AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 March 1968 vol 290 cc698-792

4.10 p.m.

House again in Committee.

LORD BURTON

I should like to support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl on this Amendment, as I feel that it would make the operation of this Bill very much easier. Most of us knew the length of time it takes to get anything through the Land Court, and anything which can be done to speed up this process must be an advantage. Until such time as the new tenant has been agreed, there may well be no satisfactory person occupying the farm. It will be in the hands of trustees, executors or some such person or persons. As the law stands at the moment, there are already difficulties in this respect—and I speak from personal experience—so that any step which can be devised to speed up the process should be adopted for the good of everyone, whether he be a farmworker, tenant, landlord, or even the Department of Agriculture, who have to get their forms completed by the officer.

LORD HUGHES

The noble Duke has explained why he considers that his Amendment is desirable. I hope to persuade your Lordships that it is in part unnecessary, and otherwise undesirable, because it would put on the successor the onus of proving to the Land Court that he had sufficient training in agriculture and sufficient experience in a type of farming suitable for the unit. Secondly, it would add to the provisions in Clause 18(2) as it stands at present the additional requirement of adequate financial resources.

On the first point, the noble Duke appears to think that the clause, as drafted, puts the onus on the landlord to prove that the successor had neither adequate training nor experience. The first move must, of course, be made by the landlord. This is because he alone can set the ball rolling by giving a notice to quit and stating that he will seek the consent of the Land Court on the grounds of the tenant's lack of training or experience. But once he has done this, the Bill, as drafted, would mean that the Court would be required to judge on the basis of facts put before them by both the landlord and the tenant, and taking account of any other relevant information available to them whether they were satisfied that the tenant had neither sufficient training nor experience. The clause, as drafted, is, moreover, in accordance with normal practice, both in the Agricultural Holdings Acts and elsewhere. The Court have to reach their conclusion on the material available to them.

There is a further objection to this aspect of his Amendment as it stands. We have provided that a successor should be liable to be dispossessed only where he has neither sufficient training nor sufficient experience to farm the holding. The Amendment would require the tenant to have both sufficient training in agriculture and sufficient experience in farming to enable him to farm the holding reasonably efficiently. I think that noble Lords will agree that this would demand an unduly high standard for the average holding. The requirement of adequate experience is related to the particular holding, and in the sort of example which the noble Duke cited of someone he would not wish to accept as a suitable tenant, namely, a man whose only experience was of asparagus farming in Norfolk, obviously if this were the case the Land Court would be bound to hold that this was not experience related to the farming of a particular holding, Unless—and this seems to be unlikely—the noble Duke was proposing to lay a farm for the growing of asparagus, in which case it would perhaps be accepted as being at least an analogous experience.

If a tenant has sufficient experience to enable him to run the holding efficiently it would seem wrong to demand that he should have had some formal training as well. We did have in mind, however, that in some cases a young man might have undertaken some fairly extensive course in agriculture, say at an agricultural college, which would fit him to run the holding to which he had succeeded, although he might not have had time to gain experience on a farm, and we thought that in such a case it would not be right for him to be dispossessed. Insistence on both training and experience might lead to the dispossession of successors who would be well-fitted to run the particular farm concerned.

I turn now to the proposal that the tenant should be required to prove also that he has sufficient financial resources to farm the holding efficiently. On the face of it, the noble Duke's proposal is a reasonable one; but, as so often when I have said that about the noble Duke's proposals, I go on to say that I see in it considerable objections. First, the amount of capital a tenant needs to farm properly is very much a matter of judgment. If the holding was in a very run-down condition, the tenant would need more capital than if he had acquired it from a tenant who had farmed the land well and maintained all the equipment in good order. Further, the tenant's creditworthiness is as important as his actual cash resources. If he is known to be an able farmer and a good business man, he will have little difficulty in getting sufficient capital from financial sources to see him through any initial difficulties. In the clause, as drafted, we have tried to ensure that the successor will be adequately qualified to manage the holding efficiently. And we should hope, therefore, that he would be able to manage the financial side of his affairs competently. There are, of course, safeguards under existing legislation. If the landlord considers that the successor has insufficient capital to run the holding efficiently, he may object to the successor under the provisions of the 1949 Act, and if the Land Court are satisfied that his objections are reasonable, the successor may be dispossessed. We know that the lack of capital has been accepted by the Land Court as a reasonable ground of objection.

As I have said, there are, therefore, a number of objections to this Amendment—I hope I have persuaded your Lordships that I have said it with reason—and, in the circumstances, I must ask the noble Duke to withdraw the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I was rather dismayed when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, say that he thought this would demand an unnecessarily high standard for tenant farmers in Scotland. I should have thought that our entire object ought to be to get the highest standard of farming that is possible. We know that our balance-of-payments situation is very unhealthy at the moment, and one of the ways in which it can be helped is by efficient farming. Therefore, I should have thought that this was no argument for rejecting my Amendment. If the noble Lord thinks that it will give rise to a higher standard than the Government already have in the Bill, I can only say that I should have thought this was an excellent thing.

Secondly, the noble Lord said that in so far as run-down is concerned, the tenant might need more capital in order to farm with efficiency—at least, I think he said that. I should be inclined to disagree with this, because if the farm is run down it is surely up to the landlord to bring it up to a high standard, so far as buildings are concerned. Normally this is what the landlord does; and I think most modern, progressive landlords are only too prepared to do this if they are satisfied that the farm will be well farmed afterwards. A really modern farm, with modern buildings, needs far more stock in order to farm it efficiently than one of these old-fashioned places which have not been improved, and therefore the tenant needs more capital, as well as the landlord having to, put more capital into the farm. This is probably a right and desirable thing.

Thirdly, although under the 1949 Act it is possible to dispossess a tenant owing to lack of financial resources, he has to be very nearly in the bankruptcy court before it is possible to start taking proceedings, and by the time the Lana Court have come to their decision, which necessarily takes a long time (all decisions of the Land Court, for reasons of which we are only too well aware, take a long time), he is almost certainly in the bankruptcy court, and therefore will go in any case. I should have thought it was essential to have some financial provisions in this clause. However, I notice that this point is covered by an Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Burton to the particular subsection which the Government fancy for this, so perhaps we can discuss it further then.

The only thing that impressed me about the noble Lord's argument was the fact that there might be a son who had just been through a college of agriculture, or something like that, and who, through no fault of his own, purely because he was too young, did not have very much practical experience of farming. This, I think, is a point in his favour, because, on the whole, young tenants are good and desirable, and I do not think we want to do anything to discourage landlords from giving farms to young tenant farmers. Therefore, this is a point in my Amendment which I think it would be worth looking at. Otherwise, I remain entirely unconvinced by the noble Lord's argument, and absolutely convinced that my line of approach is preferable to that of the Government. I will, however, withdraw my Amendment on this occasion and try to re-word it so that someone who had had sufficient training, not necessarily sufficient experience, in agriculture would be allowed to continue to keep the farm, regardless of whether the landlord wanted it or not. For this reason, and for this reason only, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.21 p.m.

LORD BURTON moved in subsection (2)(a), after "has" to insert "(i)". The noble Lord said: This Amendment has, of course, been spoken to already, and as my noble friend the Duke of Atholl said, this particular part is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in replying, said that the amount of capital was very much a matter of judgment. What, therefore, better than to put it to the Land Court to settle whether or not a prospective tenant has sufficient capital? Any competent landlord would automatically ensure that a prospective tenant had sufficient capital before he allowed him into a farm. Why, therefore, the Government should resist this Amendment I really cannot see.

As regards creditworthiness, which Lord Hughes also mentioned, I may say that tenant farmers are fairly fortunate, in some ways, in getting credit. I have had particular experience of this in two different cases. In one, I may say, when I got rid of the tenant I was delighted to find the bank had supported him, and continued to support him, although he had lost £6,000. Such people can continue because banks and certain merchants are frightened that if they are not good friends of the farmer it may lose them some of their other farming clients. I feel that this Amendment is an important one, and it is one which I hope might well be pressed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 23, after ("has") insert ("(i)").—(Lord Burton.)

LORD HUGHES

When I invited the noble Duke to withdraw the Amendment I did not say that I hoped to convince him. For me to attempt that, I am afraid, in this sort of subject would perhaps be to attempt the impossible. What I sought to do, with success, was to persuade him to withdraw his Amendment. This is as far as I would wish to go in relation to these two Amendments, Nos. 17B and 17C, in the name of Lord Burton; because 17B is merely incidental to 17C, if I have read them correctly. As the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has remarked, I have really spoken to his Amendment in advance because it was similar to part of the Amendment moved by the noble Duke. The remarks which the noble Lord has made about the ability of suitable farmers to get credit have of course strengthened the case which I made. In suitable cases a good farmer will have no difficulty in getting the necessary financial support to enable him to carry on. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has strengthened my case by giving evidence that, even in a case where a man was not an efficient farmer, he appeared to have succeeded in getting credit to the extent of £6,000 before things went irretrievably wrong. In these circumstances, I think he has helped me in my case that the efficient man will not be in difficulties. The purpose of the Amendment is not to dispossess the efficient man who may be able to lay his hands on financial resources; it is to dispossess the man who will not have adequate financial support to enable him to carry on. As I have indicated, the existing legislation makes provision for dispossession in these circumstances, and I cannot accept what the noble Duke said: that the processes of the Land Court are such that one can get a man out only if he is on the verge of bankruptcy, and that the time taken is such that he will inevitably be bankrupt before it is completed. The information I have is that the Court has in fact dispossessed a tenant on grounds of financial instability or insufficiency before things reached that stage. I think it would be unreasonable in this connection to place this additional requirement in this type of agricultural legislation when facilities for the Land Court to consider the matter already exist elsewhere. I therefore hope that in this case also the Amendment may be withdrawn.

LORD BURTON

I feel that the information which the noble Lord has is not quite correct. The noble Duke was perfectly correct in stating that the tenant had to be practically bankrupt before one could get him out under existing legislation. Therefore, it would be most unfortunate if we got new tenants put in farms when they were on the verge of bankruptcy. I think this is extraordinary. I am sure the noble Lord has inaccurate information on this matter, and I hope he will look at it again.

LORD HUGHES

I would certainly wish to look at the implications of what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has said. It certainly seems that if a man was on the verge of bankruptcy it would he rather difficult for the Land Court, considering all the facts which had been placed before them, to regard him as being an efficient farmer. But this is a different thing from putting down specifically that one of the grounds on which he may be dispossessed is that he is possessed of insufficient financial resources to enable him to be an efficient farmer. I will, obviously, look at all the information we have as to how the Land Court have disposed of matters of this kind in the past, to find out just what is meant by "practically bankrupt". We all know what "bankrupt" means, but perhaps we do not all put exactly the same interpretation on what is "practically bankrupt". The man who has been accustomed to work in hundreds of thousands of pounds might regard the possession of £10,000 as being practical bankruptcy. On the other hand, the man who has been in the habit of working with a few pounds at a time might regard £10,000 as the arrival of the millennium.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I should like to raise another point, from a different angle. The reason why I would support something of this sort is that I do not wish to see a very worthy tenant, perhaps a young lad, getting a millstone hung around his neck. I have seen this happen. The profit margin on some of these difficult hill farms must be remembered. Two men may farm them, but they are still small farms, worked under very difficult conditions, and it requires a great deal of capital to run these farms.

There are three main sources of capital open to a tenant farmer. One is the mart, the second is the seed and corn merchants, and the other is the bank. But if one examines the rates of interest charged by any of the three it will be seen that one is very lucky to get an overdraft at an interest rate of under 8 per cent.—indeed, you will not get it at that. If one looks at the mart's rate of interest—because they always do it on a short-term basis—one will find it is probably something like 20 to 30 per cent.; and the same thing applies to a seed merchant. Therefore, I think that something of this sort should be put in the Bill to protect a very worthy and very decent tenant of the kind I want to encourage. But if he is going to be far better off earning £15 or £16 a week as a farm labourer, I think he would be well advised to do that. Therefore, I would support something in the nature of these two Amendments.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I should like to ask the noble Lord one further question, because Clause 18(2)(a) says: if they are satisfied that the near relative has neither sufficient training in agriculture nor sufficient experience in the farming of land to enable him to farm the holding to which the notice relates with reasonable efficiency … There is absolutely no mention there of acquiring sufficient capital. The Land Court are bound to take into account the case where a man has no capital at all, but I am thinking of the case where a new tenant farmer, the heir to the tenancy, would need, say, £50 000 to stock the farm properly, when he has about £5,000 available and, possibly, may have inherited a certain amount of stock. In this case I feel the Land Court would be bound to come to the conclusion, as this clause stands, that he would be able to farm that particular farm with reasonable efficiency, provided he had had the training and experience.

However, I think he would always find difficulty in farming it in the most up-to-date and modern way with the best methods that are available nowadays, because he simply would not have the capital to buy the necessary machinery and would not be able to obtain loans in view of his rather inadequate financial status. Of course he would be able to farm it, and probably to make some sort of a living, but he would not farm it in the way in which we ought to consider desirable in the latter half of the 20th century. This is an extremely important point, in my view, and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will consider this aspect of it.

LORD HUGHES

There seems to be a certain amount of confusion about this matter, which was possibly precipitated by the references to bankruptcies. There is a right under the Agricultural Holdings Acts to dispossess any tenant at any time if he is bankrupt. The Land Court would take capital into account in considering whether it was reasonable to object to a successor. We know that the proceedings of the Land Court are not as formal as those in other courts of law, and if, in the course of evidence which the owner was putting forward to dispossess the successor, he could show that the man was obviously not possessed of the capital to enable him to farm the place efficiently, that is bound to have some influence on the considerations of the Land Court, particularly when they are aware of the fact that they are the body to which an application or this specific ground can be made under existing legislation.

We are afraid that if we accept the Amendment in the terms stated it would be regarded as a sort of "third leg" on which the tenant—the successor—had to prove his case conclusively. There must always be some sort of balance of judgment in these matters, and in my view the Land Court are well qualified to exercise that balance of judgment. But to a certain extent, as I have already said, I must look at the information which is available, to find out what sort of precedents there are for the dispossession of tenants on the grounds that they do not have the necessary capital to farm the holding efficiently. If I can get the information sufficiently quickly I shall be happy to communicate it to the noble Duke and to the noble Lord in time for them to reconsider the matter before the next stage of the Bill, so that if they do not feel satisfied with the information they may table another Amendment at the appropriate time.

LORD MOLSON

When the Minister gives the consideration to this that he has promised, will he bear this further point in mind?—that, quite clearly, the Land Court will turn to this Bill and to this clause for guidance as to how they are to exercise their discretion. Would he consider whether it would not be desirable that some reference should be made to the financial position of the tenant who desires to hold over? It is not wholly a reply to this point to say that under other legislation if a tenant is in extreme financial difficulty he may be dispossessed. I should have thought it was quite clear that where the special procedure was being devised it should be possible for the court to look at a single clause in order to obtain guidance.

LORD HUGHES

That might be so if the position were as the noble Lord described it, but the reference under the existing legislation is not confined to being dispossessed where the tenant is in extreme financial difficulty. This is placing much too great a stress on the position as it exists at present. It is that he may be dispossessed if he does not have sufficient financial resources to farm the unit properly. However, I have already undertaken to look at the position as it exists, and I think beyond that the Committee would not expect me to go.

LORD BURTON

On this occasion I think the noble Lord has answered my point by saying that the Land Court can look at this. Therefore I feel it should be written into the Bill, because if they are going to look at it, it might just as well be in the Bill. However, in view of the assurance given by the noble Lord I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.38 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (a), to insert: ( ) if the landlord nominates as a prospective tenant of the holding to which the notice relates a person who is willing to become the tenant thereof and the Scottish Land Court are satisfied that such person has greater technical skill than and would be able to farm the holding with greater efficiency than the near relative and if it is stated in the notice that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid, or".

The noble Duke said: I must truthfully admit that this is also an Amendment which I am not particularly hopeful that the Government will accept, but I feel it might lead to more efficient farming because the object of the Amendment is that if the landlord can produce to the Land Court as a potential tenant a man who is so obviously superior, both in his farming ability and his financial status and in every other way, that he is obviously more desirable as a tenant than the near relative who would get the farm under Clause 18 as it stands at the moment, the Land Court should be able to say to the landlord that he may accept this new tenant and that he can serve an incontestable notice to quit on the heir to the old tenant when the lease ends.

This would have the great advantage that it must inevitably lead to more efficient farming. I keep emphasising this point, because in my view it is essential that we should increase our agricultural production. The only way in which we scan do this is by farming more efficiently, and this proposal would lead to that end. The Land Court would obviously have to be convinced that the new potential tenant would be far superior to the person who had inherited the lease of the farm and who was going to be dispossessed. It would therefore be a certain measure of protection for him, although not quite as great a measure as the Bill gives him at the moment.

I believe something of this sort is working quite well in Denmark, and I also believe it would not be used often, mainly because it would be great trouble, both for the landlord to find someone who is likely to qualify under this particular Amendment and also because that person would then have to hold himself available while the Land Court took their time to decide whether he should or should not be allowed to succeed to the tenancy. I do not think there are likely to be many people who would be prepared to stand idly by, waiting to see whether they could get this tenancy, unless they are very keen. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 28, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I should like to support the noble Duke in this Amendment because it will go some way towards preventing farming from becoming a "closed shop". Heaven knows; we have plenty of "closed shops" in this country as it is, and we do not want farming to become one of them. It will also, as my noble friend said, give young men who want to acquire a farm a chance. We have young men pouring from the agricultural colleges with agricultural degrees wanting farms. How they are going to get them if this Bill becomes law, I do not know. It is essential to maintain the efficiency of our agriculture, and we cannot maintain it if the Government intend to turn farming into what I can only describe as a small oligarchy of tenant farmers.

