AGRICULTURE BILL

HC Deb 31 January 1967 vol 740 cc258-334

Order for Third Reading read.

3.58 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had a very full and detailed examination of the Bill. In reviewing its main provisions I shall, therefore, be brief but there are a number of points that I wish to make. Part I is mainly concerned with establishing the Meat and Livestock Commission. I welcome the statement made on 30th June by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who led for the Opposition in Standing Committee. He said: … on the general provisions we support the idea of the Commission …"—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Standing Committee A, 30th June, 1966; c. 7.] I know that the Opposition is opposed to some aspects of Part I, but I welcome the fact that all hon. Members see value in the proposals for such a Commission. Hon. Members have expressed this view forcibly, both in Committee and on Report. I welcome the fact that, whatever arguments may have been adduced, most hon. Members recognise the importance of the Commission and see value in the proposals in the Bill.

The livestock and meat industries are faced with many difficult problems. I am convinced that the right way to tackle them is by setting up the Commission, which will have important functions ranging from the farm right through the chain of distribution to the consumer. I have carefully considered the views expressed by hon. Members. We proposed a number of Amendments to take account of many of the points made which, we acknowledge, have improved the Bill. To all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have made constructive suggestions, I am grateful. In particular, we have gone to great lengths to ensure that the rights and interests of individuals which could be affected are fully safeguarded.

The main difference between the Government and the Opposition on Part I of the Bill has arisen on the provision in Clause 9. Hon. Members know the arguments about this full well. Under it the Commission can submit for ministerial and Parliamentary approval development schemes for the better organisation, development or regulation of the industry. There is, however, nothing new in providing a reserve power for a body of this kind to submit schemes to deal with future developments in an industry. It is only sensible to recognise that new situations may arise in which the industry and the Commission will wish to introduce new measures for further development.

I emphasise, as I always have done in our debates, that we are thinking of new situations. We have no specific proposals in mind now. If we had, we would have included provision for them in the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will agree that this is the argument I have always deployed. I emphasise that it is the industry and the Commission which have the initiative in submitting schemes, not the Government. The schemes will be submitted after careful discussion and consultation and through the machinery we have provided there will be adequate knowledge of and recognition that something practical should be done if a scheme is to be produced.

What is new in the Bill as compared with previous legislation in this sphere is the extent of the safeguards provided in Schedule 2 for the interests concerned, reinforced as they have been by Amendments considered on Report. No scheme could go through this procedure successfully unless it is worthwhile and commands wide support. So I am sure hon. Members will agree that there are adequate safeguards in Part I.

Part II deals with farm structure and improvements. In our discussions in Committee on the farm structure proposals there was general agreement that these are valuable measures. I believe that my Parliamentary colleagues and I have been able to satisfy hon. Members opposite that the proposals are entirely of a voluntary kind. No one will be obliged to give up or to enlarge a small farm, but for those who do so real incentives will be available. The payments for those who give up occupation of uncommercial farms for amalgation are not specified in the Bill. When we make statutory schemes we shall give serious consideration to the view expressed in Standing Committee that, apart from the effect of taxation, the rates proposed in the White Paper may be on the low side. I am glad that hon. Members opposite accept what I have said. I recognise that the rates in the original White Paper could be on the low side.

As to amalgamation itself, we stand ready to bear half the cost of the works and incidental expenses and there will be help with loans for the other half and for land purchases. It was suggested in Standing Committee that an amalgamator might be deterred by some of the conditions attached to an amalgamated unit in the Schedule. I am sure that when the State has put up such a substantial stake it must have a voice in saying whether the amalgamated unit shall remain together in agriculture. This is sensible and reasonable. Anyone who breaks up these units without getting agreement must clearly face certain financial consequences. I am sure the House will agree on this, but to meet the criticism of the original procedure for fixing the amount of damages, we have made amendments to provide for the amount, among other things, to be subject to arbitration.

I turn to Clauses 31 to 34, which provide for the new agricultural investment grants. The Government decided to replace investment allowances by cash grants which will be more selective, more speedy and more certain since they will not depend on future rates of profits and tax. These new grants provide incentives for agriculture comparable to the investment allowances. I am glad that by providing power to vary the rates of grant the Bill as amended now enables these incentives to be more flexible. The House will know from what I said on Report that if the Bill is passed the Government propose to make use of these powers to increase the value of these incentives for a two-year period from 1st January.

We also intend to pay grant on leased tractors and harvesters subject to satisfactory safeguards to prevent any misuse of the grant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Members approve of that. This was discussed and, being a reasonable Minister representing a reasonable Government, I accepted some of the arguments. I am sure that this will be beneficial to a large section of the industry. This follows the discussion on Report when I promised hon. Members opposite to consider whether this could be done. I have done it and I hope they will be grateful.

Part III concerns hills and uplands. I regard this as a very important part of the Bill. I admit that I have certain prejudices—and I am not ashamed of them—as I come from Cumberland. I have often been criticised for showing bias in this respect, but I try not to show bias for any section of the industry. I want to see the whole industry develop, flourish and be efficient. However, I believe it right to tackle this problem. This part of the Bill deals with hills and uplands in a special way. The new hill land improvement scheme is designed to increase the productivity of hill land. I an sure that all hon. Members will agree with that.

Under Clause 42 hill livestock subsidies will be put on a long-term basis. This will give an assurance to hill farmers which they have not had before. We all recognise that technical change can take place quickly in these days. The provision that subsidy schemes are to run for no more than five years will ensure that the conditions of grant and the way in which they are working will be reviewed periodically and they can be changed if a change is found desirable.

A great deal of interest has been shown in our proposals for setting up rural development boards in areas of hills and uplands which have special problems of farm structure and co-ordination, and of forestry. Although one hon. Member opposite shakes his head, I am certain that the Opposition generally and the industry accept that what we are doing is imaginative and is an attempt to deal with certain areas where the rural development boards will have an important task. I stress that they will have practical knowledge of the problems to be dealt with in their areas. They will work for the most part by consultation and co-operation, but if they are to do their job of amalgamating farms and regrouping land for agriculture and forestry they must have powers and it may be essential for them to retain land for some time. We have been able to make quite a number of Amendments suggested by hon. Members opposite, but we insist not agree that it would be right to insist upon the Boards' selling land within a specified period whether or not they had achieved their purpose.

As to forestry, I repeat the assurance that there is no intention of discriminating against private foresters. I have given that assurance over and over again. Both the private forester and the Forestry Commission have a part to play, and both will be encouraged to play it.

This part of the Bill is important. I have every confidence that the Boards will make a real impact on the development of agriculture and forestry in their areas.

Our proposals for the promotion and development of co-operation in Part IV have been widely welcomed by both sides of the House and by the various interests concerned throughout the United Kingdom. This promises well for the success of the proposed Central Council, which will have the task of co-ordinating and consolidating co-operation in existing fields and developing it in new ones.

I am particularly keen to see co-operation develop in production. Co-operation here can be an alternative for the smaller farmer to amalgamation or going out of farming. I know that many hon. Members are concerned about the small farmer. I was recently in Wales—in Breconshire and in Radnorshire—and I spoke on this theme. I stressed the importance of the Bill in relation to co-operation. This is part of the answer—not the only answer, but a very real answer—to some of the problems which affect the smaller men. Co-operation is important. By co-operating among themselves such producers will be able to increase their viability. The new grants which we propose in the scheme under this Part of the Bill will encourage many producers to help themselves in this way.

I come quickly to Part V dealing with miscellaneous matters, Many of these Clauses are very important. They include provisions on credit, farm business records, and animal health In this part of the Bill I set great store by the steps we are taking to tackle the important question of sick pay for farm workers. I am particularly pleased to be associated with this.

The Bill is an important landmark in the history of agricultural legislation. I know that many people have criticised the Bill in detail, but I think that there has been a broad acceptance. It is wide ranging and is designed to tackle some long standing problems of our great agricultural industry. I hope that the Bill will help farmers to go ahead and recognise that we mean business and are anxious to develop this great industry in the interests, not only of the producer—the farmer—and the farm worker, but also in the interests of the community. I am very proud to have brought forward this Bill. I am grateful to all those who have supported it.

I recognise that some people—rightly from their own standpoint—have had to criticise the Bill here and there. I pay tribute to my two Parliamentary Secretaries, who played an important part in the passage of the Bill through Standing Committee, when I often had to go to other meetings affecting the industry. I also pay tribute to the then Minister of State and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who have helped.

I repeat that I am proud to have brought forward this important Bill. I have much pleasure in inviting the House to give it a Third Reading.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber (Grantham)

The Minister has been commendably brief. I will endeavour to follow his example, because I know that many of my hon. Friends as well as hon. Members opposite wish to speak. We welcome the various Amendments which were inserted on Report and which were dealt with rather rapidly at strange hours, due to the Government's handling of business. At that time, we did not stop the proceedings of the House to thank the Minister personally on each one. I therefore collectively do so now. We think that those Amendments have helped to provide very necessary safeguards in certain parts of the Bill. In particular, we are pleased that the Minister is to make an Amendment in relation to leased tractors. This is a useful development we pressed on him at a rather doubtful hour of the morning. Even so, I am glad that our Amendments have been accepted and I am glad to know that this change will be made, presumably in another place.

I feel that after the right hon. Gentleman's closing words he must be brought down to earth again. We frequently have to do this, because of his rather extravagant eulogies of his Bill. As I have told the Minister before, the Bill is not a great Bill. It is a small miscellany of odds and ends. It is, in general, irrelevant to the needs of agriculture today. It is as irrelevant to the problems facing agriculture today as, for instance, last season's weather will be to next season's harvest. It is out of date before it gets on to the Statute Book. It was introduced as long ago as November, 1965, on the basis of White Papers laid in August, 1965. At that time the Minister put it forward in the hope that he would be able to emulate the 1947 Act. All this has come back into proper perspective now. The passage of time and the views which have been expressed by the farming community have shown that the judgment I made of the Bill when it first came forward is much nearer the truth than the judgment the Minister put forward then or that which he still tried to claim for it this afternoon. I do not blame him for trying to claim it, but no one else will agree with him.

Of what does the Bill consist? I can comment on it only in sections, because it is a miscellany; it is a hotchpotch of various odds and ends. Part I is the embodiment of some of the ideas in the Verdon-Smith Report. I repeat what I have said before and what the Minister picked up this afternoon, that in general I support the provisions for the Commission. I have, however, always made it clear, as I think became obvious from the Minister's remarks, that the feelings of all hon. Members on this side, without exception, are that, even though we may accept the Commission, we do not accept the need for Clause 9. We have made this abundantly clear throughout. Clause 9 was not in the Verdon-Smith Report. We believe it to be obnoxious in relation to agriculture. We believe it to be obnoxious in relation to Parliament as well because of its sweeping powers and the generality of those powers.

The Minister said that there are adequate safeguards, and he referred us to Schedule 2. It is true that there are certain safeguards in that Schedule. However, though those safeguards may help in some degree, they cannot help Parliament when it comes to debate and consider any scheme brought forward, because such a scheme must be assented to or refused in its totality. As the Minister well knows, there can be no question of amendment of any scheme brought before the House.

It is not only we who have expressed concern about Clause 9. I will not repeat the arguments we have employed many times. Only last week at the N.F.U. annual meeting a number of members expressed their criticism and concern of Clause 9. The word "dictatorship" was used about this Clause. A representative from Norfolk said: This is giving the State powers over the individual producer on his own farm such as the State has never had before in peacetime. There were many other comments of a similar nature. It is prefectly true that Mr. Cowen, who responded to the debate, said that he did not think there was cause for panic over Clause 9. That was scarcely an enthusiastic reception. He said that considerable and formidable safeguards were written in and that the union believed that with these safeguards it should be supported.

Mr. Peart

Could the right hon. Gentleman say what was the position at the end of that debate on Clause 9?

Mr. Godber

It was accepted, but it was accepted on the basis of the assurance which Mr. Cowen gave. I ask the Minister what promise he has given to the N.F.U. in relation to these safeguards. The safeguards in Schedule 2 are not real safeguards. The only safeguard which the Minister provided in order to satisfy the National Farmers' Union, is in paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 which he wrote in at the N.F.U.'s request. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that that paragraph would prevent a Minister from imposing quotas on farmers? Would it prevent a Minister from shutting down or compelling the closing of farms? The Minister knows as well as I do that it would not.

I wonder what assurance he gave to the farmers about that. There is no Parliamentary safeguard in that passage. Therefore, if the Clause was approved on this basis, farmers should have another look at it. However, we have debated this Clause at great length and I shall not go through it again now. I would only say that it is an affront to Parliament in that the Minister has never attempted to say for what purposes these powers are required. He said today that there was nothing new about providing a reserve power, but this is far more than a reserve power. It is a major aspect of this part of the Bill. It is a very sweeping power for which no justification has been provided before Parliament, and whether it be an Agriculture Bill or anything else, it is wrong to bring forward such sweeping provisions with no explanation about why they are needed. Our views on Clause 9 remain as they have been throughout and I am very sorry that we have not been able to persuade the Government of the total inadequacy of their arguments.

I come now to Clause 12, the beef cow subsidy, which was introduced at the last price review and which the Minister did not mention today. I mention it because I was very surprised by something which he said about this the other day in a speech which he made at Brecon. In that speech, a verbatim report of which I have studied, he was talking about the loss of confidence in the livestock trade generally, a loss of confidence which he now admits, although in November, when we debated the subject, he was inclined to deny it.

He said at Brecon that the Government had taken a series of steps to alleviate the situation. He enumerated one or two of the steps which had been taken, suggesting that one was the beef cow subsidy of £6 10s. for an eligible cow payment of which was now beginning. He claimed that it was done to alleviate the situation, but he knows as well as I do that he introduced the beef cow subsidy long before this situation arose. He introduced it in last year's Price Review when there was no indication that the Government's policy would have such a disastrous effect on the livestock industry in the ensuing months. To call it in aid as something which had been introduced to alleviate the situation was dishonest and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have said it, although others might have done so. This misled the farmers on that issue. Nevertheless, we have accepted and welcomed the intentions of the beef cow subsidy although we have always said that it was neither adequate nor sufficient in its financial provisions.

Perhaps I may take up the point here in relation to Clause 42 which the Minister mentioned in that same speech at Brecon a few days ago and which deals with hill sheep. He said that the Clause gave hill farmers a real assurance, which they needed at the present time, and that there were many who were very worried indeed. He said that he had arranged for a substantial advance of the hill sheep subsidy several months earlier than normal. That does not indicate any additional money, from the way that he said it. This was merely anticipating something which would have come, anyway. This should be an ex gratia payment in addition to any normal provision. Because of the very great difficulties which these farmers have suffered, it should be said quite clearly that this is not merely an advance payment of something which would be coming, but an additional sum, because these people have lost money. I hope that the Minister will deal with this specific point and will give some thought to the hill farmers, because this payment will not give them the comfort they need.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

Nonsense.

