GROUNDS FOR CONSENT TO OPERATION OF NOTICE TO QUIT A TENANCY LET BEFORE 1 JANUARY 1984 (Hansard, 21 April 1983)

§ Mr. O'Neill
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 11, at end insert— `Provided that this case shall not apply where the tenant has been engaged, throughout the period from the date of death of the person from whom he acquired right to the lease, in a course of relevant training in agriculture which he is expected to complete satisfactority within four years from the said date and has made arrangements to secure that the holding will be farmed with reasonable efficiency until he completes that course.'. This is an attempt to make case 1 in part of the schedule the same as case 5 in part II of schedule 1. It is intended to allow a student to continue traning provided that adequate provision is made for the running of the farm during the period of training. This will be possible when the student succeeds to a tenancy following death, or whatever, after 1984. There is every likelihood now that the son of a tenant who in undergoing a course of study would not be allowed to take up the tenancy on completion of his studies. We feel that it would be helpful to put both types of tenancy—the ones in existence before 1984 and those that are post-1984 — on the same footing. We realise that is a relatively short period, but there is no reason why existing tenants should be disdadvantaged against prospective tenants under the new set of arrangements.

§ Mr. John MacKay
As has been said, the purpose of the amendment is to apply to existing tenancies the precise safeguard that the Bill will create for new tenancies where the successor is training for agriculture. The safeguard for new tenancies is that the land court shall not consent to a notice to quit if the successor is undergoing agricultural training. For existing tenancies, the safeguard for the young successor undergoing training lies in the requirement set out in existing legislation, as continued by the Bill, which provides that the land court shall consider whether in these circumstances a fair and reasonable landlord would serve a notice to quit.
Both the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation consider that the existing balance between landlord and tenant should not be disturbed and that the provision of the fair and reasonable landlord gives protection to existing tenancies. For new tenancies we are creating more specifically the new condition. We do not consider that there is any need to change the balance in existing tenancies because the provision of the fair and reasonable landlord acts as the safeguard for any youngster in the position under discussion.

§ Mr. O'Neill
In the light of the assurance that the Minister has given on the basis of fair and reasonable landlords, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. O'Neill
I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 16 after 'holding', insert `and from any agricultural unit of which the holding forms part'. The amendment seeks to do what we tried to do by means of amendment No. 11 in respect of another of the criteria, but in this instance in respect of holdings. We believe that tenants should have the same rights after 1 January 1984 as they have enjoyed previously. If the Minister tells us that fair and reasonable landlords will be operating after 1984, we shall be happy to accept his assurance, although in this area I am not quite sure whether his assurances will be as strong as the previous ones. The amendment is similar in intent. There are seven cases in this schedule. The Opposition felt it preferable to have them all on the same footing before and after 1 January 1984. Were it not for the expedition of this business, the House might have debated longer a previous amendment. In this instance the Minister must come up with something better than he did before. Hope springs eternal.

§ Mr. John MacKay
Under the existing legislation, on the death of a tenant a near relative successor cannot be challenged by a notice to quit if other land of at least the size of a two-man unit which he occupied forms part of the same agricultural holding as the holding to which the succession relates. Even though that other land may be geographically separated from the succession holding for future tenancies, it is intended that in these circumstances the successor will be open to challenge if he already occupies another two-man holding whether or not that other holding forms part of the same unit as the holding to which he succeeded.
I give the example of a father who is the tenant of a farm and his son is a tenant, the owner-occupier or perhaps a partner of another substantial farm larger than a two-man unit, and the son's farm is separated geographically from the father's but both are worked together as one agricultural unit. If the father died, the son as the near relative would succeed to his tenancy. Under existing legislation, the son could not be challenged on multi-occupancy grounds notwithstanding that he was already the owner or occupier of another farm of substantial size because that other farm formed part of the same agricultural unit as the holding to which the succession related.
While these provisions will continue to apply to existing tenancies, the Government consider that there should be no restriction on new tenancies. Both sides of the industry support that view.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) might accept that in those circumstances the arguments for smaller and different units do not hold. The Government are referring to the position where a big holding forms an agricultural unit with the holding of the person the succession is for. In those circumstances, the Government and the industry think it right that there should be no restriction for future tenancies, although the current restriction will apply to existing tenancies. I trust that, with that explanation and example, the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. John MacKay
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The purpose of the Bill is to introduce changes in the law governing the relationship between agricultural 467 landlords and tenants in Scotland, changes affecting the procedure for determining rent and rent review cases that go to arbitration and the arrangements for succession on the death of a tenant. The legislative changes had their origins in joint proposals by both sides of the industry in Scotland, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation which resulted from their concern about the decline in the number of farms available to let. The Government consider that the legislative measures in this Bill, together with the tax reliefs that we have introduced for let land, will make an important contribution to halting the decline in the let sector and safeguard the traditional landlord tenant system.
I commend the Bill to the House.

§ Mr. O'Neill
The Opposition gave the Bill a qualified welcome; they continue to be somewhat qualified in their enthusiasm for it. It is clear that the Bill resulted from lengthy negotiations between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Scottish National Farmers Union and the Scottish Landowners Federation. Occasionally such deals or compromises are given as the reason why there should be virtually no opposition to a Bill. It would be most regrettable to set a precedent establishing that deals agreed outside should become the basis for legislation to which there should be no opposition.
Although the Opposition accept that the people involved are the best people to be consulted, the House has the final say. It is to that end that the Opposition have tabled amendments and have sought to have discussions on the legislation to ensure that the House, and not outside bodies, decides what legislation governing an important area of agricultural leasing is enacted.

§ Sir Hector Monro
Hon. Members would not wish the Bill to leave the House without congratulating the 468 Government on introducing it. For a long time change has been desired in the structure of farm tenancies in Scotland. When agreement is reached between the Scottish Landowners Federation and Scottish National Farmers Union and chartered surveyors, it is right that we should move, as the Government have done, with commendable expedition. This Bill will be welcomed throughout agriculture in Scotland.
The Labour Party tends to think that there are no tenants in the Scottish National Farmers Union. It is quite wrong. Meetings have taken place at branch level and at the headquarters of the National Farmers Union of Scotland in which it has expressed views on the proposed legislation. The Bill is a valuable step forward, and I support the Government.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I did most of the speaking in Committee and perhaps it is fitting that I should have the last word on Report.
The Scottish National Farmers Union and the Scottish Landowners Federation asked for the legislation and have got it. They have prevailed on the Government and the House to give considerable concessions to landlords in respect of rent review periods and of the ability to break the succession of tenancies. I trust that after further amendments are made in the other place tenants will be given some protection from unfair rent increases. The Scottish agricultural community has been given unsubstantiated hope of more tenancies to come. I hope that that works, but I have my doubts. I am not convinced that there is much future in appealing to the good nature of landlords. The track record throughout Scottish history has not been very good on that subject.
The Bill contains one fatal flaw in its failure to address itself to the abuse of tenancy partnerships. I look forward to returning to the subject of land tenure in Scotland in the near future in a Scottish Parliament.