Allan Wilson MSP
Cunninghame North

Speeches - 2002

Speeches to the Scottish Parliament in 2002

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill (Stage 1) (closing) - Thursday 19th December 2002

The bill is the culmination of an historic process. It has brought together all sides of the industry to agree on new tenancy arrangements after decades of recognition that the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 tenancies are anachronistic, stifle the sector and have been avoided and evaded to the detriment largely of tenants. It is important that equilibrium in the relationship between tenant and landlord is restored.

I will start with a theme with which I suspect I will continue. I agree with Stewart Stevenson and other members that a successful tenanted sector can perform a key role in supporting our overall vision for rural Scotland. That vision involves a prosperous farming industry that can help to sustain our rural communities and protect our environment. Success is dependent on the industry embracing change and new opportunities. A successful tenanted sector can provide much of the flexibility that is required for change and can also play a major role in attracting new blood and new ideas into agriculture.

I say to Alex Fergusson that there are indications that there is genuine interest among landowners in offering the new tenancies. Where existing tenancies are ending, I suggest that many landowners want to offer the new tenancies as soon as possible.

I agree with Alasdair Morgan, whose reference to Glasgow was apposite. Devolution created the atmosphere that permitted a new consensus on how necessary change should be moulded to fit the industry for the 21st century and the long-term challenges that it faces. The bill was created from that devolutionary mould. I hope that members, particularly the Tories, understand how important the bill is to rural Scotland.

Attention has inevitably been diverted to the question of what kind of right to buy a tenant should have under the 1991 act, but the importance of the rest of the bill should not be subjugated to that consideration. I agree with Murdo Fraser that landlords must feel able to let land with confidence. Tenants, too, require the confidence that security of tenure brings, if they are to turn ideas into practice and invest in their businesses. As Rhoda Grant said, the bill will provide for compensation to the tenant. I inform Rhoda Grant and Stewart Stevenson that we are considering how to ensure that that cannot be contracted out from write-down arrangements.

Fergus Ewing: I thought that the minister would appreciate a bit of a break because of his throat.

I refer the minister to recommendation 39 from the Rural Development Committee's report, which perhaps has not been specifically addressed:

"The Committee recommends that the Scottish Executive should examine the recommendation made by the NFU Scotland that the termination of a secure heritable tenancy (for example, by conversion to an LDT under section 2 of the Bill) should attract statutory compensation."

That would perhaps allow the new entrants that some of us would like to see, as well as giving a tenant farmer proper compensation.

Allan Wilson: I think that I referred to that matter in my opening address and we will obviously consider it in detail at stage 2. I look forward to that debate. I will come later in my speech to the issue of compensation more generally.

To work effectively, the tenanted sector requires trust between tenant and landlord. The amendment to the motion acknowledges that. However, I dispute the assertion that a pre-emptive right to buy, as provided for in the bill, will undermine such confidence. After all, the pre-emptive right to buy builds on what is already usual practice, whereby a landlord offers to sell a farm to a sitting tenant because to do so is to the financial advantage of both. The right to buy will be exercised when a landlord is willing to sell and a tenant is willing to pay market value for the land. I believe that landlords, their advisers and their representative bodies, who understand our provisions—unlike the Conservatives—know that to be true. Therefore, I call on members to reject the amendment.

Murdo Fraser: Would the minister address the particular point that I put to him earlier, which is that if the Rural Development Committee amends the bill at stage 2 by including in it an absolute right to buy, what would the Executive's response be to that?

Allan Wilson: I will come to Mr Fraser's point directly.

I accept that landlords are concerned about the risk that they might in future be compelled to sell land against their will. I have explained why we believe that an absolute right to buy would harm our efforts to stimulate farm tenancies. We also believe that an absolute right to buy would not achieve its desired purpose. I fully understand why the Scottish tenant farmers action group is concerned about the plight of tenants under the 1991 act who cannot afford to retire, buy a farm on the market or have encountered difficulties in their relationship with their landlords. We have made it clear that we are sensitive to those concerns, but the only tenants who could afford to exercise an absolute right to buy at market value would be those who could afford to buy a farm on the open market. I think that Murdo Fraser made that point. To any tenant facing financial hardship, an absolute right to buy would be useless and superfluous. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the minister, but clearly he is toiling with his sore throat. We have a couple of minutes to go and I would be grateful if members could keep the noise down so that we can conclude the business.

Allan Wilson: I think that they are all demob happy, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I think that they probably are.

Allan Wilson: Anyway, where were we?

We are grateful to Sylvia Jackson and Alasdair Morgan for their interventions. Members need to consider the possible expense of introducing an absolute right to buy. We believe that it could blight agricultural land values because the price that a potential purchaser would pay for the land if their freedom to own, use and manage that land were inhibited by such a right would be lower than they would be willing to pay for the same land at the moment. We believe that those losses could run into scores of millions or hundreds of millions of pounds. The potential loss arising from each reduction of 1 per cent of the marriage value of holdings with traditional tenants under the 1991 act could be in the region of £20 million. All members should bear that in mind.

Unusually for me, I will end on a note of consensus with the nationalists.

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): Careful.

Allan Wilson: It is all right, I will not go too far.

I cannot for the life of me understand the Conservative opposition to the pre-emptive right to buy. It is not for me to offer advice to the Conservative party on how to achieve electoral success—

Members: Go on.

Allan Wilson: I will, in that case. If the Conservatives find that they are in a hole, they should stop digging. They have again isolated themselves from the broad spectrum of political opinion in this country, which supports the pre-emptive right to buy that we intend to introduce.

I have referred to the main points raised by the committee, but I am aware that there is a range of other issues in the report that we will need to consider further at stage 2, and I look forward to that.

I am fully committed to taking the bill through the Parliament and I therefore urge members to support the general principles of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill.

Return to Speeches 2002

Return to Speeches Main

For further information contact:
Allan Wilson MSP 01294 605040 (Office)
or 07711038711 (Mobile)