§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Clinton.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3:
§ Consideration for redemption.
§ 3.—(1) The consideration money payable on the redemption of a tithe rentcharge on any land under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, or this Act, shall, in lieu of the amount authorised or directed by the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, be such an amount as may be agreed by the owners of the land and of the rentcharge, and in default of such agreement as may, on the application of the owner of the rentcharge, or of the owner of the land or any part thereof, be determined by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to this Act, to be fair compensation for the redemption.
§ (2) An agreement made under this section may provide that the consideration money shall be discharged by an annuity payable yearly or half-yearly for such period, not exceeding fifty years, as may be agreed, consisting of interest at the rate of five per centum per annum on the consideration money, and of such sum as would be sufficient if the periodical payments thereof were accumulated at compound interest at the rate of four per centum per annum, to produce an amount equal to the consideration money at the end of the said period, and in any such case the Board shall by order direct the discharge of the con- 77 sideration money by such an annuity as aforesaid and shall charge the land therewith, and the order shall contain such provisions for giving effect to the agreement and for protecting the interests of persons interested in the rentcharge as the Board may think fit, and after payment of the first instalment of the annuity the rentcharge shall cease and be extinguished.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEThe Amendment which I have on Clause 3, and which is accompanied by various Amendments in the Second Schedule which your Lordships will see on the next page, is one of somewhat greater importance than might appear at first sight, and of rather greater importance, I confess, than I at first sight conceived when it was brought to my notice.
I am asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the London County Council, who are themselves tithe-payers to the extent of £1,200 a year, but it is one which I am informed is also approved by some important bodies, Chambers of Agriculture, and others. The general effect is that, questions of value—that is to say, both of the estimated annual tithe which is to be estimated in the first paragraph of the Schedule, and estimated outgoings, and the capitalisation value—that all these should be estimated by a single arbitrator appointed by the Board of Agriculture rather than by the Board itself. There are various reasons why it is desired to press this Amendment. One is—and I think it is of some importance—that the Board of Agriculture, like other Departments, wisely never states its reasons for doing what it does. That is to say, that, when it arbitrates on a question of value of this kind, the mental process by which the sum is arrived at is never likely or liable to be explained. When these matters are dealt with by an arbitrator, they come under the ordinary practice of the Arbitration Act, and are liable in the last resort, to review, and, in some cases, may finally come before a Court of Law; whereas my noble friend's Board states a sum and there is no appeal from the figure which is mentioned; and it is thought by those who prefer this alternative method, that the ultimate result will be that a certain standard of value will be fixed by the Board of Agriculture, which will be made applicable in practically all cases, instead of the very varying conditions being considered by different arbitrators, appointed in 78 different parts of the country under the Act.
This is rather more important than appears, for this reason, that there, are certain cases, which are probably not very numerous but which do exist, where, as the tithe exceeds two-thirds of the value under Schedule B, the County Court can order the remission of the tithe, as the noble Lord knows, beyond that value; and the effect, of course, of that is that unless expert knowledge is brought to bear upon the actual value of the property, and the future prospects of the property, a sum might be fixed covering a term of years which would prove in the long run to be altogether unfair to the redeemer of the tithe. There is this further point, upon which the noble Lord will no doubt tell me if I am not right, but I am informed that, as the Act stands, once a tithe-payer enters into a scheme of redemption he is compelled to go on with it, however it may work out for him. It may, of course, happen that on discovery of the amount which he would have to pay, he finds that it is was a purely uneconomic thing to do, but I understand that he cannot withdraw but is obliged to continue the required redemption on such terms as may be decided. All these various considerations may not sound so very important taken singly, but taken together they do seem to me to make it desirable, really as much in the interests of the Board as in the interests of the public, that there should be no suspicion that these capitalisation values are being arrived at in anything like a hole-and-corner manner. I venture to think that the burden of proof, as against the appointment of an independent arbitrator of this kind, rests not so much upon myself, in moving the amendment, as upon the Department who by the Bill retain the power for themselves. Of course I do not for a moment suppose, and nobody would imply, that these arbitrations are likely to be unfairly conducted, but as a matter of public confidence, particularly in these days, when Departments are being accused in every quarter of taking too much power in their own hands, I wonder whether the noble Lord would not be wiser, on behalf of the Department, to agree to an Amendment which I cannot think would prejudice the justice of the awards or in any way interfere with the proper duties of the Department which he represents.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("by") insert ("a single arbitrator appointed by").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON)The noble Marquess, in moving this Amendment, has put forward three main grounds for the proposal to substitute a single arbitrator appointed by the Board for the Board itself. The first, I think, was this, that the Board would not state their reasons which caused them to arrive at certain conclusions with regard to the subject matter before them, but that an arbitrator would do so. I speak without absolutely certain knowledge on the matter, but I think an arbitrator very seldom gives his reasons; he does so only if he is forced to do it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy point was that the arbitrator in some circumstances could be called upon to do it, whereas the Board never could be, and would not be subject to review.
