HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc197-218
Mr. James Davidson

I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 27, line 11, after 'land', to insert: 'that is not itself already a commercial unit'. Of the several Amendments to the Bill tabled by my colleagues and myself, we consider this to be perhaps the most important. A vital point of principle is involved. As the Bill reads, there is nothing to stop a farmer or landowner with thousands of acres of good arable land already in hand taking in an uncommercial unit, adding it to his already eminently commercial unit and, in addition, collecting an amalgamation grant paid out of the taxpayer's pocket.

As the Clause stands, it means that a small man—the man who occupies an uncommercial or intermediate unit—who wishes to purchase an adjoining uncommercial unit will have no advantage over a third neighbour—an occupier of a large and viable unit—who is after the same piece of land. The large farm will grow larger, with public assistance, and the small farm will remain small and will probably eventually be swallowed up by the same large farm. I know of a specific case where this is likely to happen directly the Bill is enacted; that is, unless the Minister accepts the Amendment.

Surely the object of this Part of the Bill is to create viable holdings out of non-viable ones, and not to make the big farm bigger and to eliminate the small farm—a process that is, in any case, going on, with the aid of the taxpayer's money. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment. If not, my hon. Friends and I will divide the House.

Sir Frank Pearson

While the object of the Amendment may be highly laudable, I cannot help feeling that in practice it would be totally impossible to apply. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) said he knew of a case where, when the Bill becomes law, a so-called non-viable unit will be taken over by, and added to, what is already a highly commercial unit. In principle, I see no objection to that taking place.

Mr. Davidson

The hon. Gentleman is misquoting me. I said I knew of a specific case where two farms would be in competition for the purchase of a non-viable or uncommercial holding. Under the Bill as drafted, the large farm will probably get the additional holding because of the availability of greater capital while the small farm, which wishes to take over the non-viable unit with the object of amalgamating to produce one viable unit, will have no advantage in that exercise. It means that one unit will remain non-viable instead of there being two viable units.

Sir Frank Pearson

I see the difficulty and understand the object of the Amendment. However, the fact remains that in that, as in most cases, there will be one contiguous farm. It is in the general interest that the non-viable unit should be amalgamated, although the Amendment would shut out the possibility in certain circumstances of a non-viable unit being amalgamated with a viable one. While accepting the difficulty, I do not believe it possible to legislate to ensure that one non-viable unit is in all circumstances amalgamated with another non-viable one.

Although the hon. Gentleman said that he and his hon. Friends would divide the House if the Minister does not accept the Amendment, I trust that hon. Members will vote against the proposal, since it could not possibly be acceptable to any hon. Member who has considered the application of the Bill.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

I thoroughly disagree with the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson). We are concerned here with public money and not with a natural economic process. We must consider whether public money should be spent for this purpose. We might have a 30-acre holding which is considered to be non-viable. Next door to it is a holding of 500 acres and one of 80 acres. Under the Bill as drafted, the 500-acre holding would have exactly the same economic advantages and public money available as would the 80-acre holding. If the 80-acre and the 30-acre holdings were to be amalgamated that might make a viable economic unit, and public money would be rightly expended for that purpose. Under the Bill as at present drafted, the farmer with the 500-acre holding would be in competition with the farmer with 80 acres, but would still have exactly the same amount of public assistance. I submit that that is quite wrong, and alien, I should have thought, to the spirit of the Bill. I therefore cannot see why the Minister will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Henry Clark

As my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) has said, this Amendment is far too sweeping and there is some muddled thinking behind it. The Robin Hood attitude of backing the small man against the big man is all very well, but what about the man with the 30 acres who is selling? Is he not entitled to get the best possible price for his land? If the big man with capital can pay him a decent price but suffers a disability compared with the man with the 80 acres, the man who is selling will not get as good a price for his land, and one of the objects set out in the White Paper, and of this whole Clause, is to get that man out of his 30 acres. To back the small man against the big man is all very well, but it is usually someone in between who gets hurt. If we accepted the Amendment, we would find that the man who got hurt would be the man who was selling and trying to help to create a viable holding.

