HL Deb 23 December 1920 vol 39 cc925-6

Clause 14, page 22, lines 17 to 20, leave out subsection (3).

The Commons disagree with this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment to the Bill:

Page 22, line 19, leave out ("this Part of this Act") and insert ("the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of the rent properly payable in respect of the holding").


This subsection was reinserted by the Commons as it is intended solely to remove any question as to whether "continuous good farming" is to be treated as an improvement for the purpose of those provisions of Clause 8 (4) of the original Bill which require an arbitrator to take into account the improvements executed on a holding by a tenant. Otherwise there would be an obscurity on the point. I move that this House does not insist upon its Amendment and agrees to the Commons Amendment.

Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment and agrees to the Amendment made by the Commons.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)


Can the noble Lord tell me what this sub-paragraph means? It was not clear in the original Bill and I submit it is no clearer now.


It is a legal point. The words are intended solely for the purpose of removing any question as to whether continuous good farming is to be treated as an improvement for the purposes of subsection (4) which requires the arbitrator to take it into account. It would be obscure without the sub-paragraph.


Is the noble Lord right? The Government do not propose to put subsection (3) back in its original form but in a different form. Of course, I am open to correction, but I am not sure that the noble Lord has explained correctly the effect of the new Commons words as they stand.


I am sorry if I have not made myself sufficiently clear to the noble Marquess. I made it as clear as I could. It is a rather abstruse legal point, and I am sure there is nothing in it from a serious point of view. It is purely legal drafting.

On Question, Motion agreed to.