HC Deb 02 December 1969 vol 792 cc1421-38

10.2 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson (Aberdeenshire, West)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page, 1, line 15, at end insert: (2) Any order made under the foregoing subsection in respect of lands and heritages which do not comply with the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock approved by the Secretary of State shall specify a percentage to be deducted from the net annual value thereof of not less than 50 per cent. (3) Any order made under subsection (1) of this section in respect of lands and heritages to which the provisions of the foregoing subsection do not apply shall specify a percentage to be deducted from the net annual value thereof of not less than 95 per cent. I much regret that I was unable to be present during the deliberations in Committee on this Bill, but I have read the OFFICIAL REPORTS from cover to cover and I know precisely what took place. In the opening debate dealing with the principle of the Bill, the Minister completely failed to satisfy me, and I believe other Members of the Scottish Grand Committee, on at least three important points. The first point is that there is no attempt at definition of intensive livestock buildings in the Bill. I believe that the Secretary of State's Amendments following mine will merely confuse the issue and present very considerable problems to the courts.

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must leave those Amendments to the next debate.

Mr. Davidson

Secondly, I believe that a phrase used by the Minister in the debate will add to the confusion which I am attempting to clarify by this Amendment. He said: This Bill was introduced for the narrow and specific purpose of giving some measure of derating, analogous to that enjoyed by industry, of 50 per cent.—to apply to buildings used for the keeping and breeding of livestock—in other words, for intensive agriculture production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 25th November, 1969; c. 58.] In this phrase the Minister confused buildings for livestock breeding and the keeping of livestock with intensive livestock buildings. My Amendment attempts to resolve this confusion.

Another major complaint, about which he did nothing to answer is that there is no specified percentage mentioned in the Bill. The Bill simply mentions a percentage of that value as may be specified in the order … although I am aware that the Minister went on to mention the figure of 50 per cent. The third objection I have to the Bill is that although the intentions of the 1956 Act seem absolutely clear to me, namely that no agricultural buildings were intended to be rated, unfortunately assessors throughout Scotland who have been waiting for Government action over the rating of intensive livestock buildings, seeing that this Bill containing no definition of such buildings, will regard it as a green light to rate every livestock building in Scotland, from the intensive hen battery which may stand on a quarter acre of concrete on the outskirts of a town, to the traditional cattle court in a small farm somewhere up in the remote uplands of Scotland.

In terms of the Bill unamended, both these types of livestock buildings are equally vulnerable to the assessor's random selection. Both are part of the nation's agricultural economy. Surely the important point is to differentiate between the acceptable and the unacceptable as applied to livestock housing standards and to provide incentives to improve both types of building which I have mentioned—to quote from the Bill: buildings used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock. According to the intention of the 1956 Act, neither in my view should be eligible for rating.

The Amendment attempts to deal with these three specific objections and at the same time to give some force and incentive to the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock recently put forward by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture and approved by the House.

The Amendment makes a clear distinction between livestock buildings which do comply and those which do not comply with the recommendations. It assumes that those buildings which do not comply are something in the nature of factories as opposed to straightforward agricultural buildings, and it proposes that they should be derated by not less than 50 per cent, this being specifically written into the Amendment. On the other hand, it assumes that livestock buildings which comply with the codes are agricultural buildings within the terms of the 1956 Act which should not be put on the valuation role at all.

Rather than risk leaving the matter open to the discretion of the assessors, subsection (3) of the Amendment would ensure that, even if they were put on the valuation roll, they would be subject to not less than 95 per cent, derating. In these circumstances it can be assumed that assessors will only take the trouble to assess and put on the valuation roll those buildings which do not comply with the codes. I believe that this answers the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) who said in Committee: I am bound to say that I would support the codes more than I would support the Brambell conception, but even there we have something entirely non-statutory, and I just do not follow how we can effectively link these two together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 25th November, 1969; c. 49.] What I have to say in proposing the Amendment indicates how they could effectively be linked together.

