§ 7.49 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE (DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD)My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1 [Extension of definition of "agricultural buildings" and "agricultural land" for purposes of derating in England and Wales]:
§
LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("or section") and insert (", (buildings occupied in connection with bee-keeping) or").
§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of this whole Bill is to fulfil a pledge given in our Election Manifesto to exempt from rates those buildings used by farmers in connection with the production of food from their land. Amendments No. 1, 5 and 6, to which with the permission of the Committee I will speak 105 at the same time, fulfil a further undertaking given in another place, and by me on Second Reading in this House, to include in that the production of honey.
§ There are something like 33,000 bee-keepers in England and Wales, and the great majority are amateurs and quite unworried by the effect of rates on their activities. But there are of the order of 330 enterpises in England and Wales, and 30 or 40 enterprises in Scotland, which are on a commercial scale, with over 40 colonies of bees in each enterprise. A unit of this size in a good year will yield a ton or more of honey. Many of these enterprises have buildings ancillary to the beehives which have as good a claim to exemption as those of any of the other kinds of agricultural farm buildings with which the Bill deals.
§ These bee farmers, in order to get exemption from rates need a separate clause of their own for two reasons. First, the insect world as a whole is not included in the definition of "livestock" in Clause 1(3), and we do not want to include "insects" just for the sake of the bees. Secondly, the buildings in which bees are kept, unlike the places where hens and pigs are kept, are not buildings but chattels. There are no primary beekeeping buildings to which the other buildings are ancillary, but we do want land occupied by buildings ancillary to bee farming, as well as the ancillary buildings themselves, to be exempt from rates, to correspond to land occupied by other buildings in the Bill.
§ Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, to which No. 1 is a paving Amendment, secure the exemption that is needed for the bee farmers of England, Scotland and Wales, and they do so in a way that leaves the main framework of the Bill in proper shape. If noble Lords in Committee agree, I propose, having moved this Amendment, to move Amendment No. 5 formally, subject to any questions noble Lords may care to raise either now or when that Amendment is reached. If noble Lords have questions relating especially to Scotland, they might care to address them to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir when Amendment No. 6 is reached. I beg to move.
§ LORD BESWICKI could not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Sand-ford, was so reluctant to start his explanation 106 of these Amendments. At first I thought he had mislaid his notes, but then I realised that his embarrassment was due to the fact that this Bill was related to promises given at Election time, and I quite understand that the Government are still a little doubtful about the sort of posture which they adopted at that time in the course of getting votes. However, if they are going to give away a certain amount of the ratepayers' money—and that is what it amounts to—I quite agree there should be fairness as between one section of the community affected and another; and in so far as I personally have a great affection for the bee-keepers, I am prepared to support the Amendment.
§ 7.55 p.m.
§
LORD FERRIER moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert ("bird or fish kept for the production of food or wool or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land or the stocking or restocking of rivers, lakes or ponds.")
§
The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is to introduce a system whereby agricultural exemption from rates shall apply to fish farming. My noble friend Lord Balerno made a reference to this subject in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, and if it is suggested that this amounts to a reversal of a decision taken in another place, it is not altogether so, because my Amendment makes no reference to furs and skins. However, in the very meagre references to fish farming during the debate in the other place there was no reference at all to fish for food. The very meagreness of the references in the debate suggest that the matter may have escaped the attention which I believe it deserves. Indeed, the Minister said:
Generally speaking, fish is produced in buildings only for sporting purposes.
That was on April 7, at column 473 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place.
§ With respect, this is not altogether the case. There is also an implication that game fish—and these are what the Minister was obviously getting at—if caught for sport, do not find their way into the pot. My Amendment in the main is intended to refer to fish for food. Taking salmon, for instance, it is estimated that 80 per cent. of the country's 107 whole catch is netted commercially in the estuaries. The actual figures for England and Wales, in terms of numbers of fish, are 81,600 netted and 16,100 taken by rod and line; that is for 1969. For the same year I have only the Scottish percentages, which are 11 per cent. taken by rod and line, and the balance by coastal and other engines, as I think they are called in the industry.
