INTERPRETATION (Hansard, 2 December 1969)

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill which I now ask be given a Third Reading is aimed at a narrow and 1439 limited purpose: it deals purely and simply with the anomalous position of intensive livestock farmers in Scotland who, under the present law, get neither full agricultural derating nor 50 per cent derating as is given to industry. Thai is the sole purpose of the Bill. I remember the incredulity of hon. Members in Committee—so much so that at one time I wondered whether I ought not to withdraw the Bill.
The significance of the Bill has been recognised by the leaders of the Scottish farming industry and certainly the President of the National Farmers Union, who understands the Bill, despite the "gobbledegook". He said: The Government's decision to grant 50 per cent, relief will save our industry at least £100,000 per year from the outset. For this reason, and because it represents a real advance we welcome it. The Bill attains its purpose by enabling the Secretary of State to make an Order partially derating a defined class of livestock buildings which are entered in the valuation roll. The broad categories of subjects which are to be eligible for the partial derating are, in plain terms, buildings and parts of buildings used solely for housing livestock; buildings and parts used solely in connection with the use of the buildings which house livestock, for example, grain stores, tool sheds and the like, and buildings and parts which are used whether concurently or successively for the purpose of livestock production and for other forms of agricultural activity.
Throughout these groups, a building or part is defined as including any pertinent thereof and any land occupied with the building and used solely in connection with its use. The hon. Gentleman who worried about the use of those words need not have looked at the dictionary, any lawyer will tell him that they have been defined often to the satisfaction of the Scottish courts. To define the activities which qualify a building for derating, we have used the definition of "breeding and keeping of livestock." This is contained in Section 86(3) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948. By doing so we have avoided the introduction of a new and untried definition of intensive agriculture, with all the pit- 1440 falls and difficulties which that would have involved.
The Bill does not create any liability for rates: its application is explicitly limited to buildings which under the existing statutory tests fall to be entered in the valuation roll. The Bill can therefore only have the effect of reducing liability to rates. No livestock farmer in Scotland will find his rates bill increased in consequence of this Measure.
Some attention has been focused upon the difficult question of how best to define buildings eligible for the partial derating, and our discussions have been fruitful in that the Bill has been improved—although I begin to wonder whether we should have bothered during discussion of some of these Amendments—following an undertaking given by my hon. Friend in Committee.
Some attention has been given to the question of whether the provisions of the Bill should be extended so that eligibility for partial derating was linked to compliance by the farmer with the Codes of Animal Welfare. Frankly, the two things are not related. It will be a bad thing if we start relating separate and penal provisions to something that is a statutory offence. I am sure that the House accepts that the Government's reaction was in no way prompted by insensitivity to the wellbeing of farm stock. The Government have already given clear evidence of their concern for the welfare of livestock in the provisions of Part I of the 1968 Act and the making of the codes of welfare.
I was not surprised to read that some people suggested that we should go the whole hog and give 100 per cent. derating across the board. I repeat that this was not the purpose of the Bill. Its purpose was narrow and specifically related to the anomaly which I mentioned at the outset. We are well aware of the point of view, particularly of the National Farmers Union on this subject. Rather predictably, it said that it would like 100 per cent, derating extended to all agricultural buildings. But that is not a matter for this Bill. It is a point of view for consideration in the comprehensive review of local government finance which is being carried out in the light of the Reports of the Royal Commissions on Local Government. In the meantime, I hope that all 1441 hon. Members will agree that the Bill is a useful measure which will bring much benefit to livestock farmers in Scotland.

§ Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)
Constantly, both in Committee and tonight, we have had references to "intensive livestock production". I remind the Secretary of State that the application of rating to livestock buildings is at present by no means confined to what would be loosely described as intensive livestock production. Some traditional forms of livestock production have in recent years been subject to assessment and rating. The right hon. Gentleman takes too narrow a definition if he says that he is dealing here only with the question of intensive livestock production. In fact, a far wider range of farm buildings and types of production is affected. The Government should realise that the burden of rating is carried by a much wider range of agriculture than has always been admitted in our debates on the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill will not increase the rate burden on farmers in Scotland. I accept that in strict terms it does not, but the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), both tonight and on other occasions, has voiced a general fear in the farming community that the number and types of building which will be taken in for assessment under the 1956 Act are likely nevertheless to grow. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) told us in Committee of the questionnaire issued by the assessor for Moray and Nairn, for example. Farmers in that part of Scotland, at least, realise that the assessors are still seeking ways of widening the range of farm buildings which can be assessed.
I accept what the Under-Secretary of State said, that the assessors are honourable men, they have been charged with a task to do, and they will not take advantage of this Bill to pursue what they should not pursue. But the Government must realise that there remain farm buildings in Scotland which are not assessed purely and simply because the assessors have not got round to them. We have by no means reached the end of the road as regards the number and type of buildings which assessors will 1442 look at, whether the Bill is passed or not. The Secretary of State is not bringing the Bill forward at a point when the assessors have covered and assessed all the buildings likely to be assessed under legislation already in force. I am clear that assessors are still widening their net and taking in more and different types of farm buildings.
There has never been any grudgingness towards the Bill from this side of the House. We recognise the good intentions of the Government in trying to lighten the cost burden of rating on livestock buildings. We welcome what the Government are doing—but that is precisely what we said in relation to the 1956 Act. Throughout this Bill, we have asked what all the fuss was about, since the intention was clear in the 1956 Act. Our intention is once more clear in this Bill—I am with the Under-Secretary of State in that—but the debates we had on Report demonstrated once more how fraught with pitfalls the Bill is.
I accept that the Government are trying to remove elements of doubt. But I am afraid that in doing so they are introducing new ones. Our intentions may be clear to us but once the Bill gets into the hands of assessors, lawyers and courts they may put a quite different interpretation on it.
I exhort the right hon. Gentleman to watch the working of the Bill carefully. On both sides we have admitted that the present situation has created anomalies, but equally this Bill could give rise to a different set of anomalies. I welcome his admission that the whole question of local government finance and rating is under review and I hope that it will not be delayed. I hope that in our debates we have emphasised the need for a more comprehensive review than is attempted in the Bill.
The Government have tried to be helpful in the Bill, and I hope that the doubts I have expressed are proved wrong for the sake of the farming community. We do not want to be saddled with two sets of anomalies. Once we see the Bill working, I think that the Government may regret that they did not in one Measure grasp the whole nettle of the problem of agricultural rating instead of introducing a narrow Bill with a narrow purpose which has introduced so many problems of definition.
1443 We have dealt with the Bill expeditiously and had only a short time to consider the problems which arose during its passage. The Amendments tonight have been difficult to understand and there was a problem in that we had only a short time in which to consult those outside in a position to advise us. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill goes to another place the Government will look again at some of the difficulties to see whether the Bill can be clarified and made more understandable. There is an opportunity there to try to overcome some of the difficulties.

§ Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East)
The Secretary of State was ill-advised to express great pleasure in and take great credit for the Bill reaching this stage. Despite the 50 per cent, derating—admittedly, this is a bonus for all who are affected by rating—there is a strong caveat among hon. Members and sections of the farming community about the effects of the Measure.
The Bill compounds if not a legislative misdemeanour then at any rate a legislative failure. The Joint Under-Secretary pointed out, as he frequently did in Committee, that everything had been checked with the Assessors Association, that the assessors were delighted with the Bill and fully understood its provisions. We accept and appreciate the good work that the assessors do, but we must take into account people other than assessors in a matter of this kind.
For the last 13 years the agricultural community has been faced with a steady encroachment of work for the assessor. All this has placed added burdens on those who produce food. Because the Bill compounds the failures of the 1956 Act, it does not really attempt to deal with the problem, and there is a feeling that this encroachment is liable to continue under the Measure. Evidence of this has been given tonight, as it was given in Committee.
The Joint Under-Secretary placed much of his defence of the Bill on the fact that it would not interfere with the definition of the present situation. Be that as it may, only a Labour Government could have allowed a Measure of this nature to reach this stage and then, 1444 at the last moment, tabled a number of Amendments.
We have said enough about the definition of certain words and phrases to make it clear that the misgivings that have been expressed about the Bill are well founded. We have been told that the provisions have been carefully worked out and that every word has a meaning. But the Bill remains vague in many respects, with the interpretation still subject to argument. The layman is bound to be puzzled by phrases like "for the purpose of" and "from time to time". For these reasons there is great concern about the effects of the Bill.