Mr. Godber

It is no good the hon. Member saying "nonsense". If the hon. Gentleman does not know the facts, he does not know the conditions of these farmers.

Mr. Maclennan

The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps unaware that I have received a great many letters from constituents and area representatives of the National Farmers' Union expressing extreme satisfaction at the Government's measures in this regard.

Mr. Godber

Is this because they are anticipating that it is an additional payment? If it is only an advance payment, it can only be a temporary alleviation, and the hon. Member must know that. If he pretends otherwise, then he is being dishonest both to himself and to his constituents. Unless it is an additional payment, coming after what they suffered last summer, then it cannot help. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will impress that on the Minister, otherwise he will receive a lot of different letters from his constituents before he is very much older.

I pass now to Part II of the Bill, the question of amalgamations. I was rather interested in what the Minister said, that the financial provisions were possibly on the low side. That was encouraging, and I hope that it means that larger sums will be made available. I have always said that the provisions were not sufficient to encourage any real change in this regard. I hope that it is an indication that the Minister is thinking again in regard to it. It is very necessary that he should. It is true that he attempted to reassure farmers when he went to Brecon. I do not know whether he mentioned the article in the Western Mail of 9th January, reporting the Secretary of State for Wales, with the banner headline: "Why we want to squeeze out the small farmers." I think that worried quite a lot of small farmers.

Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept, after a careful reading of that article—and I trust that he did that—that the headline was wholly misleading and bore no relation whatsoever to the contents of the article?

Mr. Godber

I am not sure that I will accept it. I read the article with great care, and I would say that I could not find the actual words quoted. But I take it to be the interpretation of the editor to the article. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that it is a reasonable interpretation of the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State. It is put rather more bluntly than is usual for a politician, but it is a correct interpretation. It is, in fact, the interpretation which the editor has put on those words. It is a logical interpretation to put on the argument which has been put forward.

The reassurances which the Minister gave in regard to the voluntary nature was more than necessary after any small farmer had read that particular article. This is a very critical matter, and I am glad that the Minister has been so specific about the voluntary nature of this because only if it is voluntary can we on this side of the House consider supporting it, because compulsion in regard to this is alien to us.

The Minister cannot blame anyone but himself if people get anxious about it when phrases such as "uncommercial units" are spelled out so specifically in Clause 39. It was a grave psychological error, to say no more, when he uses this very phrase,"uncommercial unit", as applying to anything less than full time occupation for two people, because this is a very, unreasonable way in which to describe what could be a highly efficient small unit. I still hope that the Government can find a better way in which to describe this type of farm. They will otherwise give a clear indication to many people that these small farmers are in danger of being squeezed out by the Government's policies, and there are plenty of other indications that these policies will have that effect.

The main folly of the provisions about amalgamation is that, whatever their merits, they will operate in exactly the opposite direction to other Government legislation and in particular to the 1965 Finance Act. What is the good of seeking to encourage amalgamation in this way when the direct result of the Capital Gains Tax will be to force the fragmentation of many a family farm? This is something which no Minister could possibly deny. I predict that the Government's total policies in this respect will cause far more harm from fragmentation due to the Capital Gains Tax than ever they will do good through the amalgamations which these provisions may help to bring about.

I notice that the Minister did not mention Clause 30 and the farm improvement scheme, but I must still record my view that it was wrong to cut down the rate of subsidy in this scheme, although, of course, I acknowledge the widening of its scope. It was a great pity to spoil a very good scheme by niggardliness in the rate of grant.

The Minister specifically mentioned Clauses 31 to 33 and said that they were more selective, more speedy and more certain than the old investment allowances. I could not disagree with him more. The old investment allowances we re clearly understood and were a great help. They were flexible and they were appreciated. I remember that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that these Clauses had the support of the N.F.U. They probably had the support of the N.F.U. because the investment allowances had already been withdrawn and the N.F.U. was offered this or nothing. If a drowning man is thrown a life-belt he will accept it gladly, but that is not to say that he would not much rather be sitting in the boat where he was before he was tossed out. The view of the farming community is that it would rather have the old investment allowances, but that, having been denied them, it has to have this system, and that is the best which I can say about these Clauses.

I come now to hill land. The rural development boards will need to act with the greatest care if they are to retain the good will of those in the areas in which they are set up. We have been given little enough reason for setting them up and there are many who view this extension of State interference with the greatest misgiving.

The proposals about forestry are very far-reaching and I was very glad that this afternoon the Minister specifically said that it was not intended to discriminate against private forestry. I hope that a good deal more consideration will be given to the forestry aspects when the Bill goes to another place. This shows what damage can be done to a Bill when the Report stage is discussed so late at night as was the case in this instance. There are still certain matters connected with forestry which require consideration. The sweeping impact of Clause 48 is harmful and we have never had full justification for subsection (1).

The various provisions in Parts IV and V would certainly have my general blessing and I agree with much of what the Minister said about them this afternoon. But the fact remains that in general the Bill is unrelated to the main needs of agriculture today—the need to provide the opportunity for agricultural expansion unfettered by the built-in strains and stresses of the present system of agricultural support. Farmers today are worried and anxious and the Bill will do precious little to ease their worries or their anxieties. What is wanted is something much more radical and fundamental. We ourselves have proposed a system which we believe would be much better.

If there be any doubt about the inadequacy of the present system one has only to look at the gloomy forebodings with which both sides, the Government and the N.F.U., approach the present Price Review at a time when both the national interest and the interests of agriculture require an expansion of home production, and yet the dead hand of the Treasury will deny the necessary incentives. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but when the Price Review comes, it will be seen how near I am to being correct. The Bill will do nothing to change that.

We are entitled to know how the Bill fits into the Government's present approach to the Common Market. The Minister did not mention this. I sent the Minister a letter saying that we would discuss this matter on Third Reading and hoping that he would touch on the points which I raised in the letter.

Mr. Peart

May I ask for the guidance of the Chair? I would have thought that getting involved in a discussion of matters of policy, such as the Common Market, outside the Bill would be out of order. I have followed tradition and the rules of order and I have moved the Third Reading of the Bill and described it. I would have thought that it would be out of order to get involved in arguments about the Common Market or the Government's policy in relation to the Common Market. I ask for guidance from the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

It is well known that in a Third Reading debate one cannot discuss anything which is not in the Bill. I gather that there is nothing in the Bill about the Common Market.

Mr. Godber

Further to that point of order. I gave way because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rising to put a point to me, but then he turned to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it would be helpful if we could be told the Government's view as to which of the various provisions in the Bill would be expected to fall within the general pattern of agricultural policy in the Common Market. I was doing so because we should not pass new legislation in a sort of limbo but in relation to the conditions confronting the country at the time.

I merely asked in a letter to the Minister whether he would express a view as to which of the provisions in the Bill would assist our entry and which would not. I submit that this is a proper issue to raise on Third Reading. Have I your permission to develop it a little further, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Peart

rose—

Mr. Godber

This is a matter for Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Peart

If you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be put into a difficult position. I followed the procedure which I believed to be correct. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to raise wider issues. I should love to debate that matter, but this is not the place.

Mr. Godber

Further to that point of order. It is very strange that the Minister should take this attitude, because I wrote to him on 10th January and he did not tell me at that time that he would decline to discuss it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Is the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) now addressing me on a point of order, or is he continuing his speech in the debate?

Mr. Godber

I had sought your permission to continue the speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought from your silence that you had acquiesced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman began his observations by saying "Further to that point of order", and then drifted into a debate with the Minister. If he wishes to address me on the point of order raised by the Minister, I am prepared to listen to him.

Mr. Godber

I apologise if there has been any misunderstanding. Further to the point of order. I sought to give the reason why I was attempting to raise this issue. It is specifically because of the relationship of the Bill to the Common Market issue. I was saying that one could not deal with matters with a total disregard to the existing situation outside. I would be grateful if you would allow me to develop it a little further, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Any hon. Member or right hon. Member is entitled to make his own speech on the subject, but on the Third Reading of a Bill he must confine his observations to what is in the Bill. He cannot discuss matters which are not in the Bill. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to comment in his own way on the contents of the Bill and to do so as he thinks fit and incidentally to say whether he thinks that it affects our entry in the Common Market. However, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to expect the Minister to make any observations on the same subject unless he chooses to do so.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Whilst accepting all you have said on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is not the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) pleading an alternative case to what is contained in the Bill, and even at best is discussing the Bill in relation to a hypothetical situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In my view, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss the convents of the Bill in his speech and is entitled, without developing the matter at any length, to say whether he thinks that the Bill's contents have such and such an effect on the Common Market, but he is not entitled to invite either the Minister or any hon. Member to pursue that subject unless the Minister or the Member wishes to do so. Nor is any hon. Member entitled to extend the debate into a debate about the Common Market.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior (Lowestoft)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be of assistance to you to know that when he sat on this Bench the Minister of Agriculture quite often used similar occasions to launch into a tirade on the Common Market. Why should not my right hon. Friend use the opportunity to say just a few passing words?

Mr. Peart

I never once abused the procedure. That is on record, and hon. Members can check that I have never abused the procedure of Third Reading. If the hon. Member can find out that I did, I shall withdraw. But I never did. He should know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not concerned with what happened on any previous occasion, but only to see that the rules of order are preserved on this occasion.

Mr. Godber

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for the assistance of other hon. Members on this matter. I shall certainly keep within your ruling, as I always try to do, and reserve my comments on the Common Market strictly to the Bill. But I must put on record that I am surprised that after writing specifically to the Minister he has declined to make any comment or to reply to my letter. I leave the matter at that. It was lack of courtesy if nothing else.

Mr. Peart

Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an hon. Member to seek to probe your Ruling? I would be delighted to debate the matter on another occasion, but as Minister of Agriculture I must present the Bill today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It would not be in order for the Minister to pursue the matter, particularly as I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not pursuing it.

Mr. Godber

I have nothing to withdraw. If there is anything to withdraw it is on the other side of the House. I am most surprised at the Minister's attitude on this.

The Bill may have been proposed and produced before there was consideration of our entering the Common Market, but when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have once more gone to the Continent in connection with that, it is very strange that a piece of legislation comes before us for Third Reading and that we should not be told anything about whether the Bill will facilitate their discussions, or work against them. It seems extraordinary that we are asked to put the Bill on the Statute Book without any reference to the Common Market. That was why I invited the Minister to say—

Mr. Peart

Surely irrespective of whether one enters the Common Market or not, any Bill designed to increase the efficiency of agriculture, which is forward looking, should be welcomed by all sides? If the right hon. Gentleman feels that the time is not opportune to bring in the Bill, he should have opposed it.

Mr. Godber

That is exactly the point, and why it would have been helpful to have the Minister's comments. One must look at the Bill now in relation to whether it will help or not. Some provisions in it would be helpful; others would be harmful. It would be useful to have the Government's view. In view of the attitude taken, and the fact that the points of order have taken a lot of time from back-benchers. I do not propose to pursue the matter. I only repeat my disappointment at the attitude the Minister has adopted on it.

While the Bill as a whole may have slight advantages in some regards, it does not meet the needs of agriculture today, and is a failure from that point of view. In so far as it can be helpful, we do not oppose it. We have not opposed it in principle all the way through, and we welcome certain improvements that have been made. But an awful lot more could and should have been done.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

The House has been treated this afternoon to a rather typical and hyperbolical performance by the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). He has described the Bill as a small miscellany of odds and ends, irrelevant and out of date. I think that his view of the Bill is not shared by the farming industry.

It is true that in a sense the Bill is an omnibus Measure. It is important in that it deals with a great many issues covering a great many aspects of farming. It is a convenient method of bringing before Parliament a number of measures all related to one important and extremely timely theme—productivity. The productivity of farming in this country has been increasing, is increasing and should increase. The Bill seeks to ensure that that tendency will continue.

It is no criticism of the Bill to say that to concentrate on that aspect of farming is not to solve all its serious and present problems. There is no doubt that the livestock section of the industry in particular is going through extremely difficult times. We have debated that matter before on another occasion and it was not timely of the right hon. Member for Grantham to rehearse the earlier arguments of that debate.

To that extent, I am in sympathy with the points of order raised this afternoon, although they have taken up valuable time. In my view, the Bill has been widely welcomed, despite the uncertainties which at present surround the farming industry. However, it is important that we should stress that productivity, to which the Bill is primarily directed, is not the entire answer.

Only today it is reported in the Scottish Press that considerable improvements have been taking place in farming land in the crofting counties and that in the past year crofters have improved their acreages by grants from the Crofters Commission by no less than 14 per cent. over the previous 12 months. The total acreage improved amounted to 25,000 acres under those grants. Last year a total of more than a quarter of a million pounds was paid out by the Commission for that purpose. But the fact remains that crofting is in a parlous state, and it must be hoped that the Bill will do something towards assisting, whether by the very valuable provisions relating to co-operation or those relating to improvement of hill land.

That productivity is increasing is clear from figures coming in from all round the country. To deal with the diminishing returns, farmers are increasing their output, particularly of livestock. One significant illustration of that comes from the Scottish Department of Agriculture farm in my constituency at Achany in Sutherland, where at sales 25 stots and 29 heifers were sold last year for a total of £2,863: this year, although there was a considerably increased sale of 37 stots and 27 heifers the total takings were down to £2,704. Those are extremely telling figures. The same is true in the sheep industry. Whereas last year 367 lambs and 155 cast ewes made £2,705, this year 241 lambs and 133 cast ewes made £2,002. The picture is one of increased productivity but of diminishing profit, and it is for this reason that farmers throughout the country look hopefully to the Government for the recognition of the problems in the forthcoming discussions between the different sections of the industry and the Government.

The right hon. Member for Grantham, speaking about the beef cow subsidy, took issue with my right hon. Friend for a statement that this Measure was introduced to alleviate the situation in the live-sock sector. Whether or not the word "introduced" was used is irrelevant. The fact is that the Measure will assist the livestock sector.

Another point concerns private foresters and the assurance given my right hon. Friend today that their interests are in no way threatened by the Bill. There is some concern in certain parts of the country that it is not the interests of private foresters which are being threatened but those of agriculturists by the encroachments of unplanned afforestation by private foresters. In some cases, these are merely window dressing operations involving tree planting around estate policies, frequently near roads and bearing no relation to whether or not the land is being used best.

