HC Deb 01 February 1988 vol 126 cc803-16

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. MacDonald

As I was saying, I support the principles behind the Bill, albeit with the reservations that have been expressed by my hon. Friends.

I wish to focus on the fact that, for the crofting community of the highlands and islands, the Bill represents a missed opportunity. It is an opportunity that has been gratuitously lost. As it stands, the Bill is of academic interest only for crofters in the highlands and islands because, as the law stands, they will be unable to take advantage of the opportunity that the Bill opens up to diversify into commercial forestry. Crofters will not be able to take advantage, because trees planted on crofter common grazings belong, at present, not to the crofter but to the crofting landlord.

To correct that and enable crofters to participate in the woodland scheme would require certain legal changes that I believe could and should have been included in the Bill. In a nutshell, those changes would give crofting townships the right to own the trees they plant on common grazings, which already belong to the townships, thus enabling them to enjoy the economic benefits behind the scheme.

I believe that those legal changes could have been included in the Bill and I hope they might still be included. Surely it is unfair that crofters should be excluded from the opportunity to diversify. Crofters have already shown great commercial aptitude and enterprise in diversifying away from traditional agriculture activity. For example, in the past 10 years we have seen crofters diversify in a large way into aquaculture. Indeed, fish and shellfish farming constitute one of the great economic success stories of recent years. I have no doubt that crofters could make an equal success of commercial forestry if they were allowed to. They would not only be successful in developing it commercially, but would develop it in a way that would be sensitive to the environment and would genuinely benefit their local communities in terms of jobs and income.

I regret that the Government have failed to respond to the many entreaties they have received to extend the benefits of the Bill to the crofting community. I hope that the time and the opportunity can be found during the later stages of the Bill to make the changes necessary to correct that exclusion. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to that and not place obstacles in the way.

10.3 pm

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

I should like to join my hon. Friends in welcoming this small but important Bill as a step forward in allowing farmers to diversify from farming into other ancillary industries and tourism. It is to that aspect that I wish to address my remarks.

Perhaps I may reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who I thought had made a speech that was intended to sabotage the Bill. He spoke about the similarities that he saw between the Bill and the Industry Act 1975. He urged my right hon. Friend the Minister to follow him down the path that he took in 1975. We all remember the Meriden motorcycle co-operative, the Scottish Daily News and other success stories of the Act. I am sure that anybody with any sense would wish to ensure that the Bill has no similarities with the Industry Act 1975 of late memory.

I was interested to hear that this is the first agriculture debate in which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has spoken. His ignorance shone like a beacon. I probably have more dairy farmers in my constituency than any other hon. Member. If my constituents heard the right hon. Gentleman say that land prices had increased and farmers were making a profit, they would be most surprised. In the past few years, the price of land in my constituency fell from £2,000 an acre to £1,200 an acre, and has only recently increased to £1,400 an acre.

The right hon. Gentleman showed his ignorance of farm incomes, too. The latest figures for farm incomes in Wales, issued by the Welsh Office this year, show that, in real terms, dairy farm incomes in Wales went from 100 on the indices in 1982, to 81 in 1983, 56 in 1984, 79 in 1985 and 83 in 1986–87. My constituents would be very pleased indeed to have the incomes enjoyed by miners in south Wales. I only wish that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield would speak from experience rather than ignorance. He said that he listened to the radio every morning. Perhaps he should listen to Radio 2, as he clearly does not understand the farming programme on Radio 4.

Both my points relate to clause 1. The first concerns planning matters. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have a word with the Department of the Environment about the need to ensure that local authorities take into account the changing structure of the farming in the countryside. Authorities should allow those involved in farming to diversify rather than obstructing them with planning regulations that do not even allow farmers to change to carpentry—as happened recently in my constituency. I should not have thought that carpentry, as a sideline pursued by a farmer's son, necessitated too much of a change in use, but nevertheless the move was blocked by the local planning authority. It is wrong, too, that we should have planning regulations that block farmers who wish to bring derelict buildings on their land back into use, as also happened recently in my constituency. That, too, goes against the aim of clause 1.

Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will take account of the need for farmers to be allowed to advertise the businesses that they set up. For too long, restrictive conditions have been placed on advertising in the countryside. No one wants great big neon signs and advertising hoardings, but if farmers who diversify their activities are to market what they produce, it is important that they can advertise to attract passers-by who may come in on impulse and purchase their wares.

I wish to deal with the community charge and its effects on farming. We hope to extend the range of activities that farmers undertake. In my constituency, much of which is in the middle of the Pembrokeshire national park, and which has a large number of caravan sites, I have already heard from people involved in a small way in caravans, including many farmers, that if the community charge proposals go through—up to two units may attach to a second home—the amount that caravan owners have to pay may increase from £600 to £8,000 per site.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Did the hon. Gentleman vote against it?

Mr. Bennett

Of course not. This is a matter of detail rather than a matter of principle. I wish the detail of the Bill to be changed, but I do not oppose the principle.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, when representations are made about the community charge in Wales, we ensure that farmers wishing to have a few caravans on their farms are rated under the uniform business rate rather than having to pay individual domestic community charges. If we do that, and recognise that such activities constitute a business, my constituents will be greatly helped. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take my arguments on board.

10.9 pm

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

Like other lion. Members, I intend to brief, and like the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), I give the Bill a cautious welcome. While there is a consensus in the farming community and other organisations that the concept of diversification is worthwhile, the Bill will have a limited effect on marginal or less-favoured areas in the farming industry.

During the debate, it has often seemed as if diversification was a new concept to agriculture, but hon. Members must be aware that in marginal areas the ingenuity of the farming community has kept the community alive. In my area of Banffshire we have deer farming, peat farming, craft centres, pottery centres, knitwear centres, bed and breakfast, tourist centres and walks. All sorts of facilities are run by the farming community to ensure the survival of the rural area. Recently it was announced that the Highlands and Islands Development Board, in conjunction with the Crown Estates Commissioners, would develop the Glenlivet estates on that basis with an overall strategy and plan. All that is happening outside the ideas of diversification in the Bill.

Indeed, within the marginal areas, farmers are much more interested in what will happen to their hill livestock compensatory amounts and to the sheepmeat regime, when the devaluation of the green pound and interest rates will be discussed; and how we shall deal with the contraction of pig production in Scotland, particularly in Grampian region. A whole variety of issues affecting agriculture are not touched on in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will tell us that we shall have an opportunity to consider those issues in future.

I seek clarification on a few points. Have the Government made any assessment of the implications for the capital value of land of planting trees? It seems that effective agricultural land has a high capital value. That is of great importance to farmers who, for example, have overdrafts. The banks are interested in the capital value of their land. Will not land planted with trees decline in capital value? Despite the allocation of grants, there could be adverse financial effects on certain farmers.

The Minister said that an agreement had been reached on a model lease so that tenant farmers could benefit from the legislation. How will the grants be allocated between tenants and landowners? Perhaps it is too early to give us that information, but certainly I shall seek proper protection for tenant farmers, who have often suffered the burden of ensuring that a family farm is continued.

I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Western Isles that we should investigate how we can assist crofters. Finally, on planning permission, many right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the environmental impact of trees on the landscapes and the overall impression of our countryside. Tree planting has implications for existing industries. As some hon. Members know, I spoke at length on that in the Committee on the Scotch Whisky Bill last week.

Extensive afforestation is affecting the acidity levels of water and that could work to the detriment of the Scotch whisky industry. The Ministry must be careful to take into account existing industries and existing interests when it considers tree planting, so that they are not affected adversely by any diversification scheme.