§ LORD CLINTONHe may be called upon to do it if the Court thinks there is a miscarriage of justice or something of that kind. The second reason was that conditions are so varying in different parts of the country that they ought to be represented to an arbitrator. Generally speaking, in the matter upon which the Board will have to come to a decision the conditions vary very slightly. There is the case which the noble Marquess mentioned where possibly the tithe has risen above two-thirds value and it would remain to the County Court to strike off a certain portion of it. I admit there is that case, but, in spite of that, I think that the reasons I am going to give the noble Marquess why it is better to keep this clause as it is without this alteration, are sufficiently strong to get over the very insignificant number of cases where the appointment of an arbitrator might be better.
I am going to object to the proposal not mainly, but firstly, on the ground of expense. The number of redemptions under this measure will, we hope, be very large. It is quite certain that a considerable number of them will be of a very small amount—£2 to £3 perhaps—and it seems exceedingly unwise to add to the cost of redemption what would be a large percentage of the value of the redemption, owing 80 to the appointment of an arbitrator; I do not think you could say that the cost of arbitration would be very small. The noble Marquess himself told the House some of the subjects which would come before the arbitrator; that is that mainly, he would have to estimate the annual sum payable in perpetuity equal to the value of the rentcharge.
It is quite easy to imagine that witnesses might be obtained in considerable numbers from different parts of the country to guess—and they could do no more—as to what is the proper value of a tithe rentcharge in perpetuity, and, even if a very large number were not obtained, they obviously would run up the cost of arbitration to a figure out of all proportion to its value. But it is not on the ground of expense alone that I am going to base my objection. I am going to claim that the Board of Agriculture is the most suitable body for the purpose. They have correspondents in most parts of the country. They are able to get at the value payable in perpetuity, which I admit is guess work, but they are able to get that just as well as the arbitrator can get it from any number of witnesses he may call.
The most important thing is that the Board of Agriculture, from the means at its disposal, will decide what the value payable in perpetuity is for the year. They will publish that value, probably in January in each year, at the same time as they publish the ordinary corn averages. That seems to me to be of the very greatest importance, particularly in view of the noble Marquess's last contention, his fear that when once a tithe-payer had entered into a scheme for redemption he would be bound to go on with it. I think that is the case under the Act. If it is left to the single arbitrator to decide, it is quite clear that the tithe-payer is leaping in the dark. He does not in the least know what these number of witnesses may persuade the arbirator is the proper value of the sum payable in perpetuity. But if left to the Board, he knows actually what is the value for the year in which he proposes to redeem, because that is already published by the Board in January. And I think that is really an outstanding advantage.