It is because they will deal with this kind of question that one welcomes the setting up of the Rural Development Boards and one hopes that there will be much greater planning of land use, in the hill and upland areas in particular where, hitherto, too much unplanned exploitation has devastated large tracts of the country. It will be no solution to the problem of these areas simply to plaster the only arable land within them with trees and there must be, as has been said time and again in this House—although now we have the means to translate the policy into action under these new powers—planned and integrated afforestation and farming. Each can assist the other.

One shares with the right hon. Member for Grantham some of the doubts about the effect of entry to the Common Market upon the purposes of the Bill. There is real uncertainty in the farming community as to the direction in which we are trending at present, but however irrelevant or relevant it may be to the discussions taking place the Bill is a good one and is welcomed widely in the farming community. I hope that it will be given a speedy Third Reading.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) doubted, quite rightly, whether the Bill was likely to be one of the great landmarks in the story of agriculture which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister claimed it to be. The difficulty with this Bill is fitting it into the rest of the general jigsaw pattern of legislation relating to agriculture. No one in the industry really knows what the Government are trying to do. For example, do the Government want to make farms bigger or smaller? There is the Small Farms Scheme and in this Bill the grants to encourage amalgamation of uneconomic units.

But, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, along comes the Finance Act with its Capital Gains Tax and Estate Duty and this makes nonsense of the proposals for bigger holdings. At the end of the day, one does not know where one is. The Bill contains quite a good scheme of financial inducements, loans and grants for amalgamating uneconomic holdings and adjustments of farm boundaries and the rest. The condition is that the amalgamated unit has to be farmed as an amalgamated unit for a minimum of 40 years. Has the Minister ever worked out what will happen in practice? Unless the owner of the newly amalgamated farm is very young, he will die before 40 years have elapsed. His executors will then have to pay Estate Duty, Captal Gains Tax and the rest.

Let us take the example of an amalgamated arable farm of 300 acres in East Anglia, good farming land. I suggest that, on the death of the owner, the valuation of the farm would be about £250 an acre vacant possession. This would, by my calculation, face his executors with an Estate Duty valuation of £75,000. Then there is the 45 per cent. rebate for agricultural land so that, with the relevant rate of Duty, the executors would have to find £18,000 in Estate Duty. Unless the owner-occupier had a great deal of capital invested elsewhere, the executors would have no option but to sell part of the holding to find the money for Estate Duty.

But that is precisely what the executors will not be allowed to do without the consent of the Minister. If one wishes to fragmentate an amalgamated holding for which a grant has been given, one cannot do so without the Minister's consent, and if he withholds his consent to fragmentation the executors will be able to do nothing else but sell the holding as a whole. There will be no third course. But this will deny the farmer's son the very livelihood that his father has built up for him. That is the logical conclusion of large sections of Part II of the Bill. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wants to tell me my arithmetic is wrong, perhaps he will say so.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)

Estate Duty has been levied for 50 years and farms have been getting larger.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

But there have not been Capital Gains Tax nor grants for amalgamation of three or four holdings with the proviso that the holding cannot be split again without the Minister's consent. The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about. These are completely new factors. Despite this, however, the Government are taking bogus credit for introducing this Bill.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in relation to Capital Gains Tax, the Finance Act, 1965, made many substantial concessions to agriculture? Will he not give the Government credit for that?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

I was going on to that. The hon. Gentleman was a little too quick. The concessions made to agriculture, particularly to the owner-occupiers, the first £10,000 excluded, was made as a result of very strong representations from this side of the House during some very tough debates in Committee on the Finance Bill. It was not a concession which the Government brought in. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me to make the point, which I was going to make later.

Then we have our old friend the surplus farmhouse. We had a lot of talk about the surplus farmhouse late at night on Report. One might have two or three holdings, A, B and C, being amalgamated into one economic unit, and as a result one has two surplus farmhouses. What is the owner to do? He can sell the surplus farmhouse, but he may be unwilling to do this if he has a son, likely to be married and join him in the business. He can let it, but if he does so it will not be very easy for him to regain possession. Finally, he can leave it empty, and the only certain way of being able to get it back again is to do so. It was left to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) to advance the astonishing theory that it was better for everyone concerned that a farmhouse should be empty, doing no good to anyone, rather than that the farmer should let it and be unable to regain possession. The only sensible alternative would be that the farmer should have some right to regain the other farmhouse in certain circumstances.

I come to the money for the farm improvement scheme. A great deal of credit has been taken by the Government for this. It includes the investment allowances for plant and machinery and tractors, but it does not include cottages and it ought to. Almost everyone knows of areas where extra cottages are needed, perhaps on newly amalgamated holdings.

The way in which the Minister turned down some Amendments on forestry during Report was incredible. One has to ask permission of a Development Board to plant more than 10 acres of trees! On some of the very big areas in the hill farms for instance, two wind-breaks around the two sides of a big field amounts to ten acres. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that this is not anti-private forestry. Maybe it is not meant to be. I know that provisions exclude any woodland owner whose woodlands are dedicated under a covenant and who is operating a planting programme with the consent of the Forestry Commission.

The planting programme under the dedication covenant lasts for 10 years. At the end of that time it can be renewed or various other things can happen. What happens if, under this Bill, an owner wants to plant a further 10 or 11½ acres just after his initial period and the 10-acre planting programme has run out and is not renewed? Does the Minister really mean to say that a man cannot plant 11 acres of willows or poplars without getting the consent of the Development Board? This is absolutely crazy and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows this but does not admit it.

I turn to the powers of the Rural Development Board. These are a nonsense from beginning to end. One has to obtain the permission of the Rural Development Board before one can sell any land in its area. We have already explained, I hope ad infinitum, that there are certain circumstances in which land has to be sold, such as when the owner dies and the executors have to find money. I know that there are certain provisions for the exclusion of family sales. As the Bill was originally drafted for some astonishing reason one could sell or give one's farm to one's grandfather, but could not do so in respect of one's nephew. I think that that has been put right now, but it shows the degree of care with which the original Bill was drafted.

How can the Development Board refuse permission to the executors to sell a holding, if only by reason of selling that holding, can they pay Estate Duty? It is no good talking about powers because they make no sense. The Bill goes through the motions of encouraging the creation of larger and more economic-sized holdings in agriculture and then other legislation comes along and makes it absolutely certain that the larger holdings so created cannot possibly last more than 40 years unless the owner is very rich. The Bill is not likely to have much impact upon the future pattern of agriculture—it is about as bogus as most of the things that this Government have done.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian)

The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) says that he does not understand how this Bill fits into the major agricultural policy of the Government, that it seems to be going in a different direction. One of the few things that was absolutely clear to me was how it fits into the policy of the Government and into the policy pursued by both parties since 1957. As I understand it, the policy of both parties has been slowly to tighten the financial squeeze on farming, limiting Exchequer liability, and hoping that the result will be increased efficiency and increased output. This has been the policy adopted by both Front Benches, despite all major arguments, over the past 10 years.

The only big change was in 1964, when instead of condemning increased output the then Government actually said that they welcomed increased farming output. They did so in their National Plan and produced enthusiasm and encouragement for the farming industry. This Bill seems to fit perfectly into this policy, because it tries to get the farming industry to rationalise, to cut down smallholdings, to improve marketing, to increase investment, and to make easy co-operative proceedings, all of which is designed to further this general policy of increased output, diminished Exchequer liability, greater efficiency and larger units.

My experience, discussing this with farmers and farming groups throughout Scotland, has been that as the Bill stands they welcome it, but that they take the point made by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that the Bill is somewhat out of date, that it was looking at a situation where the farming industry was supposed to be in a more flourishing condition than it is at the moment, because it assumes capital and confidence with which to reorganise marketing and produce larger holdings. All of this is welcomed but the position has moved on and there is now some evidence of disinvestment in the industry which is extremely worrying. The Minister should consider the fact that if this is taking place, the objects of this excellent Bill may not be fully achieved. I welcome the proposals in the Harper Adams speech, which indicated that in order to see whether the Bill's purposes are being met a further study is being done on agricultural investment. We must know if this is being kept up.

If the evidence of one's inspections is true—that the number of farm buildings is not improving, the farmers are not putting money, as was hoped under the Bill, into new machinery and equipment and a rundown is taking place—we may get to the pitch where confidence in the industry drops and there will be a disinvestment in it which will stop amalgamations and halt the purposes of the Bill. This would be an unhappy situation in which to attempt the reorganisation which will be necessary if and when we go into the Common Market. As with most other industries, if agriculture is to go into the Common Market, it should be in a position where there is confidence and sufficient capital to complete the necessary reorganisation.

My main interest in the Bill is to see whether the Minister will fulfil its objectives, which are entirely admirable, and hack them up in his forthcoming Price Review and in his further policy statements. I would like to make one or two suggestions about the dilemma which my right hon. Friend has to solve and one or two possible ways out of it. The dilemma is shown clearly in the Part of the Bill dealing with the promotion of agricultural investment. The problem is how to get increased efficiency in an industry which is being squeezed and has been squeezed for ten years and yet to keep sufficient capital and confidence in it.

I have left slightly out of reckoning the hill sheep and hill cattle provisions, because that it a separate section of the industry with very special problems. The only part of the Bill that is out of keeping with the rest is the Part concerning hill land, because that is a special case in which the whole processes affecting agriculture over the last ten years might not have worked satisfactorily. These areas are in a critical condition and people are extremely worried. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that the interim payment on the hill ewe subsidy was a tremendous relief to those areas because it kept them floating.

The question is, where do we go now? One cannot meet this problem on the basis simply of the provisions of the Bill. I do not think that any of us have got to the bottom of this problem and I welcome the new review that my right hon. Friend the Minister, the N.F.U. and the Scottish N.F.U. are conducting. I hope that in his reply to the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will say when this review will be published and how much we can expect to be done as a result of it.

My feeling concerning hill land and hill farms is that we should deliberately inject capital to keep them floating until we see the future of our trade policy. A great deal of the future of this area will depend upon the renegotiation of the New Zealand agreement and on the future relationship with the mutton industry abroad and with Europe. We cannot determine a long-term policy for the hill land areas on the basis of the Bill or of any other Measure until we know whether we are going into the Common Market and on what terms. It is, therefore, in the national interest to keep these areas of farming floating for three or four years until we can answer these major questions.

I turn now to the major issue of agriculture on the broader plains of cereals and beef, where the situation is healthier although in difficulty. One of the problems of the Bill is that it attempts to achieve these laudable ends in what, I understand, would be the way that any of us might well adopt were we in the Minister's shoes. In other words, when one sees a laudable amalgamation project, one gives a grant and helps. We want to encourage people to have farm accounting schemes, and for this purpose we give assistance or grant.

In the Bill I detect 15 new or reorganised grants or subsidies. What bothers me is whether we could not achieve the same processes by a much simpler and administratively less costly method. On 14th December, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister why, when the total amount of agricultural subsidies showed a reduction over the last ten years, the cost of administering these subsidies had risen from £4.7 million to £10.2 million. The reason for this is not any cheap sloganising about more civil servants and the like but it is because we have shifted the emphasis to production grants, which are costly to administer. One has to have inspectors pottering around the farms counting the number of legs of the sheep and dividing by four. All this goes on and on. It has certain point to it in that it is more selective. It has great attractions because help is channelled to the people who need it in the particular circumstances. We can, however, get to a position in which the total cost of what I calculate to be 50 subsidies and grants of different kinds before the Bill was introduced, which has now risen to a total of nearly 60 different grants and subsidies, may make the exercise extremely complicated and it might be much easier to adopt a simpler pattern.

We should particularly give a tremendous amount of morale and encouragement to our farmers by concentrating on price supports rather than on a multitude of minor production grants and special grants. I recall the arguments in Gavin McCrone's book, written ten years ago, and which, I know, is bedside reading for the Minister and for all senior civil servants in this matter, when the author wrote that the problem was not that we were producing too little but that we thought that we were producing too much. The question was how to be selective. Now, the farmers must produce like billy-ho to keep their heads above water. We can, therefore, forget about this criterion and decide what is administratively the cheapest way to create enthusiasm and restore the confidence that is needed in the industry. The farmer's work is hindered while he has to fiddle about with this and that grant or form and the next thing. Therefore, I ask whether, in the farm policy behind the Bill, we should not seriously consider a great simplification and the addition to the end price of the extra money which could be saved.

Let me give two examples concerning the fertiliser and lime subsidies. If farmers do not now know the value of fertilisers, they never will. This point was made years ago. I would like to see a study conducted to find who is the ultimate beneficiary of these grants. My feeling is that ultimately the people who benefit from fertiliser grants are Fisons and I.C.I. The money finally lands up in their pockets. I would rather the £40 million went on to the end price of the major products. If we were to do this, we would also save administrative costs and we might save £5 million which could do something for our hill land group with which we are dealing in the Bill.

A reduction of subsidies would do a tremendous amount to help in this way our ultimate entry to the Common Market. This is a point that my right hon. Friend the Minister might consider. I appreciate that the Bill was drafted when our entry to the Common Market was highly unlikely. Now that the odds are evens or better, we should consider whether the subsidy pattern should not be reorganised so that the end price is raised closer to the European end price and thus becomes a much easier proposition to dismantle when ultimately we enter the Common Market.

Therefore, whereas the Bill is entirely welcome and completely comprehensible on the grounds of amalgamation, greater efficiency and all these objectives, which both Front Benches have sought in agriculture over the last ten years, it now needs to be supported and backed up with an assurance that there will be more capital in the industry. Confidence needs to be restored. This can partly be done at the next Price Review. It can partly be done by a careful reorganisation of the subsidy pattern and an increase in the end price. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider these matters.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie (Ross and Cromarty)

I am pleased to see the Bill in its final stages in this House after its protracted passage. It will, I think, be generally agreed that the first 25 Clauses, dealing with meat and livestock marketing, are a very involved piece of legislation. To many of those who are intimately concerned with these matters, many of the Clauses are incomprehensible.

For the benefit of farmers and of those who have to administer the scheme, the Government should provide an explanatory booklet. Many of those whom I have met recently have asked me to explain the provisions of the Bill, which it is most difficult to do. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

It should be pointed out as well that this marketing commission is not an answer to the marketing boards which the National Farmers' Union has advocated for a long time. While accepting it in its present form, it should be made clear that we only accept it as second best to what we have advocated for a long time.

Mr. William Edwards (Merioneth)

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree, as an ardent Common Marketeer, that to create a meat marketing board would cause further difficulty in trying to get Great Britain into the Common Market?

