§ 3.21 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON)My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Walston.)
§ On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
§ Clause 45:
§ Rural Development Boards
§ 45.—
§ (3) The overall programme referred to in the preceding subsection shall have regard to the special economic considerations and the long-term nature of forestry.
§ (4) The amenities to which consideration is to be given under subsection (2) above shall include any feature of scientific or historic interest in those areas.
§ LORD WALSTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "shall have regard" and insert "is one having regard, among other things."
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would probably be convenient for your Lordships, and will save the time of the House, if I discuss the few Amendments on the Marshalled List at the same time.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? They are rather different points. May I suggest that the noble Lord should take Amendment No. 1 first? The second Amendment, dealing with amenity aspects, is quite a different point and deserves treatment on its own. I think the other three could go together.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I will happily do that. I am sure the noble Lord 1405 will be relieved to hear that I have not a great deal to say on any of them. Dealing first, then, with Amendment No. 1, I would remind your Lordships that when noble Lords opposite moved the inclusion of the words that now appear as subsection (3), my noble friend Lord Hughes advised them that the Amendment was unnecessary and might even be positively dangerous to interests other than forestry. It is true, as was made clear then, that the Government have no objection to the principle stated in the subsection. It is implicit in the Bill. I have no objection to making it explicit, so long as the special reference to forestry does not prejudice the other equally important factors that will have to be taken into account when the use of hill land for agriculture and forestry is being considered.
I am advised that the Amendment which the Government now propose would be adequate to remove any doubt that the programme of guidance would need to take account of things other than the special problems of forestry: for instance, such things as the special needs of agriculture or other users of the area. I am advised, also, that as a matter of strict accuracy the tense of the verb should be altered in this subsection from the imperative to the present indicative. This is because subsection (2) refers to the needs of areas in which Boards may be, but have not yet been, set up. The references therefore need to be descriptive rather than mandatory. But the change of tense is purely technical and in no way detracts from the effect of the subsection. I hope noble Lords will not feel that we are trying in this way to wriggle out of any of these undertakings.
With this Amendment, the Government would be content to leave the subsection in the Bill. It would do much to reassure private foresters that these Boards will always have the problem of forestry in the forefront of their minds. I hope that noble Lords opposite will be equally understanding of the feelings of other interests and will agree to accept this largely technical Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 5, leave out ("shall have regard") and insert ("is one having regard, among other things").—(Lord Walston.)
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for explaining the purpose of the Amendment, and I am happy to accept the grammatical improvement from the imperative to the present indicative. But what I think will be of greater value to my noble friends is the implication and, indeed, the statement from the noble Lord that it is the Government's intention now to accept this Amendment which the Government did not feel able to accept on the Committee stage—in fact, we divided on it.
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, as I understand it, is to preserve the generality of the clause. This, I think, in no way reduces the value of having explicitly in the Bill the obligation for a Rural Development Board, when it is set up, to have special regard to the interests of forestry. I think I should add—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is aware of this—that my noble friends on this side who are particularly interested in private forestry felt that the Bill showed some bias against their interests. The inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill will go some way to dispelling their anxieties and assuring them that the Rural Development Board, when it takes action, will do so in a way which is not prejudicial to forestry interests. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the implication of this Amendment, and would advise my noble friends to agree to it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD WALSTON moved to add to subsection (4)
and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, their flora and fauna and physiographical features, and any buildings of special interest.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will remember, this was a matter which was discussed at some length, both on Committee stage and on Report stage, particularly with regard to the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. On the Report stage I undertook to consult with the noble Lord on a form of words which would make it quite clear that flora, fauna and physiographical features, as well as interesting buildings, are among the amenities that will have to be taken into 1407 account in the area of a Rural Development Board. As I think I explained on that occasion, it will be part of the Board's positive function to plan for the preservation of these amenities and for wider public enjoyment of them. There is no question of any difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and myself or the Government on that matter.
§ This is undoubtedly a need that the Board will always have to keep in mind when considering the improvement of farm structure and the co-ordination of agriculture and forestry in their area. Furthermore, the appropriate Minister will be guided by the same considerations in the exercise of his functions in relation to any Board. In these circumstances, I feel it would be wrong in principle, as well as unnecessary, to have a separate conservation clause. But I am happy to make it absolutely clear what kinds of natural and man-made features the Board and the Minister should bear in mind.
§ I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for all the help he has given in arriving at the Amendment on the Marshalled List. It was the result of a long and extremely interesting and helpful discussion. This Amendment is designed to spell out the Government's intentions in greater detail, but without in any way prejudicing the wider interpretation of the words already included in subsection (4), which refer to all items of scientific and historic interest. It is important that we should not appear to restrict the meaning of these broader categories by introducing further specific examples, desirable as this may be. As I have said, after a considerable amount of thought and discussion I believe this Amendment does meet the very legitimate points, and the reasonable, if not perhaps legitimate, fears of certain noble Lords, and I hope it will be accepted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 9, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Walston.)
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has gone so far in meeting the substance of the alternative Amendment which the noble Lord, 1408 Lord Molson, and I moved at an earlier stage, and he has been so considerate and courteous in his willingness to discuss the precise form that his Amendment should take, that I feel I neither need nor reasonably can ask him to go further. I should have raised the question whether the clause as now amended would bind the Minister; but he has made that point by the assurance which he has given.
