HL Deb 19 July 1910 vol 6 cc321-7

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Carrington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[Lord BALFOUR of BCRLEIGH in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Application to tenancies terminated before commencement of Act.

2. Where a tenancy has been terminated before the commencement of this Act, and the tenant proves to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that he has incurred any loss or expense for which he would have been entitled to compensation under the foregoing section of this Act if the tenancy had terminated after the commencement of this Act, the Board may, out of the small holdings account, pay to the tenant such compensation for such loss or expense as they think just: Provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before the first day of September nineteen hundred and ten.

*THE EARL OF DUNMORE moved to amend Clause 2 by extending from September 1 next to November 1 the time in which the tenant in such cases might apply for compensation for the use of his land for the purposes of small holdings. The noble Earl said: The Amendment that stands in my name is merely intended to facilitate the carrying out of the objects for which this clause was inserted when the Bill was in Committee in the House of Commons. The object of this clause is self-evident; it is to enable farmers whose tenancies have terminated before the commencement of this Act to avail themselves of the benefit of the Act. But as it stands now, they will have to send in their claims before September 1. This Bill may not receive the Royal Assent for some weeks, and I suggest that September 1 hardly gives sufficient time to tenant farmers, at what your Lordships must remember is the busiest time of the year for them, to send in their claims. I trust, therefore, that the President of the Board of Agriculture will extend the time from September 1 till November 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out ("September ") and insert ("November ").—(The Earl of Dunmore.)

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON)

My Lords, I am sure the Committee quite recognise the good intention of the noble Earl, but I have to point out to him and to the Committee that I ant informed this is clearly a question of privilege, and therefore I respectfully hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will give us some further explanation of how this is a question of privilege. It is not a matter of money at all; it is simply a question of the date before which a claim for compensation must be made. The proposal made by the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, is surely a very reasonable one. This Bill will not become an Act much before August, if then, and you give only four weeks for making the claim at the most busy time of the year when the hay-harvest in some cases is proceeding, and in others the preparations for the corn harvest are taking place, and, of course, we know that farmers are not men who are well acquainted with Acts of Parliament or become very speedily acquainted with them. The result is you really leave them only four weeks during which to give their notice. This, of course, was originally an oversight in the Act; it is one of several oversights; and what the noble Earl, Lord Carrington, really proposes to do in some cases is to take away with one hand what he gives with the other. He says he is prepared to give them compensation, but through allowing such a short time within which to make their claim the result is that many people will very likely find themselves debarred; and when persons who really have a right to compensation find themselves debarred because in four weeks they have not put in their claim, the noble Earl may depend upon it that their grievance, which this Bill is intending to remedy, will be renewed and he will have more trouble. I am sure this cannot be a question of privilege; it is only a question of notice. How that can be a question of privilege I cannot understand. I hope the noble Earl will explain.

EARL CARRINGTON

All I have to explain to my noble friend is that I am informed, on the best authority, that this is a question of privilege. It is not for me, being a layman, to explain how or why that is. I have only to state that this Amendment is considered on high authority to be a question of privilege. My duty is most respectfully and most humbly to put that before your Lordships. The matter, of course, is entirely in your Lordships' hands.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend who moved this Amendment will hardly be likely to accept the statement of the noble Earl as quite a sufficient reason for the proposition that this is a question of privilege. I think I understand the point the noble Earl refers to, although certainly I cannot claim to be any authority upon that subject. I suppose the idea is that if the date before which the claim may be made is extended to November, that would enable a greater charge to be put on the Treasury than would otherwise be the case, and that from that point of view it would be a question of privilege. But the question of privilege has been raised in such a very remarkable way on several occasions of late years that I confess I should be very sorry to think that your Lordships were prepared to accept this view of the noble Earl, for which he gives no authority, as settling the matter.

I am anxious to say a word to your Lordships upon the merits of the question. This is a retrospective clause; it is of an exceptional nature, as it allows tenants whose tenancies have been terminated before the commencement of this Act to make a claim under the Act on account of the past termination of their tenancies. I feel very strongly that retrospective legislation of this kind is very often open to grave objection, and I think we ought to limit it as much as possible. How is it limited here? It is limited in this way, that the claim must be sent in by September 1. The noble Earl who proposed this Amendment, I think, had in his mind the view that a farmer who would come under the definition of this clause would never have heard of the clause until the Bill containing it became law. But, my Lords, this question has been mooted in Parliament, and has been known to Chambers of Agriculture all over the country for months past, and I venture to say that every farmer who could possibly be entitled to claim under this clause has known all about it for months. I confess that if the noble Earl opposite opposes this Amendment on its merits, and not as a question of privilege, I should personally be inclined to support him.

THE EARL OF DUNMORE

My Lords, I confess it comes as a matter of surprise to me that His Majesty's Government should oppose this Amendment on the plea of privilege. As the noble Viscount has just said, we have had this plea of privilege brought up on many occasions of late years. Amendments which have been drafted merely to assist the working of an Act have been swept aside on the ground of privilege. I might instance an Amendment which many of your Lordships will recall to mind on the Old Age Pensions Bill. The clause dealing with disqualification for imprisonment was found to admit of possibilities of grave injustice which were never intended by His Majesty's Government. And yet on the plea of privilege our Amendment dealing with this point—a non-contentious point—was rejected.