Mr. Mackenzie

I make the point, whether we go in or stay out. We are not dealing with the Common Market. The point is that we want a system of marketing. In that connection, we must have the regulation of imports. That is something which we have not got at the present time. Without that regulation I do not see how we can conduct orderly marketing or maintain stable prices, and regulation is something which we have not got in the Bill.

I welcome Part II of the Bill, dealing with amalgamations and boundary adjustments. In my opinion, that will give us more viable units. However, the incentives offered by the Government are quite inadequate if we are to see amalgamations and more units of a viable size.

I must point out that I do not approve of spending too much public money to create more very large units. While many hon. Members on these benches are in sympathy with the small farmer, I know that they see difficulties in administering this type of scheme. In the Highlands of Scotland, we have had this process of amalgamation going on for a long time, as the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is himself the largest landowner in the Highlands, knows perfectly well. Both under the administration of the Crofters' Commission and of officers of the Department of Agriculture, it has been going on for a number of years now, with the result that we have many more viable units than we had in the past. There is no difficulty in administering this type of scheme, and I cannot think of any possibility of a small unit being added to what is already a very large unit except where the physical features prevent it happening.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this into account and see to it that in the Highlands, where there is such a demand for small viable units, we do not spend too much public money on making very large units out of what are already small viable ones.

I also welcome the schemes for hill land. These are very important. This is where we think that we have the biggest potential for increased production. As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) pointed out, at the present time we do not know where we are until the Common Market issue has been decided. However, we think that, if we are to maintain viable communities, we must encourage more production from the hills and keep the people there.

I also welcome the measures for the improvement in co-operative movements. These are very important, although I find that, in my part of the Highlands, where farmers believe in machinery sharing and in many other ways of co-operating, they find that, because of the vagaries of the weather, on many occasions it is difficult to make a success of the co-operative ownership of machinery and plant. However, in due course, farmers and smallholders will get used to the idea, and it is right that it should be encouraged in every possible way.

I come back to the National Plan. Some say that it has very little meaning. I hope that it has, because it spoke of expansion, and that is what we want. However, we must have incentives, and at the moment we lack them. The first essential is confidence, which we seem to have lost over the past 18 months. By confidence, I mean that we must be assured of a reasonable price for the end product. We are coming up to the Price Review now. If the Government want results from us, they must give us a very different Price Review from those which we have been getting over the past ten years.

I have no doubt that that is well known to the Minister and all members of the Government Front Bench. The coming Price Review is their opportunity, and I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind because, while we welcome the Bill, which has much to be said in its favour, notwithstanding that conditions have changed, it will all be of little avail if we are not to have a realistic and favourable Price Review.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans (Carmarthen)

I want to look at the Bill from the standpoint of Wales. From that standpoint, it has many considerable merits. But I want to draw attention to what are dangers lying within it. They have been touched on today by some hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. They arise mainly from the very great powers of compulsion given to the Minister, to the proposed livestock board and rural development boards.

Everything now depends on how the Measure is to be administered. It is essential that the rural development boards should be composed of people who not only know their areas—and the Minister has given us the assurance that they will be so composed—but who will care for the area which their board is to serve, and sympathise with the area and its way of life.

I think of that particularly from the Welsh standpoint. The members of any board of this kind should have the confidence of the people of the area. In Wales, we have learned to suspect the bureaucratic approach, and occasionally we have been able to give the bureaucrats a lesson. I remember one occasion when it was proposed by the Forestry Commission that some 40,000 acres should be taken over in the upper Towy valley as the first instalment of a plan to plant 1 million acres. The Commission was well defeated.

I can imagine a rural development board running into serious trouble if it were composed only or mainly of civil servants and/or agricultural economists who might be tempted to use the powers which they would have to force on the Welsh community concepts which are unacceptable and even repugnant to that community.

If a board is to succeed in Wales, it must be representative of the people of Wales and respect the social and organic life of lie community. Its emphasis must be on development and not on contraction. Unless the board acts in this way, it may become a mere instrument of what, despite the assurances which the Minister has tried to give us, still seem to many people to be the rather dubious intentions of the Government in the matter of farm structure.

It is here that the big question is raised by the Bill, and it is here that we and a great deal of disquiet amongst Welsh farmers. The major cause of this disquiet was the doubt which the Government seem to express in their White Paper with regard to the future of the one-man family farm as a viable unit. This is the typical unit of Welsh agriculture, and for us this is not just an agricultural problem, and certainly not just an economic one. For us it is first and foremost a social problem, as this kind of farm is the backbone of our way of life in rural Wales.

Reference has been made this afternoon to an article published in the Western Mail on the 9th of this month. The author was the Secretary of State for Wales, and it was entitled, "Why we want to squeeze out small farmers". The Welsh Office rushed to the defence of the Secretary of State and pointed out that the title was not the right hon. Gentleman's, but it was obvious that the Western Mail at any rate, which has many experienced journalists on its staff, thought that that title adequately and fairly represented the contents of the article. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite take a different view, but I think that it was a fair description of the con- tents of the article. If this is true, we could not have been told in a more brutal way just what the Government's policy is in this matter.

I do not think that it is the wish of the Minister himself to squeeze out the small farmer. I think that he has a great deal of personal sympathy with him, but I do not think that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure that that does not happen. We know that agricultural economists have been pushing this for a long time. Incidentally, I note how many of our present academics in the field have been civil servants, and they are a powerful influence on the Government, and have been for many years. I suppose they are in all matters, but too often their standards are solely economic, and to apply them to Welsh society, and to apply them at all in this increasingly starving world, will be damaging and could be deadly.

Everything will depend on the way in which this Measure is operated. If it is conceived and pushed hard as a means of rationalising a declining industry, it could be disastrous, because agriculture is not a declining industry. The need for food is increasing, and will continue to do so, and a time may come when we will not be able to import cheap food any more. An increase in world population could cause the disappearance of food surpluses, even overnight. In the face of these prospects, agriculture should be kept inviolate for the future, and inviolate for the tremendous tasks with which it will have to cope in a generation's time. For this reason the industry must have stability, as well as efficiency, and stability is at least as important as efficiency in our present agricultural situation.

The most stable unit in our agricultural structure is the family farm. This is certainly true of Wales. The great depressions of the 'twenties and 'thirties and the last century failed to shake the one-man family farm. The depressions destroyed a host of larger units, but this small unit did not fall. If the powers conferred by the Bill were used in such a way that the one-man family farm disappeared, leaving only large concerns dependent on outside labour, and dependent on delicate expertise in management, that stability could be lost, and one can conceive of that kind of situation arising. I think, therefore, that the encouragement of the one-man family farm in Wales must be a prime purpose of all agricultural policy.

Why should anybody want to squeeze it out anyway? Less than 5 per cent. of the people in Britain are employed in agriculture. In the Common Market, on average, 18 per cent. are employed in agriculture, and in the Common Market countries the average size of holding is only 25 acres. I think that there is a vital place for these small one-man family farms in our agricultural structure.

There is nothing more important in the structure of any industry than the means of entering into it as a profession. An analysis of structure which does not include this is scarcely worth having. It is difficult enough for a young man to start farming today, and if this Measure is used to secure ever larger minimum units, it is bound to become still more difficult for him to do so. In Wales most farms are owned by the occupiers. To buy and stock a farm which requires 600 man-days work per year—that is the sort of standard laid down in the White Paper—requires between £12,000 and £15,000 capital. This is beyond the means of any young man, unless he is a rich man's son. There is therefore a danger—it is no more than a danger but a real one—that the implementation of the Bill could seal off the industry from all except the rich, or perhaps even the very rich. I therefore think that everything will depend on the way in which this Measure is operated.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Norman Haseldine (Bradford, West)

There are but few of my constituents who are concerned with agriculture, and apart from having represented the farming village of Marr on the Doncaster Rural District Council some years ago I can claim very little knowledge of agriculture, but as one who has been a student of co-operation for nearly 30 years, and been actively engaged in the Co-operative Movement, I rise to take up a little of the time of the House in order to make a few comments on the aspects of the Bill which deal with the co-operative principle.

I think that the extent of co-operative organisation within the industry is often overlooked. Figures published in 1965 for English agricultural co-operative societies showed that there were 942 societies embracing 304,500 members, with a turnover of £192.3 million. In addition to these agricultural societies, it is worth bearing in mind that there are 29 co-operative retail societies, and two wholesale societies, which farm 55,000 acres, and that the value of their products in 1965 amounted to well over £4 million. I mention those figures because they illustrate the all-embracing aspect of co-operation bringing together not only the consumers—13 million of them in the retail societies—but also the producers.

The Co-operative Movement welcomes the Bill. For a number of years it has appreciated the need for a more orderly marketing system for meat, but it has been anxious that on any commission set up to control such a system consumer interests should be properly represented alongside the producers and the distributors, whether the trade be co-operative or private. The fact that the Bill provides for consumer committees is especially welcomed by the Co-operative Movement, and on reading the proceedings of Standing Committee A I was particularly pleased to note that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) emphasised the part which he felt the consumer committees could play in this respect. From that angle his point is worth emphasising. He said that farmers do not like change, that they tended to produce what they wanted to produce, and not what the consumer required. He said that we must be sensitive to the needs of the consumer, and that in this respect the consumer committee could play a very large part.

This is welcome. It is a step in the right direction, and indicates that we are now becoming much more consumer-conscious and are bringing this point into our legislation. We must remember that in relation to future issues and negotiations on prices and incomes the Chancellor has stated that the consumer will have an interest. I congratulate the Government, and especially the Ministry of Agriculture, on their thinking in this regard.

Part IV, which provides for the setting up of a Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, is another welcome feature. The Minister knows that the Co-operative Party had some reservations on some aspects of this part of the Bill. We were anxious to see co-operative representation on the Council—people who are knowledgeable and have experience of the general co-operative idea, as well as those more narrowly interested from a purely agricultural co-operative angle.

We were also concerned about what we thought was a somewhat ambiguous and therefore unsatisfactory definition of a co-operative society and, finally, we were anxious that the Council should be given powers to assist supply co-operatives. I am happy to say that many of these problems and the queries that we had appear to have been satisfactorily answered by the Minister. As a spokesman for the Co-operative Movement in its all-embracing aspect, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his assurances on these matters.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark (Antrim, North)

As we reach the concluding stages of the Bill I feel almost like Edward Gibbon did when he finished his 18 years on the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". One hopes that this monument to the Minister will not turn out to be a tombstone.

One is tempted to stretch the rules of order and try to discuss those matters which are of vital, every-day concern to the farmer. There will, however, be another opportunity later this evening to discuss some of the matters which vitally concern farmers in Northern Ireland. We have given such immense powers to the Minister that the opportunity should not now be missed of discussing how the Bill will be administered and trying to guide the steps of the Minister in the exercise of these powers. Most of my hon. Friends welcomed the speech made by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who emphasised that there were 15 new sorts of grant. The complexity of these grants steadily increases. It is enough to try the patience of Job, and certainly tries the patience of the average farmer.

Part I of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, as the Meat and Livestock Commission will embrace only Great Britain. We in Northern Ireland hope to have our own Meat Commission in the near future. Although I did not succeed in getting an Amendment accepted in Committee, I tried to emphasise the material interest which Northern Ireland has in the operation of Part I of the Bill, dealing with the personnel of the Meat Commission, and in the form which the schemes will take. I take this final opportunity to ask the Minister to remember that the bulk of the meat produced in Northern Ireland is exported to Great Britain and that the committees which the Commission will set up are of very great importance to us. When we have our own meat marketing commission I hope that there will be a formal link between the two boards, because only by proper planning—and Northern Ireland produces one in seven of the beef cattle produced in the British Isles—sshall we get the kind of co-operation that we need in the future.

Part II of the Bill directly concerns my part of the country. It deals with amalgamation. Since the Bill was in Committee I have obtained what appear to be more up-to-date figures. The size of the Minister's task needs no emphasis. There are in Northern Ireland 23,000 farms which can be classified as involving under 275 man-days per annum, approximately half of which are owned by farmers over 55 years of age, and many of them over 70. Those are the people who will be directly affected.

I thank the Minister for saying that he had begun to think that the figures laid down in the White Paper for grants to farmers when they left their farms were a little too low, and that he was going to increase them. I hope that I shall not have to come back when the schemes are published and say that the Minister has forgotten what he said to us today. I hope that he wins his battle with the Treasury, and that the grants will be between £1,000 and £1,500—the sort of grants paid to redundant people who had formerly been employed by the Ulster Transport Authority. The small farmer is no less entitled to compensation than the station master or the train driver.

The administration of this part of the Bill is immensely important. We can absorb farmers off the land into industry only at a certain rate. If they do not go into industry they will be unemployed. They will be far better on their small farms, be they ever so non-viable and non-commercial, than being unemployed and having their manhood sapped away. We want young, active men coming off the land at a controlled rate.

The position is different where one is trying to persuade elderly persons to retire from the land. Where grants can be paid in cash, the man concerned must find a house in which to continue to live in reasonable comfort. It is very important that the Minister's schemes should be simple, and should be seen to be simple, and that they are published in a way which will be understandable to not always well educated people, who are not well up in the modern ways of forms and form filling.

It is very important that the Ministry should be prepared to give firm decisions whether or not a grant will be payable for the purchase of a certain piece of land. This decision must be given quickly when a piece of land comes into the market and a man is contemplating buying it, and before it finally comes up for sale. One wants to know before the bidding starts whether grants will be available. Ministry officers should be empowered to give firm decisions in hypothetical cases.

It is also vitally important that people, especially elderly people, who are leaving their farms should have proper financial advice. Many of them may be familiar with using quite large sums of money. However, when they take their "get out" grant, they may be handling and investing capital for the first time. They will need advice and the Ministry's officers should be able to tell people how to arrange their affairs in order to ensure a comfortable old age. It may be necessary to train special officers or to set up a branch to give this advice. People will only get the full advantage from these grants with good financial advice.

There are considerable restrictions in Schedule 4 of the Bill on the sale of land after amalgamation. The number of occasions when the Minister's permission must be sought could detract from the value of land unless we have a clear idea how he will exercise his discretion. We do not want to have to wait years to discover by precedent what the Ministry will do in particular circumstances. We should have a clear statement of where and when the Minister will grant permission for small pieces of land to be sold from an amalgamated holding. Otherwise, many people will reject the grant because a covenant like this for 40 years to come will take away their land's full value.

Another point which I raised in Committee was not answered in a clear-cut way and I should be obliged for an answer now. If a Northern Ireland farmer sells to the Forestry Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, will this count as an amalgamation and will he be entitled to his grant or annuity? The Forestry Department is the largest single landowner in Northern Ireland and adding a smallholding to a holding of the Forestry Commission is clearly an amalgamation.