§ If exemption from rating is granted, then existing and future fish production by farming will be encouraged and many thousands of pounds' worth of development expenditure and know-how could be conserved for growth. To-day more than three-quarters of the nation's consumption of rainbow trout—and one sees them on the menus of a large number of hostelries up and down the country—are imported from various sources, including Denmark, of all places, and also from as far away as Japan. Only the balance is home produced. Perhaps some reference to salt water fish should have been made in my Amendment, because there is the development of breeding plaice in Argyll-shire, and recent work in the hatching and growing of lobsters and other crustacea in Sutherland. Fish farming for food is regarded as part of our economy—or it should be. These are developments which I believe should be encouraged and the present situation, with rating applied, is in a measure discouraging, and I can assure your Lordships that it may tend to stultify the efforts which a number of people interested in this matter are taking.
§ This brings me again to sport. I have never caught a salmon in my life: the wily trout is my particular quarry. It is well to remember that in the season over half-a-million anglers go fishing every weekend, and a proportion of these fish for game fish—very few for salmon. The most persistent and skilful fishers in Southern Scotland are the miners—or they used to be when there were more mines there. Angling is more than just a blood sport: it is a precious relaxation and anodine. The quarry goes into the pot. The existence of game fish, it is well to remember, is also a contribution to tourism. The Amendment, as your Lordships will appreciate, includes the word "restocking". One of the curses of pollution is the way in which entire stocks of fish in miles of river can be wiped out by detergent or sewage, or destroyed in 108 a night by a chemical leak or an overturned oil tanker. Twice in the last four or five years the Upper Clyde has been devastated by washings from gravel pits. Without hatcheries and fish farms the stock could not be replaced for years.
§
I would make a final point about the stocking of salmon rivers. Thanks to the netting of thousands of tons of salmon in their ocean feeding grounds by the Danes, who have no salmon rivers themselves, the run of fish in all our rivers has fallen catastrophically. Hence the bitterness of my remarks about importing rainbow trout from Denmark. Restocking is urgently necessary. One individual to whom I spoke yesterday pointed out that we are being "penny wise and pound foolish" by rating hatcheries and perhaps driving them out of existence in consequence. A petty sum is involved. It is "pound foolish", because the absence of fish in a river reduces the rates paid by the riparian owners on their fishings. Most of the fish is netted in the estuaries anyway. I await the Minister's reply with great interest, more especially with reference to the main purpose of the Bill, which is:
… to extend the present exemption from rates of agricultural land and buildings to buildings used for the keeping or breeding of livestock
and so on. The Explanatory Memorandum contains no reference to extending the exemption to fish farms, and I urge the Government to give this favourable consideration. The Minister who is to reply will be speaking for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDELike my noble friend Lord Ferrier, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply about why fish should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I say that because for many years now Government agencies, supported by Government money, have been aptly employed in producing fish. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has spent large sums of money on fish hatcheries and the provision of fry to be placed in the head waters of rivers and burns so that they may breed there and increase the stock. Fish farming has been going on, and great efforts have been made 109 by the Hydro-Electric Board to ensure that these farms are successful by placing them in positions where they may benefit from the outflow of water from hydro-electric developments in the North of Scotland. My noble friend said something about lobsters. In Shetland and Orkney there are great undertakings producing lobsters which are flown twice a week to the Continent—I understand to Paris, in particular. So I cannot understand why fish should be excluded from this Bill. I shall await with interest the Minister's reply.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEI support this Amendment, and I do so on the grounds of merit and logic. As the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, fish farming is a new industry, and it is worthy of support. It is making an increasing contribution to our national food supply, particularly in respect of the rainbow trout farms. I was very sorry to read that in another place the Minister referred to "so-called fish farming". What did he mean by "so-called fish farming"? I call that derisive language in respect of an enterprise which deserves encouragement. It is a new industry and is contributing to the solution of our food problems. It is wrong to say that fish farming is not an industry. The majority of its products go to help to provide food for the nation.
There is an oyster farm in the South of England which covers one and a half acres of land, and it is typical of several which have been started in England and Scotland on similar lines for the production of oysters. I hope that one day we may get hack to the situation which obtained at the turn of the century when, it may interest your Lordships to know, one hundred million oysters were sold in Billingsgate market every year. These new forms of fish farming are being extended to crustacea; prawns, lobsters and crabs. It is a new and adventurous enterprise for Britain and deserves not derisive comment but great encouragement.