The landlord must be able to obtain the most efficient tenant. We do not want farming to become, for instance, like the printers' union. I understand in the union you cannot become a printer unless you are the son of a printer; I am told that it is in practice as bad as that. I really cannot understand the reactionary attitude of Her Majesty's Government in creating what I can only describe as this new hereditary class to hold sway over hundreds of thousands of acres of our agricultural land. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, smiles, but it is true. It is completely contrary to Fabian doctrine. It is really creating a class that will hold the land ad infinitum for the purpose of agriculture. They will not have to pay any death duties because by law they do not own the land, but in practice they will own the land. The farm tenants in Scotland under this legislation, if it goes through Parliament, will be in the enviable position of having all the power and none of the responsibility. I support my noble friend's Amendment most strongly.

LORD HUGHES

I think it would be wrong if I were to pretend for one moment that this is an Amendment for which I have much sympathy, because it goes completely against the fundamental objects of the Bill. When the noble Duke is supported by the noble Viscount in the terms that he has stated it certainly does nothing to persuade me that my first ideas were wrong. It seems to me to be extraordinary that those who are in possession of land very largely through the hereditary system should find it so objectionable that in a second generation the tenant should be able to carry on the farm. What passed through my mind was that if the sort of restrictions on multiple ownership, for example, which are being proposed in this connection had been in operation some two or three hundred years ago, many noble Lords opposite would not be in possession of the acres they have at the present time. But that has very little to do with what we are discussing. What we are seeking to do is to protect the rights of people who could properly be successors to their near relatives.

The noble Duke has stated that, if a landowner can produce a tenant who is better qualified to farm the land than the near relative, it is reasonable that this should be a ground for dispossessing him. If we were to accept that principle we should in fact be accepting by implication the argument that, any farm which is tenanted ought to be capable of being made available to someone else of whom it could be said that he could be a better farmer. Why confine it to the relative? Why not dispossess the sitting tenant on the same ground at the end of his lease instead of having it go on year bi year? What the Government are seeking to do in this provision is to ensure that where a near relative succeeds he will be an efficient farmer.

We think it unreasonable that he should have to prove he is the most efficient farmer who can be found for this particular farm. That is going much too far.

It is reasonable that the man should be able to persuade the Land Court, if a notice to quit has been served upon him, that he will be able to farm the holding efficiently, and I think it is completely beside the point whether someone else could be produced who could farm it even more efficiently. If he meets the test of being an efficient farmer that is as much as can reasonably be expected in a case of this kind.

I have been accused for the second time of seeking to create a new hereditary set-up in Scotland. I countered this at the last stage by saying one might have a strong desire to protect a family without being accused of wishing to perpetuate the hereditary system. The hereditary system of family succession has of course an hereditary basis. We are not suggesting in this case that once a farm proceeds on death to a near relative we are in fact tying it to the relatives then for generations ahead. Every time there was a death the same procedure would have to be gone through, every man has to prove his right to hold the tenancy. If this were being accompanied by another Amendment that when the hereditary landowner was succeeded by his heir his heir would have to prove that by experience, qualifications, training, holding of capital and all the rest, he was a fit and proper person to succeed, I must admit that I might feel that a much stronger case was being made.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

The hereditary landowner has to pay the taxes, does he not?—which is a very different matter. He has to pay the death duties, and the man who pays the piper should choose at least some of the tune.

LORD HUGHES

I was not aware that it was part of the case which the National Farmers' Union put up each year at the Price Review that farmers were exempt from the payment of taxes.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made an unnecessarily offensive speech on this. The difference between a landlord and tenant, which he is apparently not aware of, is that the landlord owns the land; the tenant enters into a contract to tenant the land for so many years. Owing to wartime emergencies this was extended, in my opinion quite rightly, so that these contractual tenancies did not hold good, and since the war no Government, and so far as I know no person in a position of responsibility, has suggested that sitting tenants who farm adequately should be dispossessed. This is certainly not what my Amendment suggests, and I should be rather surprised if it was what my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard was suggesting. I certainly did not gather that from his speech. But the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, appeared to answer as though we were suggesting that.

There are many other points. The tenants at the moment expect—or did expect until this Bill was introduced—that when they sign tenancies they will have them for their lifetime, provided they were reasonably good tenants. But they did not expect until this Bill was introduced that their sons, daughters, adopted sons and adopted daughters and widows should be able to succeed to their tenancies. I cannot therefore see that we are taking anything away from them if we insert this Amendment. As I said before, we are just likely to improve farming in Scotland.

There is a further point. The Government keep saying that they want to protect the family unit. I agree that this is most important. They have inserted these clauses at the end in relation to amalgamations, which probably are a good thing. If it does not give full employment to the individual occupier and one other man the Land Court will be able to uphold the notice to quit if it is for the purpose of amalgamation. It is these people who are going to be worse off when they are dispossessed of their farms. They are going to tend to be the people who have not got so much capital because they are on smaller farms in the first place. They may not have enough capital even to buy a decent house, let alone a farm. These are not the people who are going to be caught under Clause 18(2)(a), or even my suggested Amendment. There will be exceptions, but on the whole it will be the people who are reasonably well off. I had every intention of withdrawing this Amendment because I realise that it went against the Government's ideas on this subject and therefore there was no point in pursuing it until the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made his speech. However, as a result of what has been said I would much rather not withdraw it.

LORD HUGHES

In this instance I made it perfectly clear that I regarded the Amendment as being against the fundamental objects of the Bill. It would therefore be quite wrong of me to pretend to have any sympathy with it. The noble Lord has said that I made a needlessly offensive speech. I hope that the word "offensive" is not truly to be applied to my speech. I think the word "needlessly" need not be put in at all because if the speech was offensive then obviously it was needless, because it was never my intention to offend anyone.

I must admit, quite frankly, that if the matter had rested at what the noble Duke had written and what he had put in his Amendment and had read, my remarks would probably have been different. Unfortunately, I have to reply to the debate as it emerges. The noble Duke had the benefit of the supporting remarks of the noble Viscount, and it was largely the remarks which the noble Viscount made which prompted me to express some of the things which I thought, and which seemed to me to be perfectly appropriate to the thoughts put forward by the noble Viscount. It would be my last intention to go out of my way to offend the noble Duke, who so frequently puts forward proposals which I find completely unacceptable, in the most acceptable way. I have enough difficulty in trying to persuade him that I am being reasonable when I ask him to withdraw, and I would not make my case more difficult by having him take the view that I am going out of my way to offend him. I wish to show him that that was not my intention. But he will now appreciate that at least on some of these matters of land he and I will not necessarily always think in exactly identical terms.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

After what the noble Lord has said I suppose that, as there is no hope of ever obtaining this Amendment, I should beg leave to withdraw it. But I also beg leave to say to the noble Lord that if he takes exception to the words "needlessly offensive" I will certainly withdraw the word "needlessly" if that would please him. I should be delighted to do anything to please the noble Lord if it will keep him in a good mood to the extent that he may accept some other Amendment.

THE EARL OF PERTH

Before the noble Duke withdraws his Amendment perhaps I may say a few words on something which causes me some anxiety, and perhaps this is the best time to raise it. I am not taking any particular part in this debate because of my position as Crown Estates Commissioner; I do not think it would be appropriate. But the thought which comes to me, on which I should like the noble Lord to help me, is this. As some other noble Lord said, there are coming from the agricultural colleges various well qualified farmers who may subsequently get a good deal of experience on farms which they do not own. With the law of Scotland being different from that of England, I am somewhat worried that these farmers will naturally seek to come to England to get the benefit of an English farm, which they may do more easily than in Scotland, and therefore to take advantage of what they have done in the way of work in the colleges.

I recall that in the Second Reading debate the noble Lord said he thought that the number of cases involved was small. This may or may not be right, in the light of how things develop But what I would ask the noble Lord is whether he would be good enough over the years to come to keep a check on this, and to see whether in fact these well qualified farmers are having opportunities, or whether they have come to England, to the detriment of Scottish agriculture.

LORD HUGHES

I shall be delighted to do that, particularly in view of the confidence which the noble Earl has expressed that I am going to be concerned in these matters for a number of years to come.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

This is another paving Amendment to the new Schedule in Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 42, leave out ("has stated") and insert ("contains a statement").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.58 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, after subsection (6), to insert: ( ) In the case of any lease of an agricultural holding entered into after the passing of this Act where a landlord and a tenant have agreed that the lease shall be terminable after such term of years as may be specified therein this section shall not apply to any notice to quit given at the termination thereof and accordingly at the termination thereof the landlord shall have power to serve an incontestable notice to quit.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment does not cover quite the same point as my new clause, Amendment No. 26, and whether your Lordships accept this Amendment or not, I should still like to move Amendment No. 26 which deals with rather different circumstances from those covered by this Amendment, No. 19A. The purpose of this Amendment is to try to focus your Lordships' attention on what many of us believe is the most serious piece of damage which Part III of this Bill will inflict on the future farming of Scotland, and the Amendment seeks to repair, or at least to mitigate, this damage.

I was sorry that I could not be here at the beginning of the debate on Second Reading, and particularly sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on Part III. I therefore did not take part in the Second Reading debate. But when I came into the House the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was in the middle of his speech; and the first thing I heard him say was that a speech which had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had very nearly driven him into applying for membership of the Scottish Nationalist Party, and that he was just about to do so when he reflected that he was allowing himself to be driven by illiberalism into insanity. I do not think that everybody who belongs to the Scottish Nationalist Party is insane. I think there are some who are not. But since the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is in my view one of the most eminently sane people in the world I was curious to find out what had provoked him into going so near the brink.

When I looked at Hansard next day, I found that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was a very reasonable explanation of the arguments which the English National Farmers' Union had put forward against doing in England what Part III of this Bill does in Scotland. The argument which they put forward was that it would cause a "closed shop" to grow up in farming, and would keep a large number, or a considerable number, of new, energetic young men out of farming. With respect to the noble Lord and to the Scottish Nationalist Party, and to everybody else who ought to be treated with respect, wherever he is, there are a great many farmers in Scotland who hold these views and who say so quite openly in conversation, in spite of the attitude which has been taken up by the N.F.U. Executive. This is what many of us feel is the really damaging consequence likely to result from Part III of this Bill.

I read with great care the noble Lord's speech on Second Reading. There was an earlier part, before I came in, in which he dealt with the possible effect of Clause 18 on the future letting of farms. He said: I would not deny that it may reduce the number to a small extent, but we ought not to exaggerate its effect. At present, many landlords allow a tenant's son or other relative to succeed to a holding, and the fact that this Bill may become an Act is not going to alter the attitude which these landowners would have taken in any event."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/3/68, col. 1278.] That is perfectly true and correct. Most landlords want most sons and most tenants to succeed to the lease. In fact, the reason why I—and I am speaking only for myself—prefer to try to deal with this by Amendment and not by rejecting the whole of Part III, although I think the whole of Part III is made up of thoroughly bad clauses, is that it might give the impression, quite contrary to the facts, as everybody who lives in the Scottish countryside knows, that landowners in Scotland do not want the sons of tenants to succeed their fathers as farmers, whereas the fact is that they normally do. It is quite true, therefore, that the provisions of this Bill may not result in very many people who would not have done so, anyhow, going on with a lease after their fathers.

But then the noble Lord spoke of the farms which do become available. He said: We do not know exactly how many farms become available, but it would seem that the number becoming available for letting in a year is somewhere between 35 and 60".—(col. 1278.) I have tried to get exact figures about this for months, but I have been no more successful than the noble Lord. I think he is probably right in suggesting that the usual number of sizeable farms to be re-let in Scotland in the course of a year is not less than 35 and not more than 60.

Then the noble Lord continued: … it seems unlikely that a high proportion of these are cases in which the landlord has given a successor an incontestable notice to quit."—(col. 1278.) That, I think, is absolutely right. I would say that those 35 to 60 annual cases of new farms to let are practically all cases where the farmer has retired or died, and either he has no son or his son does not want to go on farming and does not want to succeed to the lease. In that case the farm comes on to the market to let, and that is the important class of farms which I want your Lordships to consider now—not the very few farms which might be re-let if the landlord were allowed to eject the farmer's son, but those 35 to 60 farms a year which come on to the market, anyhow, whether we make this provision or not.

Between 1948, when the war-time emergency regulations were statutorily confirmed with the effect, which I do not think was foreseen by Parliament at the time, of giving farmers in Scotland the right to bequeath their lease in all perpetuity to anybody they liked, and 1958, when that situation was brought to an end, very few farms of this type which became vacant were let to new farming tenants. Except in the case of, perhaps, some very large estates which might have 70 or 100 or 120 farms of some size, where the owner could not take on any more farms himself and did not want to sell any farms and was not disposed to any plan for a partnership or anything of that kind, hardly any farms were let during those ten years. Again, although we have no exact figures, everybody who is familiar with country life in Scotland is aware that since 1958 a great many more farms have been let to new tenants than was the case in those earlier ten years. It is here that, as some of us see it, the chief damage of this new Part of the Bill will be done.

What will happen is that instead of being let, except in the few cases which I have mentioned, the farm will either be sold with vacant possession—and I need not remind your Lordships of the distortion of agricultural values which is caused by this kind of legislation which we are now intensifying—or taken over by the owner, or resort will be had to some new device, some kind of partnership. Although an owner thinks and hopes when he lets a farm to a new tenant, that he and his heirs will want to keep the new farmer and his Heirs in that farm for many generations, yet the imponderable uncertainties of the future would prevent most prudent owners of land from virtually giving away the farm to a new farming family, for that is really what it amounts to.

Now 35 to 60 farms a year may not sound very much, but if we take the lower estimate over twenty years that comes to a total of 700 farms, and if we take the higher estimate over twenty years it comes to 1,200 farms. That is quite enough to have a considerable influence on the course of agriculture, if the new tenants who come in are young men or middle-aged men with new ideas and new experience. Not only they themselves but all the older farmers will benefit from their experience and example. They are like a new eleven coming into the farming industry. That is the reason why the English farmers do net want this system in England, and that is the reason why we are so afraid that in Scotland we shall suffer ill-effects from it.

Of course, it will not happen very quickly. Very gradually, the number of let farms will diminish; but in perhaps another two or three generations they will become comparatively few, and confined to old farming families. These we all like to see, but we like to see other kinds of families, too. It will mean, of course, that there will be a great increase in multiple farming. In many cases that may be a good thing, but not in all cases. There will also be an increase in the number of owner-occupiers, which is certainly a very good thing—we all want to see more owner-occupiers all the time—but nowadays it is expensive to become an owner-occupier, and it is not all the good and energetic applicants for a farm who have enough money both to own and equip a farm. There will be a much better chance for new blood to come into the industry if it is made easier for people to get farms to let.

My Amendment does not have the slighest effect on or do the slightest harm to any farming family which is there now. They are not deprived of their right of hereditary succession. It provides only that if a new lease is made in future, after the passing of this Bill, the owner and the tenant ab initio will be free to make whatever bargain they choose. Both will do it with their eyes open. It could be for any number of years or it could be for the lifetime of the tenant. I am glad to make that clear, if anybody thinks it is not clear: that it could be for the lifetime of the tenant or for any specified number of years. Each party would be acting with perfect freedom; and this would be in the best interests of farming.

I hope I have made it clear—very clear—that nearly all landowners want nearly all farms to go on in the same farming families. What we are concerned about is lest this balance, these 35 or 60 farms a year which come into the market, should all be used for multiple farming or by owner-occupiers, and none used to provide a let farm to new blood which wants to come into the industry and which can help it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HUGHES

The noble Earl Lord Dundee, in his desire to be fair on this matter, covered a lot of the ground which had already been spoken to on Second Reading; and I must hasten to point out that I did not in any way suggest that the views which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, expressed in relation to farming in England were in any way wrong. The exception which I took was when he said that, the English N.F.U. having considered the matter and decided in a particular way, he thought it was wrong—I must admit that I am paraphrasing him now, and the noble Lord will forgive me if it narrows the thing too much, but I do not think it does; this is certainly the impression created—that the Scottish N.F.U. should have arrived at a different conclusion. The fact is that the Scottish N.F.U. did arrive at a different conclusion. If the noble Earl had read on a little further, he would have noticed that I also took to task the noble Duke, who expressed a similar point of view—that the decision of the English farmers was to be preferred to that of the Scottish farmers.

LORD HENLEY

I must protest. On Second Reading the noble Lord made a most offensive speech to me. To-day, the noble Duke has just pointed out that he has made a needlessly offensive speech to him, and I agree; it was offensive and it was needlessly offensive. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made an offensive speech to me on Second Reading—rather unpleasantly so, I thought. What I did was to make a disclaimer (a perfectly proper disclaimer, I thought) saying that I knew nothing about Scottish agriculture and I knew nothing about Scottish law, but that what I thought was wrong in principle with the matter of agriculture in England I suspected must be wrong with regard to Scotland as well. I thought I said this in terms which were polite and perfectly reasonable, but it seemed to have raised a storm of violence in the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which really surprised me so much that I was unable to get up and say anything after it.

LORD HUGHES

That is probably just as well, because I was succeeded by the noble Lord's fellow Peer, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, who also made it perfectly clear that he did not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had said. So what I demonstrated was that not only did Scottish farmers and English farmers have different views on this matter but that Scottish Liberals and English Liberals have different views on it. I pointed out, when the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, drew attention to this in his remarks, that in Scotland it would be what Lord Henley had said which was most likely to be quoted against the Liberal Party rather than what the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, had said in favour of it.

However, this is irrelevant to what we are discussing at the present time; but in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had not come back on the matter—and he now explains why he did not come back on it—and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, having referred to it, it seemed to me that it would be improper that I should ignore the reference that had been made to his quotation from my previous remarks. I am quite surprised that twice in one afternoon I should be accused of making offensive remarks. It certainly was not my intention to be offensive, but I must accept it as quite reasonable that, while one person thinks that what he says is inoffensive, somebody else to whom it is directed may form an entirely different impression of it.

It certainly was my intention to disagree strongly with the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that what had been arrived at, quite properly, as a decision in England must, by the same token, be an acceptable decision in Scotland. The circumstances are different. It is because the circumstances are different that we are legislating in a United Kingdom Bill in one way for Scotland and in another way for England. As a Scot, I must insist, on any occasion when it is put over in your Lordships' House that what is good enough for England must be accepted by Scotland, that, if it ever was taken by Scots to be sound law, it is certainly not accepted to-day—and I am not going to be the one who is going to give that one away in your Lordships' House. If that is offensive, then I will plead guilty. I am a Scot, despite my name, and I will make it perfectly clear. One does not have to be a member of the Scottish National Party to stick up for Scotland on occasions like that.