We shall probably not have a Rural Development Board in Northern Ireland. Clause 69 lays down the system whereby Northern Ireland can have one, and the White Paper said that in rural development board areas sales to the Forestry Commission will be amalgamations. But if we are not to have rural development boards, will this apply?

It is interesting to consider why Northern Ireland does not accept rural development boards. The people, of all sorts and all parties, have far too high an opinion of personal freedom to wish on themselves an autocratic authority of this kind. It is the fashion—sadly, the Minister followed it—to criticise the democracy in Northern Ireland, but we have a very firm belief in personal freedom. Farmers there did not spend 300 years getting rid of the landlords to have the landlords' powers replaced.

I am not exaggerating. The powers of the rural development boards are shocking. Consider Clause 44. Clause 46 looks like the enclosures all over again. The board can decide whether one plants or cuts down trees. These are autocratic powers exercised by a non-elected body. The Farmers' Union and all political parties that I know in Northern Ireland will not willingly accept autocracy like that. I almost expected to see, somewhere in the Schedule, a droit de seigneur granted to chairmen of boards.

We are not prepared to accept this, for another sound reason. At present, Northern Ireland's whole planning system is being reorganised and it will be impossible to incorporate this arbitrary system into planning which is in the melting pot. The Northern Ireland Ministry has made it clear that it does not intend to create such a board. I ask the Minister to look at this again. Clause 69 gives him considerable discretion to alter or amend the provisions of that part of the Bill.

We are particularly keen not to lose the money which would go with the rural development board. Money for opening up backward areas, improving roads and communications and giving rural electrification is needed in no part of the United Kingdom more than in the Glens of Antrim, the Sperrin Mountains, the lakeland of County Fermanagh and the Mountains of Mourne. I believe that this system of rural development boards could be adapted to suit our democratic feelings. It should be possible perhaps for the powers of the boards to be considered by a Select Committee of the Northern Ireland Parliament—

Mr. William Edwards

Why is the hon. and gallant Gentleman relenting from his original attitude towards these boards? Is he beginning to realise the great potential for creating a number of new sinecures in Northern Ireland which the boards represent?

Mr. Clark

That did not occur to me. I look forward to enjoying the hospitality of the Welsh boards, to which I am sure the hon. Member could introduce me.

We in Northern Ireland are not prepared to sell our freedom for a mess of potage. We are determined to keep our present rights, but we need the money to open up and develop our country. I therefore ask the Minister to open discussions with Mr. West, the Minister at Stormont, to see whether there is not a formula acceptable to people of Northern Ireland and the Farmers' Union to carry out, without autocratic powers, the objectives with which I entirely agree—developing the country, the forestry, the farming and the tourist potential and putting good Government money into these policies. I ask the Minister to look at that.

We had little time to deal with the parts of the Bill relating to co-operative enterprise. We welcome the new Co-operative Council, which may do excellent work. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget the fund of experience of co-operation built up by the older societies. When he appoints boards, I hope that he will draw on people who have spent their whole life in agricultural organisation and farm co-operation.

I would like him to remember that co-operation is not only a matter of societies with membership cards registered as friendly societies. It can mean two men working together. If we are to foster real co-operation on the land, it is often informal neighbouring groups which need encouragement as much as the more formal societies.

We were told at the beginning of the discussion of the Bill, many months ago, that it was, so to speak, a portmanteau Measure because it contained a number of different provisions. There have been occasions when many of us would prefer to describe it as a pantechnicon Measure because it contains everything but the kitchen sink. I hope that the length of the Bill and the way in which our discussions have been constantly curtailed will act as an example to the Government so that in future we shall never be presented with one Measure with so many diverse interests which prevent us from giving it proper discussion. The interests of agriculture would have been better served if we had had three shorter Bills, each dealing with a specific subject.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)

I am tempted to comment on some of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) including those concerning the other side of the Irish Sea and not least his effervescent ideas concerning the establishment of the rural development boards, whose money he wants but whose powers he will not tolerate.

Due to the digressions of the party opposite, the Bill strolled through Committee at a rather rural pace. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that it will bring about many substantial changes in agriculture. I hazard the guess, however, that this piece of legislation will be better known for what it has caused to be commenced and set in train than for what it will achieve.

I am sure that the measures relating to the Meat and Livestock Commission and the development of hill farming and co-operation will be regarded as rather crude prototypes which will soon give way to more sophisticated machinery. Perhaps that will also be true of the rural development boards.

I am surprised that many hon. Gentlemen opposite—including the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North—have shown so little enthusiasm for these boards. I would for my own part have wished to have seen them vested with more comprehensive powers and duties. They will be tackling a totality of diverse problems and we know, from experience of these problems, that if they are to be dealt with successfully they must be approached in a comprehensive way. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that the only way to tackle them is by vesting substantial powers, substantial functions and substantial finances in some central authority. There is no point in bellyaching about the powers which are vested if one is really anxious to see these problems resolved.

As I said in my maiden speech about eight months ago, I hope that the establishment of a Welsh Rural Development Board will soon lead to the acknowledgment that agriculture in Wales should be vested in the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office. I say that with no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose understanding of Welsh problems has been a source of inspiration to many of those who were members of the Standing Committee.

Mr. William Edwards

Does my hon. Friend still persist in that view after reading the speech delivered at Beaumaris?

Mr. Morgan

I will come to that. I plead, in relation to Wales, that a combination of various factors relating to Welsh agriculture, in addition to the background factor of the existence of Wales as a nation, demands that this important function be transferred to the Welsh Office at an early date.

Although there can be no doubt, in respect of the developments to which I have referred, that agriculture in particular and the public in general will welcome the proposals of the Government, I fear however that I cannot say the same about the part of the Bill which deals with farm structures. As we have heard, there is considerable doubt and suspicion in many quarters about future policies relating to changes in the pattern of farm structures.

Even those of us who were brought up in the country are aware of the absolute inevitability of change. The history of agriculture over the past 50 or 100 years shows that a steady process of consolidating farms into larger units has been taking place from time to time. Nevertheless, a great deal of harm has been done by those who have deliberately aroused suspicion about the motives of the Government in this connection. There is no point in saying that they believe that the Government are not vested with improper motives in regard to amalgamations, whilst at the same time they sow poisonous seeds of doubt at every opportunity.

I was not impressed with the facile argument of the hon. Member for Carmarthen about a heading which appeared in the Western Mail in regard to a speech at Beaumaris by the Secretary of State for Wales. Because a newspaper chooses a certain heading or title for an article it does not necessarily mean that it is fair in relation to that article. There is only one way of deciding in such a matter, and I challenge any hon. Gentleman opposite who has read that article to say that the title represented a fair description and summary of its content. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for having gone out of his way to dispel fears which exist in Wales in this connection. For example, speaking at Brecon, my right hon. Friend said, according to a report in the Farmers' Weekly for the 27th January, that the process of the formation of larger commercial units … is not spelling out the end of the small, one-man concern. We plan to keep him, through co-operation; and the farm business records scheme, which is designed to help him increase his profitability … the day of the small man has certainly not gone. Those were just and noble words and what we expected of a Minister who is carrying into execution the principles of the Agriculture Act, 1947, remembering the assurance given in Section 1 of that Statute of "proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers." That was put in such a way in that Act so as not to draw any distinction between big farmers on the one hand and small farmers on the other. It relates only to "farmers"—which means large and small farmers alike.

I plead, therefore, that all farmers who ar bona fide occupiers of agricultural holdings have been brought under the aegis of that Measure. It would be a sorry day for our rural areas if ever the ideal enshrined in Section 1 of the 1947 Act were abandoned in any assumed flourish of modernity.

The danger arises, however, with regard to the background mentality against which many of the assertions are made. The real danger is not so much that the wrong answer has been provided by the Ministry, but that the wrong question has been asked. The question which should be asked, and which would be entirely in line with the principles of the 1947 Agriculture Act, is, "How can we plan cur agricultural industry to give every bona fide farmer a decent remuneration consistent with a proper contribution to the general economy?" I have a great suspicion that from time to time the question which is asked is a different one, and reads, "How can we have our agricultural industry flourish and produce its greatest possible contribution to the national economy irrespective of the present pattern of agriculture in the United Kingdom?" For my part, I do not wish to see agriculture showing more flourishing results if the price of such an achievement is that only one farmer in every four, or one in every three, now in active agriculture would continue so to farm after certain changes have taken place.

As to the mentality which is a background to this argument, I challenge it with regard to small farms on at least three counts. In the first instance, statistics of farm structures in Britain are patently unfair. We hear quoted the facts that 10 per cent. of farms are responsible for nearly 50 per cent. of our agricultural products, and 50 per cent. of farms give us only 8 per cent. of our agricultural products. Then we immediately assume that those in the second category are indolent or inefficient. But we are not comparing like with like. It is not always said that the 10 per cent. first mentioned occupy 40 per cent. of the land and that the 50 per cent. who are small farmers occupy only 10 per cent. of the land, and that the land occupied by that 10 per cent. comprises big farms and constitutes very good land. This is the land upon which wheat and barley are grown. There is no comparison at all between the land used by small farmers and the land farmed by the larger farmers in these statistics.

I plead that there is positive evidence to the contrary in regard to any theory of indigenous inefficiency in small farms. In Committee I had occasion to quote the figures given by Mr. Wallace Day in Farm and Country in August, 1965. Farms with an acreage of between 20 and 50 acres have an average net income per acre per annum of £21.03, those of 50 to 100 acres have an average net income per acre per annum of £18.03, those of 100 to 150 acres have £10.74, and those of 150 to 200 acres have £8.5 per acre. Anyone with a practical knowledge of the condition of small farms would readily admit that the intensity of operations on those farms is such as to make quite certain that the actual yield per acre is higher than that in the larger farms.

Lastly, and this I think is the most substantial of all reasons against any policy of indiscriminate amalgamation, we must remember that agriculture is very different from a pure industry, and is much more than a food factory to the State. It is a way of life, a repository of certain values and outlooks. It is the main structure of a rural society. In Wales, 83 per cent. of farms are below the 600 standard man day unit per annum. Probably in my constituency 90 per cent. of the farms are under that limit. It would cause me no joy, whatever be the benefits gained, to see the destruction of that community be it for the greater glory of the bureaucrats of Brussels or for any other reason. I do not want to see an epitaph for my county on the lines of Oliver Goldsmith's words: Ill fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on the final stages of this Bill. I shall comment on a few of the speeches which have been made this afternoon, and I first congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on a most refreshing speech. All the subsidies to which he referred have become far too complicated and have led to considerable distortions of the market. I urge any Minister of Agriculture, of whatever political party, to try to cut down the number of these subsidies and grants and to apply the amounts of money involved to the end product. I am sure that then there would be far less distortion of market prices.

The problems of the small farmer have been eloquently dealt with by those who represent what is sometimes derogatorily referred to as the "Celtic fringe", the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark). In the East we also have small farmers. These amalgamation schemes have caused considerable disquiet among smallholders in my part of the world. There are over 30,000 acres held by the county council in Norfolk and most of the holdings are under 35 acres. As has been recently said, they are producing, much more per acre than larger neighbouring farms.

Economists sometimes sneer and say we must have large farms because they are more viable and economic, but we have reached a dangerous point when only 5 per cent. of the total population of the country earn their living from the land. This is where I disagree with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), because with 18 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the population in Europe engaged in agriculture we would have a very strong political pull should we go into the Common Market. The more people engaged in agriculture the more effective would be our political pull on farm prices.

The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) spoke about the interests of consumers who are to be represented on the Livestock Commission. I hope that they will there learn a few facts of life. Consumers should learn that they have been receiving food at far less than its world value. They should learn to pay more for their food whether we go into the Common Market or not. I hope the hon. Member will lend his weight to trying to educate consumers as to the real value of food from our farms.

I am sorry that the Minister is not here, because I want to express my personal thanks to him for announcing that he will introduce later an Amendment to deal with the position of leased tractors. A constituent of mine raised this matter with me and I canvassed it in Committee. One of the Parliamentary Secretaries was as helpful as he could be, but his officials obviously told him to refuse. I am glad that our arguments on Report convinced the Minister and that he has agreed to introduce an Amendment at this late stage.

I agree with the Minister that this is an important Bill as a whole. What can be said without argument on either side is that it will not overnight, or for many years, make any one fanner better off. It may lay the foundations for an improvement in the future, but it will not improve the standard of living of the farming community for several years. What is wanted now is a quick injection of money into the industry. This is something which not only the livestock side of the industry is suffering from. The price of the end product does not leave enough profit to make farming worth while in many parts of the country.

I hope that the Bill will lay the foundations for improvements in the future. Meantime, I hope that three things can be done. First, although I may be being very hopeful, I trust that at the next Price Review we shall try to improve the state of the livestock industry, if we can improve nothing else. Prices for livestock have declined so much that in a large part of my constituency hardly any cattle are being fattened. Secondly, I hope that the Bill, with its emphasis on co-operation, can lead to co-operation between the N.F.U., the N.U.A.W. and the C.L.A., in an effort to secure a basis for fanning which does not rest on low earnings for agricultural workers and which is not based upon a miserable return of about 1 per cent. on investment in land. We must aim at a return for farmers sufficient to pay at least 4 per cent. on their capital invested and also a fair return for the worker in the industry This can come only from increased profitability in farming.

Thirdly, the levy system advocated by this side of the House is the best system to turn to now because, with subsidies, we fall back on the Treasury's good will. Time and time again the Treasury has put the squeeze on the Ministry and has prevented a fair return being given at the Price Review. If we could turn to the levy system, whether or not we enter the Common Market, the industry would be much better off.

Though I have damned the Bill with faint praise, I nevertheless wish to thank the Minister for his courtesy throughout the whole of this long procedure and thank him again for his willingness to introduce an Amendment to deal with the matter I brought to his notice.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell (Norfolk, North)

I have pleasure in supporting the Third Reading. When the Bill was introduced in November, 1965, a member of the Opposition termed it a puny Measure. Those of us who sat on the Standing Committees which considered the first Bill and this Bill will agree that, if it was puny in content, the length of time it took to debate various aspects of it proves that this is a much larger Measure than some people thought.

The Bill contains a number of Parts. Criticism has been levelled today at the fact that it is a Bill of five different Parts which should have been contained in separate Measures, but the fact remains that the Bill has enabled the Minister to present to the House at one fell swoop a number of issues affecting many aspects of agriculture and horticulture. Had he not taken advantage of the opportunity which presented itself to him from the Bill being drawn in this way, some aspects which might have an influence on the industry in future might not have been brought before the House for some considerable time.

