COMMONS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 1 August 1922)

§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships understand what is intended by the change made by the House of Commons in this clause. Under this clause, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, the tenant is to get compensation, but under subsection (4) "a tenant whose tenancy is terminated by the termination of the 1025 tenancy of his landlord shall still be entitled to recover from his landlord such compensation (if any) as would have been recoverable if his tenancy had been terminated by notice to quit given by his landlord." It does seem to me a very extraordinary provision that a landlord having sublet to a tenant on the clear agreement that no compensation should he claimed, is to be liable to pay compensation even although his own tenancy in connection with the holding has disappeared. The superior tenancy lapses, and yet he, in respect of the subletting which under agreement was not to be subject to the payment of compensation, is forced to pay compensation. I think it is really carrying the matter too far, and I therefore move that this House cloth disagree with the Commons Amendment.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not continue his opposition to this Amendment. The words left out limit the compensation for manure to such manure as was applied to the land since the taking of the last crop therefrom in anticipation of a future crop. It was pointed out elsewhere that there might conceivably be value to the landlord or incoming tenant of manure not so applied. By a subsequent Amendment in the interpretation clause the value is to be ascertained on the basis of the value to the incoming tenant, and therefore I think there is no objection to the Amendment. Subsection (4) which has been inserted is necessary to secure to the allotment holder compensation for crops where the tenancy is terminated not by the landlord automatically but by the termination of the tenancy under which the landlord or superior tenant holds the land. It follows subsection (4) of Clause 9. Subsection (5) is the same provision as is already found in the analogous case dealt with in Clause 3, subsection (3).

§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
My Lords, I do not think the argument of the noble Earl is very conclusive. The landlord may have let to a tenant with the knowledge that his own tenancy will terminate in two years, and he lets with the clear understanding that there is to be no compensation payable in consequence of this termination. But by this subsection, for the first time, 1026 so far as I know, in any Act of Parliament, it is provided that where a man has made an agreement knowing his own tenure is limited, and that therefore he does not wish to be, and ought not to be, held assessable for compensation when his own holding lapses, it is still to be held that the tenant who had no rights against him is to have rights against him after he, the landlord, has terminated his connection with the holding.

§ VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL
My Lords, I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will reconsider his decision. We are making new departures in this Bill with regard to compensation which I think are extremely dangerous. As I understand—I have not seen this Amendment and I do not know anything about it, beyond what we have been told— it is the case that the superior tenant, after he has ceased to have any connection with the property, is to be held liable to pay compensation to the allotment tenant. If that is the case, and my noble friend goes to a Division, I shall support him, because I think it is not only unfair to those who may be in the position of a superior tenant, but I think it is thoroughly bad in the interests of the allotment system. If you want to extend the allotment system, and to supply the demand for allotments, you want to make the law as simple and as little burdensome as you can. This points in a wholly opposite direction, and unless we can hear something more satisfactory than we have heard so far I hope that my noble friend will press his Motion to a Division.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
I do not know that I have much to add to what I have already said, except that under this Bill, as it now stands, nobody can contract out of having to pay compensation, and I think it would be dangerous not now to agree to this Amendment.

§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
Seeing that the Commons Amendments have only been circulated to-day I must press my Motion.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I am going to make a suggestion to the Government. I do not know whether they will take it. Two or three noble Lords approached rue before the meeting of the House and suggested that it was rather unreasonable to take the Commons Amendments to-night. They said they 1027 had had no time thoroughly to examine them, and that they had to take them on trust. I made the reply which I think would have been made by any experienced member of your Lordships' House, that if there was any objection of substance I thought they had a strong case, but that if it was a matter of form I did not think it was worth while asking your Lordships to postpone the Bill.
It now appears that there are objections of substance, and I think it is clear from the short discussion that several of your Lordships are rather in doubt as to the exact effect of the Commons Amendments. I am certainly not in a position to enlighten them. I saw the Amendments for the first time five minutes ago, and I think that the Government will not lose any time by postponing the further consideration until to-morrow. In the time that will elapse those interested in the Bill will be able to make themselves acquainted with the facts, and I think that probably the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, if he agrees to this postponement will find that the Bill will then go through without any more trouble. If, however he presses the acceptance of the Commons Amendment now, we shall probably have to divide against him.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
If it is the general wish of your Lordships I shall be pleased to postpone the consideration of the Commons Amendments until tomorrow. I do not think this actual Amendment is one of great importance, because in cases like this it is perfectly clear that allotments would be let to a council or allotment authority, who would sublet them to sub-tenants, and it is hardly fair that the sub-tenant should lose his right to compensation.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.