In Committee, I spent some time trying to persuade the Government that where land was sold in somewhat remote areas to the Forestry Commission—which in Northern Ireland is the biggest single landowner, and probably is on this side of the Irish Sea as well—that should count as an amalgamation. If we were to accept this Amendment, land sold to the Commission—whose total land holding is certainly a viable unit—could not possibly, in any circumstances, even in the case of a rural development board as specified in the Bill, qualify for amalgamation grant. This is one of the most muddled Amendments I have come across, and I very sincerely recommend the House to reject it.

Mr. Peart

This Amendment would exclude from grant any amalgamation in which any of the pieces of land concerned was already a commercial unit. I appreciate some of the sentiments behind this Amendment. It would, of course, be very nice if we could build the commercial farms which are the target for this scheme entirely out of uncommercial units. Where this is possible, we shall be delighted to help the process with grant aid under this scheme.

But hon. Members must appreciate that we must be realistic, and accept the fact that in many areas the only amalgamation possible for an uncommercial unit may be with a farm which is already commercial. If we were to accept this Amendment, we should be depriving the occupiers of these holdings of their chance to take an outgoers' payment under the Bill, and I do not think that that would be right. We want to encourage as many amalgamations as possible, provided only that at least one uncommercial unit is absorbed and that a commercial unit is formed.

If there are any fears that by letting in units which are already commercial we shall be grant-aiding the formation of over-large units, let me dispel them. We have it in mind to test the prudency of amalgamation proposals, and this will rule out transactions producing a unit of unwieldy size.

12 m.

Anyone taking these grants will also have to consider whether he can accept the conditions preventing fragmentation. This may deter the formation of overlarge farms. I do not, therefore, think that there is any risk under the present provisions of the Bill that the size of grant-aided amalgamations will get out of hand. On the other hand, we want to afford every opportunity for these uncommercial holdings to amalgamate.

For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Prior

The Minister has introduced a completely new principle into the whole business of amalgamations. He has set himself up as someone who is to decide what is the size of unit that we should aim at in British agriculture and what is the prudent size for a farmer to go for. I am prepared to give way if I have got this wrong, but, as I understand it, the Minister is discussing what is a prudent agricultural unit. I do not think it could possibly be the job of the Minister to decide what is a prudent unit. It must surely be for the farmer to decide what is right for his own particular use. Farmers vary enormously in their capacity. What is the right size for one farmer in one part of the country with one type of land may be completely wrong for another type of farmer in another part of the British Isles.

It is wrong of the Government to introduce this business of prudency into the Bill. I think this matter of the prudent landlord is a lot of nonsense, anyhow.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The prudent landlord provision in the improvement grant I consider to be absolute nonsense. I have very strong grounds for saying that. What must surely be right is what the farmer himself is able to support. For the Minister to tell us that he will not give an amalgamation grant to a farmer because he might consider that that farmer is getting too big a farm is absolute nonsense. It is not his job at all. I hope the Minister will think very seriously before he continues along that line.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

The Minnster has cast doubt on what has been said from these benches. The words that he used—he can check them in HANSARD—Were that he would not be in favour of the Bill being used to produce unwieldy units. What does he mean by "unwieldy units"? Does he feel that he can set himself up as judge and jury of what is unwieldy and what is not?

Surely the size of a farm that is economically viable is a matter which depends on the man who owns it, on his system of farming, on his opportunities, initiative and investment. These are the matters on which the whole system of our agriculture is based. Far be it from any Minister to set himself up as the determiner of what is and what is not unwieldy.

The Minister has, possibly inadvertently, sprung on the House at this last moment a quite different conception. If, as some of my hon. Friends are suggesting, this is the Minister's sinister purpose, then, as one who was not a member of the Standing Committee, I am very glad that he has brought this out. He appears to be trying to do something that a lot of people have not appreciated. He is setting himself up as the determiner of the size of farms. He is quite incompetent to do that—not in terms o' his personal abilities, although no doubt he would rate them a little more highly than I would, but I doubt whether it is within his province, as Minister, to regard himself as a determiner of what is wieldy and what is not. I hope, therefore, that he will take back that intention of deciding the wieldiness of our farms.

