APPLICATIONS FOR TENANCY OF THE HOLDING (Hansard, 19 October 1976)

§ Mr. Strang
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 13, in page 26, line 9, leave out from "applicant" to "the" in line 10.

§ Mr. Strang
When a tenant farmer dies any of his close relatives as defined in subsection (1) that is spouse, brother or sister, child or treated child, will be eligible close relatives for the purposes of the family succession scheme provided they fulfil two conditions. The first is that they have derived their principal source of livelihood on the deceased tenant's farm for at least five years in the past seven years. This would establish a close link with the holding. The second condition is that they are not already the occupiers of a commercial holding elsewhere whether as owner or tenant.
If an eligible close relative applies to the Tribunal under Clause 19(1) for a direction entitling him to a tenancy of the holding the tribunal will first satisfy itself as to his eligibility and then consider his suitability as a tenant using the tests set out in Clause 19(8). It is at this stage that the landlord is permitted to give his comments as to the suitability of an applicant to be the tenant of the holding. This is provided for in subsection (7). The evidence will be given in open court, normally on oath or affirmation, and the landlord may be cross- 1230 examined as in normal courtroom procedure. If there are several applicants the landlord can give his comments on each one in turn. Clearly, if he has any preference for one of them as his future tenant or has a decided objection to one or more of them there is nothing to stop him giving evidence in such a way as to indicate it. Finally, if more than one applicant is adjudged to be a suitable applicant the tribunal will have to choose between them unless the landlord is willing to accept joint tenants.
What is at issue here is whether the landlord should have the ultimate right to choose between two or more sons, for example, who are competent to succeed the deceased tenant farmer or whether the final decision should rest with the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I believe strongly that it is important that this should rest with the tribunal.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is not in his place at the moment, but he referred to a delicate point which always has to be put with care. The fact is that landlords are human, just like farmers and farm workers. There are some landlords—probably very few in number—who are capable of making a distinction between two sons on grounds which would not be agricultural and which I am sure most hon. Members would regard as unacceptable and unfair. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, there might be a situation under the present set-up in which the son of a tenant farmer was inhibited in the role that he played in the community and in his relationship with the landlord because he did not wish to offend him. Equally there might be a situation, if we accepted the Lords amendment, in which a son with a number of brothers all interested in taking over the farm could be inhibited for this very reason.
I do not make too much of this, but it is a point which fairly should be placed on record. There are other considerations and we have discussed this matter in Committee. But I hope that the House will agree on reflection that it is right and appropriate, since the Agricultural Land Tribunal will have gone through all the steps and since the landlord will have been able to make clear his preference, that the ultimate decision should rest with the tribunal rather than with the landlord.

§ Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)
It has been said already this evening that frequently the Opposition have to contend with political dogma from Government supporters. All the time in the arguments about this Bill, we find being pushed through the same philosophy that the tenant is always right and that the landlord is always wrong. Although the Government make nominal concessions to the personal relationship which exists in the country side between landlords and tenants, when it comes to passing legislation they do all that they can to divide up that relationship.
Here, surely, is a classic example of the Government's inhumanity to landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) described the effect of the Bill as "confiscation", which upset the Parliamentary Secretary. But how else can one describe the deprivation of a man's property for perhaps 70 or even 100 years than "confiscation"? It seems to be that in all reasonable argument.
The Pooh-Bah of the Government in the other place, Lord Melchett, said: We have already made a major concession to the landlord's interest by allowing him to give his views on the suitability of each applicant. Later in his remarks, the noble Lord said: The whole concept of the scheme is one of social justice or equity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th June 1976; Vol. 372, cc.—487–88.] We have here a potential situation, which I accept is unlikely to arise very frequently, where one, two or three suitable applicants having passed all the tests about which we have heard so much, may be accepted by the tribunal. Then one would have thought that the Government would allow the landlord to decide which of them he might decide to have as his tenant. But, apparently, the tribunal is to be blessed with some power that is greater and better than that personal relationship, which presumably will have existed for a number of years, between the landlord or his agent and the tenant concerned.
I hate to think of the great trials of the past with the baby brought before Solomon, with Portia pleading the case in "The Merchant of Venice" and with 1232 Fred, Edward and Elizabeth Bloggins arguing before the Agricultural Land Tribunal which of them should have the tenancy of the farm not just for their lifetime but for the lives of their children and grandchildren as well. To me, this is wrong in terms of the ordinary human considerations about which we have heard so much in these debates.
I leave the House with one thought. I wish to cast no aspersions on any of my colleagues or on any other hon. Member who may be present. But surely in the minds of all of us the question occasionally arises how a colleague might have been selected for the onerous task of representing his party in some constituency. Does it ever occur to us that, in the half-hour or three-quarters of an hour interview which the selection committee gave to that hon. Member, it may have made a mistake?
9.45 p.m.
Might it not have been better, with the wisdom of hindsight, if a different decision had been made? I do not wish to press this matter too far, but I ask the Minister to think about it again and when legislation to amend this Bill becomes necessary—as it undoubtedly will—I hope this matter will be put right. Great unhappiness is going to be caused by it.