AGRICULTURE ACT 1958(AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 13 December 1967)

I beg to move.

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to security of tenure in agriculture in Scotland.

I am aware that there have already been indications in the House and in the Press that the Government intend, by separate legislation, to make the same kind of changes which the Bill which I seek leave to introduce would make. I say to the Minister that if that were so I should be only too happy to withdraw my Motion completely. What I am anxious to ensure is that security of tenure is restored. However, I am also anxious to know— we still do not know— first, how extensive restoration would be, and, secondly, whether there would be, within any such Bill, a retrospective element to protect those who are currently under threat of eviction.

The Agriculture Act 1958 removed the right of succession from father to son previously enjoyed by tenant farmers, and, although this probably did not have any marked immediate effect there is no doubt that the long-term effect has been bad. It has bred insecurity. It has done harm and it is doing harm. Land and its ownership is something which arouses great emotion, naturally; and this is particularly true in the North of Scotland, where there are a great many large estates where the misuse of land and bad landlordism have left a legacy of bitterness.

If land is to be farmed properly a long-term policy is required. The effects of good husbandry do not show in one, two or three years; they show over a long period of time. It is, therefore, vitally important that there should be continuity in working the land. If a farmer is uncertain whether he will be able to pass his land over to his son there is a real danger that he will be tempted to take as much as he can out of the land, and that is bad for the land and bad for the country.

I would reject the argument that to restore security of tenure would freeze land tenure, particularly agricultural land tenure, in Scotland. The small landlord 432 has the opportunity through the Land Court, if he can establish a need to resume land, to do so. There is no real danger there.

Liberals have been committed to the reintroduction of security of tenure, subject to good husbandry. Equally, one felt that the Labour Government were committed to this. Labour candidates in the North in 1966 and 1964 mentioned this again and again in their speeches and election addresses. Two and a half years ago I asked the Secretary of State what action he proposed to take to restore security of tenure. The right hon. Gentleman said that at that moment he had no intention of changing the existing law.

I pursued the matter further in 1965 by Oral Questions and further again. In July 1966, the Under-Secretary of State said that problems were involved and that the Department was having discussions. To my mind, the problem was clear way back in 1958. The right hon. Tom Fraser, who served the House so well and so long, knew about the problem and spoke about it clearly and well in 1958.

In the time that we have been waiting — and we have been waiting far too long — certain people have been put under threat of eviction and are liable to be put out. I have in my constituency an outstanding case of Mr. Sandy Matheson, of which the Minister is aware. This is something which we in this House have got to stop. The Labour Party was committed to my proposal. These people depended on the Government. It is vital that a Bill be introduced to restore security of tenure and to restore it with an element in it covering those who are presently under threat of eviction.

I would make two final points. First, certain estates have been making a practice of saying to farmers who seek to put the name of their son on the tenancy that they may be permitted to do so if they pay an extra 10s. or something else per acre. This is nothing less than blackmail pure and simple, and it must stop. The Government have a duty to see that it stops and as soon as possible.

Secondly, I am certain that the continuity of working of land is in the best agricultural interests of the country. One can see large estates in the North where farms have been resumed by the landlord because possibly there was no heir; 433 the result has been depopulation. The consequences have been empty glens and a poorer standard of land use.

I and my Liberal colleagues want to see healthy and secure agriculture in the North of Scotland— indeed, in the whole of Scotland. It is for this purpose that I seek leave to introduce the Bill.