Presumably, if an assessor attempted to rate a non-intensive building at 50 per cent., the National Farmers' Union could take a test case to the courts to decide whether or not the building concerned complied with the codes. If there were still any doubt the fault would lie in the wording of the codes and not in the Bill as amended. Many of us would prefer to see 100 per cent, derating of livestock buildings which comply with the codes, but it proved impossible to table an Amendment on these lines be- cause of the Short Title of the Bill which specifically mentioned partial derating.

The purpose of the Amendment is to provide an answer to three major objections which I put to the Minister on Second Reading, namely his failure to define intensive livestock buildings, his failure to specify any percentage derating, although he has mentioned 50 per cent., which is why I have included that figure in subsection (2) of the Amendment to accommodate him. Personally, I should prefer to see livestock buildings which do not comply with the codes fully rated.

Finally, it is an attempt to underline the danger of assessors putting on the valuation roll every livestock building throughout the length and breadth of Scotland and discourage them from doing so in the case of traditional livestock buildings.

I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. If he does not, he will indicate his failure to appreciate that agriculture's special position stems directly from the Government's adherence to a cheap food policy and has nothing to do with the "gifts to farmers" theory which is so popular with certain hon. Members opposite. If a cheap food policy is to be pursued, then derating of agricultural buildings by more than the industrial rate of 50 per cent. is essential. I should, of course, declare my interest as a farmer.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan)

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) put forward about four main objections to the handling of the Bill in Committee and the failure to put in certain points. He has tried to deal with all of them in an Amendment which, in my innocence, I thought was mainly concerned with introducing humane codes of behaviour.

The hon. Gentleman's first point concerned the failure to define. We were all warned in advance of the difficulties of defining intensive livestock. I was blamed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) for not defining it. At the same time, he assured me that I would fall flat on my face if I tried to do so. This is not a matter which lends itself to definition. Therefore, we tried not to introduce a new concept of intensive livestock rearing into rating. We tried to stick to the traditional definition where 100 per cent. derating took place. But new kinds of agriculture which did not, according to assessors, fall within this definition did not get the analogous benefit of 50 per cent, industrial derating as industry did in Scotland. Therefore, we did not try to remove the anomaly. We tried to lessen its effects by bringing in 50 per cent, derating for agricultural buildings and heritages which were entered on the valuation roll.

I do not think that I can try to answer the point that the intention in the 1956 Act was to have comprehensive derating by tying it to welfare definitions such as this. They have little place in assessment, although they may be valuable in themselves. We should try to ensure that the codes are applied, but not attached to rating.

It is a statutory offence to cause distress to animals. The code spells out good conduct and behaviour which may be used in evidence if the statutory offence of causing injury to livestock is raised. This aspect is, to an extent, covered.

What the hon. Gentleman wants to do is to penalise through rating the person who does not behave well. But we have introduced a Measure to penalise the person who does not behave well. It is a most illiberal action to bring in this other point. Should we double the rates of someone who drives through traffic lights? There is a statutory penalty for such an offence; the man is fined according to the traffic Acts. He is not fined again under a rating Act. To fine him again would be rather illiberal.

The other major point put forward was that the assessors would now extend their assessments. But we have not altered the definitions. We have not altered the law at all in this respect. The assessors must still interpret the law as it stands. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the assessors might say, "We may as well assess this man because he will pay only 50 per cent. anyway". This is a bit of an indictment of the independent judgment of the assessors, whose job is to interpret the law. We have not altered the definitions by which they must interpret the law. We have lessened the impact if they decide that the matter falls within the law from a rating point of view.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the welfare aspects but I do not think that we can achieve the objective in the way he proposes. I believe that the way to do it is through the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 which has, after all, not long been passed. I must, therefore, reject the Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman rejects the Amendment. I think he is wrong to suggest that the provision of incentives to better standards of livestock husbandry is in any way illiberal. I would say that it is precisely the opposite and that perhaps rating could be used more often to provide incentives.