10.13 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South-West)

The aims of the Bill must be welcomed. Agricultural surpluses are a major problem and should be dealt with, but they must be dealt with sensibly. It is estimated that about 3 million acres must be taken out of agricultural production to deal with the problem of over-production adequately.

The Government's suggestions to deal with this problem centre around diversification, primarily into timber and tourism. The Government's target for forestry is 90,000 acres and immediately it is clear that that alone will have only a small effect on surpluses. There is a world shortage of timber and the Government are right to encourage farmers, particularly those on lower grade land, to move into forestry, but if they wish the scheme to succeed, farmers must not incur any loss of income.

There must, however, be proper provision to prevent the over-planting of conifers. The Government must encourage the planting of native broadleaved species, especially as many were lost during the recent storms in the south. The consultation document will allow 95 per cent. conifer planting on uplands and 65 per cent. planting on lowlands. Those quotas are far too high. More broadleaves must be incorporated, and conservation aspects must be taken into account. Woodland wildlife must be considered, as must the problems of acidification and the damage that it can cause the environment.

The Government are offering a grant for salaries in marketing activities. Will it be paid to members of the farmer's family? If it is not, it will serve only further to drive off the land the very people who have been brought up to know and care most about it. If family members are not included, the problems of the rural young unemployed will only be accentuated.

Diversification should not be targeted only at small and medium-sized farms. By doing that, maximum returns, in terms of reducing surpluses and preserving employment, will be lost. The change to diversification on the larger farm, where the majority of agricultural employment is to be found, will have a much greater effect on the preservation of jobs in farming.

Timber and tourism will not cure the problem of agricultural surpluses, especially in areas such as my constituency. Other methods are necessary for upland, often marginal, land, as the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) said. The Government show a lack of imagination in simply paying farmers not to work their land. It makes far more sense to pay them to farm less intensively. The Government should realise that the best method of augmenting farm incomes is making it possible for them to produce food in an environmentally sound way. Grants should be paid to farmers who, through a positive effort, lower their yields while keeping their land in production and facilitating conservation. The grant should abate any financial loss incurred through that activity.

Conservation should be the key word when discussing the elimination of surpluses. Farmers should be paid to preserve their land. That is in the interests of the nation. The countryside belongs to the people. Farmers had traditionally been seen as the guardians of the countryside — until the common agricultural policy of the EEC encouraged the hectic drive for higher and higher output. It drove many farmers to damage the environment.

Now that production is to be cut, farmers must be helped into their role as custodians of the countryside. I am sure that most farmers would be prepared to see conservation as a legitimate crop, provided that the price was right.

Any legislation which involves rural areas must preserve, if not improve, the lifestyles of those who live and work there. Moreover, it must protect the interests of the nation as a whole. It must ensure that food prices do not rise. Just as important, it must ensure that the beauty of the countryside is left intact and that it remains accessible to those who live in an urban environment. Farmers' incomes must also be protected or they will not be able to co-operate in any scheme, and grants must always cover any income that is lost.

Tourism and timber should be encouraged, as should other types of diversification, but conservation must never be neglected and the agricultural worker must always be protected by adequate housing and jobs in the countryside. Rural people should be able, with Government assistance, to care for their land as they have for many hundreds of years.

10.18 pm
Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)

We have had a wide-ranging and instructive debate. The proposals have received support, although some of it has been qualified, from both sides of the House. We have had speakers from every part of the British Isles. This bodes well for the Minister. When he introduced the Bill this evening, he said that he was looking for an easy passage through the House. He will get a swift passage, but I am not quite so sure whether he will get an easy passage.

Most of those hon. Members who spoke indicated their support. None spoke more enthusiastically than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He and I share an interest. He will remember that, in 1972, when he came to my constituency, which was then the constituency of his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), he visited the Bedwas colliery just outside Caerphilly, and was made an honorary member. Needless to say, that was the first colliery to be closed after the unsuccessful miners' strike.