Having been as irrelevant as the noble Earl was at the beginning, I will, like him, at long last turn to the Amendment. I cannot accept this Amendment, and I do not think that the noble Earl really expected me to do so, because it makes a fundamental change in the law of the tenancy of agricultural holdings. As he and most of your Lordships are aware, the present position is that at the end of a lease the tenancy is continued from year to year. What the noble Earl has argued is that it should be possible for a willing tenant and a willing landlord to enter into an agreement for a lease for a period of years; that there should be no compulsion on a tenant to do so, but that if he did willingly enter into such an agreement the landowner should be able to give him an incontestable notice to quit at the end of the period of the lease.

It seems to me that if we were to make this change in the law, one of the inevitable effects of it would be that it would be undoubtedly tempting to a landlord to try, in almost any case where he had a farm to let, to make a bargain of this kind, because, as I have said, it would completely change the law of tenure. The situation could arise that it would be virtually the price of getting a farm to let that a tenant would enter into an agreement of this kind. If a tenant is really willing to do this sort of thing, there is nothing to hinder him from undertaking it at the present time. If he is willing to take on a tenancy for a period of years then, when the lease expires, he can go at the present time; he is not compelled to carry it on from year to year. So the position in which we should be placing ourselves is that a tenant who would wish to take advantage of the law as it stands by continuing his tenancy from year to year after the lease had expired should, in fact, accept one where he was deprived of this opportunity of going on from year to year. It would only be in a willing case, a case where the man would do so under the law as it stands. If he would not do it under the laws as it now stands, then it follows that he would be accepting a tenancy of this kind only as an alternative to getting no tenancy at all.

I suggest that if Parliament ever thought of making so fundamental a change in the law of agricultural holdings it should not be in a comparatively minor measure of this kind, but after due consideration of the matter and when it was the intention completely to alter the basis of agricultural holdings in this way. I know that the noble Earl has no intention of wishing to make a fundamental change. By this Amendment, he is seeking to deal with the consequences of the changes which we are making. But I have felt bound to point out that this, in fact, would be the effect of what he is doing. If this sort of Amendment is put in there are many people who would expect to take a farm and hold it as the noble Lord has said, for the whole of their lives, when in fact they might find that all they were getting was a comparatively short-term tenancy. In these circumstances, and for reasons which I hope the noble Lord will accept, it is impossible for me to accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I must first apologise for having stirred up such a hornet's nest by making reference to the Second Reading debate on this Bill. Everybody seems to have got slightly irked by everybody else for reasons which I had not been fully aware of. It seems to me to be slightly unnecessary, and I hope everybody will forget that anybody has ever been thought to be offensive. As to my reference being irrelevant. I had tried to show, and I hoped I had shown, that the arguments to which I referred in the Second Reading debate were peculiarly relevant to this Amendment which I am seeking to get accepted.

The noble Lord said that this was not an appropriate Bill in which to make a fundamental change of this kind in the law of tenancy. But is that not exactly what the Government are doing? They are making a fundamental change in the law of succession to tenancies. I am trying to prevent what seems to me to be the most adverse consequences to agriculture of this change which the Government are making. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?

LORD HUGHES

I want merely to say that it is true that this is making a change in the law of tenure, of succession to tenancy, but it is making it in a limited field. What the noble Lord would do would have the effect of changing the law of tenancy in Scotland over the whole field of tenancies, whether the farmers continued to live or whether they died. This is a very much wider matter.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I do not think it would affect the law affecting the tenancies of any existing tenancies, because the Amendment is specifically restricted to new leases which are entered into ab initio after the passing of this Bill. That would not in the least affect the rights of any farmer who is now a tenant; nor would it affect the right of his son to succeed in thirty years, if this Bill were passed, or of his son's son to succeed in another thirty years in the year 2010. It would only give an option to new leases, after this Bill has been passed, to be restricted to a period of years.

If the noble Lord, or if the Committee, would prefer it, I should be quite willing to substitute the lifetime of the new tenant instead of a period of years. But I think the term "period of time" does obviously include the ability to make it a life lease. But if the Committee would prefer that it should have to be a life lease and no less, I should be willing to do it because my object is simply to enable farms to be let which will otherwise not be let at all. I think it a bad thing that they will not be let.

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that if this change in the law were made then, when a farm came up to let, it would give a tremendous advantage to the man who was willing to restrict his tenancy to a number of years. That is his belief. My belief is that that will hardly ever arise, because if this is not done there will not be any more farms to let. That is the whole purpose of my Amendment. If the farms were going to be put up for letting anyhow, then I agree that the man who is willing to restrict his rights would have an advantage over the man who was not. But my belief is—and I seriously think that this is justified—that, with very few exceptions, if Part III of this Bill is agreed in its present form, then there will be virtually no farms to let in Scotland. All the farms which fall in will either be taken over for farming by the owner, increasing multiple farming, or will be sold, increasing owner-occupiership, or some new devices, some kind of partnership, will be set up. I think it a pity that even 35 to 50 or 60 potential new farmers a year should be prevented from having a chance of getting a farm. I think some change on the principle of this Amendment is the only way that you can get that.

There are many of my noble friends and others who have very strongly pressed us to divide against Clause 18, and, indeed, on Part III as a whole, because we believe it is a bad piece of legislation. My own view—I may be wrong—is that it is much more appropriate and sensible to take a Division on a point like this which tries to focus your Lordships' attention on the principal piece of damage which I believe Part III of the Bill will inflict on agriculture and which puts its finger, if I may be allowed to make this claim, on the nub of the question. If passed it would, in spite of Part III, enable some farms to come into the market for letting, which I think most noble Lords would agree would be a good thing. If that were done, our main objection to Part III would be removed. I think therefore that this is a much more sensible issue on which to ask your Lordships to express an opinion than to ask the Committee to vote against Part III of the Bill.

5.30 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

I hope that the noble Earl is not pressing the Committee to take this matter to a Division. It is of course his right to do so if he wishes, but I would say with complete certainty, from my knowledge of the discussions which have taken place, that if the Bill were so amended we should certainly have the strongest representations made almost immediately by the Scottish National Farmers' Union against such a proposal. For it would inevitably, in the years ahead, over a long period, deprive farmers of the security of tenure in the farms which they have at the present time.

The noble Earl said that it does not affect anybody with a tenancy at the present time, and that of course is true, because the Amendment relates to any tenancy entered into after the passing of this measure. The point which I have made, and which I wish to re-emphasise, is that if this were done, and if a landlord wished to protect himself against the possibility that a near relative might succeed to the tenancy, it would be virtually impossible for anyone ever to get a tenancy other than for a fixed term of years. That is not a position which has existed in this country for many years.

The noble Earl pointed out that the previous position existed from 1948 to 1958. The Conservative Government came to power in 1951, so that nobody would suggest that in legislating seven years later they had rushed into a change. It could be argued that they had waited a considerable time before they were persuaded that the thing was so wrong that it had to be changed. Similarly, the present Government had representations made to them, as I said on Second Reading, within weeks after coming to power, and we have allowed some three and a half years to elapse before seeking to make a change.

In this clause we have not attempted to put the law back to where it was in 1948. We have taken half the time that the previous Government took to make a change, which is perhaps reasonable because we have put the position only halfway back. We are accepting that in 1948 the position had swung too far against the landowner, and therefore we are not putting the position back to what it was in 1948. But I must emphasise that I am quite convinced, from all the discussions (noble Lords will recollect that in my first experience at the Scottish Office agriculture was one of my responsibilities) with the Scottish National Farmers' Union, that if an Amendment of this kind were put into the Bill it would certainly not be acceptable to the Scottish farmers as represented by their farming union. I would not deny that there would be some Scottish farmers who would be in favour of it, but it certainly would not be favoured by the Scottish N.F.U.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I assure the noble Lord that my only object is to ensure that there will be some farms to let, and this seems to me the fundamental difference between us. The noble Lord thinks that under the Bill as it stands there will be some new farms to let. There may be two or three, but there will not be 35 to 60; there will be virtually none. Therefore it seems to me that the only way to try to ensure that some new tenants will get a chance of finding a farm to let—which is the basis of my own objection, and the objections of my noble friends, to Part III of the Bill—is to have an Amendment of this kind. If your Lordships are in favour of the Amendment, and I am sorry that the Government are adamant against it, I shall be very willing to consider modifying it at a later stage. If it were not modified, at least we should have done our best to get removed what we believe to be this great potential injury to agriculture. It certainly will not be if nothing on the lines of the Amendment is done.

I am not trying to be unreasonable about this matter. I will gladly consider any modification which might remove or reduce the apprehensions of any farmers in Scotland. But, as I intend the Amendment—and I think this is what it means—no existing tenant farmer in Scotland, or his descendants, will be in any way adversely affected. I would much rather have an expression of opinion on this than seek to move that Part III of the Bill be left out, which I think would be the only alternative.

LORD HUGHES

It seems to me that there is one fact which is disregarded. When talking about the 35 to 60 farms which would become available now, the noble Earl speaks as if what the Government were doing would result in these farms ceasing to be let. Every one of these farms will continue to be tenanted farms. The fact that the tenancy is continued to a near relative does not make it cease to be a tenanted farm.

The point which the noble Earl is making is that they will not cease to be tenancies, but will not be available to completely new tenants, to people who are not in the farm at the present time. The noble Earl has given me, as it were, an opportunity of getting off the hook in this matter by promising to consider another form of words. Much as I would wish to persuade the Committee that it would be not only wrong but indeed a foolish thing to seek to amend the law of tenancy in this matter, it would be dishonest were I to attempt to pretend for one moment that anything of this kind would be acceptable. There is no form of words, no change in the period limiting the new tenancies, which would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government; and while I am anxious that the clause should go through as it stands, I am not prepared to be dishonest in order to get the noble Earl to have another go at it at the next stage.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made that additional intervention, because he has now made plain to me that he has not understood the type of farms of which we are thinking. He has not understood what the Amendment is about. He thinks that it will apply to farms where there is an heir, a successor to the lease—

LORD HUGHES

No, I do not think that at all. I know perfectly well that the Amendment of the noble Earl is to apply only to farms which will be let after this legislation comes into operation.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

And to which there is no heir.

LORD HUGHES

Yes. What I am pointing out is that when the noble Earl talks about 35 to 60 farms he is implying, or it could be taken that he is implying, that the 35 to 60 farms were ceasing to be tenancies. They are not.

LORD DRUMALBYN

But they will.

LORD HUGHES

They are not ceasing to be tenancies. They will continue to be tenanted farms with the tenancy of the successor. They will be tenanted by the near relative. It does not cease to be a tenancy in those circumstances.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I must get this clear. The whole point is that in the case of these farms there is no near relative, and that is why they are let. I pointed out in my original remarks that the noble Lord had said—this was the relevance of his Second Reading speech—that there were very few cases in which a landowner did refuse to renew a lease to the son, and therefore these 35 or 60 farms must be very nearly all farms to which there was no heir, farms in which the tenant had either retired or died—

LORD DRUMALBYN

Or near relatives.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Or near relatives—not leaving any son or near relative who wished to continue in the farm. That is the whole point. I am suggesting that, instead of asking your Lordships to disagree with the whole of Part III of the Bill, for which there would be a very good case, we should leave the right of existing heirs as the Government propose. If a tenant dies or retires, and has a son to whom he has bequeathed the lease, or a near relative, the near relative should, under this Bill, have the statutory right to succeed and that is what we are proposing. All we are asking is that when there is no heir or near relative—no one who wishes to succeed—there should be freedom to make a new lease, either for the lifetime of the new tenant or for a fixed term of years. My whole argument is that if this is not done, there will not be any farms to let at all.

LORD HUGHES

I think that this discussion could on ad infinitum. I would suggest to the noble Earl that if he feels so strongly about this Amendment that he wishes to press it to a Division, it would perhaps be more appropriate to do so on the next stage and to take the opportunity between now and Report stage to have some discussions with the N.F.U., to see how they would react to an Amendment of this kind and find out which of us in this matter is more correctly interpreting the wishes of farmers in Scotland. It would not deprive him of his opportunity, but it might prevent him from dividing without full knowledge of what farmers wish.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I have the greatest respect for the N.F.U. and for what farmers wish, but I really must state my belief that in pressing this demand on the Government the N.F.U. Executive are making a mistake which is against the interests of Scottish agriculture. That must be absolutely plain. I know that the Government will not accept my Amendment. If your Lordships think that the Amendment should be inserted, I would certainly consult any farmers whom anybody likes to nominate or who wants to consult me to see if it could be improved. The whole thing I want your Lordships to decide upon is that we should give a chance for more new blood to come into the industry and that more farms, if only a small number, should be available for letting in future.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

The normal procedure of the N.F.U. is that headquarters circularise branches and get their replies before they make up their minds. It is quite impossible to do so on this matter within a week. I know that the suggestion was made in the greatest good faith, but it is entirely impracticable.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

May I further say that our branch of the N.F.U. have sent in a resolution that they are against the whole of Part III of the Bill. The way the noble Lord trots out the N.F.U., Scotland, at frequent intervals! Their view is by no means universal. I have heard of two or three branches who also disagree with Part III. While I appreciate the concern of my noble friend Lord Dundee about young men trying to get in as tenant farmers—and this is

one of the main reasons I have against Part III—I think that this Amendment has some danger and I should find myself extremely loth to vote in favour of it.

One thing that has improved farming since the war is that a tenant farmer knows he has security of tenure for life. Except in rare cases, when he knows that he is going to live only so many years, the farmer does not start to run down his farm. If he has a tenancy only for a certain period of years and knows that he will have to go in, say, 1971, there is a real danger that during the last three years of his tenancy he will run the farm not in a way which would do the most long-term good but in a way which would make the most short-term profits. If my noble friend is going to press an Amendment of this sort, I should have preferred that, instead of saying "for a period of years", it said "for the lifetime of the existing tenant".

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am quite willing to do that.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I think that that would be more satisfactory and I should find it easier to support an Amendment like that.

LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON

I agree with my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. I cannot quite understand what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, means by this Amendment. I am absolutely against Part III of the Bill, but I have looked down the other end of the barrel, as an applicant for a tenancy, and it seems to me that if this Amendment became law any sort of agreement could be forced on a prospective tenant, with regard to rent, upkeep and so on, and immense burdens could be placed upon him.

5.44 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 19A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents 44, Not-Contents 34.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Audley, Bs.	Conesford, L.
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Cork and Orrery, E.
Arbuthnott, V.	Carrington, L.	Daventry, V.
Auckland, L.	Colville of Culross, V.	Denham, L. [Teller.]
Derwent, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]
Dilhorne, V.	Haddington, E.
Drumalbyn, L.	Hawke, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Dundee, E.	Horsbrugh, Bs.	Rowallan, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs.	Jellicoe, E.	St. Helens, L.
Emmet of Amberley, Bs.	Kinnoull, E.	Sandford, L.
Erroll of Hale, L.	Lambert, V.	Strange, L.
Ferrier, L.	Lothian, M.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Fraser of North Cape, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Teynham, L.
Grenfell, L.	Milverton, L.	Vivian, L.
Gridley, L.	Molson, L.	Woolton, E.
NOT-CONTENTS
Beswick, L.	Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]	Royle, L.
Bowles, L.	Hughes, L.	Serota, Bs.
Brockway, L.	Latham, L.	Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Burden, L.	Longford, E.	Shepherd, L.
Champion, L.	McLeavy, L.	Sorensen, L. [Teller.]
Chorley, L.	Mar, E.	Summerskill, Bs.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Mitchison, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L.	Moyle, L.	Willis, L.
Fiske, L.	Phillips, Bs.	Wootton of Abinger, Bs.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Raglan, L.	Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.
Garnsworthy, L.	Rhodes, L.
Hall, V.	Rowley, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

5.53 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, after subsection (6), to insert: ( ) Notwithstanding anything in this section, where a bequest of a lease fails as a consequence of—

1. (a) the failure of the legatee to accept the bequest, or
2. (b) an order by the Land Court terminating the interest of the legatee in the lease under section 20 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949,

then the right to succeed shall not fall into intestacy in accordance with the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, but the interest therein of any member of the family of the deceased tenant shall cease and determine, and any interest in the said lease shall revert to the landlord subject to the executors nominate of the deceased tenant having the right to claim any compensation in terms of the said lease, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 or otherwise.

The noble Earl said: As there seemed to be some last minute confusion on the last Amendment, on which your Lordships voted, I should like to say that I certainly intend to put forward on Report an Amendment which will change the character of the Amendment we have just carried, in the sense that I indicated I would do on several occasions during the debate. There was not time to compose a Manuscript Amendment to that effect.

Amendment No. 20 is a legal Amendment whose only purpose is to save time.

It provides that if a legatee fails to accept the bequest of a lease or sale, or if the Land Court terminates the interest of the legatee under Section 20 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, then the interest in the lease should not fall into intestacy. At present the successor is entitled, in spite of any restriction to transfer the interest in the lease to any of the persons entitled. to succeed to the intestate property of the deceased, and that would mean that on the failure of the bequest, or if the Land Court made an order terminating the interest of the legatee, the landlord would have to make a second application to the Land Court to terminate the interest of the member of the tenant's family who had been nominated. I think it desirable not to have this unnecessary repetition of legal business, and I hope that the Government will take that view. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HUGHES

Once again the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has moved an Amendment which I find it quite impossible to accept. Having succeeded in his previous Amendment in completely altering the law of tenancy, he now wishes to alter the law of succession. It was long a provision of that law that on the failure of a bequest a lease should go to the "heir-at-law". This was somewhat modified in 1964 in accordance with the general changes being made in the Scottish law of succession; and the position is now that it is for the executor to dispose of the lease by selecting one of the persons entitled to a share of the estate and transferring the lease to him. The practical effect of the Amendment would, therefore, be to deprive the estate of an asset. The basic objection to the proposed Amendment is, therefore, that it would impinge on the general rules of succession which were looked at as recently as 1964. It would, in our view, be wrong to make such changes in the general law of succession in this clause of the Bill, which is aimed at giving greater security of tenure to a limited class of successors.