The general objection, the objection which is always taken—we have just been debating the subject—of the Department appearing at all in the position of arbitrator, 81 is that the Department has an interest in the case. There can be no suggestion that the Board of Agriculture has any interest at all in a case of this kind. The interests lie entirely between the tithe-owner and the tithe owner, and the only interest that the Board has is to get at a fair value between those two bodies. I hope the noble. Marquess will see that at all events there is good reason for the Government adhering to the proposal which they have in their Bit. I am afraid must object to the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI am much obliged to the noble Lord for his full and courteous reply, and I shall not press the Amendment, even if it were possible to do so, against his objection. I confess I did not quite follow the point that he made of the superiority of the publication by the Board of Agriculture of the average redemption values for a particular year, because it seemed to me that that could equally well be done by the Board, in fact ought as a matter of propriety to be done by the Board, even if the principle of arbitration by an arbitrator were adopted. But I do not want to press that point, or indeed any other. I wish that the noble Lord had been able to accept the Amendment, because I think on the last point he made it would have inspired more perfect confidence if the Department had stood aside in a matter of this sort. But as he has not done so, I have nothing more to say. I withdraw it, and the consequential Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYI should like to raise the question of the amendment of line 18, on this page, in the same clause. I apologise for not having put it down on the Paper, because in truth we did not, receive this Bill as it left another place until so very late in our proceedings. But I will tell your Lordships, if it is not thought inconvenient, what it is, and I will move this Amendment now. It would be to cut away this fixed rate which is described in lines 18–23 [subsection (2)], the fixed rate at which the money is to be accumulated, and to insert in the first instance, after the words "fifty years," the words "computed in such manner," so as to leave the rate to be arrived at by agreement between the parties. Some consequential words will have to follow, and if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill prefers 82 that it should be left to the Report stage, of course I shall defer to his wishes in order that we may arrive at the exact form the words should take. Still we all know that time presses and it is quite easy to any one who understands financial conditions to realise that there will be nothing left to produce a net yield of 4 per cent. if you say that 4 per cent. shall be a fixed rate at which the fund for redemption should accumulate, so long at all events as income Tax remains at six shillings in the £ and you wish to limit your investments to investments of a class which do not yield more than 5 or a fraction above 5 per cent. Therefore if this fixed rate remains in the Bill no business in the nature of redemption will result.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, line 18, after the words ("fifty years") insert ("and computed in such manner").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
§ LORD CLINTONIf the noble Lord puts in the words there, will be not require to make the subsequent sums of 5 per cent. and 4 per cent. more elastic?
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYCertainly, or cut them out altogether.
§ LORD CLINTONI would suggest to the noble. Lord that he had better defer this till to-morrow, because I have had notice of a considerable number of Amendments upon this particular clause, and I think that it would be more convenient to consider his Amendment along with the others.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clauses 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTONThe new clause that is down on the Paper in my name is little more than a drafting Amendment. Under the Act of 1846 a number of options are given as to the disposal of the redemption money by persons who only have a limited interest in their estates, and people under certain disabilities as to disposal, and certain Corporations who are not allowed to sell except by authority of the Act of 1846. It, is proposed here that if they do not take advantage of those options the consideration money may be paid into Court as provided by the Act.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Insert the following new clauses:
§ "Payment of consideration money into court in certain circumstances.
§ "Where any person fails to exercise within such time as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may direct the options given by section nine of the Tithe Act, 1846, as to the application of consideration money for redemption of a rentcharge, the consideration money may be paid into court in manner provided by that section.
§ "Statutory declaration for purpose of redemption.
§
".—(1) For the purposes of the redemption of tithe rentcharge the Board of Agriculture as
nd Fisheries may require the owner of the rentcharge to make a statutory declaration stating—
(a) the nature and extent of his estate and interest in the rentcharge;
(b) the date and short particulars of the instrument under which his estate or interest is derived;
(c) the names and addresses of the trustees, if any, under such instrument; and
(d) the incumbrances if any affecting the rentcharge;
and the Board may accept a declaration made under this section for the purpose of redemption."—(Lord Clinton.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTONThe next Amendment standing in my name is also of a drafting nature. It deals with the lay owners of tithe who may possibly put difficulties in the way of the ascertainment of their titles. This clause makes it clear that the Board can obtain a proper declaration of title if it is required.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Insert the following new clause:
(2) If the owner of a rentcharge fails to make a declaration as required in pursuance of this section the Board may direct the redemption money for t he rentcharge to be paid into court as in a case where the owner is only entitled thereto for a limited estate."—(Lord Clinton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 6 agreed to.
§ Clause 7:
§ LORD CLINTONThe next Amendment is a drafting one to make it possible to leave out of the Schedule the fourth subsection. It does not alter the sense of the Bill in any way.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act") and insert ("except the Second Schedule shall").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.
§ First Schedule:
§ LORD CLINTONThe next is a drafting Amendment consequent on the Second Schedule, which gives power to the Board to fix the consideration money for redemption.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 5, line 22, at end insert:
| 48 & 49 Vict. c. 32. | The Tithe Rentcharge Recharge Redemption Act, 1885. | In section three from "Provided always" to the end of the section. |
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Second Schedule:
§ LORD CLINTONThe next is also a drafting Amendment, consequent on the Amendment which I have just moved.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Clinton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.