I reassure my right hon. Friend that the sentiments that he expressed, when he said that we must defend mining communities, are felt strongly and sincerely by those of us who still represent mining communities. We extend our argument to rural communities. It is because we believe in maintaining continuity of employment and because we recognise the need for the welfare and strength of our rural communities that we are supporting the legislation this evening. However, my right hon. Friend introduced an interesting dimension to the debate. I look forward to his contributions in Committee when we discuss matters in more detail.

I wish to correct my right hon. Friend on one point. He said that the Minister will always reward his friends. That is why Conservative Back Benchers support the Bill. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider some of the accents that we have heard in this evening's debate, because the accents of the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), and for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and of my hon. Friends who did not speak in the debate—including the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams)—would have told him that the rural areas, certainly in the west of the country, are not the prerogative of Tory Governments. We enthusiastically reject Tories, just as the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield rejected Tories.

There has been general support for the Bill. Two qualifications have been raised. Some Conservative Members expressed concern about what was called de-intensification, which I prefer to call extensification. The hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and even my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield spoke in support of that case. The hon. Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made it clear that the debate will not be restricted to the narrow parameters set by the Government.

The second qualification concerns areas of outstanding natural beauty. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who spoke very movingly, but unfortunately was so moved that he is no longer in the Chamber, expressed his concern about areas of outstanding natural beauty, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth and for Glanford and Scunthorpe.

It is a pity that the latter part of our proceedings was interrupted by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). He was present throughout the debate, but it is a pity that he could not follow the tenor and tone of the debate and that he had to interrupt with a particularly ill-mannered and arrogant contribution.

The peripheral areas of Britain were represented by contributions from the hon. Members for Ynys Mon and for Western Isles. We must remember that parts of the western periphery of this country have specialised forms of agriculture. I hope that we shall debate the problems of those areas in Committee and that the Government will recognise those problems.

The Minister will have gathered from the comments made that the Opposition have some reservations about the Bill. We give it a broad welcome, because we support its intention of reducing surpluses and expenditure on surpluses and of providing opportunities for those involved and employed in agriculture to diversify their businesses. It will provide a new revenue grant scheme to assist in that diversification and annual payments to assist in woodland management. I especially welcome the second innovation, because, for the first time in the programme of support by successive Governments, we have a management grant to enhance forestry and woodland management practices.

However, the Opposition have considerable reservations about some aspects of the legislation. The Minister will have understood our anxieties on environmental grounds, but I shall make some additional points on which I would appreciate his comments. Our major reservation is that the provisions will have little impact on the current surpluses. The highest woodland grant will be £190 per hectare. That low grant will not act as an incentive to convert into woodland anything other than grade 4 or 5 agricultural land. It will not be enough to attract the cereal growers on grade 1 or 2 land to diversify from cereal production to the planting of woodlands.

Secondly, the scheme will be limited to 36,000 hectares over three years. The National Farmers Union talks about taking out 1 million to 1.5 million hectares of land, so taking only 36,000 hectares out of production for this purpose is inadequate. I have no doubt that during those three years, developments in plant-breeding techniques and other technology will more than offset the loss of 36,000 hectares from production.

Mr. Foulkes

Chickenfeed.

Mr. Davies

My hon. Friend is right; it is chickenfeed.

When Baroness Trumpington introduced the Bill in the other place, she called the capital grants scheme the core of the new scheme. When the Committee discussed the statutory instrument relating to the scheme, I challenged the Minister as to whether 342 separate applications would dry up the financial resources available. The Minister conceded that that was true. If he is presenting a brand new scheme, and if its intention is to attract sufficient applications from farmers to diversify into many other activities, and to reduce the present massive surplus, I must tell him that 342 separate applications, which is all that resources will allow, will not reduce the grain mountain by even a shovelful.