There is a further objection to the proposal in the effect it would have in connection with holdings on fixed-term leases. That is rather interesting in view of the last Amendment. This would affect particularly those successors to tenancies who are not near relatives as defined in Clause 18 of the Bill. They are still subject to incontestable notices to quit under Section 6(3) of the Act of 1958, but where they are on a fixed-term lease, they are not liable to such notice until the expiry of the lease. The effect of the Amendment would be that any person who might have succeeded on intestacy following failure of a bequest and enjoyed it for the remainder of the period of the lease would not now be entitled to succeed to the lease at all. These seem to me to be two perfectly sound reasons why your Lordships should not accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I had supposed that the only effect of this Amendment would be to avoid redundancy of procedure, but since the noble Lord assures me that this is not so, and that it would make a substantive change in the law, and since my main purpose was to avoid unnecessary legal procedure, I beg beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.0 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, after subsection (6), to insert: ( ) (a) Where on the death of a tenant of an agricultural holding he has failed to dispose of his interest in the lease by will, the provisions of section 16 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 shall not apply to the said lease, and any interest therein of any member of the family of the tenant shall be deemed to cease and determine at the next ensuing term at which it is competent to terminate the said lease tinder section 24 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, and the interest in the said lease shall revert at its termination to the landlord subject to the executor dative of the deceased tenant having the right to claim any compensation in terms of the said lease, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 or otherwise; (b) until such date as the said lease is terminated in accordance with the foregoing subsection, the executor dative of the tenant shall hold the interest in the said lease.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides that if a tenant does not make a will the lease should not fall into intestacy but should be dealt with in accordance with Section 16 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964. When the National Farmers' Union issued their circular in response to which this part of the Bill was introduced, all they were asking for was that a competent son to whom the lease was bequeathed should have the right to succeed, and with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act and the Succession (Scotland) Act as they stand on intestacy, in my view the lease will devolve far beyond the competent son with whose interests the N.F.U. are primarily concerned.

I await what the noble Lord has to say about this, but my information is that awkward conditions might arise under the law of intestacy in Scotland if this provision was not made. All that the sub-section is intended to do is to cover the position where the lease still has a period of years to run. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HUGHES

Once again the noble Earl has moved an Amendment which would alter the law of succession in Scotland as enacted as recently as 1964. He has pointed out that when the National Farmers' Union made their representations for restriction of the landlord's right to serve an incontestable notice to quit under Section 6(3) of the Agriculture Act 1958, they asked only that the right should not apply where the deceased tenant has bequeathed the interest in the holding to his son, and they did not ask that the protection should extend to cases where the successor inherited, following intestacy.

It would be difficult to draw a distinction between a case where a son or other relative has inherited on bequest and one where he has inherited following intestacy. This might introduce an unfair discrimination between two equally competent successors, in one case where the father had made a will, and in the other case where the father had not. We know perfectly well that there are many cases where grave consequences arise simply because someone who ought to have made a will has not done so. We might take the case of two sons with a right to succeed, possibly on farms that were near each other: in one case where the father had made a will the son would succeed to the farm, and in the other case, where the father had perhaps even been run over on his way to the lawyers to make a will, the son would have no right to succeed. But we must go further, and remember that although the lease may, following intestacy, devolve on one of a number of members of the family, the protection to be afforded by this part of the Bill will only apply to the near relatives of a deceased tenant. The landlord will not lose his right to give an incontestable notice to quit to any other successor to a holding.

The Amendment seems to propose that where a lease has a period to run, it would not immediately revert to the landlord (on the lines proposed in the previous Amendment) but would be held by the executor until the period of the lease expired. This seems to us to be objectionable on the grounds that the executor's duty is merely to administer the estate of the deceased person until it is distributed, not to carry on the lease of a farm for the remainder of its term. In any case this is likely to be a task for which the executor may have no skill at all. Our main objection, however, is on the more general ground that the normal law of intestate succession as enacted by Parliament in 1964 should apply to these leases as to other assets of the deceased tenant—and we must remember that under the law as it stands the lease is an asset of the deceased's estate—and it would be quite wrong to amend the gen- eral law on succession by such an Amendment to this clause. Once again I must say as strongly as I can that this is an Amendment which Her Majesty's Government find quite unacceptable.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord's explanation of this. I understood that under the 1964 Act a lease was not inheritable under intestacy, and I am not convinced that there would be anything objectionable in the executors having to carry on, which I thought would be necessary. It is not a thing I was advocating, but I thought it would be a necessary effect of the law. I had not intended this Amendment to be a contentious one, and since I have no doubt the noble Lord has obtained the advice of the Law Officers I will not press it.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Before my noble friend withdraws this Amendment, I should like to say that I am slightly worried that there could be cases of intestacy where a tenant farm would then be run down because there would be no certainty as to the identity of the heir. I frankly admit that I do not know or understand the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, but could the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, explain to us—if not now, before the next stage of the Bill—exactly how it will work when a lease falls into intestacy and where it is contested between the relatives who should inherit the lease? Obviously if the farmer has made a will he will presumably have left the farm to one or other of his children, but, as I understand the position, if he has not made a will the law of primogeniture is not now in force in Scotland and all his children will have equal rights in his estate. This seems to me to be wholly undesirable where farm leases are concerned, and even farm stock and implements. In the case of farm leases I should have thought it was also highly impracticable unless the children agreed to farm in partnership, but then in many cases they might not get on very well and the last thing they would want to do would be to farm in partnership. I think possibly some Amendment could be introduced at a future stage of this Bill.

LORD BURTON

While agreeing with most of what my noble friend has just said, I believe the lease does in fact pass to one of the children but all the rest of the property would be divided between them. The financial implications could be severe, and particularly in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would not accept my previous Amendment I think it is important that this Amendment should be looked at again.

LORD HUGHES

The last thing I would pretend to be is knowledgeable on the law of succession in Scotland, but I do know that if there are a number of children with equal rights—the noble Duke is right when he says the law of primogeniture no longer applies and that all children have equal rights in the farm; there is no question of argument about it, and in those circumstances the executor has to choose one of the people with equal rights who will carry on the farm. That is the position, but I think it would be better if the noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, received from me before the next stage an explanation which was vetted by the legal officers as to just exactly how this works. If then they, or any of them, felt it was necessary to pursue the matter in the light of that information, they could do so. I would certainly undertake to ensure that such a letter was in their hands in time for them to table an Amendment for the next stage.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

May I put one further point, so that the noble Lord can cover this, too, in his letter? It is this. The executor can appoint one of the children to inherit the lease, but can he appoint the same child (it seems only logical that he could, but we know that the law is not necessarily always logical) to inherit the live and dead stock; and if so what compensation does that child have to give to the others who are definitely losing something—and probably quite a lot—by not being able to inherit their share? Is it not unfair, if we accept the principles of Part III of this Bill, that because a father has left no lease the son (there may be only one son interested in farming) who would like to continue with the farm should be put in an extremely difficult position?—because presumably he would have to make financial compensation to the brothers and sisters. He might not be able to do that, and that fact might make him unacceptable to the Land Court if it had to take into consideration the financial circumstances.

LORD HUGHES

This is a somewhat difficult subject, and the one thing I am certain about is that the other children are not deprived of their share of the estate. It follows that there has to be an arrangement: if one gets the farm, the others must get compensation. This might create circumstances in which none of the family is able to go on because one cannot buy out the others. I am giving off the cuff my impression of what I was told a very long time ago, and it may well be that it is not completely accurate; so it would be better if this were taken to be my view of what the law is, rather than what I know the law is. But I will write to the noble Lords concerned giving them a proper statement of what the lawyers know the law to be.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for saying what he has said, because I am certainly not satisfied that this clause as it stands would not result in various inconveniences and anomalies which we all with to avoid. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look into it and let us know the result. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.14 p.m.

TILE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, after subsection (6), to insert: ( ) Where the successor to the lease of an agricultural holding, being a relative of the deceased tenant of the holding, is the owner or occupier of another holding which in the opinion of the Court is an agricultural unit which is capable of providing full-time employment for an individual occupying it and for at least one other man, the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply and such successor shall for the purposes of this section be deemed not to be a near relative of the deceased tenant and accordingly the provisions of the said subsection (1) and of section 19 of this Act shall not apply to a notice to quit served on such successor.

The noble Earl said: I am glad to say that this Amendment, so far as I know, does not involve any legal complications, and I think it is concerned with a very simple point: whether the right of statutory hereditary succession to a lease should apply to multiple farmers as well as to farmers who have a tenancy of a single farm. I think it would be unfair if a farming family were given the right to inherit multiple tenancies. An Amendment to this effect was moved in another place, but it contained no definition of the size of the holding owned or occupied by the successor to the lease of another farm that would disqualify him from having a statutory right to succeed to both. My Amendment—and I shall be glad to alter it if the principle is accepted, and there are objections to the wording—provides that before an incontestable notice to quit could be served on the successor to the lease who already owned or occupied another farm, this farm would have to be above the test for amalgamation laid down in the Agriculture Act and repeated again in this Act; that is to say, his farm would have to be large enough to employ more than one man and would have to be considered to be a viable holding. I hope that the Government will favourably consider the principle of this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HUGHES

I have listened to what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said in favour of his Amendment, and I must admit that there is an argument. But I am afraid that the Amendment as it stands is not acceptable. In the first place, as drafted the Amendment would apply to someone who owned another farm even if he did not occupy it and was unlikely to be able to obtain possession of it. There is a further possible difficulty where someone succeeded on the death of a tenant to more than one farm at the same time. These farms might be owned by different landlords. I think these would have to be excluded. Otherwise, the Land Court would be put in the difficult position of deciding which farm the successor was to be allowed to keep. I agree that there is merit in the proposal put forward by the noble Earl, and if he will withdraw the Amendment I am prepared to put down a further Amendment on similar lines to this but in terms which the Government find acceptable. I will consult the noble Earl before actually tabling the Amendment to see whether we are equally agreed on its acceptability. I am afraid that I am not going to be able to go through the whole of the Amendments without being willing to concede something.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I had suspected that my draft might not perhaps have reached that flawless degree of perfection which we all desire to attain, but I am very grateful to the noble Lord for saying he will re-write it in a form which would avoid the difficulties he has mentioned.

LORD HUGHES

I will not re-write it, but I will have it re-written.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am sure the noble Lord would do it very well. But on that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.18 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "surviving spouse". The noble Duke said: For the moment, for the purposes of this argument I should like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to imagine that I am prepared to accept the principle of Part III of this Bill. But what I find more difficult to accept is the fact that the surviving spouse is included among those near relatives, because in many cases the widow of the farmer is probably a very bad farmer. My experience of tenant farmers is that on the whole their wives take no interest in the farm at all. There are, of course, many exceptions, but wives usually take no interest in the farm at all; therefore, under Clause 18(2)(a), they would not be a fit person in the opinion of the Land Court to inherit the tenancy of the lease.

This would have the effect that the landlord could get them turned out and serve an incontestable notice to quit when the lease ended. The widow might have a son or daughter who would be a perfectly adequate and good tenant but unfortunately did not inherit his father's tenancy because the father left the lease to his widow and not to the son or daughter. That would be a great pity, because we are all agreed, I think, that wherever possible it is desirable that the child should succeed to the lease: but I do not think any landlord is going to risk having the farm badly farmed by a widow for many years when the son or daughter may not get on particularly well with his or her mother. Therefore landlords are bound to try to get an incontestable notice to quit to the widow. I should have thought, therefore, that in the interests of fairness the surviving spouse ought to have been excluded from the term "near relation", in order to make sure that the children of the marriage have their fair chance.

There is a second point: that if the widow or the surviving spouse inherits there is a real danger that double death duties will have to be paid; and for both tenant and landlord that would make (farming more difficult, because it is taking more capital out of the farm. I can assure your Lordships that nowadays it is extremely hard to save much money from farming. certainly in the Highlands and more marginal areas of Scotland; and to have to pay two lots of death duties before the son or daughter succeeds to the tenancy would almost certainly mean that the children would not be able to continue with the farm.

There is, of course, the danger that the father may leave his lease to his wife because he is frightened that if he does not do so she might be turned out of the family home, and to leave the livestock and deadstock, on which death duties would obviously hit much harder, to the children. I fully appreciate that my Amendment is probably deficient here. I feel that the widow ought to be given some rights in the family home; but I am not sure that this is not already covered, because I seem to remember that, not so long ago a Bill went through which enabled widows of tenants to live on in a house for the duration of their lifetime. I am not sure about that, and perhaps the noble Lord opposite could confirm or deny whether it applies to agricultural tenancies or farmhouses or only to houses in urban areas and houses that were not let with any land.

For all these reasons I should be much happier if the surviving spouse were excluded from the list of near relations. I should have thought it was only fair to the children of the family that the surviving spouse should be excluded. I also think that the N.F.U. of Scotland, if they have any feelings about this matter, would probably be on my side and not that of the Government as the Bill is drafted at the moment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 33, leave out ("surviving spouse").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY

I must add a word of protest at the speech just made by the noble Duke. I was left a widow and the farm, and I think I was a perfectly successful farmer. What is more, it would. not at that stage have been any good leaving it to the children because they were too young to take it. That is exactly why I was left the farm. There are many spouses of farmers who know a great deal about farming and are left the land by their husbands because their husbands trust them to be good farmers and to preserve the farm for the children when they are old enough. I think the speech of the noble Duke is based on a total misapprehension of the testamentary will of the person involved, who would surely not leave his property to his spouse unless he had perfect confidence n her being able to carry on.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Surely, if the lease or the farm, in the case of my noble friend, had been left to her children, she would have been able to farm it as their trustee. This would be much more satisfactory. It would save a lot of death duties; and in the event of my noble friend and her children not getting on later in life the children would have the farm.

BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY

May I reply to that. There is no reason to suppose that the mother and her children do not get on. In this case as soon as my son was old enough to take over the farm I handed it over to him. The whole process is perfectly simple. I think you should not put yourself in the position of a farmer who makes a will in favour of his wife and say that he is making a bad judgment.

LORD BOOTHBY

I would say only one word: that I am deeply shocked and dismayed, and almost stunned, by the suggestion of the noble Duke that the spouses of husbands who are dead cannot farm. To add a grist to the mill, the noble Duke said that farmers' widows do not get on with their children anyway. I have no reason to suppose that either of those suggestions is true at all. I know many widows, including the noble Baroness who is sitting not far away from me, who are extremely good farmers and perform their job in a first-class fashion. And I see no reason to believe that Scottish parents and children necessarily dislike each other. Therefore I hope that the Government will pay no attention to this Amendment.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I do not quite hold with the noble Duke in this Amendment, but I have some sympathy for it; and I should feel far happier in regard to the surviving spouse if there were some such arrangement as arises in Amendment No. 27, that the landlord would agree to let to the widow her farmhouse for a certain period or for her life. I quite agree with the noble Baroness behind me that some women are excellent farmers and know a great deal about farming. I feel that it would be wrong if when the farmer died his wife could just be turned out. That never happens, anyway, under an hereditary landlord, who is usually most kind to wives and often finds them alternative accommodation if they cannot stay on the farm. I really think that this Amendment is rather unnecessary.

LORD BURTON

I am a little drawn on this because I think there is a real risk of a widow staying on in the house for the sake of keeping the house, rather than wanting to farm the farm.

LORD HUGHES

I am tempted to say that I am prepared to let the matter rest on what has already been said against this Amendment by those who normally support the noble Duke. In this case it is perhaps the bachelor who is speaking rather than the knowledgeable landowner or farmer. I have noticed that when the noble Duke is speaking he keeps his eye firmly fixed on me during the whole of his remarks. This is normally a quite admirable trait. In this case, it was a perfectly satisfactory defensive mechanism, because if he had allowed his eyes to wander momentarily either to the left or to the right I think he might have faltered somewhat in his remarks, looking at either of the two noble Baronesses. It must have been a great relief to him that, looking straight at me, he did not have my noble friend Baroness Summerskill behind me, for I am quite certain we should have had her intervening, possibly for the first time in history, on a Scottish agricultural subject.

I think this is not an Amendment which has merit, but I must answer the question which the noble Duke put about the position of the widow. Incidentally, we must remember that in strict terms of the law "the widow" also includes a widower. There may even be cases where the efficient farmer is a woman, and leaves as her surviving spouse a husband who would be an inefficient farmer. However, under Section 8 of the 1964 Succession (Scotland) Act the widow has a prior right in the dwelling house on intestacy, but this does not apply to a house forming part of tenanted subjects. In that case she gets an equivalent in cash of the value.

There is another point about death duties, but I do not think this is a serious issue in this particular case and I will not take up your Lordships' time on it. But we think this is a case where the widow or widower should be an exactly the same basis as the children. She or he may not be a satisfactory farmer, but if they are not, there is provision under the law as it stands to seek to serve an incontestable notice to quit. I do not think it would be right to proceed to alter the law on an assumption which, as I think has already been proved this evening, is ill-founded.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I should just like to point out that I had no intention of implying—in fact, I am sure I did not suggest it in my original speech—that no widow or widower was capable of farming when their spouse was the original tenant. Nor did I intend to imply that Scottish children and their parents never got on together. I do not think that is true at all. In the majority of cases they probably get on extremely well. I still believe that the Bill as drafted may lead to trouble in a minority of cases, but since I am hopelessly outvoted I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.31 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSERENE AND FERRARD moved to add to subsection (8): made when the son or daughter was under the age of six.

