| Allan Wilson:
I am grateful
to everyone who has contributed to the parliamentary debate on the Agricultural
Holdings (Scotland) Bill, but I must tell you, Presiding Officer, that
I do not intend to detain Parliament by speaking for nine minutes. I know
that that will disappoint some members, but we have had a fair crack of
the whip.
Like other members,
I thank the clerks to the Rural Development Committee, who have, as always,
put in a sterling effort in helping with the passage of the bill. I am
not sure that I was wholly enamoured with, or appreciative of, the six-hour
session that the committee had in the chamber while debating the minutiae
at stage 2. That session included the longest speech in the history of
the Parliament—I say to Fergus Ewing that, although it was not quite up
to Fidel Castro's standard, it was certainly long enough for me. If it
is any consolation to members, it is my heartfelt and sincere wish
that that record-breaking session should remain just that—a record.
I also thank
the members of the Rural Development Committee. In particular, I pay tribute
to Rhoda Grant, who worked hard behind the scenes—by her standards, she
has been comparatively quiet today. She made effective contributions throughout
the passage of the bill, as did other members, including those from the
Opposition. I demonstrated my willingness to come and go with the Opposition
members today when I accepted Fergus Ewing's amendment on the assignation
of interests to family members. That was the shortest political honeymoon
in history, to go with the longest speech.
I also thank
the Executive staff who were involved, who are sitting at the back of the
chamber. They put a tremendous amount of work into preparing policy advice
and into the extensive consultation with all sides of the industry that
was involved in every meeting. That consultation has been referred to constantly
during the passage of the bill. Without the Executive staff's effort, we
would not now have industry-wide agreement on all the major issues that
have been discussed. The one sour note that was struck in the morning,
which went with Alex Fergusson's sour note in the afternoon, was Fergus
Ewing's suggestion that the Executive amendments had been deliberately
withheld for some perceived short-term political purpose. That was not
the case. The Executive staff worked extremely hard to ensure that the
amendments were produced timeously.
The bill is
a result of the work of all those people and of others whom I have not
mentioned. The fact that the bill has been improved since its earlier stages
reflects the strength of the consultative procedures and the Parliament's
process of scrutiny.
The bill establishes
significant new rights. It will give secure tenant farmers a pre-emptive
right to buy their holding at market value when their landlord sells the
land, on the basis of a willing seller and a willing buyer. Like George
Lyon, I am not about to accept the strictures of Alex Fergusson on that
issue.
My one disappointment
about the day's debate has been the absence of Jamie McGrigor, an erstwhile
Conservative spokesman. He likened the pre-emptive right to buy to another
communist land grab, if members can believe that. That is based on the
usual Conservative approach—if it is Wednesday, it must be another Mugabe-style
land grab. The bill does not represent such a land grab. Bill Aitken and
his fellow Conservatives should be honest and admit that they oppose it
because it seeks to redress the imbalance in the relationship between the
landlord and the tenant in favour of the tenant. The Tories created that
imbalance in 1991; that is why they oppose the bill.
Sylvia Jackson
made an important point about the erstwhile silence of the tenant farmers.
The bill will end that silence. We now know that their voice can be heard
in the Parliament of the land. They will no longer be cowed into accepting
unfair and unreasonable tenancy conditions. That is as it should be and
it is a tribute to all those in the Parliament who have stood up to defend
the tenants' rights. We in the Executive are proud to have been in the
vanguard of that movement.
When it is passed,
the bill will revitalise the tenanted sector in Scotland. It will introduce
new tenancy options that are attractive both to landlords and to tenants
and will offer more scope for tenants to diversify into non-agricultural
activities. As George Lyon has mentioned, the quicker and cheaper dispute
resolution arrangements that will apply in Arran and elsewhere will make
it easier for tenants to enforce their rights. The bill includes a range
of other measures that will strengthen the position of tenants, including
measures that relate to several issues that the NFUS and the celebrated
Scottish Tenant Farmers Action Group raised only recently.
I assure Sylvia
Jackson and others that industry discussions will continue to address some
of the issues that have been raised and that require not legislative change,
but industry-wide agreement to ensure that the stimulation to the tenanted
sector that we seek and desire will come to fruition. I say to Alasdair
Morgan that we will monitor the progress of the bill in the months and
years to come to ensure that those objectives are met.
The changes
that I have outlined, as well as other measures, will widen the choices
that are available to tenants and landowners. I assure members that, over
time, they will lead to greater diversity of tenure and a rejuvenated tenanted
sector in Scotland. It gives me great pleasure to recommend that the Agricultural
Holdings (Scotland) Bill be passed by the Parliament.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