The provision of the diversification or woodland grants does not depend upon the recipients reducing overall production. I welcomed the consultation document produced by the Minister some time ago. The set-aside proposals required that an individual participating in the scheme should reduce production in his holding by 20 per cent. Unfortunately, the Minister has not adopted that provision in either of the two grants that are now available.

The scheme would be improved, certainly in terms of achieving its objective of reducing surpluses, if the Minister said that any individual who received a diversification or woodland grant would be expected to reduce overall production in his holding. Under the present scheme, it will be possible to take advantage of the woodland grant and to increase production in the holding by more intensive farming. I know that our anxiety is shared by some Conservative Members.

In Farmers' Weekly in December, a journalist summed up our anxieties adequately when he said of the scheme: However, while the scheme is a positive step in the right direction to cut EEC agricultural over-production, I fear that it will have little impact on either surpluses or farmers. That is a fair summary of our concern about surpluses.

My last major area of concern is the environment, and the fact that the Government have not taken advantage of the opportunities that the moment has presented. In the guidelines on the legislation that we have gathered from the debates in the House of Lords and from documents produced by the Government, there has been little attempt to protect or enhance the environment, using the opportunities that these new circumstances permit. Why have the Government excluded areas of outstanding natural beauty from the special areas on which consultation will continue?

My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth mentioned consultation. Last week I asked the Minister: what consultation procedures will precede the payment of grants under the proposed farm woodland scheme; whether they will apply to all applications; and if he will make a statement. He answered part of the question and said, in conclusion: However, in areas such as sites of special scientific interest, environmentally sensitive areas and national parks existing arrangements would continue to apply."—[Official Report, 26 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 176.] Why, if the environment in all those areas is so sensitive as to require consultation, have the Government excluded areas identified by the Countryside Commission and accepted by the Government as areas of outstanding natural beauty? That question was put in the House of Lords, and I put it again to the Minister now. What are the Government's intentions in respect of areas of outstanding natural beauty? Will the consultation procedures apply to them, or will they be excluded? If they are excluded, why will the procedures apply to all those other special areas and not to them?

We are now in the paradoxical position in which an application for a planting grant alone for, say, eight hectares, will be subject to consultation, but a similar application accompanied by an application for a management grant will not. That is nonsense: it means that the more public money goes into the scheme, the less consultation there will be. That is unacceptable.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) raised another point about the environment, reading well from the RSPB brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe spoke knowingly about it, too, because he understands the RSPB brief. There are no safeguards to prevent the bypassing of the schemes's guidelines. Why, for example, can a farmer who ploughs up land in one year apply the next for a planting grant, on the grounds that the land has been under cultivation? There is no provision for a cut-off point to allow the Minister to prevent that, and it would be a flagrant abuse. The areas that we are discussing, the marginal upland parts of Great Britain, have a particular attraction by virtue of their aesthetic beauty and the birds and other forms of wildlife that live in them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North spoke partly in defence of Sitka spruce. Under the proposals, an area larger than 20 acres in an area of outstanding natural beauty can be 95 per cent. planted with conifers, without consultation. That, too, is unacceptable; I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is nodding his agreement to that. If not, I shall relay to the House the conversation that I had with him before the debate started. I asked him whether he would be speaking on behalf of the alliance, the new party, the Liberal party or himself. He said, and I paraphrase, "Well, you know me, boy. I have always spoken for the Liberals, and that is who I shall speak for tonight." No matter about the earth-shattering political developments over the last couple of weeks; and in spite of the proposed new alliance, we have the consolation of knowing that the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is still speaking for the Liberal party.

We shall seek amendments in Committee, and I hope that we have given the Minister sufficient food for thought to realise that there is support for the Government's proposals but that it is not unqualified. We are anxious to ensure that there are no abuses and that there are adequate environmental safeguards. For the last year or two, farmers have been in a mood of despair and despondency. The Minister will be gratified to know that I do not hold him totally to blame for that despair. Agriculture is at a crossroads and we are presenting our farmers with major challenges. If the Government are to preside over that period of change, they will have to give a lead to the farmers and to people in rural areas.