The hon. Gentleman said that I was indicting the judgment of the assessors. That was inapt. There is no question that the Bill fails to redefine the difference between intensive livestock buildings and ordinary agricultural buildings as defined in the 1956 Act. I therefore have a genuine fear that assessors will take this as the green light to assess every livestock building in Scotland. There is nothing to stop them from doing it. I regret that he will not accept the Amendment and I do not intend to withdraw it.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Buchan—Amendment No. 13.

Mr. Buchan

Should it not be Amendment No. 2, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

We take the Amendments as they appear on the Order Paper. That is the usual practice.

Mr. Buchan

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 1, after "heritages" insert: 'being lands and heritages the whole of which is required, or but for this subsection would be required, to be entered in the valuation roll'. This is one of a series of Amendments intended to clarify—as I believe, after careful perusal, they do—the effect of the definition in the Bill of which buildings will be eligible for partial derating.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to take at the same time the following two Amendments standing in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland—No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert: (5)Any reference in the last foregoing subsection to a livestock production part of lands and heritages shall be construed as a reference to a part of lands and heritages—

  1. (a) which consists of one or more buildings or one or more parts of buildings (not being in any case a building or part of a building used as a dwelling-house) used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock, and,
  2. (b) which if it consisted of a building or buildings in separate occupation would be lands and heritages which would be required to be entered in the valuation roll.
(6)Without prejudice to subsection (4) of this section, a building or part of a building shall not be precluded from being treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a building or part of a building used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock merely because the building or part is to some extent or from time to time used in such a manner that, if it were a building wholly or at all times used in that manner, it would be an agricultural building within the meaning of section 7 of the Act of 1956. and No. 3, in page 2, line 38, leave out from 'thereof' to end of line 8 on page 3 and insert: (4) Any reference in this Act to a building or part of a building used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock shall be construed as including a reference to a building or part of a building occupied together with such building or part and used solely in connection with the use of such building or part and to any land so occupied and used.

Mr. Buchan

No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that would be useful.

In Committee, I promised to look at this. We made attempts then to try to redefine the Bill as it stood but ran into certain difficulties. This is an attempt to make it more clear and ensure that exceptions are not being made. As I promised, I have given the matter further examination. We had useful discussions with the N.F.U. and the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Land Agents Society. It emerged from these that it would be advisable to make clear in the context of the Bill that Clause 1(4) and the related provisions in the two subsections which are incorporated in Amendment No. 2 apply only to buildings which are not eligible for full agricultural derating through failure to pass the test prescribed by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

I think that it is going to be extremely difficult to separate Amendment No. 13 from Amendment No. 2 because, rightly or wrongly—I do not say I understand it as it is a complex position—there is surely a close link between them. It might have been better to have taken them all together.

Mr. Buchan

I am willing to do so it it helps the hon. Gentleman. It is a complex matter. If you would so rule, Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to do it.

Mr. Speaker

I have no objection if the House consents.

Mr. Buchan

They do all go together. Clause 1(4) was designed to extend the partial derating provided by the Order to cases where the building is used in part for intensive livestock purposes and in part for other purposes. This object is secured by providing that the livestock production part and the remainder are to be treated as distinct units of valuation. It might and could be argued that Clause 1(4), as drafted, would allow a building used for non-intensive purposes to be separated in the valuation process from the other buildings and lands comprised in the unit. In other words, if we had not included this Amendment, a byre, for instance, might by definition have fallen within it. We want to make clear that it is only where partial derating would in any case apply that the effects of the subsection will be introduced. I accept that there would be only a few cases, but this led to some anxiety. I think that we have now clarified the situation.

