COMMONS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 2 August 1922)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of AGRICULTUR1 and FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)
My Lords, I think I ought to say that I am now dealing with the matte as we left it yesterday evening when 1 moved that the House should agree will the Commons Amendment, Clause 2, page 2, line 43, to leave out from ("land"] to the end of subsection (3) and insert two subsections (4) and (5), and debate took place thereon. I hope that your Lordships will accept my assurance that I had no intention of attempting to secure the acceptance of an Amendment which 1 thought might be regarded as of importance by moving the acceptance of this Amendment without explanation. I made such inquiry as was possible, in the short time that was available, to ascertain how-far the Amendments made in another place might be regarded as contentious—

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
We were not responsible for the shortness of time.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
I admit that—and I did not receive any information leading me to think that this Amendment would be so regarded. There are three Amendments combined in the proposal to leave out certain words and insert the new subsections on the Paper. The words proposed to be left out relate to the manure for which compensation can be claimed and propose that the value to the incoming tenant of any manure, and not merely of the manure applied since the last crop, shall be paid to the tenant. To this I understand no objection is raised. The first subsection, subsection (4), deals with the case of an allotment holder who holds his land of someone who is himself a tenant, and I should have thought it desirable to call your Lordships' attention to it, if the general principle involved were not consistent with the existing laws and had it not already been accepted by your Lordships in subsection (4) of Clause 9.
I recognise that in that subsection provision is made for contracting out, but I am afraid that I did not recognise that this might, in this particular case, be regarded as a really material distinction. The case docs not arise frequently except in the case of leases to allotment authorities and associations for the provision of allotment gardens, who, I gather, raise no objection to the provision. But there may be cases 1053 where a farmer holding his land on a tenancy sublets part for an allotment garden. I think that was the case which was particularly taken by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, yesterday afternoon.
The, position under the, existing law is that under the Allotments (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, the allotment holder gets compensation for his crops and manure from the farmer notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, as his right to compensation does not depend, as it does under Clause 2, on his tenancy being determined by his landlord. In the case we are considering the tenancy of the allotment holder is not determined by his landlord, but automatically comes to an end in consequence of his landlord— namely, tin/ farmer—having to give up is farm. Subsection (4), therefore, merely preserves to the allotment bolder the right to claim compensation from his immediate landlord, which he now has, and I think that if time had permitted the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, to go thoroughly into the question he would have realised that subsection (4) is not open to the objections which he indicated, and does not increase the existing liability of the farmer who sublets for allotment purposes. I can only say of subsection (5) that it is the, same provision as that in subsection (3) of Clause 8. To this I imagine no objection will be raised. The purport of it is that it really raises no new principle.

§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
My Lords, the explanation given by the noble Earl is, I think he, will agree, noble satisfactory than the one he made yesterday. He has probably had more time in which to consider the matter. But I do not think that in principle it is defensible that when one man, who has made an agreement with another that there shall be no compensation, has his own tenancy concluded, he should go away and still remain liable to compensation to the sub-tenant. I do not think that' the language is very happy, and it certainly is made to appear in that way. The noble Earl explained that it is only preserving to the, sub-tenant, the allotment holder, the position that he has under existing legislation. I take that from the noble Earl. I can only say that if ever this legislation is reconsidered as a whole I think we ought to lay it down in this House that agreements made between a landlord and a tenant are to be observed, specially in cases where the landlord himself ceases 1054 to be the landlord through no fault of his own.