I am concerned that the legislation is limited in scope. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that it is part of a comprehensive package and one of many schemes. I understand and accept that, but I hope that, as the debate unfolds, farmers will be given a more positive lead and a more positive clue about the way in which the Government wish them to go. We shall look to the Government to give firm evidence of their intentions.

I know of the role played by the Minister in the discussions in Europe. He has received our assurance that, on stabilisers, he will receive our support. I am sure that he values that. It must be of great satisfaction to him when he tucks himself up in bed with his cup of cocoa. We shall continue to support the Government, provided that they give evidence that they will effectively tackle the structural imbalances in agriculture in the United Kingdom. That guidance must protect not only our farmers but the countryside. The Minister will be glad to know that we do not propose to divide the House on this matter. However, I shall join in the dispute with him in Committee on some of these matters.

10.37 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)

I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for much of what he said, and particularly for his tribute to the blameless home life of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in Brussels the cup of cocoa normally arrives at about 4 o'clock in the morning rather than at a sensible time.

I noted the hon. Gentleman's comments about seeking the authentic voice of Liberalism. I was surprised that he lighted upon the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), because I thought that I had heard that authentic voice in the speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). On every possible occasion he used the phrase "on the one hand … and on the other". He said that on the one hand we do not want planning arrangements to be too loose, but on the other hand a gentleman selling ice cream was in great difficulty. He said that on the one hand we must not have too many trees because they would be intrusive, but on the other hand there is a great need for trees and we must have as many as possible.

The hon. Member for South Shields started by complaining about the Bill, which is about farm woodland, because it did not deal with organic farming. We also heard a great deal about de-intensification. I was surprised to hear complaints about the Bill because of what is not in it, when the Bill is not designed to deal with those things. It is a modest Bill, in the sense that its purpose is to fill in the areas in which we do not have powers to do things that we need to do in terms of farm woodland and in one area of farm diversification.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) that his pressure for de-intensification to be part of the Bill is understandable. However, I hope that he will look at two things. First, he should look at what is being done on the proposed extensification scheme and, secondly, he should look at the discussions presently taking place in the European Community. We felt that it was a mistake to bring forward further proposals in that area when discussions, still continuing in Europe, would make a great deal of difference to what we were able to propose.

It is also true, of course, that we can do most of the things that we want to do in any de-intensification scheme under existing legislation or by secondary legislation, and we do not need extra powers at primary level. The Bill is largely concerned with the primary legislation that we do not have at the moment.

Mr. Steen

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer

I shall not give way. We have covered a great deal of ground. I have many answers to give, and I shall try to give them.

I have considerable sympathy with the concern that my hon. Friends have raised about horse and pony breeding. We are carefully examining the matter at the moment. Many changes have recently taken place, and they will need further investigation. I understand the points that were put forward. [An hon Member: "The right hon. Gentleman is a Liberal."] No one has ever accused me of that before. I shall save it for the next opportunity that arises.

After my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, we heard the authentic voice of Socialism from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). We must thank him for choosing an agricultural debate for the moment of reemergence. It is of particular help that his election campaign began here. We shall remember that. I shall be critical of two things that he said. I hope that he will forgive my criticism, but it is an important point.

It is an entirely out-of-date argument to suggest that, if only we could export the over-production of agriculture in the developed world to the developing world, we would do something fundamental for the problems of the hungry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will agree that Oxfam and all other major charities quite clearly say that they do not want food aid as a permanent part of the picture. They want help for countries to produce their own agricultural products and make sure that they are able to meet their own needs. One of the things that undermines them—

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)

In the meantime, the starving need to be fed.

Mr. Gummer

We are discussing a serious matter. It is not appropriate to shout from a sedentary position. Some hon. Members care about the matter too much to shout about it in such terms.