My right hon. Friend the Minister, who served with Tom Williams when he introduced the 1947 Measure, which subsequently became known as almost the bible for British agriculture to those of us who served for many years on county agricultural executive committees, has obviously in presenting the Bill accepted the mantle of his worthy predecessor.

I think that all of us have lived too close to the Bill to appreciate or recognise the influence it will have on the industry in future. The Meat and Livestock Commission will set a new pattern in the marketing of meat and in the presentation of that meat to the consumer. Despite the controversy which has raged for some time over Clause 9, this portion of the Measure is widely welcomed. I was interested to note that the conference of the National Farmers' Union last week approved of that aspect of the Bill.

In future, when the Commission gets to work, the housewife may be able to buy meat knowing its description and probably knowing full details of the price. As the Commission gets to work, it will be of benefit to the producer. I believe that it will be of assistance to the butcher. I certainly believe that in the long run it will be of assistance to the consumer.

There is a weakness in this Part of the Bill. Here I have some sympathy with the Opposition. I wish that imports had been dealt with. I understand the reason for my right hon. Friend's not accepting imports as part of the proposals, but it does not necessarily follow that I accept his views on this subject. In due course, amending legislation may well be necessary to deal with imports.

The industry has welcomed the fact that improvement grants are to be much more widely spread. I know this is so because of the large number of applications which have been made to the Ministry for grants. I hope that farmers applying for the grants will take all the advice possible through the N.A.A.S. and from Ministry officials so that buildings are erected which can be multi-purpose. We live in a changing industry. Buildings which may be suitable for today's operations may have another requirement placed upon them tomorrow. I hope, not only that more research will be undertaken into buildings, but that farmers seeking grants and undertaking the erection of buildings will obtain the maximum possible advice so that they do not make mistakes in erecting the buildings.

There are aspects of the Bill we should have liked to have discussed in a wider context, but we cannot ignore the Ruling given by Mr. Deputy Speaker earlier this afternoon. Many people in the industry are wondering how far certain aspects of the Bill will be implemented if we enter the Common Market. I do not think that any one of us can ignore this situation, for we are in the midst of a probing operation and we wonder what will be the ultimate impact and outcome on our agricultural and horticultural industries.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)

Would not the hon. Member agree that the surprise which many of us on this side of the House had, and particularly my right hon. Friend, when the Minister failed to mention this point, was entirely justified?

Mr. Hazell

I am not in a position to answer for my right hon. Friend. He raised the matter with Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Deputy Speaker gave his Ruling. Nevertheless, it is true to say that many of us are worried. We wonder, not only in connection with this Measure but also with the 1947 and 1957 Acts, how far the Bill will be implemented if and when we join the Common Market. However, I must move on from that point.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has anticipated me. He must move on.

Mr. Hazell

Yes, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, I got that point in. Many of the proposals are, of course, long term in their application. This applies to the amalgamation grants. Obviously the effect of amalgamation cannot and will not be seen immediately upon amalgamation. The effect must, of course, be a long-term one. I should like to re-emphasise the comment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that despite the assurance given, there is still concern among small farmers that they will be compulsorily amalgamated. Nothing in the context of the Bill is further from that thought. Grants will be paid where amalgamations are taking place on a voluntary system. We should not close our eyes to the fact that, whether or not this section is in the Bill, amalgamations have been going on for some considerable time, and would go on in the future irrespective of the Clause. The Clause will help those most anxious to get out, but who are somewhat con- cerned about the financial implications. Regarding the hon. Gentleman's statement about small holdings under local authorities, he should be aware, as we all are, that this is the subject of a separate report, the Wise Report, which will no doubt be debated at an early date.

The creation of farm co-operatives is warmly appreciated. I look forward to seeing not just the creation of masses of small co-operatives, but farmers linking themselves up with existing co-operatives. Only by so doing will they be able to secure advice and help, be able to acquire their raw materials, and be able to sell their products to their best advantage. I was grateful that we have managed to secure a Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill dealing with finance for co-operatives, because it is definitely linked.

Finally, I welcome on behalf of the organised workers of this country that section of the Bill empowering agricultural wages boards to negotiate payment of wages while a man is sick. I cannot say more at this stage because of the time, but on behalf of the workers I represent I warmly welcome this provision which could have a lasting impact on the industry.

6.34 p.m.

Viscount Lambton (Berwick-upon Tweed)

Many of us on this side of the House were pleased to hear the speech made by my northern neighbour, the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). It is rather pleasing to see that the vigorous attitude of the Berwickshire farmers seems to have moulded the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian into expressing opinions which might well have been expressed by his predecessor, Sir William Anstruther-Gray. This is a somewhat surprising fact considering how divergent they were at the election.

I should like to raise a question on Section 65 of the Bill which reads that … Ministers shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to afford veterinary services, including diagnostic services, whether free of charge or not, to persons who carry on livestock businesses and participate in arrangements approved by the Ministers as being satisfactory arrangements. I should like to find out from the Minister, or whoever winds up the debate, how this new section of the Bill would have applied to a happening which occurred last summer on Lord Ravensworth's farm near Whittingham in Northumberland. On this occasion it became necessary to kill—

Mr. Speaker

I doubt whether we can discuss on Third Reading how the Bill would have applied in the past.

Viscount Lambton

Is it out of order to ask how this affects practical agriculture?

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. and noble Gentleman puts it that way, yes.

Viscount Lambton

That is precisely what I was trying to do. What occurred on that occasion was that a number of animals were killed or were presumed to be killed by a 22 Colt revolver; but instead of being actually killed, many of those animals were stunned and came round later. They had to be killed by the humane killer. I should like to ask the Minister whether or not this type of thing will be avoided under Clause 65 of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will be able to inform the House on this important matter, because here there is a distinct gap between intention and efficiency. There is every need to carry out the intention of the Bill, to see that satisfactory arrangements are made for keeping stock in good health and, as far as is practicable, free from disease.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

This has been an interesting debate, and, indeed, it has been an interesting Bill. Most of us who were on the Committee counted it a privilege to have taken part in the discussions. We have not always agreed, but at least the discussions have been carried out in a friendy way, which I think is to the good.

The Bill is divided into five major parts: meat marketing, farm structure, hill land, co-operation—and then there is a miscellaneous section. I only hope that the farming community as a whole realises all that this implies. It seemed to me when I questioned farmers, that they were hazy about the whole purpose of this Agriculture Bill. Surely the question that farmers must be asking themselves is. "What is this going to do for me? What is this going to do for the prosperity of British agriculture and for our country? What is it going to do to help our balance of payments problems?"

It is true that there are in the Bill very constructive proposals for British agriculture which, of course, we all welcome. But is this enough? Will it help solve the present extremely difficult problem that is facing agriculture? I do not think it will. Will it overcome the mood of despondency among many farmers? Time and time again there is mention in the Bill of uncommercial farms. I am wondering whether under present conditions the Bill will help make many farms viable and profitable again. I doubt it very much. I believe that what is needed now is a substantial increase in tariffs on finished products. That is why I am grateful to one or two hon. Members who have already made this point.

It is not enough to say that we will give a grant on this or that building, as is set out in the Bill. It is not enough to say that help will be given with better marketing arrangements. It is not enough to say that farmers will be helped to keep better records and be shown better ways of conducting their business. That time has almost gone. What is needed is a better price at the end so that they can do these things themselves. My criticism is that the Bill is too late. It will not help farmers to regain the serious loss of fertility in their land which has taken place over two or three years. It does nothing to encourage better husbandry, and that is an important and serious omission. It must be emphasised that the Government's proposals about farm structure are no substitute for the need to determine guaranteed prices at a level which will ensure an adequate return to a full-time farmer.

I turn to the small farmer, whom I hope to represent. Amalgamation is the aspect of the Bill which will probably concern him most of all. Amalgamations of uneconomic small units into viable large units must be a desirable objective where feasible, but I issue the warning that great care is needed in the whole business of amalgamations. It is easy enough to look at a map and say what must be done and it is easy enough for civil servants and planners to say that it should be done, but great care is needed or great hardship will be caused to many small farmers, and in the process it will be very expensive for the Government and others concerned. All sorts of factors enter into the process of amalgamation and the Government would be wise to tread very carefully along this path. Amalgamations will take place naturally, for economic factors are bound to cause them. But it must be remembered that the small farmer still has a great part to play as long as his unit is viable and as long as he is prepared to modernise and to move with the times.

It is worth remembering that there is a place for part-time farmers, who have not been much mentioned in the debate. In certain areas they are necessary. There is farming plus the holiday trade, plus caravans and so on. There is farming plus fishing and there is farming plus the roadside garage. These people should not be dismissed, for they have a part to play.

I remind the Government, as we did in Committee, that amalgamations can produce social problems. Ideally it would be nice to be able to wave a magic wand and provide amalgamations overnight, but that is not possible and men need to be found alternative jobs while the process is going on, and those jobs are not always so easily found, particularly in the South-West. In remote areas it will be difficult to carry out amalgamations when there is very little but farming to turn to. The process is not as easy as it might look and as the planners might think. I am certain that amalgamations will take place, but I am also certain that economic pressures and forces will force them to happen. There are definite advantages in certain amalgamations, but any violent move to speed up the process and artificially to alter the whole structure of the industry would be costly, unwise and unjustified.

Most hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee know my objections to the Bill. I intensely dislike Clause 9 and I believe that in years to come the Minister will regret the day he brought it in. At the moment, he may be pleased and happy to have it under his belt, but I am not so certain that he will be if these powers are used later, and certainly agriculture will be the poorer if they are.

My other violent objection is to the rural development boards which, I believe, would be totally unnecessary if only encouragement were given to existing bodies and if the Government produced the right climate so that private enterprise could flourish. The Government are not creating the right climate for private bodies and private enterprise to do the job which they should be doing. Only today I was talking to a senior civil servant in the West Country who agreed with me that if there were encouragement and finance so that the right climate was produced, there would be no need for these rural development boards.

The Bill goes on its way, good in parts and very bad in others. After all that has been said—and much has been said—my criticism is that it will not solve agriculture's present economic problems. Only substantial increases in the prices of end products will do that job, and the Bill just does not do it.

6.47 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)

As someone who was not a member of the Standing Committee, perhaps I ought to declare an interest as being one who might receive some of the subsidies and grants which are outlined in the Bill, and I therefore in a way welcome the fact that it is getting nearer to the day when these payments can he made with the full authority of Parliament.

It was very apparent to me as soon as the debate started, particularly while listening to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who seemed to have been very well indoctrinated by his constituents during the Christmas Recess, that there were many weaknesses in the Bill, not least the fact that the livestock and crofting industries were in a parlous state. While it is quite true that Clause 12 provides for the payment of the beef cow subsidy, there is no amount of subsidy to farmers which can possibly encourage them to go on breeding cattle unless in the long run the cattle industry is profitable, and that is what is not apparent and what is not happening. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland pointed out the disastrous fall in the prices of livestock and, as the Secretary of State for Scotland will know, there was a fall in the price of fat cattle in Scotland again last week and it is below the level of last year. Therefore, unless steps are taken to implement what is in the Bill with steps to make the cattle industry profitable, everything else will be wasted.

I want to turn shortly to Clause 42, because the Minister of Agriculture laid stress on the long-term assurance given to hill farmers. This is of the greatest importance. Those of us who farm in more favourable circumstances can alter our plans from year to year to increase our acreage of potatoes, or to grow more sugar beet, or to grow more cereals, or do something else to redress the balance upset by difficult trading conditions. But the hill farmer has no opportunity to do this. He has only one means of support and that is the livestock industry. If there is a long-term assurance and if at the same time the Prime Minister says that he means business about going into the Common Market—and many members of the National Farmers' Union are saying that if we go into the Common Market, all payments such as the hill cow subsidy will have to go—then the long-term assurances about livestock are not worth the paper on which they are written. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to tell us what the Government have in mind for places like hill farms if these changed circumstances come about. That is what is worrying people in Scotland and all upland areas throughout the country. The Bill can be welcomed, but only if other actions are taken to implement its spirit.

Mr. Jopling

When I listened to the beginning of the debate I was, like many of my hon. Friends, profoundly shocked that the Minister made no reference to the implications of joining the European Economic Community.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate on this Bill the implications of joining the Common Market.

Mr. Jopling

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I understood from your previous Ruling that it was possible to make reference to the implications, but that one could not necessarily expect the Minister to reply specifically to points.

Mr. Speaker

On this Bill, the hon. Member may make reference to, but not debate, the implications of joining the Common Market.

Mr. Godber

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your absence, Mr. Deputy Speaker gave guidance, for which we are grateful, when, on the point that certain provisions of the Bill could help or impede our entering the Common Market, I tried to make a few comments, as did some of my hon. Friends, specifically in relation to the Bill. I hope that you would not rule that out.

Mr. Speaker

That is quite all right. But hon. Members cannot debate on the Bill the general issue of the Common Market.

Mr. Jopling

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to debate that, but wished to comment that I was surprised that a certain thing had happened. I suppose that as the Minister is making one of the quickest back-pedals in recent political history, it is hardly surprising that he does not want to mention it.

After debating the Bill and the previous similar Bill over the past 14 months, I find it very pleasant at this stage to be able to step back from the details and individual Clauses and take a long, cool look at it. I am very happy to be able to take a broad look at the state of the industry, as it is affected by the Bill's provisions.

I want to concentrate on the part of the Bill which refers to, and will have effect in, the hill and marginal land areas, and to confine myself to those areas and the Bill's implications for them. My first reason for doing so is that a vast proportion of my constituency is composed of hill and marginal land areas. My second is that I think that this is the part of the industry where the greatest possible concern is felt at the moment. It is in those areas that help is most desperately needed now.

I welcome the Minister's statement today that he very much wanted to give whatever help he could to the hill and marginal land areas. I also welcome his efforts—or some of them—to do that. For instance, one of the grants he singled out was in the Clause which gives grants for improvements benefiting hill land. We all welcome that sort of grant.

But the Government are not going far enough at this stage to help alleviate the real crisis which has arisen in those areas. When one has debated the Bill and its effects, and seen what has happened in the hill and marginal land areas during that time, one cannot over-emphasise the crisis in them at present. The House has already been acquainted with the disastrous store cattle and store sheep prices in the autumn. I do not want to go through the details of the extremely bad price levels in the autumn months. Lambs in my constituency, in Ambleside, have been sold in the past few months for 10s. each. The Minister has said that that was only a temporary situation, but he should have realised that in the three months between September and November a temporary situation, as he described it, is for people who produce store cattle and sheep, exactly the same as a crisis lasting 12 months for somebody producing milk.