Mr. Godber

We have had some rather strange interchanges on this Amendment. When I first saw it on the Paper, after I had heard the intention of the hon. Member who moved it, I thought that the intention of such an Amendment would be wrong because it would tend to distort the purposes for which this part of the Bill is produced, namely, that larger units are better. Yet one must have a degree of flexibility in the matter of amalgamations, and while it is desirable that there should be two non-commercial units which could be combined together, one cannot guarantee that there would always be two such units in proximity. It would be very wrong indeed to deny the incentive for a larger unit simply because it was a larger unit. Therefore, I could not possibly support this Amendment which has been supported by the Liberal benches. I must say that it is intriguing to find the enthusiasm displayed on the Liberal benches tonight. It may not be altogether unconnected with other events, and one—

Mr. James Davidson

It is perfectly ridiculous for the right hon. Member to say that in view of the fact that Amendments had to be submitted before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Godber

The hon. Member should not be so touchy. I was not referring to his chances at all in what is happening. I am surprised at his degree of touchiness. All that I was going to say was that I could not possibly support this Amendment, nor could I advise my hon. Friends to do so because its effect would be quite wrong for good agricultural planning or for what the Minister has in mind.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) picked up a rather extraordinary intervention by the Minister. Perhaps it is the lateness of the hour, but the Minister may realise when he reads what he said that possibly he stated more than he thought.

Mr. Peart

What I said was that we have it in mind to test the prudeney of amalgamations. I see nothing wrong in that. A lot of public money will be involved, and one has to take care in such circumstances. I should have thought that that is what prudency means. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends should have picked on this, and my advice to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) would be to take that into account.

Mr. Godber

I had not come on to the word "prudent". I was going to, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is rather touchy about the word. I want to make it clear, however, that there is a great difference between being a prudent landlord, for example, and being prudent in the way which the Minister wants. There is more than one landlord, but when there is only one Minister, one cannot be sure about his degree of prudency at any given time. I should not want the Minister's task in being prudent in this subsection, nor do I want it left as a legacy for myself.

The Minister really should stick to the principles which he set out in his original White Paper which were at least working in the right direction. I do not think that the Bill will succeed particularly well, because the incentives are not sufficient. I recall that the principle established in the White Paper, and which this Clause of the Bill seeks to embody, is that it is right to have larger units and better economic amalgamations. This is a logical development. I do not go along with the introduction of questions of unwieldy size and a decision of the Minister as to prudency of size and a desire not to encourage what are termed unwieldy units. I do not think it reasonable for Ministers or their officials to decide on this. It can vary greatly in regard to the area in which the farm is located. While there may be an optimum size for particular types of agricultural units, I believe that the larger units are in the main the most efficiently run over a large aspect of farming.

I therefore think that it would be quite wrong to say that, from the agricultural point of view, one should choose a particular size of unit. From the social point of view, the point of view of the occupants, I have sympathy with what the Liberals wish to achieve here, but I do not think that it is right to try to tie the matter down in this way, because I am sure that to do so would produce all sorts of difficulties.

An obvious need is to see that the uncommercial unit to be amalgamated is amalgamated with whatever unit is near and seeking to amalgamate with it. Clearly, if the choice is between two units, it must be to the advantage of the smallest man, whom one is seeking to help and for whom public money is to be available, to get the highest price he can for his unit. I am sure that the Minister would not wish to deny that. I could not go along with either the Liberals or with the Minister in his musings on unwieldiness of size. I hope that he will stick to the Bill as it is at present.

Mr. Pardoe

The Minister expressed himself as surprised that certain hon. Members on the Conservative benches introduced a new element into the debate. I do not see why he was surprised. It is necessary for the Conservative Party to introduce a red herring on any Liberal Amendment to obscure the real issues behind it.

The process of amalgamation is already happening, and whether we pass the Amendment or not it will go on. We are talking about public money being spent to encourage that process in certain selected areas. It is nonsense to suggest that no take-overs will take place by commercial units if our Amendment is carried. Commercial units are already taking over non-commercial units or small farms and will continue to do so by the natural law of economic forces.

All we ask is, "Why should public money be spent to encourage those who are already able to take over smaller farms when they could do it without public money?". We need to put the public money available into encouraging the medium-sized farms, the non-viable farms, to take over the smaller units.