The real problem at the moment is that many foreign countries — the poorest countries in the world — find their agriculture undermined by over-production in the West, which is then exported at low prices and makes it impossible for agriculture in such countries to work. One of the major reasons for the need to reduce production in the Western world is to give a fair deal to those who are trying to produce in the Third world. It is a serious matter, and we must address it. Frankly, we cannot do so with the out-of-date views of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

The right hon. Gentleman also tried to compare agriculture with the coal industry. One of the differences is that agriculture has been a fundamentally successful industry in enabling us to compete with other countries. We are not in the difficulty of having an industry that needs considerable restructuring because of its production patterns. We are in the difficulty of having an industry that has been so successful that it is able to feed all those who need its food, yet, at the same time, is asked to look after the land and care for the countryside. All that we are trying to do with the Bill and with other measures is give farmers an opportunity to continue to care for the countryside. After all, they are, and have always been, the first line of conservation.

I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman repeated his belief in the common ownership of land. We shall make sure that no one fails to know that that is still part of the basic tenets of Socialism, and we shall remind as many people as possible. It will have the same electoral effect as it has had since the 17th century. It did much to bring back the monarchy, it has done much to support Conservative Governments down the ages, and we shall make sure that it will continue to do so.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for his tribute to farmers and his point about planning permission. I inform the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that the problem that he raised about the north of Ireland is exactly the same as that in my constituency. We all heard his words. He said that things in Northern Ireland are different in that they are exactly the same.

There is a great need for some local authorities to remember that the countryside is a workplace; it is a place of employment. It is a place where, if it is to be alive and not a museum, there must be jobs for people—jobs not just for farmers but for farm workers and for ex-farm workers. Unless local authorities are prepared to recognise that it is a workplace, that as such it has as great an importance as many of the other demands that are made of it, including the demands of those who have chosen the countryside as a place of retirement, and to accept that a balance must he achieved between them, there will be many unemployed people who need not be unemployed. The countryside will be artificial and false, not the real countryside that springs from the working population that lives there.

Mr. Ron Davies

rose—

Mr. Gummer

I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, to which I should like to reply. No doubt in Committee we shall be able to go into the matter in more detail.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North defended the conifer. I do not want to talk of the conifer in an idealistic way which fails to refer to those marching series of trees, which all of us have seen in many parts of the country, and which the Forestry Commission and others would now admit was not the right way to produce a forestry industry. The hon. Gentleman was right to correct the balance. In the area in which I live, some of the best views are enhanced considerably by conifers. It would be wrong to pretend that all conifers are ugly or that they cannot be planted sensibly.

One must ask how best to do it. It is difficult to achieve a balance, but how does one encourage farmers who have not been foresters in the past to begin to plant trees? One must ensure that the system is not so complicated that they will not begin to try. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) that they will have to make one application, not two. The application will be considered by the Forestry Commission and the Ministry because the needs and responsibilities of each are different.

That is why we have tried to make the consultation system rather simpler. We felt that, if we wanted to encourage people to go into Forestry for the first time, they should not be confronted by a vastly complicated means of so doing. Naturally, they are reserved about the concept of someone else telling them whether they may plant a particular crop. If farmers are to perceive forestry in small areas as a crop, which is what we want, there must not be a special arrangement for this crop that makes it completely different, much more complicated and very much more frightening than other crops.

I understand Labour Members' concern about this matter. It was for that reason that I was particularly careful to meet representatives of all the environmental bodies, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and listened to them most carefully. If we find, in our review in three years' time when we reconsider the matter, that any of the fears that have been advanced are seriously justified, we will have to think again.

The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was right about the problems with regard to the 25,000 trees and of the tenant farmer. However, in every case, permission must be granted. The grant will be given by the Ministry, and it will be possible for us to say, and we shall do so, "It is unsuitable in these circumstances." The Forestry Commission will be able to say, "It is unsuitable in these circumstances." The mix that is offered is one that the Forestry Commission can refuse.