The Minister has also said that we must not talk ourselves into a crisis. When he said that, I believe that the crisis already existed, and it was something we had to be very careful about. The Bill does not go far enough to help farmers in hill and marginal land areas. I do not believe that the Ministers and architects of the Bill have been sufficiently aware of the situation in those areas which has caused the crisis. I do not believe that the architects of the Bill have been in proper touch with farmers' feelings, particularly in the northern counties of England, of which I know something. They have been strangely and ominously quiet in the past few months.

I have heard the Minister say that farmers are not as upset as certain people say that they should be and are. I think that the National Farmers' Union has been acting extremely strangely over the present crisis in the hill and marginal land areas, and I criticise its leadership for its attitude. The silence is somewhat ominous for those areas. If the Minister talks to individual farmers, and they think that they are talking privately, he will realise that their financial worries and the financial crisis which has built up in recent weeks are to be taken very seriously.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the present level of confidence in agriculture. Confidence has been very severely battered in the industry during the past 18 months. Whatever the Minister says, his policies caused a considerable loss of confidence among hill and marginal land farmers in that period.

What does the Bill do for those people? How does the Minister face up to the crisis and loss of confidence in those areas? When I suggested to him that the group of farmers hardest hit by economic circumstances were those who are not in the areas receiving hill subsidies but in areas just below that level—farmers with farms just too good to qualify for the hill subsidies—he admitted that he accepted my suggestion. That is on the record, and I can show him the reference.

But when one considers the Bill, one must ask oneself what it tries to do, and will do, to help farmers, particularly in the marginal land areas, who do not qualify for the hill subidy. I suppose the Minister's answer would be that he has introduced the beef cow subsidy. That is an interesting and useful measure to promote greater production of beef. But it will promote increased beef production throughout the whole industry. But I cannot help feeling that it is a somewhat expensive way of getting more beef, particularly from the lower areas. It might have been better, and I might have applauded rather harder, if he had not introduced that type of subsidy but had devoted the money involved to the hill and marginal land areas for beef production. He might have got much the same increased production, and yet scattered his largesse where it was more appreciated. It is of fundamental importance that a prosperous agriculture in these areas should be brought about. It is essential for the social structure.

At the same time, other sorts of help and thought should be given to these areas to see in what ways they can be made more prosperous besides the purely agricultural consideration. The right hon. Gentleman's answer to this is to produce the rural development boards. I do not believe that this is the proper way to provide this extra non-agricultural help in the hill and marginal farm areas.

We on this side unanimously reject these sweeping compulsory powers, which might well make the boards feared and resented. Quite rightly, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) said that if the Minister is not careful and if the composition of the boards is of people unfamiliar with these areas, the boards will become feared and their good efforts might not be realised. The boards may well be brought into complete contempt in the countryside if they start using their compulsory powers. We completely reject these powers.

I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to lay down a maximum period in which the boards are allowed to own land. In spite of all this, some of the functions of the boards are useful. It is a good thing that someone should perform the functions with which the boards are charged, although I cannot believe that it is necessary to set up a new bureaucratic organisation for the purpose.

It is important that more effort be made in forestry. Forestry is a useful industry in rural areas where there is danger of depopulation. It has a high labour demand which is extremely helpful in keeping people in the rural areas, particularly those close to the hills. More thought could well be given to integrating forestry more into the economy of farming—into the tenant farmer economy. I know there are difficulties, but this subject is worth more thought.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there will be no discrimination against private foresters because there has been a suspicion that the establishment of the boards would mean a green light to a great expansion of the Forestry Commission. Whilst one does not necessarily preclude this in all circumstances, one hopes that private foresters, who are much more efficient than the Forestry Commission, will get a fair crack of the whip.

More could well be done in these rural areas by the promotion of rural industries. At the moment, the Rural Industries Bureau and the Rural Industries Loan Fund do extremely valuable work in promoting small industries in the rural areas. This is an activity to which more local advice and effort might be put.

This is an exasperating Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said, some of it is useful and some of it is downright terrible. Clause 9, dealing with the com- pulsory powers of the Meat and Livestock Commission, is bad and so are the compulsory powers of the rural development boards. It has been strange to see the Government's behaviour during the progress of this Bill and its predecessor over the last 14 months. They have delayed going on with it when it has been important that they should do so. I see the Secretary of State for Scotland scowling at me.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Jopling

The Government were extremely slow last June in getting the Bill into Committee. They waited six weeks. They did not get on with it before Christmas and they have not given us a fair chance to get the advantages of the grants and subsidies to farmers as soon as possible. At the same time, it is fair to say that no one in the Government could accuse us of not having gone at a pretty fair gallop. I hope that when the Bill gets on the Statute Book, it will do a good deal more good than some of us suspect. That is the kindest thing I can say about it.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) in regretting the Government have given such a low priority to the Bill that, in the Standing Committee—of which I was not a member—it has gone off a bit. It is tainted with a good deal of Socialist dogma which has rubbed off on to the Meat and Livestock Commission. We have also heard much about the notorious Clause 9, with powers to make … provisions compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacity … and … a reduction in the number of undertakings. In plain words, this is giving powers to put people out of their jobs, and it is wrong that such powers should be given. It is an interesting order of words. Notice that "compelling" is put before "encouraging". It is a sign of the times.

Where are all the disinterested experts to come from whom the Minister hopes to appoint to the Meat and Livestock Commission? Perhaps we can be given some indication of when he will be in a position to announce their names. I hope that the members of the Commission will not dissipate their energies in too many directions at once.

The all-important priority, whether it is to do with beef or bacon, is to procure a steady improvement in livestock quality. If we concentrate on getting that right, much else will fall into pace. But much of the machinery being set up is cumbrous and unnecessary. Clause 9, which gives compulsory powers to eliminate someone's business, will probably be too slow and controversial in its method, with protracted negotiations, and probably the same result could more rapidly come about, with less fuss and bitterness, by the simple operation of normal economic and market forces. The less efficient premises would probably be sold or used for something else in the ordinary course of commercial change and redevelopment.

Clause 12, dealing with the beef cow subsidy, involves farmers in mastering and operating the details of yet another agricultural scheme. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) in his trenchant criticism of the Government's policy, I, too, hope that all this administrative effort and calculation will prove worthwhile, but will it achieve anything that a better price for beef would not achieve more quickly?

The Bill is weakest when it deals with farm improvements and the alleged promotion of agricultural investment. In a recent speech, the Minister praised this capital intensive industry, pointing out that agriculture is averaging over £175 million of fixed capital investment per year.

This Bill does little to procure more capital, or, as many Members have pointed out, to restore the confidence without which farmers will not borrow or venture more capital. Whatever the Minister says, it is practically certain that the trend of farm improvement and the volume of fixed investment is now declining. Talking of farming reminds me that I would belatedly like to thank the Minister. Much to my surprise on Report he accepted an Amendment on grass in the early morning. I was so surprised that the Government had accepted an Amendment that I was struck dumb and I should now like to proffer my belated thanks.

It is wrong to cut the rates in the Farm Improvement Scheme, which has done more to modernise the outlook and the structure of British agriculture over the last 10 years than anything else. The reshaping of agricultural buildings and the layout of farm fields have been the biggest labour savers and have been quite indispensable to the introduction and use of modern farm machinery. There is still a great deal to do and it is all very relevant to our need to make our agriculture become fully competitive with Europe.

If the Minister found himself powerless to defend the Farm Improvement Scheme in toto against a Labour Chancellor it would have been a great deal simpler and wiser to have kept the one-third rate of grant and restricted the scope of the scheme to essentials. Take the case of farm buildings—it could have been restricted to roof and exterior walls and floor. I would have left the more fussy details and the specialist provisions to the farmer. After all, they are often short lived, apt to change with new ideas and new occupiers or a new style of farm. This would have had the advantage of keeping out a great deal of the more tiresome and trivial details which have made the administration of the scheme sometimes difficult and slow.

The investment grants, despite the increased rates for plant and machinery which the Minister has announced, will certainly leave the industry worse off. They will not help the small farmer to any substantial extent. The Minister's repeated emphasis of his power to vary these rates is merely a tacit admission of their present inadequacies. The time will come when the farmer is replacing a piece of machinery for the second time and he will be shaken to find the size of the balancing charge which he will incur, which will make it more difficult for him to pay for the future second replacement.

Nothing "browns off" a farmer more than having to do unproductive paper work indoors which is demonstrably unnecessary. The farmer whom the Government profess most to care for, the moderate-sized to small farmer is usually his own clerk. If he has a secretary or book-keeper, it is often his wife. The danger of this Bill is that both these types of farmer may feel themselves to be playing an endless game of beggar-my-neighbour with different divisions of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue. Both have always got plenty of other things to do.

Elswhere in the Bill, in Clause 64, the Government are rightly encouraging the keeping of proper farm business records. These are needed to promote efficiency and to measure the profitability of the different enterprises of a farm. Has the Minister really thought how tiresome the application for a tractor, for example, will be? The instructions cover three pages and so much does it savour of a farm improvement scheme that Paragraph 7 stresses that no prior approval will be required before the purchase of the machine. That is jolly decent of the Minister, I must say! A fanner can go and buy a tractor without first asking permission. Thank you very much.

The instructions are complicated. One sentence, which again shows the tenor of the scheme says: If, therefore, it is intended to apply for grant, these documents"— that is, receipted invoices, must be obtained and retained. The grant is not transferable. Yet the tractor grant is to be paid in two instalments, with about 18 months between them. If the machine is sold, any outstanding instalments will be lost. What happens if a fanner dies or goes bankrupt with an instalment outstanding, or if he is forced out of his business by some sudden compulsory purchase? This is not in the explanatory pamphlet. Is his estate to lose the benefit of the second instalment of the grant? The instructions might make that clear.

I am glad to welcome in Part IV further encouragement to co-operative activities. I realise that the Minister is doing his best to keep this movement going and to encourage it in every possible way. But the Chancellor is working against him. What sense can there be in encouraging co-operation, on the one side, with grants and imposing Selective Employment Tax on farming and horticultural co-operative associations, on the other? It is such a conflict of purpose and action in which the Government seem continually to be saying one thing and doing another.

Like some of my hon. Friends, I could wish that the Minister had used this great opportunity provided by the Bill to have begun to reorient our agricultural policy so that it is in harmony with the practices in the Common Market. The Bill makes singularly little progress in that direction, nor does it greatly help our agriculture to make the increased contribution to our balance of payments that would be open to it, given the right encouragement. I have a growing impression that this is where I came in 20 years ago.

We seem to be returning to an atmosphere of controls and regulations, at a time not of shortages but of plenty. The Socialist approach to agriculture breeds controls and the Government mind everyone's business except their own. Much of this Bill is heavy plumduff with a mighty lot of duff and precious few plums. I believe that we will have a hard job picking them out.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

I should like to start on a personal note and to say that I am glad to see, at the last stage of this Bill, the former Minister of State, Scottish Office, the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) sitting, if not, to my regret, on the Front Bench, at least in another place. I remember with some nostalgia the way in which I was interrupted by him in his inimitable style in each of the Second Reading debates, some considerable time ago. When the Bill was first introduced, I dare say that there were few of us who did not expect that it would go down in the annals as the 1966 Agriculture Act. For reasons which I am far too delicate to go into—they have been touched on by one or two of my hon. Friends—it will quite clearly be spoken of mellifluously, in the same breath as the 1947 and the 1957 Acts. I am certain that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) would confirm my saying that there is not the slightest chance that this will be as good a vintage as either of those other not uncelebrated years.

Each of those Acts had a theme. The 1947 Act gave guaranteed prices and assured markets in return for good management and husbandry of agricultural holdings. That was the theme that ran through it. The 1957 Act introduced the Farm Improvement Scheme and the development of the pig industry, linking up with those guaranteed prices and assured markets.

There is no theme whatever running through today's Bill. There is no cohesion about it. Livestock and meat marketing are no relations of farm structure. It is true that hill land has a bit to do with each of them, but co-operative activities seem to me to be way out on a limb on their own; and wages during sickness and the Clause dealing with diseases of animals make extremely strange bedfellows with another Clause giving grants for the keeping of farm accounts.

Much of Part I seems to me to be robed in complete unreality. A Government who at one time talked of expanding beef production up to the limit of technical possibilities cannot possibly expect farmers to take this Measure seriously when the Minister's outlook is one of rationalisation, the elimination of excess capacity, and so on.

Before making a few points of detail, I should like to make a point which has not been raised before. I refer to the desirability of having on the Commission veterinary representation and, if not actual representation on the Committees, close consultation with the veterinary profession by the Committees.

If at this stage I may comment on the intervention of my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), I say no more than this to the Minister. It is, I believe, fair at least to say that anxiety has been caused by what has been alleged—I go no further than that—about the methods by which a very difficult situation was tackled in Northumberland.

The Minister is on record as saying on 18th January: I am making inquiries into this. As soon as my inquiries are completed, I will certainly make a full statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 618] May I assume that that statement will be made in the House?

Mr. Peart

I can give the assurance that the statement will be made available to hon. Members. I am honour bound to communicate with the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). I thought that I would also inform the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who quite rightly raised the matter with me. It is, however, right and proper that the statement should be available also to hon. Members. It is lengthy.

Mr. Stodart

When the Minister says that the statement will be made available, does he mean that he will make a statement in the House?

Mr. Peart

The hon. Member must know that I said during the debate to the noble Lord that I would be writing to him. I thought that it would be wise and proper to make the statement available to a wider audience. I will certainly examine how best I can make it available to hon. Members.

Mr. Stodart

I am obliged to the Minister for what he has said. I take the point about his communicating with my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend, but I ask him to consider the possibility that a précis of the statement could be made available in the House.

Mr. Peart

The sort of thing that I was thinking about was placing it in the Library, where hon. Members can have it.

Mr. Stodart

I do not wish to be a bore about this, but it would be desirable that an abridged statement of some kind should be made in the House.

Another point which, strangely enough, has had the most scant reference during the whole of the stages of the Bill is the demise of P.I.D.A. Clause 22 wrote that demise and the Minister's reference to it occupied only 17 lines of the OFFICIAL REPORT. If I did not know the right hon. Gentleman better, I would be tempted to say that such glaring inadequacy as that looks as if it was a calculated insult. I hope that when the Secretary of State for Scotland replies to this debate, he will take the belated opportunity of paying tribute to the splendid work which has been done and of assuring the House that that work will continue.

