AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (Hansard, 19 October 1976)

§ Mr. Farr

I rise in support of the Lords amendment. Despite what has been said, there is a great deal of merit in having a fixed term of rental between a willing landlord and a willing tenant. In this case we have a term of 25 years, which may be too long or too short. Whether the period be 10, 15, 20 or 25 years is open to argument. However, the amendment has considerable merit.

I was glad to hear from the Minister that it was the Government's intention further to pursue the question of fixed-term tenancies later, to see whether a satisfactory conclusion could be reached in this respect.

One of the reasons why I am very concerned is that I see in the hope of having a fixed-term tenancy that we have just about the last hope in Britain of retaining what I still call—and what I used to be very proud of—the farming ladder. Five or 10 years ago the farming ladder meant something in agriculture. There were the old county council smallholdings. From there a successful farmer would move to a small tenancy. Then he would move, farily rapidly, perhaps, as he accumulated a little more capital, to a larger tenancy. That is what was meant by the farming ladder. In that way the most successful, effective and efficient farmers got to the top, which is what was best in the long run for the whole industry.

However, the clause calling for a succession from a farmer to his son and 1240 then to his grandson virtually spells the death knell of the old farming ladder. If we could introduce a fixed-term tenancy of 15, 20 or 25 years—as I would have hoped by this amendment, but if not, in a later Bill—it might provide a rung for the ladder to continue.

I am not at all surprised that the National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs, with the notable exception of one or two clubs in Wales, is against the Bill. It can see that the bottom of the ladder is being cut off short and that if the Bill establishes, as it will, a closed shop for those tenants already in agriculture, the ladder will be cut off short and those who are not in agriculture on their own account now will be hard put to it, unless they are in a privileged position, to get into the industry.

Let us consider all those students at present doing courses in the agricultural colleges. When the Bill reaches the statute book, we shall be saying to them, in effect, that unless they are direct descendants of existing tenants, unless they are in a position to go into farming on their own account, or unless they are prepared to go into farming as managers, they will not be able to enter the industry at all, and certainly not—at least, it is highly unlikely—as new tenants. The opportunities just will not be there. The few tenancies that become vacant will never be put on the market again.

10.15 p.m.

In due course the National Farmers Unions in England and Wales will see, not for the first time, that the young farmers' clubs are right. They are right to oppose the Bill as one of the most detrimental steps for the efficiency of British farming yet introduced.

I am old-fashioned enough to believe that no industry can flourish once it becomes a closed shop. We are asked to make farming a closed shop. Without the influx of new blood and new ideas which new tenants bring in, not those descended from old tenants but new tenants with new ideas, straight out of college, bringing a new approach, the industry cannot flourish. This applies to farming just as it does to any other walk of life, and within a short time there will be a marked effect on the industry.