Clause 11 (Hansard, 13 June 1968)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments: Nos. 7, 17, 18, 19 and 20.

§ Mr. Buchan
During the Committee stage in another place the Government said that we were in agreement in principle with an Amendment which had been tabled and which would have had the effect of allowing a landlord to seek the consent of the Land Court to dispossess a successor who was a near relative and therefore could not be dispossessed under the Act of 1958, but who already had another agricultural holding capable of providing employment for two men. There were, however, a number of objections to the Amendment as tabled and the Government undertook in another place to put down an Amendment at a sub- 544 sequent stage which, while meeting the principle of the original Amendment, would also meet the objections to the original proposal—the question of the two holdings. These Amendments we are now discussing were introduced at the next stage of the Bill. The main Amendment is No. 17 and the others are consequential on it. The effect is to add a further type of case in which the Land Court are required to consent to the operation of a notice to quit given to a near realtive. They will have to consent if they are satisfied that the successor is the occupier—whether as owner or tenant—of other land capable of providing full-time employment for the occupier and at least one other man.
There are two provisos. First, the new provision will apply only where the tenant is already in occupation of the other land before he inherits the holding to which the notice to quit relates. This means that the provision will not apply where a successor has inherited two holdings simultaneously. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to place on the Land Court the difficult task of considering which of the two holdings the successor should be allowed to retain. This situation can only arise where the successor has inherited two holdings simultaneously which were both already in possession of the deceased tenant. If we did not exclude this case therefore we would have allowed the breaking up of land which has already been in the occupation of one individual. The Amendment also includes the case where the other land occupied by the successor forms a single agricultural unit with the holding which he has inherited. If we had not made this exclusion, which was strongly pressed by the Scottish National Farmers' Union, it would have involved breaking up an existing agricultural unit which would have been at variance with our general farm structure policy. I think the House will agree that this Amendment is satisfactory. It allows a landlord to repossess a holding which has fallen to a successor who already occupies another sizeable holding; but does not allow him to do so where it would involve breaking up an existing agricultural unit.

§ Mr. Stodart
It was my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) who, in Committee, first planted the seed 545 which has resulted in this change. He tried to meet the point simply, perhaps over simply since he attempted to say that a farm should pass to a near relative so long as that near relative was not the owner or tenant of another agricultural holding. When one considered the matter further one realised that that sort of drafting would have included occupation of a non-viable holding. I have no doubt that the Minister is pleased to move the Amendment because in Committee he remarked that he could hold out no hope of a change in this direction.
A more elaborate attempt to make this change was made in another place, but that was rejected because it would have allowed the landlord to escape the restrictions placed on him by this legislation in the case of a near relative of a former tenant who owned a farm, even if he did not have working possession of it.
The Government said in another place that they would do their best to move in the direction of the change which has been proposed. While I do not wish to seem grudging about it, my general reaction to the principle behind these provisions has not changed and I do not think that the Minister would have expected such a change. However, this is a welcome condition and I am obliged to the Government for having made this proposal. They have made the Clause at least that much less objectionable than it previously was.