Amendment No. 2, which gave most trouble to hon. Members, is a sequel to the promise that I gave in Committee to consider the implications of the way that the Bill presently defines the buildings which are to qualify for partial derating. It seemed to me, not in following the discussions in Committee, but considering the worry which hon. Members had about the kind of examples which were brought forward, that we may have been unduly restrictive on one point. While provision is made in Clause 1(4) for buildings which are used identifiably in part for livestock purposes, and in the remainder for other purposes, there is at present no provision for the case where the whole of the building is used, whether concurrently—two uses at the same time, or successively—at different times of the year for livestock and other agricultural purposes. These cases are not common, but we want to make sure that they would be covered by partial derating. This is the basic point in this subsection.

The new subsection (6), incorporated in the Amendment, will rectify this anomaly. It provides that any building used in the way that I have described will be treated, for purposes of the Act, as if it was a building used solely for livestock purposes. In other words, if it falls within it, it will qualify for the partial derating provided by the Order.

The new subsection (5) of Clause 1, incorporated in the Amendment, is simply the existing subsection (4) of Clause 2 with some minor and consequential Amendments.

Mr. Stodart

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will feel it is reasonable for me, provided I am brief about it, to comment on the difficulty with which the Opposition have been confronted by this Amendment in particular. The Minister was kind enough to warn me of the Government's intentions last Thursday and to let me have the Amendments in draft, other than Amendment No. 13, which I saw for the first time this morning. On this extremely complicated piece of legislation, short though it is, I should have liked more time for consideration and consultation with those more expert than I in rating.

Dealing, first, with the new subsection (5), that is merely a transfer of what was previously subsection (4) of Clause 2. There are alterations in the text and I hope I am not taking them too lightly when I describe them as drafting. We now have the words "shall be construed" instead of "consisting", "which consists" instead of "consisting" and "consisted" instead of "were". It seems that there is no great significance there, although we have learned of the danger of putting in words which have been given a different interpretation by the courts from what we imagined they would be.

In Committee we made no comment on Clause 2. I think that that was partly because we were so baffled by the Gov- ernment's obtuseness about Clause 1, but I believe that to achieve the 50 per cent, concession which the Government have done their best to extend by putting down these Amendments the additional work on assessors to reach this goal will be colossal. In connection with subsection (5), may I take a typical block of adjoining buildings in a typical farm steading. There might be an implement shed at one end, a garage in the middle in which the farmer keeps his car, and a broiler house at the other end, a perfectly reasonable set up.

At the moment, the assessor would enter the whole lot in the roll, in that the block of buildings is not used solely in connection with the land which is also occupied. Because of this change, he will have to make three separate assessments. He will enter the garage in full, and it will be rated for 100 per cent. For the broiler house—and for this I am relying on court judgments—which is not being used solely in connection with the land, there will be a mark put against it, and it will get a 50 per cent, concession. The implement shed will probably not be entered at all unless the farmer is generous enough to use any of his tackle to help out a neighbour who has got behind with his work, in which case that implement shed will not be used solely in connection with the land which the farmer is occupying, and thus it will be entered in the roll and be assessed in full. My impression—and perhaps the Minister will assure me or correct me about this—of Amendment No. 13 is that it meets some of the worries which I had noted before the Amendment was tabled.

To return for a moment to subsection (5), I wonder whether the Minister can explain why paragraph (b) is there at all. Is it really necessary, and what good does it do? Because of its presence there, may it not encourage the assessor to enter certain subjects on the roll which hitherto have been fully derated? In terms of subsection (5)(b) a livestock production part—which is a pretty hideous piece of agricultural jargon in itself of lands and heritages—is to be construed as a part which, if it consisted of a building, or buildings, in separate occupation, would be lands and heritages which would have to be entered in the valuation roll. Many agricultural buildings which at the moment are derated because they are occupied solely in connection with agricultural operations on the land with which they are occupied would have to be entered on the roll if they were in separate occupation.

10.30 p.m.