The noble Viscount said: In putting down this Amendment I am merely seeking to prevent a malpractice which might occur with regard to the adoption of a son or daughter by a childless tenant. After all, we have enough malpractices to-day without trying to create any more. As the Bill is drafted, there is really nothing to prevent a tenant from accepting a sum of money from an adult provided that he adopts him so that the adult can then succeed to the tenancy. We must remember that what Her Majesty's Government are doing in this Bill is creating freeholds for tenants. We have heard that farms are going to be in very short supply and many people may become desperate to obtain a farm. When some people get desperate—not all people, I am glad to say—they will certainly stoop to some rather sharp practice. For instance, a tenant might even adopt his mistress—it may sound very far-fetched but it could happen under this Bill—so that she could succeed to the tenancy.

I have every admiration for genuine adoption, and anything I say on this question casts no aspersion on genuine adoption. I have chosen the age of under six for adoption because the majority of children are adopted under the age of six. True enough, we are told that the age of reason is seven, but I much doubt that myself. Certainly, it was not my age of reason. I am not adamant about the age, but I should like Her Majesty's Government to try to ensure that under this Bill a tenant cannot adopt an adult for monetary gain. I should also like to reiterate that I have every sympathy for childless couples who want to adopt children and have children around the house. But I really hope that Her Majesty's Government can put something into this Bill to the effect that a tenant cannot adopt an adult, or even his mistress, for what I can only describe as a nefarious purpose from the point of view of the person he is adopting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 40, at end insert ("made when the son or daughter was under the age of six.").—(Viscount Masserene and Ferrard.)

LORD STRATHCLYDE

I should like to support the noble Viscount in this Amendment. The law being as it is, I do not think anyone could take exception to a child who had been adopted within a few years of birth succeeding to the tenancy because, after all, that child would consequently have been brought up as a member of the family and would have known no other family all its life. But, as the noble Viscount has suggested, there might well be a fear that for monetary gain someone might adopt the son of, perhaps, a friend or someone of that nature. I can well realise that some old farmer, not having anyone to succeed him, might for a consideration which would leave him in better circumstances in his old age adopt a son of a friend to succeed him in the tenancy. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may feel inclined to look further into the matter.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I support the main part of the Amendment, but I just want to remark that it would probably be far simpler, and would certainly be far more moral, to marry your mistress and let her become a widow.

LORD HUGHES

The last comment of the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, is certainly good advice, because if a man wants his mistress to get the farm he certainly cannot go ahead and adopt her, because the law will not allow him to do that. A male cannot adopt a female except in very special circumstances, and I doubt whether it could be argued that a mistress was a special case. In these Scottish debates we seem to get into the most fanciful situations. I remember that on a previous occasion the suggestion was made that certain Scottish Peers would be so anxious to prevent their nephews or 42nd cousins from succeeding to a title that they would look around for an attractive, or otherwise, widow who had a son who would then succeed to the title, the Peer claiming that it was really his son and that he wished at long last to right a wrong. Now we have the suggestion that the farmers are to join the Scottish Peers in going around Scotland doing the most nefarious things, in this case not to spite a relative but to spite a landowner. Really, I do not think that the Scottish farmers are any worse in this respect than the Scottish Peers, and I do not think that is a likely circumstance at all.

What I must point out is that under the law in Scotland an adopted child has to be treated in every way exactly as another child and as a natural child—a child born of the parents. It has the same rights. In that case, therefore, an adopted son or daughter may succeed to the tenancy of an agricultural holding. If the Amendment were carried it would provide that the adopted child would not have the protection of Clause 18 if the adoption order had been made when the child was six or over. As the law stands, a child may be adopted up to the age of 21, and the Amendment would have the effect that children who were not adopted before they were six would not be classed as near relatives for the purposes of this Part of the Bill, and so would not be protected from dispossession. The Amendment is therefore quite contrary to the tenor of the present law.

I would point out that there are two safeguards. In the unlikely event of somebody wishing to do these extraordinary things the landlord may seek the consent of the Land Court to dispossess him, either on grounds of general unsuitability—he may do this under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949—or under the specific provisions we have made in this Bill if the tenant has neither adequate training nor experience.

If I may go back to this unlikely event, this mythical farmer who is so determined to spite the landowner that he will search round for somebody to adopt, I must admit that the much more possible likelihood is that he does it not to spite the landlord, which was the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but perhaps because he sees a nice way of making a bit of money by selling his right of tenancy to someone. I must admit that that is perhaps not quite so unlikely as the other aspect. But there is a safeguard here. The implication in this is that it is much more likely to be an older person who is being adopted in these circumstances, although not necessarily so. But we must remember that before an adoption order is made the sheriff or the Court of Session have to be satisfied that it will be for the welfare of the adopted child, and we are quite certain that in a case of this kind such an obviously bad reason would be very diffi- cult to suppress from the knowledge of the court.

We think, therefore, that the law as it stands provides all the protection that is necessary against the hypothetical cases that we have been asked to consider, and I suggest to your Lordships that there is no reason why in this case we should alter the legal position of adopted children, as suggested by this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

If an adopted son or daughter has the same legal rights as a natural son or daughter, is it necessary to specify adopted children at all in legislation of this kind?

LORD HUGHES

I must admit that that was the first thought that I had: that if they all had the same rights and we just said "a child" it would cover it. I should like to go further into that, because that thought occurred to me only at the last minute and I have not had an opportunity of finding out about it. But I think I should be unwilling to take out the words now, because we have this difficulty. If the Bill starts off with the provision regarding an adopted child in it and that is subsequently taken out, it might not be perfectly obvious that it had not been taken out for the reasons that the description "child" included an adopted child. I think the fact that it is now in is probably as good a reason as any for its remaining in. What we are quite certain about is that we are not prepared to accept a position where in this case, and in this case alone, an adopted child is not going to have the same rights as any other child. But I will, for the noble Earl's satisfaction, make inquiries as to why it was found necessary to include these words in this particular Bill, and I will certainly write and let him know the reasons that the draftsman found for putting these words in.

LORD BURTON

There is quite a considerable market already in the assignment of crofts, and I think it would be a great pity if, by this clause, there was a market in adoption added to this.

LORD HUGHES

There was a great deal of worry about the inability of all these young men who had acquired agricultural degrees not being able to get a tenancy. This might provide an opening for some of them.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

One of the reasons the noble Lord gave for being satisfied that this would not be abused was that the sheriff had to be satisfied that the adopted child would benefit (I think that was the implication) by being adopted by the parents who wished to adopt him. Surely it is going to be very difficult for a sheriff, when this great benefit is pointed out to him—that he will then succeed to the tenancy of a farm which he would certainly have very little hope of getting in any other way when Part III of this Bill comes into force—not to find that it would be of benefit to him to be adopted by these particular parents. I do not think Her Majesty's Government want children or near-adults to be adopted all over the place just so that they can succeed to farm tenancies.

LORD HUGHES

But the noble Duke will remember that on previous Amendments he pointed out the great hardship it would be for someone who did not have farming knowledge to succeed to a farm which might well be just a mill-stone round his neck. So the man who wished to do this would have to be very careful in the person he proposed to adopt. He would have to adopt somebody who was likely to make an efficient farmer, and that might not always be so easy when he had to find somebody who was under the age of 21.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am being serious about this, because I think it is a danger. Surely the person under the age of 21 would come to him and say, "I am 20; I have a sound knowledge of farming, having been to an agricultural college; I see little hope of getting a farm in any other way; you have no children; would you please adopt me?". I do not think this is beyond the bounds of possibility, and I cannot see why it would hurt to put in my noble friend's suggestion, or something equivalent to it, other than the fact that it would be depriving adopted children of a right which, were this not in, they would have had. But I am sure it is a right that no one would consider was reasonable.

LORD HUGHES

Let us look at the position which might exist. I do not know how many farmers there are at present who have adopted children. I know still less how many there are who adopted a child after it had attained the age, of 6. But let us assume for one moment that there is a farmer who, many years ago, adopted a child at the age of 8. That child is no longer a child; it is grown up. He is taking exactly the same part in a family as if he had been the true son of his adoptive father. If the Amendment is accepted, that man is going to be told, "It does not matter how efficient you are; it does not matter how reasonable a successor you may be; you have no rights in the matter because you were over the age of 6 when you were adopted". And it does not matter what age you substitute for the age of 6; this is still going to apply.

Now if the clause is altered and this is going to be the position only afterwards instead of the position at de present time, you merely substitute one injustice for another. Why, in the future, should it be wrong for somebody who was adopted at the age of 8 to be deprived of rights which he has under the general law and which he would have had if he had been adopted at the age of 4? I must admit that I have no knowledge at all about the statistics of adoption, and perhaps the one point which is in favour of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is that probably the great majority of adoptions are adoptions of infants. So it might well be that his age of 6 would cover most of the adoptions. I think I must be fair and concede that that is the likely position. But I do not know. If that is the case, then obviously I will make it much more difficult to persuade a sheriff that the sudden adoption of a 20-year-old man who has acquired an agricultural degree and who has not previously had any connection at all with the farmer is the sort of adoption order which he ought to make. We mug deal with probabilities, and not with fanciful possibilities.

What your Lordships are being invited to do is to alter a law which has been specifically placed on the Statute Book to make quite certain that an adopted child and a naturally-born child of a marriage are exactly on a par. In this Amendment we are seeking, once again, to differentiate between them. This is planning for something which might not arise. I cannot accept this contention.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

When I moved the Amendment I dealt with the question of the age and said that I was not adamant about the age of 6. I do feel, however, that there should be some age limit. As the noble Duke has pointed out, a young man of 21 could be involved. I am sure that this will lead to malpractice. This legislation will make farms rarer than gold in Scotland. They will be the most sought after articles in the country. When one gets that, one is bound to get what I can only describe as "hokey-pokey" financial goings-on. I feel very worried about this, and I hope that the Government can produce something on Report to quell our fears. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, appears to have a very angelic idea of human nature. I have been brought up in a hard school, and do not have such an angelic frame of mind. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 18, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Many weaknesses in Clause 18 and Part III have been dealt with. It has been fully demonstrated that they go further than is wise. As a landowner I declare an interest, and I also have an interest to have good farmers as tenants. I am a member and supporter of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and I want to avoid and reduce controversy between farmers and landowners. This clause implies that a much worse situation exists than is true. It implies a situation between tenants and owners which is contrary to the rule. With that sort of background it could be thought that landowners want to change their tenants and families in their farms. This is not so. Between the majority of tenant farmers and owners there is, and always should be, a mutual confidence and co-operation. The Secretary of State would be very wise to modify this Bill and to keep it within the request from the Scottish Farmers' Union.

I have probably a longer experience than most of this problem, both in Parliament and during my period of responsibility for a number of let farms. In matters of succession and security of tenure I have always considered that legislating in Parliament with complete fairness for both sides is not really possible. There is another interest involved in obtaining the most competent farmer, and that is the national interest. That should perhaps be the principal factor. This is what is foremost in the minds of landowners in Britain when letting farms. It is always hoped that sons or daughters will have the same qualities as their parents and, with experience, will become even better and able to take over the farms in their turn. It is recognized—I emphasise this—that it is only very exceptionally that a deserving successor in the same family is turned away. Like many other landowners, we are proud and fortunate to have families who have been on their farms for 200 years or more. This is a tradition which landowners like to achieve.

I was very pleased to note that incoming tenant farmers who may be short of cash would be helped. This is a tribute to landowners and bankers for the way in which they have always tried to help good farmers. As these clauses stand, although they seek to promote social justice, they will really do more harm than good, and that is why I hope the noble Lord will persuade the Secretary of State to modify them. I find amendment very difficult, and the debate has shown how difficult it is to amend a Bill of this sort in which there is one principle and that is a principle which can be better looked after between landowners and tenant farmers.

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that if landowners were not satisfied with successors to leases they could go to the Land Court. He would agree that there is a reluctance on the part of landowners to have to denounce in a court of law as not being competent to run the farm the son or daughter of one of their tenant farmers. Whichever side is favoured by the law, tenant and landowner will have to get on with the job together. This, I hope, is what will happen. Although the trend must be in the direction stated by noble Lords to-day, I hope that it will not be too bad. In conclusion, let me say that the farmers for whom we should feel sorry are those with too little cash and land to make a living and who are working very hard on an uphill economic struggle.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am grateful to the noble Duke for his observations on this clause. I do not propose to add anything, because I have already said in moving an earlier Amendment what I would have said now. I am glad that the noble Duke has made it clear, as I tried to do, that normal Scottish landowners desire and welcome hereditary succession in farm leases, over 200 years as he said, or for many generations.

I also hope that the Government will take note of what he has said about the undesirability of making too much use of the Land Court. No one wants to be continually going to court over matters which ought to be decided outside court. To be realistic about the Scottish Land Court, although it now has the most admirable and excellent chairman, it will take some time for it to recover public esteem, in view of the history of the last ten years when the late Lord Gibson was chairman. I wish his memory well, I was very fond of him in the House of Commons, but when he was chairman the court became rather a sad joke. Lord Gibson was publicly and officially rebuked by the Lord President of the Court of Session for unjudicial conduct, and he reacted to this by publishing a message in the newspapers addressed to all tenant farmers, telling them that they must not lose heart, because in spite of his official rebuke he would carry on and look after their interests as he had always done. Then one felt that comic opera had really and truly entered our judicial system in Scotland. It takes a very long time for a court of justice to recover its esteem and, what is equally important, the confidence of those who may have appeals to submit to it. I hope, therefore, that everything will be done to minimise the need for litigation and appeals to the Land Court in connection with the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

I really cannot find any justification for this change in the law. It certainly is not a measure which will in any way help to improve the efficiency or the productivity of agriculture. It may, however, tend to disrupt the partnership of landowner and tenant to which the noble Duke has referred and which has proved itself over so many generations as serving agriculture and the country very well indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when concluding his speech on Second Reading, said (here I paraphrase) that he was certain that good will on both sides would be forthcoming. The interest of landowner and tenant are one and the same. The partnership into which they enter, they enter of their own free will. Consequently, much good will and co-operation is created between them.

Forced marriages, I have heard, lack much of the warmth, consideration and depth of understanding which is to be found in a natural union. Seldom are they happy. I can find no reason why such a marriage should be forced on this great industry, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend may yet reconsider this part of the Bill.

LORD HUGHES

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not indicate when he had stopped quoting me, and I became alarmed because I thought that my memory was completely going. I could not remember some of the things that he was saying. I then realised that the noble Lord was going on to his own thoughts. I appreciate very much what the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, has said on this matter. I cannot dissent in any way from the opinions which he has expressed about the great majority of landlords and the great majority of tenants, because what he has said is undoubtedly true. The Government however, have been asked to act in this matter because not all landlords are, if I may quote the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, of the angelic disposition which he thought that I had attained. Incidentally, I must say how grateful I am that one angelic may be considered to cancel out two offensives. The fact is that not all landlords and not all tenants are necessarily as good as they might be. Even though we concede that the overwhelming majority are entirely satisfactory, that does not absolve the Government from resonsibility to act in cases in which it has been demonstrated that injustice has been perpetrated, by reason of the law as it stands.

I remind your Lordships of the law which we are seeking to alter. At the present time, under the 1958 Act, a landowner can give an incontestable notice to quit and is under no obligation to specify any reason for giving it. This is where the difficulty arises. If a landlord has a good reason for giving notice to quit, he would be very likely to succeed in it in the Land Court. After all, in cases where a landlord has an exceedingly good reason for giving a notice to quit, he would probably state it. Where he does not have a good reason for giving such a notice, however, he would not state it. That is exactly the sort of case in which the Land Court would not allow a notice to be given.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

Can the noble Lord tell us why a landlord should serve a notice to quit when he has only a bad reason? I cannot think what a bad reason would be.

LORD HUGHES

It would, perhaps, be wrong of me at this stage in the proceedings to quote the sort of cases, to which reference was made in another place, which caused at least one Member of Parliament to seek to have the law altered because of a notice to quit which had been issued in a certain case. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is not aware of it, I will be quite happy that he and I should use our own time privately for me to let him know it rather than that I should use the time of your Lordships' House. Such cases, however, exist.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

I thank the noble Lord.

LORD HUGHES

It is because of recent cases that pressure on the Government was intensified. We think that it is reasonable that the law should be altered in such a way as to protect a tenant from improper behaviour by a landlord and, at the same time, to place alongside that protection such conditions as enable a landlord who has a good reason for giving a notice to quit to be able to succeed. We have spent a long time in working out exactly where the line should be drawn. I must admit that this is the sort of subject upon which we will never be able to produce anything that will receive the agreement of all landowners and all tenants. I doubt very much whether we should even be able to produce something which could at the same time receive the support of a majority of landowners and the support of a majority of tenants. There are circumstances when the views can be so extremely different that reconciliation of them is impossible. In the clause, therefore, the Government have tried to draw the line in a reasonable way.

One of the difficulties of this matter is that those landowners who have always acted in a completely reasonable fashion—and I hope that I do not embarrass the noble Duke by saying that he is an obvious example of that kind—find it difficult to comprehend why anything of this nature should be necessary, because the sort of case which has given rise to this legislation or has made the necessity for it urgent is the sort of action which it would never for one moment occur to him to undertake. The probability is that many more landowners are in exactly the same position. They would never understand why anybody wanted to do that sort of thing. The fact remains, however, that under the existing law, it can be done. Unless we alter the law, we do not know how often it may be done in the future.

The obvious thing for the Government to do is so to alter the law that reasonable landowners are protected against unreasonable tenants and reasonable tenants are protected against unreasonable landowners. That is what we think we have done in the Bill. With such a difficult subject, however, it is impossible for anybody to give a guarantee that if a line is drawn at a certain point, that must inevitably be the only right place at which it can be drawn. We have done it in the way we propose in the Bill. In the one case in which I have so far seen merit in an Amendment, I have accepted it. That is as far as we can go.

I am well aware that what the noble Duke has said is undoubtedly applicable to the vast majority of landowners in Scotland. If he had been able to say, and I had been able to accept, that there was no case in Scotland where a landowner would do the sort of things against which we are seeking protection, the Bill would not have been here. It is because that is not the fact that the Bill is here.