I would say only this. It seems to my friends in the Nature movement that the action of these Rural Development Boards might be very far reaching in a large number of minor ways, such as ordering hedgings, eradicating copses, drying up ponds, and all sorts of things of that kind. In the aggregate these things might make a big alteration to the appearance of the countryside, do great damage to its wild life, and destroy, in the supposed interest of efficient production, the few reservoirs in which fragments of our wild life can yet survive. But if there is proper consultation with the experts on the other side, particularly with the officers of the Nature Conservancy and, I hope, when it comes to be established, with the Countryside Commission, many of the mistakes which will otherwise occur can easily be avoided with little or no loss to agricultural efficiency.
If I may take it that, in the assurance which the noble Lord has given as to the attitude of Ministers concerned in future, he has in mind the Countryside Commission and the other scientific advisers to the Government, then I can only say that, for my part, I am happy to accept his Amendment, and I am very much obliged to him for the trouble he has taken in the matter.
§ LORD MOLSONMy Lords, as I originally moved an Amendment on this subject in the Committee stage, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the Government, for the sympathetic line they have taken about this. I remain still of the opinion that it would have been better if what has become known as the "Hurcomb Clause", which figures now in a number of other Statutes dealing with the obligation to preserve the amenities of the countryside, had been included in this Agriculture Bill. It seems to me a great 1409 advantage that, when there is some general principle of wide application, the same words should be regularly used in the Statutes where they are appropriate.
When we use different words the judges are astute, if the matter comes to the courts, to try to establish why different words have been used. They always assume that Parliament in its wisdom has examined the matter with the utmost care, and has for some obscure but no doubt good reason chosen different words. If the judges were more familiar with the way in which Parliament acts, they would know that it is seldom the case that these matters are considered in that meticulous and careful way. But I have had recent experience of the fair, and even generous, way in which the Government have given effect to assurances given by Ministers at the time a Bill was being passed, and I therefore wholly accept the very satisfactory assurances which the Parliamentary Secretary has given.
I would only say that I hope that in their work these Rural Development Boards will bear in mind his assurance that other considerations besides purely agricultural and forestry matters will be taken into account. Much of the charm and beauty of wild country can be destroyed if too much is done to increase agricultural production regardless of what is sacrificed in doing so. In view of the asurance which the Parliamentary Secretary has given, I am quite sure that that will be borne in mind by the Rural Development Boards.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 52 [Control of afforestation]:
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, perhaps I may move the next three Amendments together, because they are not matters of any great substance or controversy. All three are Amendments to Clause 52 which have been made necessary by the fact that the Forestry Act 1967, a consolidating measure which repealed the 1947 Act along with the Acts of 1919 and 1951 and other measures, has now received the Royal Assent. That is the only reason for bringing forward these three Amendments together. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 4, leave out ("the Forestry Act 1947") and insert ("section 5 of the Forestry Act 1967").—(Lord Walston.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 7, leave out ("the Forestry Act 1919") and insert ("that Act or any enactment repealed by that Act.").—(Lord Walston.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and insert ("attached to a felling licence granted, or having effect as if granted, under the Forestry Act 1967.").—(Lord Walston.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.37 p.m.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This Bill which came to your Lordships some time ago is, as I said at the time of the Second Reading, a good and important Bill. It leaves your Lordships' House a no less important Bill and in many respects—though I must say, without wishing to become too controversial, not in every single respect—a better Bill than when it came here. I think that the thought that has been given to it, the discussions we have had, the clarifications that have ensued and the great majority of the Amendments which have been agreed to, have consolidated this Bill and entitle it to rank as one of the important milestones in agricultural legislation.
Broadly speaking, I believe it tackles the three most important aspects of agriculture, and tackles them in a constructive and helpful way. It deals first of all with the structure of agriculture, with the actual farm size, and with the conditions which enable those who cultivate the soil to do so efficiently because of the nature of their holdings. It gives incentives to those who wish to improve the actual sizes and shapes of their farms. Without adequate and efficient sizes we cannot expect to have an efficient agriculture. With investment grants and grants for co-operation, and in other ways, this 1411 Bill helps the farmer still further, over and above what is already being done, by enabling him to acquire the tools for his trade and, given the right structure and the right size of farm, to produce the food well. Also, through the Meat and Livestock Commission, it sets about, in a very realistic way, bridging that gap which we so often hear about, and so often talk about, between the price at the farm gate and the price the consumer actually has to pay.
In all these ways, and possibly above all through the Rural Development Boards, I believe it helps agriculture to progress into the modern world without turning its back on the important but non-economic aspects of the countryside—the beauties and amenities of the countryside. And, last, it stimulates the development of our diminishing rural areas in such a way that either they will produce more food more efficiently or they will be made available, if they are unsuitable for that form of efficient production, for the enjoyment of the ever-increasing number of people who live and work in the cities.
For all these reasons the 1967 Agriculture Bill can well take its place alongside the important Agriculture Act 1957, and the all-important Agriculture Act 1947. When I mention the 1947 Act I hope that your Lordships will allow me to pay my own tribute, which I know other noble Lords have already done, to the "founding father", the author of that Bill, who died so recently—our old friend Tom Williams. It was a great privilege for all of us who knew him, and were able to work with him in one way or another, to have had the benefit of his kindness, his wisdom and his humanity. I am only sorry that he cannot be here with us today to see this third Agriculture Bill pass, before long I hope, on to the Statute Book, continuing the great work which he started.
Finally, I should like to thank all noble Lords on both sides of the House who have helped in these discussions and who, as I have said, with one or two exceptions, have undoubtedly passed the Bill on its way in an improved and strengthened form. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Walston.)