The idea has been put forward by certain Conservative speakers that the seller would suffer. It is nonsense to suggest that anybody will stop the small farmer who wants to sell his farm selling it to the highest bidder. In many ways the Amendment might well improve the price he would receive, because if one can create two potential buyers where there was only one before the increasing competition for the farm may lead to a higher price.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) gave an example. He said that there might be a 30- acre farm with an 80-acre farm next to it, and a farm of 500 acres on the other side. We should like to see the 80-acre 'arm take over the 30-acre farm and be a viable commercial unit, but without the grant that farmer might not be able to make a bid. The 500-acre farmer will be able to make a bid anyway. If there are two people in the market bidding for the 30-acre farm the seller may well end up with a better price.

Mr. Kitson

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Amendment, but I believe that if it were accepted it would put the Minister in a most invidious position. The example we have heard is easy to appreciate, but what happens if the man with the 30-acre farm can sell to either a farmer with an 80-acre farm or a farmer with a 90-acre farm? Who will choose in those circumstances?

Mr. Pardoe

Wherever public money is being spent in a selective way, someone has to make a choice about which unit shall receive grant or help. There are already in the Bill certain measures by which this shall be decided. The Ministry will have to exercise choice in this as in many other areas of the Act. That is the answer to the point.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. James Davidson

I am glad of the opportunity to reply, as the proposer of the Amendment, to one or two points that have been made in the debate.

I protest mildly at the assertion that this is a muddle-headed Amendment. It was first put forward in a booklet as far back as 1964. I have been a practical farmer for 11 years, and have also been a member of my area executive of the N.F.U. for six years. It is hardly fair to suggest that I am muddle-headed in a matter about which I have considerable knowledge.

It is a popular assumption, particularly among members of a certain political party, that the larger a farm is the more efficient it necessarily is. I would draw to the attention of such persons statistics produced by the North of Scotland College of Agriculture, from which they may realise that the most efficient are units of 250–350 acres and that over that that size efficiency on average tends to fall back.

Mr. Kitson

Where?

Mr. Davidson

If hon. Members dispute that, they should look at the statistics. I will give the hon. Member the address of the college later.

Mr. Kitson

I asked "Where?" because I wanted to know where the hon. Gentleman can generalise to this extent. Two hundred and fifty acres in hill land is completely different from 250 acres in arable land.

Mr. Davidson

I am referring to arable acres. The statistics to which I refer show about seven different classifications of farms, but I think that hon. Members will be able to follow what I have been arguing.

I would ask the Minister to answer a question. If he answers it in a specific way it will make it clear to my hon. Friends and myself how we should vote on this issue. Is it the intention of the Clause that money should be given to large farms and large estates which are taking in small farms as soon as they fall vacant? I could give specific examples of three or four estates in my constituency where it has been the practice for a number of years without any good effects on agriculture and with very bad effects on social conditions. I would make it clear that I am not condemning landowners and estate owners as a whole. There are some very good landowners and estate owners, but there are also some very bad ones, and there are certain estates where this has been the practice. Under the Bill as it exists, not only will this land grabbing continue but the land grabber will be subsidised by the taxpayer. If this is the intention of the Bill, I suppose we shall have to accept it, but my hon. Friends and I will not be very willing to do so.

With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), that the grant will put the small man in a better position to compete for available non-commercial units, it needs to be reiterated that the large farm will be in a position to compete for the small unit anyway. Making grants available only to non-commercial units will put the small man in a more competitive position, and certainly the seller of the land will not be the loser.

Mr. Hawkins

I would have considerable sympathy with the Liberal Amendment if I thought it was practicable. I must admit that I do not feel very inclined to spend public money where a 1,000-acre farm buys the only other 50-acre holding in the middle of a village, for that is wrong. If the hon. Gentleman had been on the Standing Committee he would know that I have always said that one cannot talk about acreage only in this context. If one talks about a good small farm then generally, in production and other matters, it can beat into a cocked hat a very large farm on the same type of land. I have always been convinced of this.

On the other hand, who is to decide these very difficult points as to which farm is to get a grant of this sort and which is not? In our district, we are against these amalgamation grants altogether. I made that clear in Committee. We feel that amalgamations are going on fast in present economic circumstances and we do not want to push the process, particularly in our area, although I know that, in other areas, some of my hon. Friends feel that amalgamations can be of some value.

I have the greatest sympathy with this argument. I see the point clearly, but I think it wrong to pay out in the circumstances I have outlined. I can see, as an arbitrator who knows something about land, the immense difficulties of deciding who is to have the grant and who is not. For that reason, I cannot support the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Godber

I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 27, line 37, at end to insert 'since 4th August 1966'.