To give one example, if I were to let one of my cattle courts to a neighbour for the winter—and this is not uncommon in arable farming—it would be rated, because it would be occupied by someone other than the occupier of the land with which it was held. I get the impression that Clause 1(1), which indicates that the Bill applies only to buildings which already fall to be entered in terms of the 1956 Act as it has been interpreted by the courts, will safeguard the position, and the new Amendment No. 13 makes the position even safer. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to give me that assurance and say whether I am right or not when he replies.

I think a great deal of the substance of the Government's proposals is to be found in the proposed new subsection (6). As I have said already, the hon. Gentleman was good enough to let me have a rough draft of his Amendments together with a short explanatory note. That explanatory note about subsection (6) says: Subsection (6) ensures that the intensive livestock farmer will not fall between the stools of 50 per cent, derating and full agricultural derating in the very rare case where the whole of the intensive livestock building is used concurrently or successively for intensive livestock and other agricultural purposes. With respect, that explanatory paragraph is about 100 per cent. too optimistic. One thing that I am quite sure it does not do is to ensure anything of the kind, if the word "ensures" means what I think it will. I am frankly appalled by the introduction into legislation, which has already led to so much trouble in the courts, of the words in this new subsection "to some extent or from time to time". I can see, and the hon. Gentleman can see—in fact, I think everybody can see—what the Government intend. They intend to meet the point which I made in Committee about the granary which would fall between two stools as it contained home-grown food at one end and imported food at the other end and, therefore, was neither fish nor fowl. They intend to counter the situation created by a judgment on an implement shed which was used during the summer months for housing broilers, and the implements in the dry weather were put outside, and it was rated 100 per cent.

These are now intended to qualify for the 50 per cent, concession if they are entered on the roll. But why on earth "to some extent or from time to time"? If the Government are determined that buildings used in the way described qualify for a concession, why not say either "ever" or "at any time" and be entirely specific? It is so easy to foresee cases which will go to the courts on the initiative of the assessors asking the courts to define what "to some extent or from time to time" means. It is so easy to foresee cases about the status of one building which is used for what I might describe as a dubious purpose in the assessment world for three weeks out of the year, as opposed to anotther which is used for three months. We might very well get the courts deciding that one was being used in the way the court thought reasonable, and the other would fail and would cost a farmer a considerable amount of money.

I really would have thought, after all the cases which have been heard and all the judgments given, and remembering that a case is going before another place in two or three days' time, a case which may very possibly prove to be a test case, the judgment in which may be quoted all over the place, that the Government might have held their hand till that judgment had been given. To put in words like "from time to time" and "to some extent" when the courts have found in them meanings materially different from those we here intended, and given findings which have cost the unfortunate occupier several hundreds of pounds, because of "in connection with" and "for the purpose of", I think is being very reckless indeed. Despite warnings sounded by Lord Denning and quoted by myself in Committee, the Government have not only retained that wretched word "solely" and reintroduced "for the purposes of" and "in connection with", but they have gone quite haywire by using words of which there are as many different meanings as anyone cares to give them.

So far as Amendment No. 3 goes, its main effect, I think, is to make it clear, by using "building or part of a building" that the intention is that buildings used for the purpose of livestock production but not actually housing the livestock—for example, a grain store or tool shed—should qualify for the same sort of relief. That means, if I may give a simple example, that if one has a building containing a hammer mill which is mixing feed for another building which is used for the keeping or breeding of livestock, that building containing the hammer mill will get the same concession as the building used for the keeping or breeding of livestock.

I just ask whether the hon. Gentleman has considered this, which I think is a possibility. Suppose that hammer mill were to supply not only feedingstuffs to the buildings in which the livestock are being kept or bred but also to supply a lot of ground up barley to feed to pigs which are kept in huts outside the buildings altogether but on the same farm. That is a very common agriculture practice as well. Would not the new subsection show another anomaly—that if the hammer mill were to do that, it would not qualify as a building supplying the other building in which the livestock are kept or bred?