LORD BURTON

May I answer the noble Lord? I believe that the case in mind is not many miles from where I live, in Inverness-shire. It is quite obvious that he has been misled. Perhaps I might point out that the landlord was not at all unreasonable. There were very much two sides to the story. One side was canvassed, and obviously canvassed extensively. If all this legislation has been brought about by this one case then it is time the clause was dropped.

LORD HUGHES

I think I ought to make it quite clear that the legislation was not brought about because of this case. As I said, legislation was being urgently pressed upon us because of two cases. I do not know the details of the cases. Agriculture is no longer a direct responsibility of mine and I have neither the need nor, in fact, the interest to inquire into the details of these cases. We are not founding on these two cases; we are founding on the representations which were made three and a half years ago to alter the law in some respects. I said that the case for alteration had been given urgency by reason of the pressure being made on two cases, one of which was being canvassed in another place.

LORD BURTON

I think the pressure was put on for one only, and that this has gone very much further.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

7.13 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The noble Lord was kind enough to accept the principle of my last Amendment, No. 22. Amendment No. 25 is a variant of it. It gives power to an owner to enter into a contractual lease in certain circumstances; namely, if the owner of an agricultural holding of which he is also the occupier or the tenant of an agricultural holding rents an additional holding the statutory fixity of tenure should not apply. The principle behind the Amendment is simply to try to provide for a little more turn-over in the tenancy of farms which the provisions of Part III may clog up. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:

Termination of lease where tenant occupies more than one holding

". Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18 of this Act if any person being either the owner of an agricultural holding of which he is also the occupier or the tenant of an agricultural holding enters into a lease by which he becomes the tenant of another agricultural holding then at the termination of such lease it shall be competent for the landlord of the holding in respect of which the lease has been granted, at such date on which it is competent to serve a notice to quit, to serve an incontestable notice to quit in respect of the said agricultural holding."—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HUGHES

Although I was able to accept the principle of the other Amendment I am sorry that I cannot do so in this case. The Amendment as drafted is expressed as being "notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18". We are a little puzzled about that, because Clause 18 of this Bill is not being cut across by this Amendment. What it is cutting across are the security of tenure provisions in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949. Under that Act, when a lease expires, it is continued on a year-to-year basis and the tenant cannot be dispossessed except for his own default, or in certain special circumstances—as where the land is required for development, or where the Land Court consents to dispossession, for example, on grounds of sound estate management. The proposed Amendment would introduce a quite new set of circumstances in which it would be possible to give an incontestable notice to quit during the lifetime of the tenant.

The noble Earl has argued that if the landlord is not to be able to regain possession of land when a tenant dies we ought to make the provision he is suggesting, to enable the landlord to regain possession of a holding in circumstances where, as he suggests, there would not be hardship to the tenant because he occupied another farm. We do not know, however, what all the circumstances might be. The tenant's first holding might be a small, almost non-viable, holding, and he may have taken the second lease because of this. On its merits, therefore, I do not think this is a very good Amendment. Further, it would be a radical change in the basic security of tenure provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act which, as I have already indicated, I cannot accept. It is for these reasons that I resisted the Amendment which the noble Earl pressed to a Division and carried. In this case I find myself no more able to accept the proposal than in that other case. I hope that the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment, because it seems to me to be right and equitable that a man who is a holder of an agricultural holding for which he has fixity of tenure should be enabled to enter into a contractual lease which is protected by this Bill. But, as the noble Lord has pointed out, there are certain legal differences between this and the previous Amendment which he accepted. I have no wish to press this Amendment against the Government, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:

Provision in leases for termination in certain circumstances

". Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18 of this Act the owner of an agricultural holding shall have power to enter into a lease of the said holding for such period as may be mutually agreed between him and the person to whom the lease is granted and at the termination thereof to serve an incontestable notice to quit:

Provided that the power conferred by this section shall not be exercisable unless the tenant of the holding is also owner of another agricultural holding of which he is also the occupier or the tenant of another agricultural holding."

The noble Earl said: This new clause is one which I hope the Government may see their way to accept, although I am afraid that it has some similarities to the Amendment which the noble Lord could not accept on which the Committee divided. But I think it is reasonable that an owner and a prospective tenant, when the tenant is already farming, should be entitled to enter into an enforceable contractual bargain. The tenant would enter into such a bargain with his eyes open and would be farming land of which he was either the tenant or holder. There is no compulsion on him to rent the additional land. It may be a temporary convenience to have a bit more land for a certain period of time.

In this Amendment I have not inserted the man-hour tests for which provision was made in the Amendment which the Government accepted earlier because the prospective tenant is a willing offerer. There are likely to be cases where the owner would let land for a specific period of years —it may not be a complete holding; it may be a piece of land without buildings which it would be convenient for the prospective tenant to have for a certain time. There are likely to be cases where this might be let to an established farmer if the owner could resume possession at the termination of the controlled lease. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consider this new clause in a favourable light because I think it would help to do something to ameliorate the rigidity of Part III as it now stands. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 19, insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HUGHES

I am afraid that my objection to this Amendment is as strong as it was to the previous one. This Amendment is subject to the same fundamental objection: that it cuts across the security of tenure provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949. This section of the Bill deals with the security of tenure of a successor to a holding following the death of the tenant. What the Amendment is doing has nothing to do with the succession to a holding. It seeks to alter the present law in relation to the leases as they stand; it tampers with the position of a tenancy during the tenant's lifetime. I am certain, notwithstanding the arguments the noble Earl has put forward, that it would be wrong to make such a variation in the basic principles of the 1949 Act.

I can see other difficulties. For example, a tenant's circumstances might change, particularly if he were tenant, not the owner-occupier, of another holding. I agree that if he enters into a bargain voluntarily he would not have a real complaint, but I do not think that we can blind ourselves to the fact that if we give a landlord the right to serve an incontestable notice to quit in those circumstances he might regard it as more attractive to let his holding under this provision to a tenant who already occupied another farm than to someone who might have greater need to secure the tenancy of the vacant holding. There is that possibility. I am willing to concede that it may be just as fanciful as some of the other possibilities that we have had to look at this afternoon, but it would cut across the main object of the noble Earl, which is to provide as many farms as possible for new tenants. Undoubtedly it would expose some landowners to the temptation to go in for multiple tenancies or holdings rather than single ones.

Finally the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act provides firmly against any provision for contracting out of it, and what we are being invited to do is to enable people to contract out of the 1949 Act by putting a new clause into this Bill. It is a principle upon which I cannot possibly give way.

7.21 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I thought the great excuse for this Bill from the Government side was the question of social justice, though I agree that they have stretched those words a great deal. Here we have a tenant who already has a holding, and if a landlord gives him notice to quit after the due term he will still have another holding and will not be deprived of the land. We hear a lot about social justice, but there appears to be social justice for only one party in this Bill. There appears to be no social justice for the owner of any land. I support the Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

All I would say is that I have endeavoured to make quite clear that we have tried to be fair to both sides. I have indicated that we could not satisfy everybody and the noble Viscount is merely emphasising that it would be even more difficult to satisfy him.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I agree that this Bill may not be too unreasonable for the landlord of a sitting tenant, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the Government have completely forgotten the tenant who wishes to get a farm and has no relatives who are farmers, and who therefore is not likely to succeed to a tenancy, and has not enough capital to be able to become an owner-occupier. This is where the argument advanced by the noble Lord and the Government falls down the whole time. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland are so blind that they will consider only their present members and will not consider potential members who would come in as a result of being able to get leases of farms which between 1958 and now have apparently come on the market at the rate of 35 to 60 a year. After this Bill becomes law I should think the number of these farms will dry up almost completely and we shall have either existing tenants or owner-occupiers throughout farming in Scotland.

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, keeps saying that he is trying to be fair to both sides, but he has not once mentioned these poor people, and there are many of them whom I know personally. I may say that I cannot remember dispossessing one of the near relations covered in this Bill between 1958 and 1968, but whenever one has a farm which one wishes to let, one always gets 50 or 60 applicants. Most of them are not in farming, or are, farm managers working for someone; or they are farming very small, uneconomic farms elsewhere and wish to move on to better things. The number of these people will dry up completely. This is what we appear to be unable to get over to the Government and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. These are the people who will suffer, not the landlords. The noble Lord thinks that the landlords are going to suffer, but they will not. Their rents will be exactly the same. Although there might be a difference in efficiency among the farmers concerned, it would be very marginal. It is the people who are looking for farms and who will have; to go elsewhere who will suffer, and the noble Lord has not said one word of comfort to them throughout these proceedings.

LORD HUGHES

I think that the noble Duke is rather unfair to me. After all, I have just pointed out to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that one of the effects of the Amendment, if it were accepted, would be to cut down the opportunities available to some of these people because there would be at least a temptation in some cases to let a second farm to someone already in possession of a farm. So it would be another way of excluding at least some of the people for whom the noble Duke has spoken.

I think it wrong to say that the Government are not looking to the interests of these other people. We accept the fact that in existing circumstances not everybody who wants to obtain the tenancy of a farm can get one. I cannot see anything that is likely to happen in any change of the law which will alter that position. There will always be more applicants than there are farms available for them. We think that the effect of this may well be to have a marginal reduction in the number of such farms available for letting to new farmers. We think it is wrong that, in order to increase the opportunities for letting to these desirable new tenants, an injustice should be done to near relatives in certain circumstances—to near relatives to whom now a second noble Duke has made perfectly clear that he would not be doing any injustice.

This is not a Bill aimed at the tenants of noble Dukes, it is a Bill relating to tenancies in Scotland as a whole. If the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, were in a position to give me an undertaking which he could enforce that in no circumstances would a deserving near relative be dispossessed, we might be tempted to do something about it. But I am pretty certain that the noble Duke will not give me any such assurance, or any proof that he could implement it.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Fortunately, the Scottish Landowners' Federation is not run on such tight lines as trade unions, so it would be physically impossible for any of my noble friends to give such an assurance, as the noble Lord well knows.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

Perhaps I might point out that, had it not been for the most appalling taxation levied by Socialist Governments, all the landowners would be like the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and would be very kind landowners. There would never be any question of any tenant being dispossessed. It happens only because you now have people owning land who have not the same feeling for the land or the tenants as the noble Duke has.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I do not accept the explanation—although I am grateful to him for giving it—which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has given for not accepting this Amendment. Nor do I agree that we ought not to alter the present law of tenancy in Scotland if we think that such an alteration would be an improvement. It is not noble Lords on this side of the Committee who started making alterations in the law of tenancy in Scotland; it was the Government who, late in the Committee stage of the Bill, suddenly produced this measure which radically does so and alters the Act of 1958. I do not see why we should not alter the Act of 1948 if we think it will improve matters and make for better farming. I hope we shall not be too ready to accept that kind of reasoning, but I do not think this is an Amendment which your Lordships would wish me to press any further. We have already got to consider on Report one or two points which I have alluded to, and I think that in the present circumstances your Lordships would probably wish me to withdraw the Amendment. I beg leave to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:

Bequest to widow or daughter

".—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18 of this Act in any case in which there is a bequest of the lease of an agricultural holding to the widow or daughter of the tenant the landlord shall be entitled to serve on the said widow or daughter, as the case may be, an incontestable notice to quit.

(2) In any case in which a landlord serves notice to quit in pursuance of the foregoing subsection the widow or daughter shall have the right to require the landlord to grant her a lease of the farmhouse for her life or for such shorter period as may be agreed upon at such rent as shall, failing agreement, be fixed by the Scottish Land Court.

(3) The provisions of the Rent Act 1965 shall not apply to a lease granted under this section."

The noble Earl said: I should like to make perfectly plain in view of the previous Amendment discussed some little time ago, that I think a woman may be just as good a farmer, or indeed a better one, than a great many men, and the fact that she is not able to do all the more strenuous kinds of physical labour that a farmer has sometimes to do does not mean that she is not a good manager of those who do it on a farm. The point of this Amendment is not quite that. There may be some widows who have considerable knowledge of farming, enough to satisfy the Land Court, if the matter came to them, that she ought not to be displaced but ought to receive the tenancy of the farm, though she may not particularly want to do much farming but to have a home. She might think it difficult to get another suitable place in which to live. It may be that if she were assured of the occupancy of the farmhouse for the remainder of her life, that would be all she required to have. But she might feel bound to demand her legal rights of tenancy in order to secure that, unless it were otherwise provided, as my Amendment tries to do.

There are many cases where widows are left in occupancy of the farmhouse and the new tenant finds equally good accommodation on the farm, in the grieve's house or some other dwelling, and everybody is satisfied. The National Farmers' Union did not ask for anything more than that a competent son to whom a lease had been bequeathed should have a statutory right to inherit it, and did not ask that a widow or daughter should have this right. My Amendment provides that they should have statutory occupation of the farmhouse. It would then be a matter for discussion between the widow or daughter and the owner as to whether or not it would be convenient for both of them that the widow should also do the work of running the farm. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 19, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HUGHES

The noble Earl wishes to exclude widows and daughters from the category of near relatives protected from dispossession by this clause. It is perfectly true that the proposal as first put to us by the N.F.U. sought to give this protection against dispossession only to a competent son. We have given this subject a good deal of thought. It was tempting to limit the provision in the way first asked for by the N.F.U. but we came to the conclusion that we could not logically do this, because the law has been changed and accepts the principle of equal rights of succession for sons and daughters. It seems to the Government that in a matter of this kind we have no right to reintroduce a discrimination which the law has sought to eliminate.

The noble Earl has founded his case largely on the fact that what a widow or daughter may want is to have her home continued, and his Amendment provides that where an incontestable notice to quit is issued the tenancy of the farmhouse for life or for such shorter period as may be agreed upon should be offered. But if the widow or daughter is interested only in having the tenancy of the farmhouse, she does not need to take on the farm in order to have it at the present time. The landowner would have no difficulty in entering into an agreement to let the farmhouse to the widow for the rest of her lifetime and obtain possession of the farm. If he can do that at the present time merely by ascertaining that this is what the widow wants, we come to the position that we are seeking to alter the law to take away the right of succession to a farm from the widow who does not want it by taking this right away from the widow who does want it. That seems to me to be wrong. The law as it stands will not prohibit an owner for gaining possession of a farm when all the widow wants is a home. We are not prepared to alter this clause so that the widow who wishes to continue farming and who is competent to do farming can be dispossessed. She should have exactly the same rights as her son and daughter.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot see his way to accepting this Amendment, which I think would be an improvement to the Bill; but, in view of what he has said, this is not an Amendment which I should wish to press, and I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.37 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new Clause:

Landlord's power in certain cases to require tenant to purchase holding

". In any case in which, in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, a landlord is precluded from giving an incontestable notice to quit to a tenant who has acquired right to the lease of an agricultural holding, the landlord may give notice to the tenant requiring him to purchase the holding and in any such case the tenant shall purchase the holding at such price as may be agreed between the parties or, in the case of dispute, as may be fixed by the Scottish Land Court who shall fix the said price on the basis of what price the holding would realise if offered for sale in the open market with vacant possession."

The noble Duke said: We now come to the last Amendment to Part III, a Part of this Bill which I think should have been in separate legislation. The fact that the Committee stage has lasted so long shows this. I still think that we have not thoroughly covered all the points, and we have been entirely unable to put across to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that it is the person seeking a farm whom we are all worried about. None of the provisions he has made has given any comfort on this question at all. The whole of this Part of the Bill seems to be based on the theory that there are two or three bad cases where the landlord serves incontestable notice to quit and therefore anyone in Scotland seeking a farm as tenant who has not a near relation farming should be penalised simply because of this. It seems to me grossly unfair and I should have thought that any Government would have been ashamed to bring in such legislation.

This final Amendment, which I regard as being extremely important, is an attempt to mitigate this situation. It could be of great help where a landlord is nervous about letting a farm which falls vacant because he feels that on his death his estate will have to pay substantial death duties and the value which he would obtain for his land would be much reduced by the fact that there was a sitting tenant on some or all of that land.

This Amendment requires that a tenant who succeeds to a farm through this Part of the Act shall purchase that farm if required to do so by the landlord at the price that in the opinion of the Land Court that farm would be worth had it got vacant possession. This is all the Amendment does. It was suggested on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, who cannot be considered to be in favour of the landlord, that it was only fair that some such provision as this should be inserted in the Bill. I think it would be useful to the landlord if he were faced with finding money at an awkward moment, and even more useful from the point of view that it might—I only say "might"—make people slightly less reluctant to let farms to suitable tenants when they fall vacant. At the moment, I am sure that the effect of the Bill will be that they will either sell land then and there or farm it themselves, and that the supply of tenant farms being let to tenants will dry up quite appreciably. That will be a result of this Bill. I do not think that this clause will have a great effect on it, but I think in one or two cases it might just sway the landlord to be in favour of letting, and I cannot see that it can do any harm at all. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 19, insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

A few moments ago the noble Duke taxed me with completely ignoring the fact that what he and his noble friends were seeking to do was to protect the interests of the would be tenant who could not purchase a farm, and whose opportunities of getting the tenancy of a farm were limited. By no stretch of the imagination can it be suggested that this Amendment would in any way further the interests of that class of would be farmer, because giving the landowner the right to require it to be purchased, if that right were exercised, would take the farm away just as effectively as if it continued in tenancy.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he has quite misunderstood me. All I am saying is that the landlord might be encouraged to let the farm, because he knows that when he dies and the money is needed to pay off death duties, when that particular tenant dies, his heirs and successors will be able to sell the farm at the vacant possession price and not be saddled for ever with the hereditary tenancy which this Bill creates.

LORD HUGHES

I think we have been at this much too long for me to attempt to follow the noble Duke in that reasoning. All I say is that I do not think he is right. Perhaps if we pursue this on the Report stage we can go further into why I do not think he is right.

The noble Duke must know that acceptance of this Amendment would make serious inroads in the security which the Bill would afford to near relatives of a deceased tenant. It may well be that the successor will have sufficient capital to take over the farm and manage it satisfactorily, but he might be without the resources to purchase it. I know that there would be reasonable prospects that he could borrow the money with which to acquire the farm; and it would probably be easier to borrow money to acquire land than to borrow money to buy implements. But the one thing that is quite certain is that it would be virtually impossible for him to borrow all the money necessary to acquire the farm. He would have to put up some part or the money himself, and there must be some cases, at least, where he would need to provide even 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the purchase price of the farm, in addition to the capital necessary to farm as a tenant, and this would put it effectively beyond the ability of a good near relative to carry on in the operation.