The definition of "livestock" in the Bills refers to:
any mammal or bird kept for the production of food …".I will not read any more. Poultry and buildings used for the production of poultry would be included. Pheasants can 110 be reared under similar circumstances to poultry and some pheasants go direct to market. Others pass through a phase of sportsmanship before they finally reach the market. But you may say that basically pheasants are produced for food. As I read the Bill, a pheasant farm is exempted but a fish farm is not. That seems to me very illogical. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to press the Amendment. I hope that he will not, because I think it would need future legislation to bring in the fish farms. But I ask the Minister to accept the following propositions. First, that fish produced in fish farms are a valuable source of food. Secondly, that a young industry deserves support and not derision. Thirdly, that the present position between fish and bird is illogical, if the proposition I have put forward is correct. Fourthly, and most important, that the Government will consider this fish farming problem anew and possibly in a future legislative programme will consider inserting amending legislation so as to rectify what to-day we consider to be an anomaly.
§ THE EARL OF CROMARTIEOne important matter has been omitted by my noble friends. This is a new industry and its extension would help to stabilise the populations of villages in the Highlands and the North-West of Scotland. It is desperately important that the industry should be given every encouragement, because this is one of the few things in which we have a chance to interest young people. Every help should be given for that reason, if for no other.
§ 8.10 p.m.
§ LORD BALERNOI rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. I was the only one at the Committee stage to raise this point, and I did it in continuation of a campaign on behalf of fish and fish farming, which I have attempted to keep going for nearly the last seven years. I strongly support what my noble friend has said in support of the Amendment. From my experience over the years, I would say that it does not matter what Government is in power, there is some gremlin somewhere backstage who, whenever there is anything to do with fish, throws it out of the legislation and puts up all sorts of argument as to why fish should not get the attention they 111 deserve. They actually managed to forbid the veterinary profession to attend to fish. It must be more than one gremlin, but there is something very subtle somewhere behind the scenes, and until that is beaten I am afraid that any efforts we make in this House for the benefit of fish farming are doomed to failure.
§ LORD SANDFORDI hope that the Committee will not feel that fish have been under-rated in this Committee stage. I think they have had a great deal of consideration, and they certainly deserve it. I should like to assent to the propositions which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour put forward for the Government's agreement: fish is valuable food, those working to increase the production of such food deserve our support, and so on. The distinction in the Bill between fishes and birds does appear to be illogical, but I hope that in what I am going to say I will succeed in persuading the Committee that it is only in appearance. The fact of the matter is that we have a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and there is a distinction, which is borne out in legislation, between agriculture on the one hand and fisheries on the other. Agriculture and agricultural buildings have been exempted from rates since 1929, and they have remained exempted ever since. What we are doing now in this small Bill is to modify the relevant rating legislation, to take account of modern trends and modern methods of farming. The trend, as noble Lords know, has been to a a larger scale and to more intensive methods. The same trends may well be at work in fresh-water fisheries and shell fish factories, but the circumstances are entirely different, because these enterprises and all the buildings associated with them have not ever, like agriculture and agricultural buildings, been exempt from rates. There is no legislation derating them, no legislation susceptible of the same sort of minor modification that we are making here in respect of agriculture and agricultural buildings.
The noble Lord's Amendment introduces an entirely new and fundamental proposition, that fisheries and various buildings associated with fisheries should 112 now and henceforth be exempt from rates. I am not saying for a moment that that is not a proposition well worth debating, and the debate we have had, which has been mounted so ably by so many noble Lords, is an instance of how worth while it is debating it. But I submit to the Committee that it is not something which could be tacked on to a Bill which from the outset and in the Title is concerned with agricultural land and with agricultural buildings only.
§ LORD FERRIERI am gratified by the noble Lord's reply. It is clear that the Government accept the importance of the message which my Amendment was trying to impart. If I may criticise his speech at all, he used the word "fisheries" whereas I specifically in my speech talked about fish farming. I think there is a very real difference there which is worth bearing in mind, and it is that which links it with the Department of Agriculture. It is an industry distinct really from fisheries, about which we shall hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, later.
In view of what the noble Lord has said, I seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Amendment, in the hope that as time goes on we may reach some way of going forward with this. Indeed, it even crossed my mind to talk of a Private Member's Bill, but I do not think, as this concerns rating and money, it would be suitable to originate such a Bill in this House. I therefore beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2 [Livestock buildings]:
§ 8.18 p.m.