If the Minister suggests that we could have raised this issue, he will recollect that it was raised but that he was anxious to get his Clause at high speed and, alas, we were not afforded the opportunity of returning to the matter on Report. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State for Scotland will pay tribute to P.I.D.A. and will tell us that things like the recording schemes, the statistical and economic data and the expert interpretation of these and the carcase classification scheme, all of which were designed to secure better carcase quality and lower costs—and, indeed, have done this—will be continued with unabated vigour by the Commission.

I turn now to the question of the beef cow subsidy and the hill sheep subsidy. The intention behind the new beef cow subsidy is excellent, but it is just as irresolute in conception as practically everything that the Minister does. At the equivalent of 52s. per acre, which is what the equivalent is, it is much too small to wean people out of growing barley into producing beef. Of that there can be no shadow of doubt.

As to the hill sheep subsidy, apart from extending the period in which the grant can be paid, the system of dealing with the subsidy remains entirely as it is. Therefore, the handling of the hill sheep subsidy recent months bodes extremely ill for the future. The Minister said—I was surprised to hear it—that changes could take place quickly in this subsidy. Warnings about the situation were given first on 6th July last. There was a further debate in October followed by repeated Questions, all directed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. There was not a vestige of action until 23rd November. There were only pleadings by the then Minister of State for Scotland about late springs, early winters, cold nights and dark mornings and that a 15s. advance would be no answer.

Does that mean that there is only a further 3s. or 4s. to come this February? That is what it could mean. As my right hon. Friends made quite clear, we on these benches think that it should be an additional payment and not an advance one. What has happened makes me quite convinced that it would be better to have a two-tier system in which one had a fixed rate, followed by a second payment in particularly bad years.

The efficiency of British farmers is acknowledged, and tribute is paid to it on all sides. But even the most efficient farmers in the world cannot carry the overhead expenditure of the most irresolute Minister of Agriculture in our time.

Mr. Peart

I thought that hon. Members opposite were accusing me of being too autocratic and resolute. It is nice to hear a change of opinion.

Mr. Stodart

I do not think that that description was ever directed personally at the right hon. Gentleman.

Not only have we irresolution from the right hon. Gentleman but from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who in this matter, much to my surprise, has been guilty of inactivity, indolence and of one of the seven deadly sins, namely, sloth.

Returning to the task which is facing the Meat and Livestock Commission, the livestock situation is very grave. When I heard what I thought was a slightly confused speech from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), in which he said that farmers were increasing their output in the face of diminishing profits, I recalled that someone once spoke about hungry sheep looking up and not being fed at all. When one looks at the recent survey by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, which shows that more people are going out of fattening cattle than are taking it up, it becomes apparent that the increase in beef breeding is only because people are in it already and are increasing numbers to try to counter falling profits per head. The survey describes the sheep industry as "literally disastrous", and those who are decreasing and disbanding their flocks are double the number expanding.

The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) talked about farmers having been cheered by the promise of expansion. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said that his farmers were grateful and that productivity was going up. The hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the figures which indicate that in eight out of ten commodities productivity is down. If his glowing account were true, it is very strange that in the latest edition of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland's publication Farming Leader, these words appear: The aim of expanding beef output to the limit of the technical possibilities is simply unattainable at present prices. Out sheep industry has been allowed to drift and decline disastrously and this, together with the plight of the beef sector, has knocked the heart out of those who farm our hill areas. At no time in post-war history has the industry—and the country—been faced with such a situation. So much for increased productivity on the hills.

To me, the most worrying feature of the Bill is the way in which so much that is fundamental to its success flies right in the face of other Government policy. My right hon. Friend has referred to that. At one stage in his speech the Minister said that the grants would be of great benefit. All the grants which we have legislated for do just this: they fly in the face of other Government policy, for the basic reason that the profits which farmers made this year and last year are such that there is nothing left to plough back.

The banks are lending £500 million to the industry. Another £120 million has come from the merchants. If the figure of 450,000 holdings is correct, it means that the average indebtedness of every farmer in the country, three-quarters of whom run small farms, is £1,400. To my mind, that is a terrible millstone for a small farmer to have hanging round his neck. The income available after tax is not enough to meet the demand for capital.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

rose—

Mr. Stodart

I am just coming to the end of my speech. The hon. Gentleman will have his chance afterwards.

The lesson which the Government must learn is that, if the Bill is to mean anything, the real basis for growth lies in an inward flow of cash from profits after taxation has been met. If that does not take place, all our efforts on the Bill will have been so much wasted time.

7.37 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

There were times when I wondered whether we were having a debate after the Price Review. Some of the comments which we have heard today dealt with matters which could be said to be relevant to the Price Review. I have been in the House for 21 years, and I have always been convinced that I could make long speeches—and I had plenty of experience in opposition— but I like to think that I kept myself in order all the time. Indeed, part of the art is in knowing when one can be out of order.

Today, we heard the best one of all. I never warned a Minister that I was going to speak about something which would be out of order and ask for his permission. I think that the next time the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) wishes to raise such a matter during a debate, he should write to Mr. Speaker about it.

If there is anything, which to my mind, looks completely out of order, it is a broad discussion of the Common Market when we are dealing with and legislating for defects which are apparent in the industry at present and which will continue, Common Market or no Common Market, unless we take steps to put them right.

Mr. Godber

Having completely misrepresented what I said, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him. I presume that he knows that I was not writing asking the Minister's permission to do anything. I was writing to advise him that I should be making a point in relation to the Common Market and doing him the courtesy of letting him know, as I should be speaking after him. That is rather different from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has put it.

Mr. Ross

It is not very easy at all times to anticipate what someone is going to say. Part of the art of winding up a debate is to anticipate what the last speaker will say and demolish his argument beforehand. But it is very difficult for a person opening a debate, who is tied by the rules of order to what is in the Bill, to speak about something else.

I think that it was one of the worst speeches that I have ever heard the right hon. Gentleman make. He fastened on a word in a speech which my right hon. Friend made somewhere in Wales. I think that it was about the beef cow subsidy. He had a long story about that, and then the right hon. Gentleman did even worse. He attacked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, not on the basis of what he wrote, but on the basis of a headline which a journalist put on my right hon. Friend's words. He really was scraping the barrel, but then he has been scraping the barrel ever since we started this debate, which was quite a long time ago. He said that it was a hotch potch, it was a small miscellany, it was irrelevant, and so on, and he used the same words today.

One hon. Gentleman opposite said that the trouble with this Bill compared with the 1957 Act, or with the 1947 Act, was that it had no theme. He never mentioned the point about the security of the tenant farmer under the 1957 Act. The theme of this Bill is the strengthening of certain parts of the farming industry which we know to be weak, and whose preservation we know is worth while.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have paid lip-service to the small farmer, and we heard a repetition of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) about the small farmer in Wales. We have to face the tact that what we have to do for the small farmer is to make his holding more viable, to help him to viability while changes are taking place in the farm structure. TO help him while these changes are taking place we have the miscellaneous part of the Bill at which the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and others sneered and talked about bookkeeping records, and so on. [Interruption.] I have full notes of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I suggest that these things—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. So far every speech in this debate has been uninterrupted.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

I never mentioned bookkeeping.

Mr. Ross

I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's speech in due course.

The theme of the Bill is improving the meat and livestock industry, and modernising every section of the industry, in a way which has been shouted for, not for 10 years, but for about 30. Whatever happens about the Common Market and about Europe, the provisions of the Bill will still be important for the industry.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) asked about the rural development boards. He, too, spoke feelingly about the industry in Wales, and there was a suggestion that we did not want civil servants, be they Welsh civil servants or English ones, on these boards. The assurance has been given that what we want on these boards are people who are sympathetic to the problems of the industry. These boards are being set up in the areas where there are special problems because we think that this is the way to tackle them. These boards will need the powers which we are giving them, and this is the answer to many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. My hon. Friend was right when he said that hon. Gentlemen opposite want the money, but they do not want the boards to be given these powers.

I remember the debates that we had about the Highland Development Act, and the powers which we took in that Measure. There has been no misuse of those powers. The people of that area felt that the powers were essential because of the nature of the problems, and the same thing will be true of the rural development boards. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is a useful Measure.

Some people have said that the Bill does not go far enough, and others have said that it goes too far. Scotland certainly will not lack its share of the benefits. The Livestock Commission will be able to effect improvements over the whole field of livestock improvement, marketing and distribution, and here I come to a point raised by the hon. Gentleman. This is a field in which the Pig Industry Development Authority, in its more limited way, has been working with considerable success. I had intended to pay tribute to the pioneering work which it has done, and this will be continued under the new Commission. These benefits will be of advantage to consumers as well as to producers. On farm structure, although, apart from the crofting areas, the Scottish small farm problem is less than that of the rest of the United Kingdom, the amalgamation grants should make a useful contribution.

If the hon. Member for Carmarthen is troubled about what can be done, I suggest that he talks to his Liberal friend the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), who was a member of the Crofter Commission which had a considerable part to play in amalgamations of this kind with a view to retaining the traditional form of land holding and land working in Scotland.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman who said that a lot will depend on the way in which the Bill is administered. I assure him that we are determined that the administration will be right, will be sympathetic, and will ensure that that type of farm is safeguarded.

There are two measures which are particularly welcome from the Scottish point of view. First, there is the continuance of the Farm Improvement Scheme under Clause 30. Despite all the gloomy prognostications made by some people about the effect of the reduction in the basic rate of grant from one-third to one-quarter, business is booming more than it has ever done, and this may be part of the answer to my hon. Friend who thought that farmers were not putting money into farming. During the past year in Scotland we have had more than 6,200 applications for grant, compared with 5,500 the year before, so obviously Scottish farmers are well pleased with the scheme.

The second measure of importance is the proposed Hill Land Improvement Scheme under Clause 40. I am the first to agree that we have our problems on hill land. It may be that they are not just the problems of a season. I do not pretend that the Bill sets out to solve all problems in agriculture. We do not as yet legislate miracles, but we may find this scheme of considerable use in relation to the long-term problems of the hill land.

We intend to provide 50 per cent. grants for reclamation, reseeding and regeneration of grazing, fencing, and so on, and when it is realised that three-quarters of Scottish agricultural land consists of rough grazing, I am sure that there will be great scope for Scottish farmers to make use of these grants. Although we are strongly individualistic, and probably more so on the fringes of the United Kingdom than anywhere else, it is in these areas that what we are suggesting in relation to expediting moves towards co-operation will be most useful, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) paid attention to this.

The hon. Gentleman talked about what we should have done about the advance payment. There has never been any doubt about what it was. We were asked for an advance payment, and we made it at the rate of 15s. per ewe. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question whether there should be any change in the flat rate basic payment of 19s. per ewe is a matter for the forthcoming Annual Review. I think it was my hon. Friend who asked about the review which we are having between the Department and the Scottish N.F.U. This is proceeding, and the findings will be borne in mind when we come to make the settlement at the Annual Review.

I have to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). He got the whole subsidy structure into his speech, even though it is not in the Bill. He referred to long-term policy in relation to everything connected with agriculture. That is not in the Bill. He even got a bedside book into the Bill. I was waiting for a reference to Berwick's defeat of Glasgow Rangers. I do not say that he did not talk sense, but if he had been relevant I could have answered in full everything he asked. He knows the importance of getting things on the record.

The hon. Member for Windsor seemed to think that the Government did not know what they wanted. I have already explained that the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the meat and livestock position from the point of view of marketing. It is to strengthen the structure of the organisation and to deal with small farmers in that respect. In another connection it deals with the possibility of amalgamation and co-operation, and with the special problems of the viability of rural development. We want viable holdings. Anyone who is concerned with what has been happening in agriculture and who wants to retain productive units ought to appreciate that we must do something.

More than one person has said that we should allow economic forces to deal with the position. In Scotland this would mean that the big man drives the other man out, without any consideration of the consequential social problems. We want progress to be properly planned and controlled, and to take place without hardship. Hon. Members kept dragging in not what is in this Bill but what is in other Bills. They made gloomy forecasts about death duties, the Capital Gains Tax and so on. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was right; when death duties were introduced it was predicted that they would lead to fragmentation and that large estates would disappear from the whole countryside. It did not happen. In fact, units are becoming larger and larger. I do not accept the gloomy forecasts of the hon. Member for Windsor.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

I was not talking about large estates. The Bill does not deal with large estates. I said that under existing death duties anybody could sell any part of a holding without the consent of the Minister. This does nit apply to any amalgamated holding under the Bill.

Mr. Ross

If, in order to meet liabilities, part of an amalgamated holding had to be sold off, I am sure that no Minister would refuse. I was pointing out, as analogous to the hon. Member's argument, that hon. Members were wrong in their argument about death duties, and I suggest that the hon. Member is wrong in what he said tonight.

The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty asked for adequate explanation. I can assure him that the Scottish Office will take every opportunity properly and lucidly to explain those parts of the Bill which are relevant. I am glad that he made the point about progress made, without hardship, in respect of amalgamations in the Highlands, and recognised the value of what we are suggesting for the hill lands. I am sorry that I cannot reply to him on the Common Market point. I do not know whether the hon. Member who interrupted him appreciated how he feels about the Common Market. I have a fair idea.

I accept on behalf of my right hon. Friend the personal thanks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) about the change being made concerning the lease of tractors and harvesters. We are a very receptive and responsive Government. If there is anything that the Bill has proved, it is the importance of agriculture to the House and the stamina of those interested in agriculture, together with the responsiveness of the agriculture Ministers.

The hon. Member said that the Bill could lay the foundations of worth-while things. He was right. This was said by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan said that the Bill made substantial changes and provided possible starting points from which we might develop more sophisticated machinery in respect of the Meat and Livestock Commission and the rural development boards. He suggested that the substantial nature of the powers were related to the problems involved.

Some hon. Members talked rather scathingly about what the Bill would do for the farmer. I thought that some hon. Members might have been tempted to vote against the Bill, so I asked my officials to work out how much it was worth to agriculture. Somebody suggested that farmers would say, "What is in the Bill for me?". As far as I can calculate there is about £45 million a year in it. That is what is in this mean, common, little hotchpotch of irrelevance. There is the calf subsidy, the beef cow subsidy, the farm structure improvement grant, worth £15 million to £17 million a year after five years. The aggregate for farm improvement has now been raised by £80 million. Another £1 million a year is being spent on hill land improvement. Then there are investment incentives and grants to co-operatives in respect of which we shall spend about £¼ million after four years. On grants in respect of farm business records we shall spend about £2½ million a year. All this expenditure is related to problems that have arisen year after year but have never been adequately dealt with.

We are right to be pleased with what we have done in the Bill. We have made a start, and I hope that the House will proceed to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.