For that reason, I cannot accept the Amendment, because it is a method by which the principle that we are seeking to defend, of the right of a near relative to succeed, could in some instances be effectively frustrated.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

The noble Lord has really given himself away, if he will forgive me for saying so. What he is saying is that it is quite uneconomic for a tenant to own his own farm. In other words, what the noble Lord is saying is that agricultural tenants in Scotland really exist off the landlord, and do not pay economic rents.

LORD HUGHES

I have not said any such thing.

LORD BALERNO

I should like to support the noble Duke. I think this is a most reasonable proposition. Why should a landlord be saddled for ever with a farm from which he can virtually get no profit whatever? It is entirely reasonable that the tenant should, if he is insisting on his hereditary right, pay for it. I cannot appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said that such a tenant will be unable to raise the money for the purchase. There are several different ways of raising money. In this case he will not be asked to raise the market value of the farm, because I cannot imagine that the Land Court, on appeal, would fix a value of the farm that was greater than three-quarters of the true market value of the farm. Therefore, it ought to be quite easy for him to raise even the whole of the money for the purchase of the farm.

LORD HUGHES

I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, is overlooking the last words of the Amendment: or, in the case of dispute, as may be fixed by the Scottish Land Court who shall fix the said price on the basis of what price the holding would realise if offered for sale in the open market with vacant possession.

LORD BALERNO

If the noble Duke would alter the final sentence, then I would agree with the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am not quite certain that I should agree with my noble friend in suggesting that the last sentence should be altered. One of the main difficulties about this is that there is an element of confiscation in this legislation. It is transferring a value from the landlord to the tenant. I remember very well that some ten years ago or more there was a great difference between the prices of farms which were offered for sale with vacant possession and the prices where there was a sitting tenant. It came to the point where the price where there was a sitting tenant was about half—or only just a little more; I think the actual relativities were seventeen to thirty-two or something like that at that time. This represents a large element of confiscation in this Bill.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

Disgraceful!

LORD DRUMALBYN

Taken together with the other elements in the Bill, I should have thought that this would be an element of fairness. On the one hand, the Bill is going to give almost perpetuity of tenancy—which stems to be a contradiction in terms, anyway—so long as you have a successor who is trained in the art of agriculture to follow you. For that reason, it gives a kind of perpetuity in tenancy. But why should that be accompanied by a penalty on the landlord, so far as the price at which he is able to dispose of the farm is concerned, should be have to do so?

I do not think that this Amendment goes far enough. I should have thought that in any case where the landlord had to dispose of the farm, and at any time when he had to dispose of it some arrangement should be made by which it should be disposed of in the sane way as if it were being sold on the open market. That is the ideal; but this Amendment would at any rate bring it nearer. I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said for this.

I hope that the noble Lord will look at this again, because clearly there is a sharp element of confiscation and injustice involved in this case. I hope he is not going to say that this, of course, was the situation before ten years ago, the period 1949 to 1958. It was quite a different thing during the period of the war. I well remember that this was a circumstance which arose quite accidentally because of the difference in law between Scotland and England; and this situation was perpetuated by the 1949 Act. It had given rise to so much injustice, and the injustice was so patent after seven or eight years that it simply had to be changed. The same thing will happen again, and we are bound to have changing legislation every eight or ten years if this is done.

7.50 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

I am surprised at the intervention in this vein of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. The whole argument that has been put forward this afternoon as justification for this is that there will be the opportunity for the landowner to regain possession of the farm so that he may let it to another tenant. It may well be that the selling value of a farm with vacant possession is very much greater than the selling value of a farm which is tenanted. I think that is undoubtedly still the case; it has not altered with the passing of the years. But the argument which has been advanced up to the present is that the landlord should be able to get out of the tenancy not so that he may be able to recover that part of the capital which has been laid aside all the time the farm is tenanted, but so that he may have the opportunity to let the farm to somebody else, in which case the laying aside of that capital continues. If the argument is now being advanced that the landlord should have the opportunity of dispossessing the tenant in order to sell, I can understand that; but the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has value only if the intention is to give notice to quit. If that is not the intention, the position remains as it is: that the owner still has a farm, the market value of which is lower because it has another tenant. It does not become higher because one tenant is replaced by another.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I do not think the noble Lord has quite understood the point, which is that if the object of this Bill is to ensure that a person who has the tenancy of a farm will be able to go on farming that farm for his life, and then his son, or whoever it may be, shall go on afterwards, does it really matter whether he does so as tenant or as owner? What is reasonable is that, if the farm has to be realised, a fair price should be obtained in spite of this change in the law. Ideally I am sure we would agree that if it is at all possible this objective should be achieved, and I would ask the noble Lord to bend his mind to the achievement of that objective.

LORD HENLEY

I agreed with my noble friends that I would not speak about Part III of this Bill which concerns Scotland and where there is a certain measure of disagreement. I think it was felt that here a measure of social justice was involved. My noble friend Lord Bannerman of Kildonan accepts this point, and that where there is an agreement to allow a relative of the tenant to stay on there must always be a measure of social justice: he should be willing to offer to buy. It seems to me this is an aspect of social justice which ought to be met, and I hope the Government will consider it, because it seems to defeat their arguments about social justice if they will not accept this perfectly reasonable point raised by the noble Duke.

LORD HUGHES

This is the last point I propose to make because this debate has gone on interminably. The Government have laid down certain conditions with which a near relative must comply if he is going to be able to fight an incontestable notice to quit. He may fulfil all these conditions and yet not be able to find the capital to run the farm efficiently, or to acquire his share of a farm at the price at which it would be sold on the open market with vacant possession. When I drew the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, to that he immediately saw the dangers of acquisition for a tenant farmer. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who has correctly quoted his noble friend Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, to consult with him as to whether the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, would be any happier about accepting the Amendment with this last phrase in it than would be the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. I am quite satisfied from the conversations that I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, that he sees merit in requiring a near relative to purchase the farm, but I very much doubt whether he would wish to go as far as this.

LORD HENLEY

I certainly will consult with my noble friend Lord Bannerman because it is possible that I have misunderstood him with regard to this last sentence, but I must challenge the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the question of raising capital. Earlier in this afternoon's debate the noble Lord made the point as to how easy it was in fact, if a man was competent and efficient to take on the tenancy, for him to raise the capital. I do not altogether accept this. I think it is extremely difficult to raise a large sum of money, if it is a big farm. Be that as it may, so far as buying a farm is concerned a great part of that capital can be raised on mortgage. Although I will consult my noble friend, I hold the view that if the Government feel that as a measure of social justice the inheritance of tenancies should be an option that can be taken up, there must also be the other option.

I accept the matter of the difference in prices according to whether there is a sitting tenant or vacant possession, and it may be larger than the Government want to accept, but can they not accept the fact that the option should be open to the landlord to require the tenant to buy, not necessarily at vacant possession price but at a price settled by arbitration?

LORD HUGHES

I will undertake to consult my right honourable friend as to whether there are any circumstances in which a purchase might be considered as an alternative to a continuation of tenancy to a near relative. I do not offer any great hope of success in the matter, but I have been sufficiently impressed by what has been said to think it reasonable that we should at least have another look and convince ourselves, if nothing else, that we were right.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

Why cannot the Government copy the Irish Land Act whereby the British Government gave the farmers' tenants the money with which to buy their farms at very low rates of interest?

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I thought the noble Lord was going to reply to my noble friend, although I think the point about the Irish Land Act is rather a "fast one". I honestly do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made out any sort of a case at all. My noble friend Lord Bannerman could possibly have changed his mind since March 5, 1968, but he then said: The fact that the heir is secured to follow on is a good thing, but if it affects the selling price which the farmer may hope to get from a farm, then I think there is hardship, so far as the landlord is concerned, and this Bill should contain some provision to get rid of this hardship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 5/3/68, col. 1273.] We are all agreed that it affects the price which the landlord would expect to get for the farm, and so far as I can see this Amendment just gets rid of that hardship—no more and no less. I think the noble Lord has not disputed this at ail, but because he is going to lock at it again and to see whether his right honourable friend will do anything about it, I feel, very reluctantly, that I must withdraw the Amendment at this stage. But I warn the noble Lord that if his right honourable friend does not see his way to do something about this I shall undoubtedly press this Amendment at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Clauses 21 and 22 having already been agreed to, it is my duty to put the Question, That Clause 23 stand part.

Clause 23 [Amount of special drainage charge]:

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

Just before we adjourned on Tuesday last the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, fired a number of questions at me. I said that I could not then answer them "off the cuff", but I promised to give him answers at to-day's Sitting. The noble Lord thought at one time to-day that he would be unable to be with w at this juncture, so we discussed his questions and I told him my answers to them. The noble Lord then told me that he was perfectly satisfied with the answers I had given him, and I think if the House will accept that explanation it will save a good deal of time.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 [Transitional provisions for general drainage charges]:

LORD BESWICK

This Amendment will extend the transitional provision for drainage charges to include the financial year 1968–69 as well as 1969–70 and 1970–71. The Amendment is required to meet a local problem in the Gwynedd River Authority area in North-West Wales. The amount of the general drainage charge there is very much higher than in any other river authority area. If the Gwynedd River Authority were able, as they would like, to use this method of calculation for 1968–69, the charge would be reduced from 1s. 6½d. to 11½d. in the pound. This really would be most welcome, and I hope noble Lords will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 8, leave out from ("for") to ("and") in line 12 and insert ("any of the years ending with 31st March 1969, 31st March 1970 and 31st March 1971 in respect of which the authority have not already made a determination under this subsection,").—(Lord Beswick.)

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 [Interpretation etc.—drainage charges]:

8.3 p.m.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME moved to add to the definition of "chargeable land": and also excluding land over 1,000 feet above sea level".

The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment because I consider the drainage charge per acre is unfair. In the 1961 Act the drainage authorities were given leave to put a drainage charge on all land outside the internal drainage boards, and that was on the Schedule A assessment. Schedule A assessment per acre on land up to 250 feet is very different from Schedule A assessment per acre for land over 500 feet, and that is why I say this charge is unfair. Initially, I tried to put down an Amendment by which land up to 250 feet should pay the full charge, land between 250 and 500 feat should pay two-thirds, land between 500 feet and 1,000 feet one-third, and land over 1,000 feet nil. However, having consulted the Ministry of Agriculture's drainage department, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association—who all put their heads together and decided upon this universal charge as the only possible method—I came to the conclusion I was going to be outvoted on this matter.

One of the ways of "getting at me" adopted by the drainage authorities was by informing me that there were no maps of the individual farms throughout the country showing each field and the height of fields. I think it is rather disgraceful that the Ministry of Agriculture should not know what farms they are looking after. I do not think this is the case everywhere. Where a tile drainage scheme has been entered into the Ministry do have this information, and I think that over a period of two years every farm in the country should be mapped, without increasing the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and its advisory service. To raise the river authority's precepts, the June Agriculture Return would have to be consulted. Rough grazing is deducted from the total area and the rate per acre to raise the precept is fixed. The exemption of all land over 1,000 feet is workable provided the Government classify this land as rough grazing, which the majority already is. The proposed acreage charge may show an increase in rough grazing of land up to 1,000 feet in the June Return, but it seems only fair to exclude all charges on land over 1,000 feet. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Nunburnholme.)

LORD BESWICK

I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment the noble Lord proposes, and undoubtedly there are imperfections and indeed unfairnesses in having this flat rate charge. But I think it is also true that at the present time it is impossible to identify all the land that is over 1,000 feet; one could do it; it would take time; but, as the noble Lord says, it would be possible. It would also cost money, and the amount of money proposed to be raised by these charges is quite moderate, ranging from about 4d. to 1s. an acre. If it was necessary to have this sort of survey first, the cost of collection would be almost as much as the charge. It would therefore be too expensive to raise it in that way. The fact is that the National Farmers' Union, who do understand the view of the noble Lord, realise that there are imperfections in this flat rate; nevertheless they accept that this method, imperfect as it is, is better than the one it supersedes. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

I should like to mention one point, and that is that if the noble Lord will agree to classify all land, or has no objection to the farmers classifying all their land, over 1,000 feet as rough grazing, I shall be pleased to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD BESWICK

That is quite impossible; but it is a fact that a good deal of land over 1,000 feet would be rough grazing and therefore would not attract the charge. What is not rough grazing is probably good pasturage, and should make a contribution.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Supplemental provisions—drainage rates]:

LORD BESWICK

This modest little Amendment is to correct a typographical error. I hope it will be acceptable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 22, leave out ("32") and insert ("33").—(Lord Beswick.)

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 37 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 42:

Amendments of Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964

42.—(1) In Part I of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, after section 5, there shall be inserted the following section:— Requirements to use registered names on Sale of reproductive material. 5A.—(1) Where a name is registered under section 5 of this Act for any plant variety, it shall be unlawful for any person to use, in selling or offering for sale material, of that variety being—

1. (a) reproductive material; or
2. (b) material to which plant breeders' rights are extended under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to this Act,

any name which serves or is intended by him to serve to distinguish that material from material of other plant varieties within the same class but is not the name so registered.

8.10 p.m.

LORD CAWLEY moved, in subsection (1) of the proposed new Section 5A after "offering for sale" to insert "other than for export from the United Kingdom". The noble Lord said: May I say a few general things on this entirely different subject before I move my Amendment? It is a most difficult—

LORD BESWICK

Would the noble Lord excuse me? For the convenience of the Committee and in order to save time, would the noble Lord agree that we discuss together the Amendment which he is about to move, No. 32, and Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35?

LORD CAWLEY

Yes; that would be quite acceptable. This is an extremely difficult matter, and I much regret that I have not given the noble Lori in advance any information on the arguments which I am going to raise. I shall not expect him to answer everything I say this evening, but I hope that his advisers will take a careful look at the matter.

The explanatory note on this clause says: Subsection (1) clarifies certain obligations to be assumed by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the naming of plant varieties under the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants in 1965. That is quite preposterously misleading. What this subsection does can be paraphrased in this way: Subsection (1) creates a new criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, the offence being the commission of an act which is specifically permitted in the terms of the Convention which this country signed in 1962. Article 13(a) of the Convention, when literally translated from the French reads: for the same product it is permitted to add a trade mark to the varietal name. This clause puts a completely strained interpretation on that Article. It asserts that some trade marks are excluded, whereas others may be used: that is to say, you may use a house name in association with a varietal name for a plant, such a name as Sutton's or Carter's, or one that you do not intend to use in respect of one plant only, but you are forbidden on pain of imprisonment from using a second fancy name if the first fancy name has been registered under the Act.

The defence put up in another place by the Minister to this rather extraordinary state of affairs is, I think, illustrated by something that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in a letter to the Member of Parliament for Knutsford. He said: The High Court has ruled that a fancy name cannot be registered under the Trade Marks Act in this country because it applies to a variety as such and does not distinguish the goods of any particular person or firm, which is the function of a trade mark or name. The High Court has ruled nothing of the sort. There is only one case in which the names of plants have been considered in the High Court, and that is Wheatcroft's Application, which is reported in 71 Reports of Patent Cases, in 1953. This, of course, was before the Plant Varieties Act was passed. As your Lordships may know, the report of a case is authoritative only in the judgment of the learned Judge; it is not authoritative in the head-note.

The report in this case has a headnote which is most definitely wrong. The reason why was that the Editor's faculties were declining at that period owing to his age. There is no doubt that if you read the headnote to that report you can get the view the Minister holds. But if you read the body of the judgment you find something quite different. This does not indicate that a fancy name may not be registered. I can point to the passage in the learned Judge's judgment. It is a short one, and he makes it quite clear that this is so. I should point out that the reason why these trade marks were refused was because Mr. Wheatcroft had registered all the names first as varietal names with the National Rose Society. He then attempted to get a monopoly as a trade mark of the identical names.

The learned Judge said this: Once the respondents …"— Mr. Wheatcroft and the others— decided to invite the Society"— that is the National Rose Society— to accept any particular name as an identification of the variety to which it was applied, they put it out of their power to intend the name only to identify such instances of the variety as they themselves raised. That is perfectly true. But that case did not say that fancy names for roses could not be registered. They can. Indeed, in the drug field this point is quite obvious. A drug may have a scientific name. It has a second name, which is called a short name and which is on a register kept by the Ministry of Health, and that corresponds with the varietal name registered under the Plant Varieties Act. But the producer of the drug may also have a trade mark registered at the Trade Marks Registry. So there are three names. The producer of the drug may use the short name and call it such-and-such a thing, and the trade mark is such-and-such a brand.

I will give your Lordships an example. There is a substance called 3:5-dioxopyrazolidine. That is the scientific name for a drug. The Minister has given it a short name, phenylbutazone. But it has a perfectly good trade name registered for it, Butazolidine. Butazolidine as a trade mark can be used only in relation to phenylbutazone; it is a fancy name. So that, at any rate in the drug field, a drug can have a varietal name and a fancy trade mark registered.

So it is obvious that this excuse for getting round the Convention does not really hold any water. This is the sort of thing that makes this country a little distrusted when we try to get round our obligations. But we must leave that now, because in my view we never ought to have entered into this obligation. I am very much against these double namings, except in the case on which my Amendment is based; that is, for export. But I believe that we ought not to hide the fact that we are going straight against the Convention under a mass of excuses. We are, and I think that, if it is for this country's good, it is right. I do not agree with the rose growers at all.

Having described what I think of the subsection generally, I go on to my Amendment. I ask the noble Lord to forget about roses. This Act will continue for a number of years. Schemes will be brought in to cover other flowering plants. It is no good talking about Europe, because these plants are exported all over the world. I take for my example orchids. At present, orchids have not got a scheme, and certain varieties of orchid, such as Cymbidium, certainly merit a scheme. Our exports from this country are very considerable. We are the finest orchid breeders in the world. We export them to the rich of Singapore, the Philippines Islands, and to all sorts of places in the tropics. If we have a scheme for orchids and a breeder in this country registers with the controller of plant varieties a name which is wholly indefensible in some foreign country, then he may be in the very awkward position that he cannot sell his orchids to that country because he cannot use the name.