§
LORD NUNBURNHOLME moved Amendment No. 4.
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("the operations carried on") and insert ("keeping or breeding of livestock or dairying processes of milk processes of milk produced on the premises").
§ The noble Lord said: I did not move my first Amendment because Lord Sandford gave me a very full explanation why it was unnecessary, and I did not want to waste your Lordships' time. I 113 do not like either of my Amendments, but I wanted to introduce an Amendment to cover the point I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. I could not get any support from the R.D.C. Association, so I put down these two Amendments. What I really want to know is how the rural district councils are going to make up the loss of revenue from these factory farms. In my opinion, some of the factory farms are legitimate; they are run by farmers for farmers, and there are some which are run by big business. But this five acres of land qualifying a factory to become a farmer to me seems absolutely ridiculous. What I should like Lord Sandford to tell us is how the rural district councils throughout England are going to make up their rates. I said in my first speech that the loss of revenue on an average is about 1 per cent., but in certain cases it is far more than that: in the case of somewhere in Lincolnshire there was a loss of revenue of about £30,000. I know that the Government supply 57½ per cent. towards local rates now and that in 1972–73 it will be 58 per cent. The loss of rates to the council will be about £1 million. I should like an assurance that the councils that lose a high proportion of their rates should have their money made up by the Government. I should be interested to hear the noble Lord's answer. I beg to move.
§ LORD SANDFORDI thank the noble Lord for setting out his case for an assurance which would help to allay his mind. Most of the authorities affected by the Bill, will be rural districts with rate products per head of population lower than the national average. They will therefore qualify for rate support grant. The loss of rate income which these authorities will suffer as a result of this Bill will consequently be largely made up by an increase in the resources element of the rate support grant. There are a few authorities not receiving a resources element grant. The loss of rate income will have to be made good in these cases by additional levies on ratepayers in their areas. But the loss of income involved varies from area to area, and it is generally very small. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLMEBefore the noble Lord sits down, may I ask what about the case of Southwall R.D.C. in Nottinghamshire?
§ LORD SANDFORDI would not be able to answer about the effect of this Bill on any one rural district authority without notice. If the noble Lord would like to correspond with me about particular cases I will certainly have them looked into.
§ LORD BESWICKCan I ask what this has to do with the promises made at Election time? What was said in the Southwall rural area of Nottinghamshire as to the effect of this?
§ LORD SANDFORDAs the noble Lord knows, I cannot enter into discussion about the effect on individual authorities. But I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ LORD SANDFORDI beg to move Amendment No. 5.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
§ Buildings occupied in connection with bee-keeping
§ ". A building, other than a dwelling, is an agricultural building by virtue of this section if—
- (a) it is occupied by a person keeping bees and is used solely in connection with the keeping of those bees; and
- (b) the same condition is satisfied as has to be satisfied under subsection (4) of section 2 of this Act for a building to be an agricultural building by virtue of that section."—(Lord Sandford.)
§ Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEI beg to move Amendment No. 6.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
§ Buildings occupied in connection with bee-keeping
§ ". Notwithstanding anything in section 7(2) of the Act of 1956, a building (other than a dwelling-house)—
- (a) which is occupied by a person keeping bees and which is used solely in connection with the keeping of those bees, and
- (b) in respect of which the same condition is satisfied as has to be satisfied under subsection (5) of section 4 of this Act for a building used as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) of that section to be a building to which that section applies,
§ LORD BALERNOMay I briefly draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that apiculture is a part of agriculture. There are other forms of culture that are part of agriculture but this is really an historic moment when the bees should be remembered again. I think that the most historic event with the bees was during the last war, when the Prime Minister himself intervened to ensure that beekeepers were provided with sufficient sugar to see their bees through the winter. I think that we should take note of Parliament's continuing concern with bee-keeping at the present time.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEI should like to thank my noble friend Lord Balerno for his remarks. I have to declare an interest, being myself a beekeeper on a small scale. I think that beekeeping is of great interest and of use to agriculture, particularly in pollination. I have not explained the Amendment more fully because its purpose—to derate buildings used for the production of honey—was so well explained by my noble friend, and therefore I moved it formally.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.