I may be quite wrong about this, but there have been such extraordinary decisions given in the courts about this that I felt it only right to put it to the hon. Gentleman, and he may perhaps have a few moments to think about it and reply.

Mr. Buchan

I think the hon. Gentleman should be aware that we considered the complexities of this and discussed them with the Assessors' Association. The assessors are not worried about the kind of problem which the hon. Gentleman seems to find in subsection (5) and subsection (6). Subsection (5) is serving a useful function merely by describing the type of use to which the livestock part is put.

It was subsection (6) the hon. Gentleman was concerned with. I am sorry he does not like the words "from time to time" and "to some extent". I am rather fond of them. I myself thought they were the clearest used in the whole Amendment, and if they are clear to some of us they will certainly be clear to assessors.

This is a very real problem, and one that was not sufficiently considered by hon. Members opposite in Committee. It is especially a problem in the hon. Gentleman's own area, in the east and north-east, where buildings are used for part of the year for livestock and for part of the year for other agricultural purposes, and so used pretty continuously. One could have left it as "to some extent", but it was felt necessary to give the successive aspect, and this we think we have done with the phrase "from time to time". It is therefore clear to us and to the assessors, and I am sorry that it is not clear to the hon Member for Edinburgh, West. The Amendment serves its purpose, which is to tighten up the provision for cases falling otherwise between two stools.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to Amendment No. 3, which I do not think I have yet moved—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

I understood that we were taking the three Government Amendments together.

Mr. Buchan

In that case, I would say that the third Amendment has the same purpose of seeking to tighten up the definition.

The hon. Gentleman said that he was specially worried about whether ancillary buildings meant only those buildings attached, such as a granary or included other buildings which he envisaged as being well spread out over the farm, and used for ancillary purposes.

Mr. Stodart

The hon. Gentleman has not referred to my point in regard to Amendment No. 3, and I do not intend to press him for an answer now, because it is a complicated subject. My point was about the hammer mill within the granary which was used to prepare feed for pigs outside. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable possibility. Perhaps he will take advice on that aspect, because it is one that the Government might well consider.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

A moment ago the Joint Under-Secretary said that the phrase" … to some extent or from time to time.… is the clearest part of the Amendment. He is right, but in my view he thereby condemns the entire Amendment. I received a representation only the other day from a branch of the National Farmers' Union in my constituency to the effect that even with the help of a solicitor they had not been able to understand part of the Agriculture Bill. We should not allow this Amendment to pass without a protest at this legislative gobbledygook which faces farmers when they have to work regulations which we approve.

Subsection (6) of Amendment No. 2 reads: (6) Without prejudice to subsection (4) of this section, a building or part of a building shall not be precluded from being treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a building or part of a building used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock merely because the building or part is to some extent or from time to time used in such a manner that, if it were a building wholly or at all times used in that manner, it would be an agricultural building within the meaning of section 7 of the Act of 1956. I protest. The Under-Secretary has a justifiable reputation for sanity in the use of the English language, and I do not think that such wording should be thrust upon us.

It is revealing that the Under-Secretary should have thought it necessary to send to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who speaks for his party, an explanatory note. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West needs an explanatory note and still complains about the drafting to what extent will it be of any help to farmers?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker (Banff)

I regret that, because I was serving on the Standing Committee of the Agriculture Bill, I was not able to be present during all the Committee's deliberations on this Bill. However, I have read the Committee proceedings carefully and I find that Clause 2 was passed without any discussion. Presumably hon. Members were satisfied with the Clause as it stood. One must assume, therefore, that at that stage the Government were satisfied with the Clause as drafted. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said tonight that subsequently there were consultations with the N.F.U. and possibly with the Assessors' Association. Something must have prompted the Government to take this action.

