§
Clause 8, page 15, line 11, at end insert:
("or
(g) where a written contract of tenancy has been entered into (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) for the letting by the landlord to the tenant of a holding which at the time of the creation of the tenancy was in the occupation of the landlord upon the express terms that if the landlord desires to resume that occupation before the expiration of a specified term not exceeding seven years the landlord should be entitled to give notice to quit without becoming liable to pay to the tenant any compensation for disturbance, and the landlord desires to resume occupation within the specified period, and such notice to quit has been given accordingly.")
§ The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out ("whether") and ("or after") in line 2.
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMThis is an Amendment in connection with which we had considerable discussion at a previous stage, and your Lordships will recall that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made a very strong case of the owner-occupier who bought a farm and died leaving a son who had still to be educated, 910 and the widow wanted to let the farm during the period of her son's education and then to resume occupation. It was my duty to resist that Amendment on the ground that if any exceptions were made it would be exceedingly difficult to prevent the provision being abused, because the whole principle underlying the Agricultural Holdings Act in this matter was to forbid contracting out. Of course the amount of land is limited and it is in a sense a monopoly, and the would-be tenant who is applying for a farm is not in a position in most cases to go elsewhere, but is obliged to accept the conditions which are put to him even though he dislikes them. The Commons took the same view, and were not prepared to accept the Amendment as it stood. They suggest an Amendment to the Amendment by leaving out "whether" and "or after" in line 2, and substituting the word "before." The effect of that would be that the cases for which Lord Selborne desired to provide would be exempted from the payment of compensation for disturbance where the arrangements were made before the Bill comes into force. I hope your Lordships will be prepared to accept this as a compromise. I venture to suggest it is a real compromise.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINDoes not that mean that the agreement could not be made at any time afterwards?
§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAMOn any new case.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINIf it is right to make it before, it ought to be right to make it after.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEThe Amendment as left by the Commons is wholly valueless. There are no such agreements in existence. I am afraid we have here come across a fundamental difference of opinion on which I feel very strongly indeed. The Government are quite unnecessarily and I think—if I might be allowed to say so—unjustly sacrificing the owner-occupier to the tenant farmer. Unless my prevision of the future is wholly wrong, neither the landowner of the old style who lived on rents and did not farm 911 his land, nor the tenant farmer who owned no land but rented land will a generation hence count for anything in the agriculture of this country. Owing to the processes in existence before this Bill they were both disappearing classes, but the effect of this Bill is going to hasten their disappearance. Twenty-five years hence the very bedrock and foundation stone of British agriculture will be the owner-occupier, large or small. In this transition period, as the Bill stands, the case may be extremely hard for the small owner-occupier. As I said before he may die while his son is still at school, and his widow wants to let her farm for a year or two till the son can take it up. This Amendment which the Commons have practically rejected was extremely carefully drawn. It applied only to the letting of land which at the moment it was let was in the occupation of the owner. It only applied to a tenancy created for a term
§ Resolved in the negative, and Commons Amendment disagreed to accordingly.