§ Mr. W. Benyon (Buckingham)I beg to move amendment No. 208, in page 170, line 38, after 'occupation', insert 'of the woodland'.
The amendment relates to the definition of intensive livestock farming. The Finance Act 1974 gave relief for agriculture, but the definition of agriculture in that Act did not include intensive farming methods. In practice, however, by means of an extra-statutory concession by the Revenue, the relief was given.
The Bill gives a statutory definition to what was an extra-statutory concession. Legal advice, however, suggests that it will have little practical effect because of the two tests that are included. The amendment refers to the second test, which is unlikely to be satisfied, which means that the relief would not be available.
The amendment removes the second test. I hope that it is acceptable. If the Government tell me that it is not, will my hon. and learned Friend say categorically that the definition contained in the Bill covers the items to which I refer, namely, piggeries, broiler houses, fish farms, and so on, and recognises them as an integral part of British agriculture, which will therefore receive relief?
§ Mr. Peter ReesI hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend. It is certainly our intention that intensive rearing of livestock or fish should qualify for the relief, provided that those activities are subsidiary to the occupation of agricultural land.
If my hon. Friend feels that what he described as the second condition will create difficulties in practice and unduly restrict the scope of this relief in regard to the activities that he has in mind, we shall be prepared to reconsider the matter next year. I hope that we have in fact 1347 done full justice to those activities, but we are open-minded on the subject and if, on reflection, in the course of the next year we see any defects in the legislation we can certainly return to this in the next Finance Bill.
§ Mr. BenyonIn the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 169, in page 171, line 43, leave out from 'to' to 'would' and insert
'a part of the value transferred equal to the amount which'.No. 170, in page 173, line 9, at end insert—'6. Where the transferor became entitled to his interest on the death of his spouse on or after 10th March 1981—
- (a) he shall for the purposes of paragraph 2(2)(b) above be deemed to have been beneficially entitled to it for any period for which his spouse was beneficially entitled to it;
- (b) the condition set out in paragraph 2(3)(a) shall be taken to be satisfied if and only if it is satisfied in relation to his spouse; and
- (c) the condition set out in paragraph 2(3)(b) shall be taken to be satisfied only if it is satisfied both in relation to him and in relation to his spouse.'.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]