§ After Clause 19, 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 the 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 1251 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 Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
§ Because the Amendment is at variance with the purposes of Part III of the Bill which is designed to give security of tenure, as a tenant, to a successor to an agricultural holding in Scotland who is a near relative of the deceased tenant.
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)
My Lords, this matter was debated in another place on June 13, when I think it is fair to say that the Opposition, while continuing to express their dislike of the provisions of Part III of this Bill, did not appear to have much enthusiasm for the proposed new clause. We have discussed the proposal in the clause at much length, at both the Committee and the Report stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House, and I think your Lordships already know why the Government have opposed it. The Commons have stated that their Reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment is that itis at variance with the purposes of Part III of the Bill which is designed to give security of tenure, as a tenant, to a successor to an agricultural holding in Scotland who is a near relative of the deceased tenant.I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hughes.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, I hope that this House will agree with the Commons in regard to this matter, but I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, one question. The Under-Secretary of State in another place, when giving the Government's reasons for not accepting this Amendment, said that he felt that this particular difficulty was already covered by the agricultural legislation relating to Scotland. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, could elaborate on this point, because I feel that it is still not covered in any previous agricultural Act. In not insisting on this Amendment I should be 1252 much happier if I felt that it was covered in some previous agricultural Act and that in fact the provision I suggested in this Amendment is more or less unnecessary.
§ LORD HUGHES
My Lords, at this point I can do no more than repeat what I have already said to your Lordships in Committee and on Report stage, and I would refer the noble Duke to what I then said.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
But, my Lords, it seemed to me the Under-Secretary of State in another place went much further than the noble Lord has gone here, and I wondered on what the Under-Secretary of State was basing his statements.
§ LORD HUGHES
My Lords, so far as I am aware, all my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place said was that he was referring to the landlord's right to apply on hardship grounds. If the noble Duke thinks that my honourable friend has gone further than I did, I would advise him not to look a gift horse in the mouth.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.