In these cases Amendments did, to some extent, vary the charge. But this Amendment that I have proposed does not vary the charge at all; it does not alter the number of people who will be able to avail themselves of the benefits of this Bill; it merely gives them a little more time to take advantage of a Bill which I presume the Government intends should benefit them. Even Sir Edward Strachey, who inserted this clause in the Bill when it was in Committee in the other House, said in regard to the limitation of time— If the Bill only received the Royal Assent on the 15th August, an alteration of the time at which the provision would come into operation might be made in another place. Sir Edward Strachey evidently foresaw that it might be difficult for farmers in the time allotted to them to send in their claims, and anticipated that, if necessary, such grievance would be remedied by an Amendment in this House. Now, my Lords, if this contention of privilege is to apply to Amendments which do not in themselves vary the charge but merely enable the people of this country to avail themselves of the benefits afforded by a Government Bill, then I most emphatically protest against the action of His Majesty's Government. I think it is, as Mr. Speaker said in the House of Commons in regard to another Amendment, a case of privilege mad, and therefore I must press my Amendment to a Division.

LORD ALVERSTONE

My Lords, may I respectfully ask the noble Earl to consider whether he is not a little ill-advised in refusing this Amendment? This Bill enables any one to make a claim for compensation before September 1. Every one, therefore, who is entitled can come in up to that time. If the Amendment is accepted it simply means that every one who is entitled to come in up to September 1 will be entitled to come in up to November 1. The time will be extended For all those who are entitled to come in. and it cannot mean that one single person more will be brought in. In my opinion, therefore, no rule of privilege can apply. The whole point of the Amendment is that a man who is entitled and who means to claim before September 1 gets a little more time in which to make his claim.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN)

My Lords, it is not the practice or the business of members of the Government in this House to discuss whether the House of Commons will make a claim of privilege in regard to a particular Amendment. We may have our opinions upon the subject. If I am asked my opinion I should say I anticipate—whether your Lordships may think it a wise exercise of privilege or not—that the claim will be made on the present occasion if the Amendment is passed. I may prove wrong, but, as one knows, it is practically Mr. Speaker, and in the last resort the House, often interpreted by previous notice on the part of persons officially employed in the House of Commons, that is the source through which the claim is made, and there is an interpretation of the claim which is recognised in the House of Commons. I will not say anything more upon that subject beyond this, that I think it is present to the minds of most members of your Lordships' House at the present time that it is undesirable in the public interest that we should have any unpleasant controversy on questions of privilege with regard to financial matters with the House of Commons. To-morrow or next day it may be desirable in the minds of some people, but unless there is a good reason for doing otherwise I should think it would be better on the whole at the moment to leave a matter of this kind so far as we can in suspense. The noble Viscount on the merits, I understood him to say, was disposed to support the Government in opposition to this Amendment. That is the view of members of the Government, and I hope the noble Earl, after such weighty advice as that of the noble Viscount, will not think it necessary to divide on his Amendment merely for the sake of pressing a question which may lead to unnecessary conflict and unpleasantness.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I agree with almost every word that the noble and learned Lord has just said, but I claim him as an advocate against the President of the Board of Agriculture. The noble and learned Lord says he does not think it advisable in this House for us to commence this discussion of privilege, or as to what would be regarded as privilege in another place, I would ask him who commenced this discussion here? Why, Lord Carrington. He not only commenced it, but he did not give us any reason for his opinion; he did not even tell us who had advised him. His legal advisers, he will remember, have not always been right in regard to this Bill. He does not say that it is the opinion of Mr. Speaker. I quite agree it is much better that in this House we should not discuss these matters, but leave them to the House of Commons to settle. Turning from the argument which has been advanced by Lord Carrington to the merits of the question, it has been pointed out by Lord Alverstone that no man can claim under the Amendment who is not by the Bill as it stands entitled to claim. That being so, what can be the objection to saying that a man is to have five, six or eight weeks more within which to make his claim? If the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, may not think it worth while to persevere with his Amendment, I should say, a fortiori, that there is much more reason why the noble Earl in charge of the Bill should not persevere with his objection, which is founded on a point which the Lord Chancellor, in common, I believe, with, all the rest of us, thinks should not be discussed here.

On Question, whether the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-contents, 21.

CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) St. Aldwyn, V. Sanderson, L.
Beauchamp, E.(L. President.) Sandhurst, L.
Denman, L. [Teller.] Save and Sele, L.
Carrington, E. Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.] Welby, L.
Liverpool, E. Pentland, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Ailesbury, M. Alverstone, L. Hindlip, L.
Linlithgow, M. Balfour, L. Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Ravensworth, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.] Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.) Saltoun, L.
Harewood, E. Sempill, L.
Mayo, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Sinclair, L.
Portsmouth, E. Clinton, L.
Powis, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) [Teller.]
Waldegrave, E.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.

The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 119.)