TERMINATION OF TENANCIES ACQUIRED BY SUCCESSION

HC Deb 21 April 1983 vol 41 cc463-4

Mr. O'Neill

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 27, leave out 'of cases 1, 2, 3, 6 or 7' and insert `case'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'on that ground'.

Mr. O'Neill

The amendment would include cases 4 and 5 in the list of criteria. It would restore the position so at to require the landlord in every instance to justify his reasons for refusing to grant a continuance of the lease. We believe that that would be more consistent, providing an approach that would cover every situation, and that the amendment will thus improve the Bill.

Amendment No. 8 widens the criteria to apply the fair and reasonable provision across the board. That, too, would improve the Bill and would permit a consistency of application of the criteria not achieved by the present wording. We believe that the amendment would be helpful in allowing the arbitration and appeals procedures to take place on a footing of equal weight for all the criteria.

Mr. Home Robertson

I support the amendment. Clause 4 allows the land court to exercise some discretion, as it were, and to grant possession only where a reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. I cannot understand why the Bill as drafted specifically excludes consideration of the resources and training of the tenant. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the amendment would be acceptable to the Government. If the court is to have discretion on all the other points, why should it not have discretion in relation to consideration of the resources and training of the tenant?

Mr. John MacKay

The Bill as drafted applies the fair and reasonable landlord provision to notices to quit for all cases covering old tenancies and new tenancies with the exception of the criterion of financial resources in case 4 and experience and training in case 5, both for new tenancies. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the fair and reasonable landlord provision to apply to cases 4 and 5.

In Committee we argued that the financial standing of a successor is a relevant factor in considering suitability to farm the holding effectively, as is his training and experience. It will be for the land court to determine, in the light of its knowledge and experience and in the circumstances of particular cases, whether a successor has sufficient financial resources, or sufficient training and experience, to farm the holding in question with reasonable efficiency. These are the only grounds that relate directly to the suitability and capability of the near relative successor. We consider it appropriate for the land court to take a decision in the light of the evidence before it on these grounds alone. That is why we have excluded the fair and reasonable landlord provision from cases 4 and 5. Both sides of the industry agree with this.

To accept the amendment would be to defeat a small but important purpose of the Bill, and I must ask the House to resist it.

Amendment negatived.