I confess at once that the year stated in the Amendment should be 1965 and not 1966 but in this I was led astray by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in an intervention on 20th October last. We had raised this matter in the Standing Committee. The subsection states: …and may in particular exclude amalgations of land which has reverted from being in single ownership or occupation. We suggested then that it would be wrong to have no date written in. It was pointed out Mat it could be argued under this wording that any land which had reverted at any time since the Domesday Book could be debarred. We understand that the intention would be to deal with this in the scheme but we believe that some limitation of time should be written into the Bill rather than rely entirely on the scheme.

I suggested 10 years as reasonable but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said: We will be much more generous than the right hon. Gentleman suggests with his period of 10 years. We are thinking of going back to 4th August, when the scheme was first put forward in a White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th October. 1966; c. 678–0.] He was referring to 4th August, 1965, but we took it as being in relation to 1966, which is why that year is stated in the Amendment. We believe that, as the hon. Gentleman has specifically mentioned that date, we should have it in the Bill. The Amendment—with the change I have specified—would only spell out what the hon. Gentleman himself said on 20th October as being the intention of the Government. Presumably, it is intended to put the date into the scheme, but I invite the Minister to put it in the Bill, for it is far better to have a limitation of this kind definitely written into the Bill than merely relying on a scheme. Hon. Members on both side of the House will accept that without some limitation in time there would be a nonsense.

I appreciate that the Amendment as it stands cannot be accepted, for the wording is not exactly right, but we would be satisfied if the Government accepted the intention and in another place brought forward an Amendment, either on the basis of our original proposal, or on the basis of what the Parliamentary Secretary said when in Committee he said that he wished to be more generous than that.

It would be better for the date to be written into the Bill. Too many things are being left to delegated legislation—schemes, Orders, regulations—and writing this provision into the Bill would add clarity and make perfectly clear what was intended.

Mr. John Mackie

I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for missing out "1965" in my efforts to be cryptic in what was a rather long session on the subject, and I appreciate why he made a mistake.

As it stands, subsection (2) enables a scheme made under it to exclude from grant land fragmented from being in one ownership or occupation. Obviously, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it would be wrong to pay public money for putting together again land which had recently been in one ownership or occupation, but had since been broken up.

No particular date is specified in the subsection, because we want to keep the Clause flexible on this point so that the individual schemes made under it can take account of the conditions then current. Now the Amendment is intended in effect to provide a backstop date, so that in excluding fragmented land from grant the Minister could not exclude any land which had been fragmented before 4th August, 1965. That was the date on which the White Paper announcing these proposals was published.

We are against burdening main legislation with details of this kind which, as the right hon. Gentleman on reflection will probably agree, are more appropriate to a statutory scheme than to a Bill. That is why we are excluding the date. I hope that with that explanation the right hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Henry Clark

I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 28, line 7, after 'land', to insert 'and dwellings'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

With this we can discuss Amendment No. 144, in page 28, line 7, leave out 'is' and insert 'are'.

Mr. Clark

The Amendment is straightforward and is a close parallel with an Amendment which I moved in the 14th sitting of the Standing Committee. That was rather more specific, but this wording is adequate to cover the point.

When I moved the Amendment in Committee, the Minister made friendly noises and led one to believe that he accepted the general spirit behind the points which I then made. I hope that he will now give rather more concrete support to my suggestion by accepting the Amendment.

It was suggested that the object of the Amendment was implicit in the Bill, but, having read and reread the Bill on a number of occasions, I am not at all clear that it is implicit and I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider accepting the Amendment which could do the Bill no harm and could certainly improve it.

12.30 a.m.

From the discussion on the second new Clause at the beginning of today's debate, it was quite clear that there is general acceptance of the principle that, where an amalgamation takes place, the outgoing farmer or seller of land should be given every opportunity to stay in his house. If the man who sells to amalgamate can stay in his house, it will facilitate and encourage amalgamations.

In some cases, it will be quite impracticable for the seller of land to remain in his house, but, where an elderly farmer is retiring, only too often he would like to remain in his farmhouse for the rest of his days and continue to watch the land being farmed by his neighbour. There may be cases of smaller farms where the farmyard is directly behind the house and many buildings which continue to be used after amalgamation are adjacent to the dwellinghouse on the farm being sold.

