HL Deb 21 August 1917 vol 26 cc717-20

Clause 9, page 8, line 35, at end insert the following subsections: ( ) If within three months after the Board have entered on any land, the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires, a record of the condition of the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the land, shall be made within three months after the date of the requisition by a person to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors' Institution; and, in default of agreement, the costs of making such record shall be borne by the Board and the person so previously in occupation in equal portions. ( ) Where the Board have entered on any land under this provision they shall pay to the outgoing tenant such amount as would have been due or payable by way of compensation on account of crops, tillages or other matters by the incoming tenant, and the amount so payable shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration under this part of this Act.

The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:

Leave out the second subsection.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

My Lords, I want to raise a point of order. These are treated as one Amendment, but they are two totally different Amendments. The first part was an Amendment moved by itself, and the second part, which stood in the name of a member of the Government (the Duke of Marlborough), was moved entirely by itself and was carried in that way. Therefore I protest against the two Amendments being taken together and subject to one answer, as if they were one Amendment.

VISCOUNT MILNER

We are not responsible for the form in which it is put. This is the way in which the Speaker, dealt with it in the House of Commons.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I cannot help that.

VISCOUNT MILNER

Is there any point of substance here? I understand that what the noble Viscount wants to preserve are the words in the second paragraph?

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Certainly; and I want that put as a separate Question.

VISCOUNT MILNER

The Motion will be that we agree with the Commons Amendment. All that the noble Viscount has to do is to oppose that Motion.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Milner.)

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

One Amendment I may be opposed to, but to the other I may not.

VISCOUNT MILNER

The first subsection, will remain in the Bill in any case. All that the noble Viscount has to do, if he wants to raise this question, is to oppose the Motion to agree with the Commons Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Commons have agreed with the first paragraph and have struck out the second, so that the only point with which we have to deal in disagreement with the Commons relates to the second paragraph.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

That is being put alone?

VISCOUNT MILNER

Yes.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I did not underhand. It is a novel form to me, at all events. I wish to say a word upon this. This question arises, as far as I am aware, only in the case of a Lady Day or a May Day entry. The date varies by a few days in different parts of the country, but it is April 6 in that part of the country with which I am best acquainted, and it is accompanied by a six months notice to quit. I had to move to leave out the words "the occupier" in the original Amendment, because the occupier then would have been the new tenant. He would have entered upon the holding at the period of April 6. That form of tenancy was always regarded as being the best that was ever devised, because there was every inducement to the outgoing tenant to do his best up to the last moment, as he received full repayment for everything he had not reaped. The position is that the Board of Agriculture have taken powers to dismiss the tenant and determine the tenancy. Who, then, is responsible to the outgoing tenant for what he is clearly entitled to for surrendering and leaving the crops behind him? Of course, the Board of Agriculture ought to be so responsible. Take the case where a landlord cannot get a new tenant, or where, a tenant having been dismissed in this way, it may be difficult to get another. Is the owner to be responsible? It is very hard on him. He did no, dismiss the tenant. He would not have thought of doing so in the case of which I speak, where the landlord is by no means a rich man and would have a very heavy tenant right to pay in consequence, and where he is without the means or capital to take the farm over himself. If there is no incoming tenant to take it, the burden will fall upon him. That is very hard. Therefore I moved the Amendment and it was agreed to by the House. The Amendment was really drawn by the Government, I and they themselves put it forward. Now it has been dismissed, as I understand, in the other House on the ground of privilege. The Amendment to the other part of this clause was also wrong on that ground, so I am informed. But there the privilege was waived; therefore it was perfectly possible to waive it in the other case, and I ask the Government seriously to take into consideration the position which I have put before them. It seems to me to be an untold hardship. Who is to become responsible in the case of a very poor landlord, I do not know. But that is the position in which these landlords are placed. The clause originally contained the word I "occupier," and I wished to alter it by inserting "the outgoing" before the word "occupier." I should be prepared to agree that, instead of the words "the outgoing tenant," it should run "the outgoing occupier."