§ Page 6, leave out Clause 14.
§ Page 7, line 22, at end insert the following new clause:
1234§ that there is a taint of confiscation left in the Bill. Small holdings will no longer belong to their owners, and it will be impossible for a proprietor to sell a holding, probably, because of this so-called security of tenure by the small holder. I should like to have seen, if possible, a compromise under which at least the small holdings which have been sold under the present conditions should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, but I have consulted with my Scottish colleagues in this matter and—I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, does not agree with this—most of those to whom I have talked consider that it is not a point which we should press. Therefore I do not propose, although entirely disagreeing with the Government's attitude, to press the Amendment, and I would not support my noble friend if he went to a Division.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMNot although he is right?
§ On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 9.
1233| CONTENTS. | ||
| Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Munster, E. | Clwyd, L. |
| Plymouth, E. | Danesfort, L. | |
| Parmoor, L. (L. President.) | Stanhope, E. | Darling, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Desborough, L. | |
| Bedford, D. | Gainford, L. | |
| Wellington, D. | Bertie of Thame, V. | Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.] |
| Bridgeman, V. | ||
| Linlithgow, M. | Goschen, V. | Hayter, L. |
| Salisbury, M. | Hailsliam, V. | Heneage, L. |
| Mersey, V. | Marks, L. | |
| De La Warr, E. | Marley, L. [Teller.] | |
| Harrowby, E. | Southwark, L. Bp. | Olivier, L. |
| Lauderdale, E. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. | |
| Lucan, E. | Truro, L. Bp. | Snell, L. |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | Wavertree, L. | |
| Midleton, E. | Arnold, L. | Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Airlie, E. | Novar, V. [Teller.] | Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.) |
| Bresidalbane and Holland, E. | Lamington, L. [Teller.] | |
| Morton, E. | Banbury of Southam, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Clinton, L. |
§ Amendment of s. 32 (11) of Act of 1911.
§
(". Section thirty-two of the Act of 1911 shall be amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (11):—
'(12) It shall be competent to the tenant not later than two months prior to the expiry of the period of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act or of any subsequent period of tenancy
1235
and after given written notice to the landlord to apply to the Land Court to be declared a landholder, and the Land Court shall so find and declare, unless the landlord shall lodge with the Land Court a written application to have it declared that the tenant and his statutory successors in the holding shall have the same rights in all respects to compensation for permanent improvements on renouncing the tenancy or being removed from the holding as if the tenant had been a landholder, and on such application by the landlord the Land Court shall find and declare accordingly.'")
§ The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
§ Because it is desirable that the statutory small tenants should have an option to become landholders without the, necessity of application to the Land Court, and the new clause proposed in lieu of Clause 14 does not secure this and would unnecessarily create a third hind of tenure under the Small Landholders Acts.
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the Amendment to leave out Clause 14.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
§
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW had given Notice to move that the House should not insist on the Amendment, but should amend the clause restored to the Bill by the Commons by inserting at the end:
Provided further that if within one month after the service on a landlord of such a notice as aforesaid the landlord lodges with the Land Court an undertaking in writing that the tenant shall have the same rights to compensation for permanent improvements as if he were a landholder, the Land Court shall, after intimation to the tenant, direct such undertaking to be recorded in the Landholders Holdings Book, and the undertaking shall be recorded accordingly, and thereupon the tenant shall be deemed as regards the rights aforesaid but in no other respect to be a landholder.
§ The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I am well aware that I am the only member of your Lordships' House who does not perfectly understand the procedure on these occasions, but, doing the best that I can, I understand it will be appropriate if I move now the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name. The effect of this Amendment is to do that which was achieved by the Amendment on page 7, line 22, of the Bill as it came up from the other 1236 House originally, which Amendment is printed on the Paper. I have reason to suppose that the method embodied in this Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name to-day is less distasteful to His Majesty's Government than that which at present stands in the Bill. The effect of this Amendment if embodied in the Bill would not, I think, be precisely parallel to the effect of the words standing in the Bill already, and for these reasons: whereas under the Bill as amended in this House on Report it would fall to the tenant to move in order to obtain his compensation, under the Amendment which stands in my name it will fall to the landlord to move; and whereas under the Bill as amended on Report there would in effect be no change whatever in the status of the statutory small tenant, under the Amendment which I am moving the statutory small holder does become a landholder in respect of the rights in question but in no other respect. To that extent, of course, there is a substantial difference between the effect of the clause of the Bill as it left this House and the Bill as it would stand if this Amendment is accepted by His Majesty's Government and your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
At the end of the Motion insert ("but that the clause restored to the Bill by the Commons be amended by adding the said proviso ").—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
§ LORD CLINTONMy Lords, the words which are now inserted in the Bill by another place do not, I understand, make any substantial difference to the clause which your Lordships inserted on Report. Clause 14 remains as before, but the proviso makes a very important alteration. Your Lordships will no doubt recollect that under the Small Landholders Bill, 1911, there were very substantial differences between the statutory small tenant and the landholder, the main difference being that the landholder had put up more than half his buildings, while the statutory small tenant had not done so. He may have done nothing at all, or may have put up quite a small amount of building. But the statutory small tenant had the very substantial privilege that he could get his lease renewed. He could apply to the Land Court for a fair rent, and—what is important in 1237 the present discussion—if the landowner did not put up sufficient buildings for him, he could apply to the Land Court.
In this proposed proviso we are still admitting the possibility of the statutory small tenant becoming a landholder, and we are in effect making a very considerable alteration of the land tenure in Scot-land. I admit that this clause will not apply in very many eases; that is to say. I understand that the statutory small tenants are a dwindling body, and now consist only of those who are the lineal successors, the heirs at law, of those who were statutory small tenants in 1911; yet the principle does remain the same. But the general effect seems to me that by this clause and this proviso you are making a very great alteration in the Agricultural Holdings Act. Under Part I of the First Schedule of that Act a tenant who puts up buildings can only get compensation for them at the end of the lease if he has put them up with the consent of the landholder, on the general ground—I have no doubt perfectly correct-ground—that no one could be allowed to spend another man's capital without his consent. Now you are definitely allowing that man, although he has not received consent to put up his buildings, to obtain compensation from the landowner. The only justification that I can put forward for accepting this proviso is that the body of men affected is so very small and is gradually diminishing that it will not be worth while for your Lordships to insist on any alteration in the clause; for that reason I shall not oppose my noble friend's Amendment.
EARL DE LA WAREMy Lords, it is perfectly true, as has been very clearly put before your Lordships, that this proposal of the noble Marquess is a very big advance in the direction in which the Government wish to go, but, as he has also told your Lordships, it does not go as far as we wish, the difference being that, whereas this clause does bestow the rights of the smallholder on the tenant, as regards compensation for permanent improvements, it does not do so as regards other matters, such as rights of bequest, while the security of tenure is dependent on different provisions, and it is also necessary for him to go to a Land Court before he can take advantage of the clause. An additional disadvantage is that it incidentally creates a third type 1238 of holding. But, as the noble Marquess's proposal is a very big advance in our direction, whilst not actually committing the Government to its full acceptance at the moment, I do not propose, if the noble Marquess presses it, to ask your Lordships to divide.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to: the said Amendments not insisted upon and a proviso added to the restored Clause 14 accordingly.