In a large number of cases, it should be possible, by building a wall, erecting a fence, or perhaps making a short new access road, for the seller to continue occupying the house without interrupting the activities of the buyer on the combined holding. This Amendment, by inserting the word "dwellings" will allow such building of walls or fences or the making of a short piece of new access lane, and will make quite clear that they are eligible for the 50 per cent. subsidy payable in the course of amalgamations. I think that the House accepts that the seller should have an opportunity to remain in the house. The House should also accept that reasonable amounts of money spent on making this a practicable proposition should attract a subsidy. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment or give a categorical assurance that the intention of the Amendment is implicit in the Bill.

Mr. John Mackie

I agree that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) raised this question under another Amendment in Committee and that the intention behind this Amendment is to establish that a grant under an amalgamation scheme can be paid to an amalgamator for separating from his new amalgamated unit any house and land retained by the outgoer.

I gladly assure hon. Members that the provisions of sub-paragraph (i) of Clause 26(3,b), as they stand already cover this and that no further Amendment is needed. I know I made what the hon. Member called appreciative noises during the Committee stage of the Bill, but I am advised that that is the case and that no Amendment is needed.

We shall be prepared to consider for grant any work undertaken by the amalgamator on the vendor's land in order to allow the vendor to remain without undue inconvenience, in the same way as we would consider work carried out by a landowner who owned both the farms concerned.

All these classes of work connected with separating the house retained by the outgoer will be treated along the lines I have indicated and come within the existing wording of the Clause since in this context—and this is the crucial point —the word "land" in line 6 is to be construed as including buildings on the land. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that no Amendment on the lines he has suggested is needed.

Mr. Henry Clark

In view of the clear statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Godber

I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 29, line 38, at the end to insert: (9) The provisions of this section shall apply to amalgamations of county council smallholdings in the same way as in regard to any other amalgamation of agricultural land. This Amendment is designed specifically to deal with county council smallholdings. Having listened to, and taken part a short time ago, in a debate initiated by one of our Liberal colleagues, I am sure that after hearing what they had to say then they will be supporting us most warmly on this Amendment. It deals solely with small units. It seems quite wrong that if small units coming into amalgamation should be covered, county council holdings should not.

We have had the advantage of the Wise Committee's Report on smallholdings, but we have not had a chance to debate it yet and it might have helped us materially in relation to this Amendment had we done so. We have seen the recommendations of the Committee and it is generally accepted that the concept of the smallholding, as it originally developed, has had to change with economic changes and changes in methods of production.

There has been a tendency, with the active participation and encouragement of the Government of the day—and this applied to Governments of both sides—to encourage county council smallholding committees to bring together some of their smallest holdings and to make much larger units of them, either intermediate or commercial. This has been happening over a number of years and it is surely right that county council smallholdings should receive the advantages of this Clause as much as any other agricultural units.

If they are not to do so, it appears to be a form of discrimination against a particular type of unit which has always had favourable consideration from Governments of different complexions. It would be very strange if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary were to tell us that it was not the intention of the Government to accept this Amendment. I hope that he will welcome it warmly as being something obviously desirable and constructive, which will help the small man, about whom we are all so concerned. This is an opportunity for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to show his generous nature. We know that he has a generous nature but we want him to show conclusively his appreciation of this point.

It is not necessary for me to elaborate this matter at length in the light of the discussions that we had earlier about the desirability of seeing that there is some provision to hold the smaller units. I am sure that the whole House agrees that this is right in itself and that it would be wrong to wait until we have legislation based on the Wise Committee's Report, since we have no indication when such legislation will be brought forward. This would be discriminating against the county council smallholdings. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not use this argument—I would be very worried if he did.

This Clause deals with the small and uncommercial units and if it deals with those outside the scope of the county council it should deal with those within it. Since the case is so strong I will not elaborate further.

Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)

I support my right hon. Friend. It is not fair that those who are responsible for administering our county council smallholdings should be left at this stage entirely in the dark about the Government's intentions in regard to the participation which these county council smallholdings can have under the Bill.