On 11th November, the Joint Under-Secretary of State explained the Clause quite lucidly. Referring to subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2, he said: Clause 2(3) sets out what is meant by a building. It is to be interpreted as including any pertinents of a building".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 11th November, 1969; c. 7.] "Pertinents" is a Scottish legal term and as such is relevant to this Bill. The Oxford Dictionary defines pertinents as something which pertains, belongs or forms an appendage to another: a minor property, appurtenance. Law, chiefly Scottish, anything belonging to an estate". It goes on to quote the Scottish Antiquarian Society, 1900, volume XIV, page 217, which refers to a document dated 1396 which has great relevance to the Bill and particularly to my constituency. This quotation says: A1 his landys of the Murtclauch lyand within the schyrradome of Banfe with the pertinents". What is the reason for the Amendment? Are not the words "pertinent thereof" sufficiently good? What has made the Government have second thoughts? The Joint Under-Secretary said that the Amendments look complex. That is the under-statement of the year. He attempted as best he could to make them clearer. They are as clear as mud to me. I have spent a good many hours this evening trying to master them.

I do not pretend to have a vast intellect. But it is not me alone who has to understand what it means. All the farmers in Scotland have to. What the Government have done in these Amendments is juggle with words. They have juggled them from one subsection to another and from one Clause to another, making confusion doubly confounded.

I welcome the alteration being made in Clause 2(4) by substituting the words "in connection with" for "for the purpose of". However, I should like to know why it has not been done in Clause 1(6). If it is relevant in one Clause, it is relevant in another.

I say again that the Government are making the Bill even more complex than it was before. I suggest that the Secretary of State should ask his officials in St. Andrew's House to publish an explanatory memorandum, with a view to assisting farmers to understand what the Bill means.

Mr. Buchan

I think that the general purport and purpose of the Amendments are understood. I accept the point about the complexity of the wording, but, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), we are not writing a sonnet. We are trying to make as tight as possible the kinds of definitions which will guide assessors to the right assessments. I recognise their difficulty.

Explanatory notes would be very helpful. However, this difficulty has not been found in the headquarters of the N.F.U. The need for tight writing and legalistic phrasing is understood. The same is true of much legislation which we all spend a great deal of time trying to write in simpler forms, and it is not always possible.

We have taken careful note of what was said in Committee, which was the proper democratic procedure. We have not tabled these Amendments because we are dissatisfied with the original Bill, but because cases arose in which there might be doubt. We are not trying to redefine "agriculture" or define "intensive livestock". We have tried to deal with cases where buildings are not always used for one purpose alone. There has been a reference to a building being used for three purposes, in which case there will have to be an apportionment. I accept that that will mean two or three judgments from time to time, but, after all, this is all in the interests of farmers.

I appreciate that it sounds complex to refer to a building or buildings or parts of a building or buildings, but each has a precise meaning in relation to the case being examined. In order to bring about justice so that apportionment can take place and people with buildings in mixed use are not prevented from getting 50 per cent, derating, we need this sort of explanation.

I should have thought that hon. Members would be grateful, instead of complaining about the language. I believe that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is grateful, because he recognises the difficulty that we faced in trying to cope with specific cases. There was, for example, the case of the granary which gave rise to yet another possibility of misinterpretation. Hence, one of the Amendments that we are considering.

This has improved the legislation, even though it may have spoiled the crisp, pristine English in which it was originally written.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert: (5)Any reference in the last foregoing subsection to a livestock production part of lands and heritages shall be construed as a reference to a part of lands and heritages—

  1. (a) which consists of one or more buildings or one or more parts of buildings (not being in any case a building or part of a building used as a dwelling-house) used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock, and,
  2. (b) which if it consisted of a building or buildings in separate occupation would be lands and heritages which would be required to be entered in the valuation roll.
(6)Without prejudice to subsection (4) of this section, a building or part of a building shall not be precluded from being treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a building or part of a building used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock merely because the building or part is to some extent or from time to time used in such a manner that, if it were a building wholly or at all times used in that manner, it would be an agricultural building within the meaning of section 7 of the Act of 1956.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Back to
Forward to