HC Deb 04 June 1946 vol 423 cc1811-3
72. Mr. Gallacher

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Mr. Thomas Ramsay, a tenant farmer with 22 years' experience of West Grange Farm, Culross, Fife, has been served with notice to quit and the farm has been acquired by an Edinburgh lawyer: that no complaint against Mr. Ramsay has been made by the Agricultural Executive Committee; that the products of Mr. Ramsay's farm have at all times been found of good quality and marketing condition; why he has given his consent to the notice to quit under Defence Regulation 62 (4a); and if he will review his decision and enable Mr. Ramsay to continue his livelihood.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood)

Application was made by the new owner of West Grange Farm for consent in terms of Regulation 64 (4a) of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, to a notice which he had given to the tenant to quit the holding at Martinmas, 1946. As I have informed the hon. Member in correspondence, the question to be decided when such an application is made is whether the change of tenancy will be productive of more food and therefore in the national interest. The Regulation cannot be used merely to ensure security of tenure to a tenant otherwise liable to removal.

In the present instance it was clear from the reports submitted to me by the Agricultural Executive Committee and the Department of Agriculture's technical officer that the proposed change of tenancy was likely to result in a substantial increase in food production. There was therefore no ground on which I would be justified in withholding consent to the notice to quit.

Mr. Gallacher

Will the Minister not agree that it is an intolerable situation where a man spends his life in building up a farm and then, when the land is sold, the new buyer of the land can turn him off and leave him with no occupation?

Mr. Westwood

In correspondence with the hon. Member I have already expressed my sympathy for the tenant, but the Regulation does not give me the power to grant security of tenure to the tenant. My decision has to be based upon what will be best in the way of food production. It is entirely on that basis that I had to uphold the new owner of the land.

Mr. Gallacher

Is the Minister aware that the farmer does not want sympathy—he wants his farm?

Mr. Westwood

It is true, but I want more food in the desperate conditions that we are faced with at the present time. It was that which led to my decision.

Mr. Scollan

I would like to ask the Minister, when he gives a reply of that character, why he does not supply information to the effect that the change of occupancy in the farm will result in giving more food? I do not think it is fair to answer like that.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he is sympathetic to the tenant, the hon. Gentleman is sympathetic to the landlord?

Mr. Westwood

I think that is grossly unfair of the noble Lord. My sympathies are with those who require food under existing conditions, and on that alone was I in a position to give the decision at which I arrived.

Mr. McKinlay

Is it not a fact that the: right hon. Gentleman's answer is tantamount to suggesting inefficiency on the part of the man who has farmed the land for years? If that is so, has he submitted the evidence upon which he acted to the tenant who was forced to leave his place?

Mr. Westwood

I have already pointed out that I received reports from the Agricultural Executive Committee, and also from my technical officer, and all these reports were to the effect that if the owner had the right to enter upon the land we would get more food.

Mr. Gallacher

In view of the very unproductive nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again on an early occasion.

Back to