The Wise Committee's Report, to which my right. hon. Friend referred, makes certain recommedations which, if adopted, imply an appreciable change in the policy which has governed county council smallholding in the past. Whether or not those recommendations are put into force, the fact remains that county council smallholdings have, for about 80 years, played en important part in the structure of our agricultural industry, and they are bound to continue doing so.

Their administration is now a matter of considerable difficulty and complexity, involving the exercise of difficult judgments and decisions by those who have to administer them. It cannot possibly be right that when we have an important Bill, dealing with the specific question of the small farms in this country, it should be allowed to go through without anything being said about this most important section, the county council smallholdings.

Some of us in the Standing Committee tackled the Minister on this subject, but the issue was simply not faced. All that we had from the Minister was the statement that it would be very wrong in Committee to make a statement of major policy on the Wise Committee itself. Then follows the sentence: I am being wise now."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th October, 1966; c. 760.] I am not absolutely certain that we on this side of the House would agree with that. The point really is, surely, that this Bill having been brought forward, dealing with this most important subject of the future of smallholdings, it cannot be right that we should pass it without anything being said by the Government as to the intended effect on this most important sector, the county council smallholdings. I beg to support my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hawkins

I have been interested in smallholdings ever since I went on the Norfolk Committee in 1949. Ever since then we have been trying to improve our estate, which is the largest in the country, by the process of buying land and adding to the various farms, and giving larger holdings to the smallholders on the farms.

More recently we have been unable, due to the financial situation, to buy any land to add to holdings. As smallholders have died or retired, we have, where necessary, amalgamated holdings and put some of the smaller units together to make more viable holdings for the remaining tenants. That is not what we wanted to do, because we wanted to retain the greatest number of smallholders on the estate, but it seemed the best policy in the circumstances.

It is a very expensive business to put together some of these smallholdings. It involves quite considerable alterations to boundaries and buildings, and it would seem wrong if we, the smallholding committees were unable to get the benefit of the amalgamation grants. I raised this matter in Committee on two or three occasions and received no satisfactory answer. I gave evidence to the Wise Committee, and the Wise Committee has reported, but it will be some time before we know what will ultimately be recommended, and it will be much longer before any legislation is introduced.

It seems to be quite wrong that the smallholding committees shall be without the right to claim amalgamation grants on the amalgamations which will take place from the time this Act becomes law until the Wise Committee's recommendations are embodied in legislation. In Col. 799 of the Standing Committee's Report, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said: I could not answer that off the cuff. I had asked about the question of grants. He said: I would not like to give a ruling today as to whether they will qualify or not. It will be like all schemes. I do not know what that meant— One has to consider each one separately as it is made. Therefore, I would not like to answer that point today".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th October, 1966; c. 799.] Many days have passed since 27th October. I hope that we shall now have a satisfactory answer.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I make the same plea in regard to the Department of Agriculture smallholdings in Scotland, which number about 1,900 and of which about 20 are amalgamated each year. Will the Parliamentary Secretary or the new Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us whether these grants are to be available for amalgamations in the coming year?

Mr. John Mackie

I appreciate the point made by the Amendment, but I think that it would be wrong to tie our hands to one particular way of grant-aiding the amalgamation of smallholdings before we have examined smallholdings policy generally in the light of the findings of the Wise Committee. It was the Government of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) who appointed the Wise Committee. We do not wish to be discourteous to it. It did a tremendous amount of work and took a long time to prepare its Report. It would be wrong not to give it full consideration.

As everyone knows, the Committee's First Report, on general smallholdings policy and the statutory smallholdings provided by local authorities for letting to the agricultural workers, was published last April, and consultations are taking place on it. The Report recommends grant-aid for reorganising the existing statutory smallholdings into fewer and larger full-time farms. These would provide opportunities for keen, well qualified young men who will be of benefit to the long-term interests of the technically advanced agriculture of the future.

These proposals are not inconsistent with the objectives of the farm structure provisions of Part II of the Bill. We are considering whether some special arrangements of the kind recommended by the Wise Committee would be a more suitable alternative to the general incentives provided for in the Bill.

The Wise Committee is now reviewing the smallholdings estates managed for the Minister by the Land Settlement Association. The position of these smallholdings in relation to the farm structure proposals in the Bill will be considered when the Committee's report is available.