This is not so very far-fetched. A splendid orchid was registered during the war with the organisation which corresponds with the National Rose Society, and it was called "Stalin". That would be almost unexportable under that name to Russia at the present moment. Other anomalies may occur. Your Lordships may remember that when the Allies landed in Southern Europe they set up an organisation for running military government which they called AMGOT—Allied Military Government in Occupied Territories. They discovered very shortly afterwards that that was a very rude word in some Eastern European language and they had to alter it very quickly. If a breeder of orchids had registered "Amgot" here, when he was trying to sell his orchids to some country where that was an objectionable word, he would not be allowed to add another name to the varietal name, the name which could be used in this country, under penalty of imprisonment. This is an important point. This Amendment gets rid of objections to two names, because it protects the grower. I still think that two names are quite indefensible in this country, even though they may be permitted by convention, but I think that protection is needed for export and I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 39, at end insert ("other than for export from the United Kingdom ")—(Lord Cawley.)

LORD BALERNO

I rise to support my noble friend Lord Cawley. At the same time, I should like to speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is unable to be present. Both he and I put down our Amendments, Nos. 34 and 35, independently of each other and independently of my noble friend Lord Cawley. Neither he nor I are as expert in this complicated field as is my noble friend Lord Cawley, and those of us who heard him speak on the original Act in 1964 were impressed then by his extensive and deep knowledge of this most complicated subject. Accordingly, both the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and I, having had explained to us the line and the argument which Lord Cawley has now put before your Lordships, are quite convinced that this is the right way to proceed. We are also equally convinced that it is vital for the plant breeders in this country that the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord should be adopted by the Committee.

LORD BESWICK

The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, invited us to forget roses. I am bound to say, after heating the background to some of these Amendments and some of the discussion that has been going on, that I wish I could forget roses. I have always looked upon roses as something beautiful and restful, and I had absolutely no idea until I came across this problem just what sort of politics there were in the rose breeding world. As I understand it the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, is prepared to withdraw his Amendment which would have the effect of deferring this clause of the Bill. I also understand from him that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, accepts the argument which has teen put by the noble Lord, Lord Cawley.

The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, pointed out one imperfection of this clause; namely, that it penalises, to some extent, the exporter of roses. I am impressed by what he said. I see the force of his argument and I am prepared to accept in principle the Amendment which he has moved. But I think the actual wording is probably not absolutely in order, and, if he will allow me to come forward at the Report stage with another wording embodying the principle which he has expressed, then I hope on that understanding he will be able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD CAWLEY

I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I willingly beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.25 p.m.

LORD BALERNO moved, in subsection (1) of the proposed new Section 5A, to leave out all words from "name" to the end of the subsection and to insert "other than the registered name". The noble Lord said: It is with considerable diffidence that I move this Amendment, because my understanding of Parliamentary draftsmanship is extremely limited. But in reading this clause it seemed to me that what it conveyed could be re-phrased in much simpler language, and that I have attempted to do. In my Amendment I have assumed that the sentence in paragraph (a), where the words "reproductive material" appear, implies that it is reproductive material for the purpose of reproduction. If it does not imply that, then it must surely be a piece of extremely bad draftsmanship, because, for example, every potato sold to the consumer is reproductive material. In the part of Scotland from which I come, some potatoes are sold as "Dunbar Reds". That is a description not of the variety but of the locality in which they are grown, and has nothing to do with the varietal name.

While plant breeders who create new varieties of plants must be extremely intelligent people, and are doubtless able to elucidate this sentence as it stands, nevertheless, as the reproductive material gets further out into commerce it passes through the hands of people who are less intellectually able to comprehend a difficult combination of words such as appears in the first four lines on page 37. My whole object is to make this part of the clause more understandable to the average man in commerce selling new registered varieties of plants. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 1, leave out from ("name") to end of line 4 and insert ("other than the registered name")—(Lord Balerno.)

LORD BESWICK

I am all in favour of simplifying legislation, and if one can make two words do the work of three then the noble Lord can count on me to support him. However, much as I should like to accept his Amendment, especially as he was so reasonable about the other, and also as I could not accept the one he moved on Part II of the Bill, what he is seeking to do will not be achieved by his Amendment. He is likely to create more trouble in the courts if he endeavours to simplify the wording here. What we seek to do in subsection (1) is to use the same wording as that already included in Sections 20 and 21 of the Act relating to the index of names of plant varieties. It may seem "gobbledegook", but it is framed to show what is meant by a "variety name". This is a name used to identify the variety; that is to say, to distinguish it from other plant varieties. The name goes with the variety, no matter who produces it or sells it.

If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, I am advised that it would make it a criminal offence to sell seed of a protected variety, for instance, under a type name as "winter wheat", "spring barley", and so on; or, in other words, coming back to the roses which we have been urged to forget, it would make it a criminal offence to sell varieties in a bundle at the end of the season as floribundas. I am sure that is not what the noble Lord is after. Much as I should like to have fewer words in the Bill, and much as I should have liked to accept an Amendment from the noble Lord, if he accepts the advice of my professional advisers I think he will see that it will be better to leave the wording as it is.

LORD BALERNO

No. Much as I should like to accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he refers to "winter wheat" or "spring barley", or anything like that, that is surely a generic name. We are talking about specific or varietal names, names which are registered; not about a name which is a general description of the plant. It seems to me that that all makes nonsense. I just cannot follow that line of argument in the very least. My Amendment is that you must use the registered name. Any further description about whether it is "spring barley" or "winter wheat" is only a general description it is not a varietal name. It is not using another varietal name. The whole purpose of this clause is to see that only one varietal name is used. You can use a lot of other names and adjectives about plants, especially if they do not germinate.

LORD BESWICK

That is right, but the question is: what is the definition of a varietal name? The noble Lord's Amendment would have the effect of creating some confusion as to what is a varietal name. May I just say this? I am sure our interests are the same here, and if the noble Lord can prove to me elsewhere, when we can sit down and look at this, that his interpretation is right and that the advice of my professional advisers is wrong, I would be very glad to look at this again on Report stage.

LORD BALERNO

At this late hour I certainly do not want to press on with this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 agreed to.

8.33 p.m.

LORD BESWICK moved, after Clause 43, to insert the following new clause:

Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 in relation to agricultural marketing boards

".—(1) For the purposes of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956, the definition of "trade association" in section 6(8) of that Act shall not include, and shall be deemed never to have included, a board within the meaning of this section.

(2) Where a board enter into an agreement on or after the commencement date in the exercise only of such powers as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section 20 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (which section provides. among other things, that certain of a board's powers with respect to products must be exercised in accordance with any directions given by the Minister for the purpose of safeguarding the public interest) or of such powers as are mentioned in section 36 of that Act (under which a board are empowered, subject to the directions of the Minister, to provide artificial insemination services), Part I of the said Act of 1956 shall not apply to the agreement if—

1. (a) the board have served notice of the terms of the agreement on the Minister not less than twenty-eight days before entering into it; and
2. (b) either the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of service of the 786 Board's notice on the Minister has expired and the Minister has not during that period served notice on the board that he objects to those terms for the purposes of this subsection or the Minister has served on the board during that period notice that he does not so object; and
3. (c) the board have furnished a copy of the agreement to the Minister within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which they entered it to it or within such longer period as the Minister may allow in any particular case.

(3) Where a board have entered into an agreement before the commencement date wholly or partly in the exercise of any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) of this section and either the board served on the Minister, before they entered into the agreement, notice of its terms in pursuance of a requirement to do so contained in a scheme administered by them or the board furnish a copy of the agreement to the Minister within the period of three months beginning with the commencement date, Part I of the said Act of 1956 shall not apply to the agreement—

1. (a) subject to paragraph (c) below, as respects the period of fifteen months beginning with the commencement date;
2. (b) if during the said period of fifteen months or that period as previously extended under this paragraph the Minister serves notice on the board extending or further extending that period in relation to the agreement, then, subject to paragraph (c) below, as respects the extended period;
3. (c) if during the said period or extended period the Minister series notice on the board that he objects to the agreement for the purposes of this subsection, only as respects the period beginning with the commencement date and ending with the date of service of the notice;
4. (d) if during the said period or extended period the Minister serves notice on the board that he does not so object as respects any period after the commencement date;

and the said Part I shall, as respects any period before the commencement date, be deemed not to have applied to an agreement to which it does not apply by virtue of this subsection as respects a subsequent period.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall have effect in relation to a Northern Ireland board as if for any reference to the powers mentioned in subsection (2) of this section there were substituted a reference to the powers mentioned in subsection (1) of section 14 of the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (which section corresponds to the said section 20).

(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the powers of the Minister to give directions at any time under the provisions of the said Acts of 1958 and 1964 which are mentioned in subsections (2) and (4) of this section.

(6) In this section— agreement" means an agreement within the meaning of Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 to which apart from this section, the said Part I applies; board" means a board constituted by a scheme made or having effect as if made under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 and includes a Northern Ireland board; the commencement date" means the date of the passing of this Act; the Minister", except in relation to a Northern Ireland board, has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1958 and, in relation to a Northern Ireland board, has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964; and Northern Ireland board" means a board constituted by a scheme made or having effect as if made under the said Act of 1964; and for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section an agreement shall be treated as entered into by a board in the exercise only of the powers mentioned in that subsection, or that subsection as modified by subsection (4) of this section, notwithstanding that the agreement contains provisions entered into by the hoard in the exercise of other powers if the Minister is of opinion that those provisions are incidental provisions only."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment appears to be a long and complicated one, but its purpose is not so complicated. It is to clarify the position of Agricultural Marketing Boards in relation to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956. The situation at the moment is this. Section 8(1) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act provides that any agreement which is "expressly authorised" by Statute shall be exempt from that Act. Marketing Boards have of course been set up under schemes approved by Parliament and provided with certain powers, including powers to make agreements, and it had therefore been thought that they were very largely exempt from the operation of the Act. But it appears that there may be some ambiguity here, that there may be some narrow interpretation, and this Amendment, providing for a new clause, seeks to set the position beyond doubt. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 43, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Beswick.)

Clauses 44 to 47 agreed to.

Clause 48 [Interpretation, etc.—general]:

LORD BESWICK

This Amendment, affecting the definition of "the Minister" arises consequentially from the new clause which has just been accepted by the Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 12, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (6) of section (Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 in relation to agricultural marketing boards of this Act.").—(Lord Beswick.)

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

LORD BESWICK moved, before Schedule 1, to insert the following new Schedule:

"TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PAY MENTS UNDER S. 9 IN ENGLAND AND WALES

1. Where the relevant notice is served on the tenant after the initial date but not later than the commencement date and does not contain such a statement as is mentioned in section 24(2)(a) or (b) of the principal Act or section 10(1)(b) or (c) of this Act, then—

1. (a) if an application for consent in respect of the relevant notice is made in pursuance of section 24(1) of the principal Act not later than the commencement date, any such statement as is mentioned in the said section 10(1)(b) which is included in the application shall be treated for the purposes of section 10 of this Act as included also in the relevant notice; and
2. (b) if, in a case not falling within subparagraph (a) above, the landlord serves on the tenant, before or after the commencement date but before the expiration of the period of two months beginning with that date, a notice containing such a statement as is mentioned in the said section 10(1)(b) or (c) and indicating that the relevant notice is to be treated as having always included that statement, the relevant notice shall be so treated for the purposes of the said section 10.

2. Where either—

1. (a) the relevant notice is served on the tenant not later than the commencement date and contains such a statement as is mentioned in the said section 10(1)(b) or (c); or
2. (b) a notice is served on the tenant under paragraph 1(b) of this Schedule,

and in either case no counter-notice in respect of the relevant notice in question has been served in pursuance of section 24(1) of the principal Act and the period during which such a counter-notice may be served has expired, the tenant may, within the period of two months beginning with the commencement date or, where the notice under paragraph 1(b) of this Schedule is served on a later date, beginning with the later date, make an application to the tribunal for a determination that the tribunal are satisfied that the relevant notice was given in order that the land in question may be used otherwise than for agriculture.

3. Where the tribunal have, on or before the commencement date, given a decision consenting tinder section 24(1) of the principal Act to the operation of the relevant notice and either—

1. (a) the reason given by the tribunal for their decision is that they are satisfied as to the matter mentioned in section 25(1)(b) of that Act; or
2. (b) the reasons so given include that reason but not the reason that they are satisfied as to the matter mentioned in section 25(1)(e) of that Act,

the tenant may, at any time before the expiration of the period of two months beginning with the commencement date, make an application to the tribunal for a determination that the reasons for their decision would have included the reason that they were satisfied as to the matter mentioned in the said section 25(1)(e) if that matter had been specified in the application for consent.

4. Where the tribunal make a determination under paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of this Schedule, section 10(1) of this Act shall not apply in relation to the relevant notice in question.

5. In this Schedule— the commencement date" means the date of the passing of this Act; and the relevant notice" and "the tribunal" have the same meanings as in section 10 of this Act.

The noble Lord said: We have already agreed to the paving Amendments to this new Schedule. The Schedule itself seeks to set right a problem which arose in another place, and the Minister there agreed to meet the point that had been raised. It has been pointed out to him that a landlord who serves notice to quit soon after the introduction of the Bill might well have failed to appreciate the effect of these clauses—I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised a similar point here—and might serve what is known as a plain notice to quit, not realising what he was letting himself in for. This Schedule will enable him to take advantage of a transitional period, and I hope it will be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Before Schedule 1, insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Beswick.)

LORD BESWICK moved, before Schedule 1, to insert the following new Schedule:

"TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PAYMENTS UNDER S. 9 IN SCOTLAND

1. Where the relevant notice (not being a notice given in pursuaice of section 6(3) of the Agriculture Act 1958) is served on the tenant after the initial date but not later than the commencement date and does not contain such a statement as is mentioned in section 25(2)(c) of the principal Scottish Act or section 11(1)(a) or (b) of this Act, then—

1. (a) if an application for consent in respect of the relevant notice is made in pursuance of section 25(1) of the principal Scottish Act not later than the commencement date, any such statement as is mentioned in the said section 11(1)(a) which is included in the application shall be treated for the purposes of section 11 of this Act as included also in the relevant notice; and
2. (b) if, in a case not falling within subparagraph (a) above, the landlord selves on the tenant, before or after the commencement date but before the expiration of the period of two months beginning with that date, a notice containing such a statement as is mentioned in the said section 11(1)(a) or (b) and indicating that the relevant notice is to be treated as having always included that statement, the relevant notice shall be so treated for the purposes of the said section 11.

2. Where the relevant notice is given in pursuance of section 6(3) of the Agriculture Act 1958, is served on the tenant after the initial date but not later than the commencement date and does not contain such a statement as is mentioned in section 11(7)(b) of this Act, then, if the landlord serves on the tenant, before or after the commencement date but before the expiration of the period of two months beginning with that date, a notice containing such a statement is mention in the said section 11(7)(b) and indicating that the relevant notice is to be treated as having always included that statement, the relevant notice shall be so treated for the purposes of section 11 of this Act:

Provided that this paragraph shall not have effect where the relevant notice is a notice to which, apart from the provisions of section 19 of this Act, the said section 6(3) would apply.

3. Where the relevant notice is a notice to which, apart from the provisions of the said section 19, the said section 6(3) would apply, and the landlord in a notification to the tenant under section 19(2) of this Act specifies a matter set out in section 26(1) of the principal Scottish Act, then—

1. (a) in the case of a matter set out in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of the said section 26(1), the relevant notice shall be treated for the purposes of section 11(1)(a) of this Act as if it had always contained a statement of that matter as a ground on which the carrying out of the purposes for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable;
2. (b) in the case of the matter set out in paragraph (d) of the said section 26(1), 791 the relevant notice shall be treated for the purposes of section 11(1)(b) of this Act as if it had always contained a statement that the landlord would suffer hardship unless the notice had effect.

4. Where either—

1. (a) the relevant notice is served on the tenant not later than the commencement date and contains such a statement as is mentioned in the said section 11(1)(a) or (b); or
2. (b) a notice is served on the tenant under paragraph 1(b) of this Schedule,

and in either case no counter-notice in respect of the relevant notice in question has been served in pursuance of section 25(1) of the principal Scottish Act and the period during which such a counter-notice may be served has expired, the tenant may, within the period of two months beginning with the commencement date or, where the notice under paragraph 1(b) of this Schedule is served on a later date, beginning with the later date, make an application to the court for a determination that the court are satisfied that the relevant notice was given in order that the land in question may be used otherwise than for agriculture.

5. Where the court have, on or before the commencement date, given a decision consenting under section 25(1) of the principal Scottish Act to the operation of the relevant notice and either—

1. (a) the reason given by the court for their decision is that they are satisfied as to the matter mentioned in section 26(1)(b) of that Act; or
2. (b) the reasons so given include that reason but not the reason that they are satisfied as to the matter mentioned in section 26(1)(e) of that Act,

the tenant may, at any time before the expiration of the period of two months beginning with the commencement date, make an application to the court for a determination that the reasons for their decision would have included the reason that they were satisfied as to the matter mentioned in the said section 26(1)(e) if that matter had been specified in the application for consent.

6. Where the court make a determination under paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of this Schedule, section 11(1) of this Act shall not apply in relation to the relevant notice in question.

7. In this Schedule— the commencement date" means the date of the passing of this Act; and the court" and "the relevant notice" have the same meanings as in section 11 of this Act.

The noble Lord said: This is a similar Schedule to the one we have just accepted, and is applicable to Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Before Schedule 1, insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Beswick.)

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

LORD BESWICK

This Amendment to the Title is consequential on the new clause, Clause 43, in Amendment No. 36 which we accepted just now. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— In the Title, line 18, after ("1949") insert ("the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 in its application to agricultural marketing boards").—(Lord Beswick.)

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.