration clause in the Agricultural Holdings Act does not apply to the case where the tenancy is terminated otherwise than between the landlord and the tenant, but undoubtedly compensation would in this case and in any case be payable under the Bill.