I think that against this background, it would be wrong at this stage to decide whether the amalgamation provisions of this Bill are the right ones to help smallholdings. If they turn out to be suitable, it will be possible to apply them without amending the Bill, so there need be no delay. But if other arrangements prove more appropriate we want to feel free to adopt them, unfettered by any prior decision such as is contemplated under this Amendment.

I am sure that the House appreciates this point, in spite of the slightly exaggerated observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and I urge rejection of the Amendment in order to keep the Bill flexible on this question.

Mr. Hawkins

What is to happen about amalgamations of county council smallholdings between the time when the Bill becomes law and the time when the Wise Committee's recommendations are put into legislation? Can a county council claim grant for any amalgamations it carries out immediately after the Bill becomes law?

Mr. Mackie

The hon. Gentleman asked us that question and we sent him a fairly complete reply. I have just been handed a copy of the letter. If that does not satisfy him, I cannot give him a further answer tonight.

Mr. Monro

As the Wise Committee does not affect Scotland, can the hon. Gentleman give the information for which I asked in regard to the Department of Agriculture smallholdings?

Mr. Mackie

Not without notice.

Mr. Godber

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reply was very inadequate. It was extraordinary, particularly after my hon. Friend pointed out that his hon. Friend who spoke in Committee indicated that he could not give an answer off the cuff, the implication being that an answer could be provided. The answer which we have had is no answer. This means that the county council smallholders will be placed at a disadvantage until such time as the Government have finished brooding over the Report and have produced something from it.

If the hon. Gentleman can give us a firm undertaking that before the end of the present Session the Government will introduce legislation to deal with smallholdings, we would be prepared—although even then, there would be delay before it came into effect—to accept the point he has made. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is talking about possible legislation in the dim and distant future, it is grossly unfair that no provision should be made in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman has not made his case in saying that the Amendment would be restrictive or limiting. The position could easily be taken account of in any new legislation specifically related to smallholdings. If necessary, the provision which we seek to write in could be amended in that new legislation if it were found to run counter to the proposals that are required.

We are asking for something now to put these people on the same basis as other small units. The Minister's reply is intolerable. He has failed very badly in regard to these small units. His answer has been completely unsatisfactory. I hope that even now further thought will be given to the matter and that something will be done in another place. Otherwise there is gross unfairness in regard to these small units.

Mr. Stodart

The Parliamentary Secretary replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that he would not answer my hon. Friend's question without notice. I should like to say two things. First, the hon. Gentleman has had notice in the interval which has elapsed. Secondly, it is only right that I should extend a welcome to the new Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), who is occupying his position on the Government Front Bench for the first time. There is, therefore, a representative present from the Scottish Office. I have no doubt that the information is available to him. If either he or the Parliamentary Secretary could give my hon. Friend the information, it would be right that we should have it.

Mr. John Mackie

I would like to reply to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who expressed what I would almost call synthetic indignation.

Mr. Godber

Not at all.

Mr. Mackie

The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly attacked us for not consulting people or for not giving due consideration to Reports and various pieces of legislation that we have taken in hand. I am sorry that I have not looked up the papers to find examples of this—I did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be so unreasonable—but I could easily do so.

The Wise Report is important and covers a great number of people. To treat it, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, by putting forward an Amendment to override it completely, which is what the Amendment would do—[Interruption.] I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, who is muttering at me. If he wishes to intervene, I will give way to him.

Mr. Godber

The hon. Gentleman misrepresents completely what I said. What I put to the House was that it would not run counter to any proposal that he would later wish to bring forward. If he proposes later to bring forward legislation relating to the Wise Report, there will be nothing to prevent him taking into account in relation to that legislation any Amendment which is written in at this stage or, if he seeks to go much further, amending specifically this point. I am seeking to fill the large gap which exists and which the hon. Gentleman cannot cover up.

Mr. Mackie

As to the time factor, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will not necessarily have any effect. I said in my reply to the Amendment that if the amalgamation provisions turn out to be suitable, it will be possible to apply them without amending the Bill, but that if other arrangements are more appropriate we want to feel free to adopt them, unfettered by any prior decision such as the Amendment contemplates. I stick to that. I do not propose to go into greater detail on what I said earlier. I repeat that we must not ignore what the Wise Committee stated, remembering that we have yet to deal with the second part of that Committee's Report.

Amendment negatived.