All these matters are built into the arrangements. If we ask farmers to have a prescription that is so particular and detailed and demands so much negotiation and discussion and say that there must be so many broadleaved trees, whatever the circumstances, we shall defeat the object of the Bill.

Mr. Hardy

Many of us have a high regard for the Forestry Commission, which the Minister will share. It is particularly concerned about production rather than some of the other aspects of tree planting. If the Minister will not give way on consultation, will he ensure—this point has been made by one or two hon. Members — that members of the Development Commission will adequately reflect the conservation interest? If not, the alarm will be raised very much earlier than the three-year period that he referred to earlier.

Mr. Gummer

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. That is not within my gift, but I shall ensure that the point is made clearly to those whose gift it is.

The Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are concerned about this matter. We take the same view. We are looking at the environmental impact. We have made it clear that that is part of what we are trying to do in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talked about the indexing of payments. I am fundamentally opposed to indexing any payments in those circumstances. That is not a helpful way of proceeding. We must say that we will review the payments after the first three years and then regularly after that. That is the way to proceed.

I am unhappy about indexing. Sometimes circumstances will dictate a different choice. An annual review would provide for too short a time to measure the impact. We have said that we will review it in three years and then every five years thereafter. That will mean a better balance when seeing how it has panned out. Tree growing is a long-term matter, not one that can be easily dealt with as quickly as my hon. Friend suggests.

The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) talked about the monitoring of the scheme. We shall monitor it, although I do not think that it would be right to do so annually. Grants can and will be withheld if we feel that the circumstances mean that they are an intrusion into the environment.

I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on Sunday trading—we might have some difficulties in that — but I share his concern about planning. I should like to underline what he said about the farmer's wife being a key figure. Clearly, she has been taking the lead in diversification.

Mr. Foulkes

That is sexist.

Mr. Gummer

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made clear the need for a diverse society in the countryside. We are trying to carry that through— [Interruption.] There is very little that is sexist in saying that farmers' wives are female, but the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has this difficult problem with which to cope. As he has not been involved in the debate and so far has intervened several times, as usual, from a seated position, perhaps we can leave it there.

The hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred to crofting communities. Such communities are more appropriately a matter for a Scottish Bill. We felt that, if we went into that, we would open this Bill very much further, but I take the hon. Members' points on board and will ensure that the Scottish Office considers them.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that finance would allow for just a very small number of people to be covered if they all asked for the maximum amount and all received it within the right time in exactly the same period. Of course that is possible, but it will not happen. Even I would be prepared to take a very small bet on the fact that it will not happen in that way. Many of the hon. Gentleman's other points are worthy of much more consideration, but that is not one about which I would be concerned.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised an important point on areas of outstanding natural beauty. We made a list of places in which we would continue the present consultation procedures. It is no secret that we are considering whether the present consultation procedures in every case are exactly suitable. The hon. Gentleman need not worry. It will be a matter that the Government as well as the Opposition will bring up in Committee, so the hon. Gentleman need not think that it must be pressed now.

The debate has shown general and widespread support for this proposal. Both sides of the House accept that this is only part of a package which is necessary to deal with the problems of over-production, to contribute more towards the improvement of our environment and to ascertain whether we can put something by to meet future timber needs. These are all things that we believe to be good in themselves. They are not anything like the whole package, nor do they go as far as some would like. I remind the House that, as with environmentally sensitive areas, we proposed a relatively small scheme to begin with; we found it rapidly to be a success; and we were able to expand it. The principle of experimentation, of seeking to do enough to learn, is the way in which we should proceed with all these new aspects with which we are concerned.

We can see that the Bill gets off to a good start, with support from both sides of the House. No doubt, in Committee, we shall be able to be a little more tetchy with one another and a little more strongly opposed in order to achieve what I hope will be a major and important step in the changing face of British agriculture.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).