§ Clause 3, page 4, line 5, after ("by") insert ("and at the expense of")
Clause 3, page 4, lines 17 to 32, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) The Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, shall, in the case of an allotment within the meaning of this section to which those Acts apply, have effect as if the provisions of this section as to the determination and recovery of compensation were substituted for the provisions of those Acts as to the determination and recovery of compensation, and a claim for compensation for any matter or thing for which a claim for compensation san be made under this section, may be made either under those Acts or under this section, but not under both.
(6) the compensation in respect of an, improvement made or begun on an allotment (not being an allotment garden) before the passing of this Act shall be such (if any) as could have been claimed if this Act had not been passed.")
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Earl of Ancaster.)
§ LORD DYNEVOR
My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill if he would make clear the meaning of the Commons new clause— Clause 3, page 4, lines 17 to 32. To make my point clear, I shall have to read the beginning and the last part. The Amendment states in subsection (5) that the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1921, shall apply to any allotment within the meaning of this section. The, last part of this new subsection states that "a claim for compensation for any matter or thing for which a claim for compensation can be made under this section, may be made either under those Acts or under this section, but not under both." The point I want to raise is that Section 11 of the Agriculture Act of 1920 is repealed in the Schedule, are Section 11 is the compensation clause of the Agriculture Act of 1920. As that section is repealed how is compensation going to be determined under the 1920 Act?
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
The only answer I can give the noble Lord on that matter is that the supplementary clauses were inserted at a late stage in consequence of a suggestion made by the Committee dealing with the Agricultural Holdings 1055 (Consolidation) Bill. The object was to reproduce as nearly as was practicable the existing law as to landlord and tenant in the case of an allotment to which the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, applies—that is, allotments under two acres or cottage gardens, but not including allotment gardens for which provision is already made in Clauses 1 and 2. It was found that subsection (5) of Clause 3 excepted the rights of tenants of these allotments, and could not properly be regarded as consolidation legislation. The new clauses have been drafted so that the clause will be substantially pure consolidation, except that the method of determining and recovering compensation provided by the Bill is substituted for the method provided by the Act of 1887, and the Agricultural Holdings Act. The noble Lord will remember that in the Bill it states that the County Court Judge is the person who will settle the claims.
§ LORD DYNEVOR
In the Schedule of the Bill Section 11 of the Agriculture Act, 1920, is repealed, and Section 11 is the clause under which compensation is given in the 1920 Act. You have repealed the very section to which you have to look for determining the compensation. I do not want to press the matter very much. I hope it will work out all right.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble Lord is right in what he says about the Schedule, but there are other sections in the Agriculture Holdings Act which treat of the matter. On my reading of the Commons Amendment it is almost drafting, and I think it is all right.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I propose next, unless any noble Lord has any point to raise, to put the Amendments on Clauses up to, but not including, Clause 7.