AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

HL Deb 14 June 1976 vol 371 cc926-1040

3.6 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee On this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 [Application of following sections.of Part II]:

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 21, line 6, after second (" the ") insert (' sole (or sole surviving) ").

The noble Lord said: This is my first contribution to the Committee stage of this Bill and I should like to make a few introductory remarks before starting on the basis of the Amendment itself. Your Lordships will be aware that Part II of this Bill constitutes the principle and, so far as this side of the Committee is concerned, the most controversial part of the Bill. It deals with the provision for succession on the death of a tenant. It is, of course, an Amendment to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. In that Act a very definite attempt was made to strike a balance between landlord and tenant. We believe that the draftsmen and Parliament as a whole achieved a very satisfactory balance at that time, which the Government in our view are attempting to upset with a series of Amendments which follow Clause 17, et cetera.

Referring heck to the 1948 Act, your Lordships will he aware that the all-important Sections 23 to 33 are concerned with t he provision of notices to quit and have served the industry and the country for no less than 28 years, and there is a considerable weight of case law which is attributable to these sections. However, it is noteworthy that on Second Reading no specific cases were cited, and in order to illustrate the need for changes in the law which are now contemplated by the Government our attention wits drawn to a single television programme. It' the Government wish to draw our attention to specific cases we should indeed be happy to listen to them, but in total what the Government aim to do is to alter the law so far as Section 24(2)(g) is concerned. This section is especially important and sensitive because the whole of it is to be redrafted by means of alterations made in the Bill, and the Amendment is a suggestion made from this side of the Chamber for the improvement of that section. We could, indeed, have put down a wrecking Amendment, but we have not chosen to do so in this case. The basis of this Amendment is to propose that the continuity of drafting between Clause 16 and Clause 17 is maintained by inserting the words " sole (or surviving) ". This will add a benefit to Section 24(2)(g) and, we believe, will improve the clause in the following manner.

We believe, first, that it is a necessary Amendment in view of the change in Clause 16, because under Section 24(2)(g) as at present worded an incontestable notice to quit may be served by a landlord within three months of the date of death of a tenant. This is to be changed by Clause 16 to read " sole (or sole surviving) tenant ", and it excludes the list of persons in Clause 16(1)(b). I think it would be beneficial here to turn to the 1948 Act, and to see what " tenant means in that Act. For the purpose of the Record, I propose to read it out and it is as follows: tenant ' means the holder of land under a contract of tenancy, and includes the executors, administrators, assigns, committee of the estate, or trustee in bankruptcy of a tenant, or other person deriving title from a tenant ". We believe that this Amendment will be beneficial, because we consider that if those words are left out the position will be unsatisfactory. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said and I do not think there is anything between us here, but I am advised that the Amendment is not necessary. As the noble Lord said, the position of joint tenants is dealt with in paragraph (a) of subsection (5). As the noble Lord also said, the succession provisions do not apply if the deceased is survived by a joint tenant with him to the holding. In such a case, the interest of the deceased vests in the surviving joint tenant and it will be the latter's close relative who will be able to apply for the tenancy when he dies. Subsection (5)(a) adequately covers the situation and therefore, as I said, I am advised that the Amendment to subsection (1) is not necessary.

Lord SANDYS

I am perfectly prepared to accept what the noble Lord has said in this regard, having consulted his draftsmen. Nevertheless, I should like to leave the situation with the right to return to it, if need be, on Report after further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.13 p.m.

The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 21, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to this Amendment and Amendment No. 6A which hangs on it. This Part of the Bill has been presented as being vitally needed to prevent hardship and to bring the law of England on the succession of tenancies into line with Scotland. I am, of course, referring not to the general landlord/ tenant system, but to the law as altered piecemeal by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. In that, the only two classes of persons allowed to inherit tenancies as of right are children and spouses. What is the difference between Scots siblings and their English or Welsh counterparts—or does it mean that at a later date the 1968 Act will have to be amended? It cannot be right to tinker about like this with the system of land tenure. By all means, let us have a thorough-going review of the whole system, bring it up to date and offer a choice of tenancies, of lettings and so on, and consequently modernise it to the benefit of both the tenant and the landlord. If those two people benefit then British agriculture will benefit, and if British agriculture benefits then, consequently, the housewife will benefit because, after all, the whole point of agriculture is to produce food for people to eat at the cheapest possible price.

One further point arises out of this subsection. If there are large numbers of sisters and brothers, and possibly children and a widow, together with the Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all of subsection (1) (d), how will this Tribunal sort out the confusing claims? History, from Esau and Jacob onwards, and probably before that, shows the bitterness that arises in families over inheritance rights. Surely we should keep the number of people entitled to this new privilege to a minimum, not from any sense of meanness but for the sake of orderliness in agriculture which, in turn, as I have already said, will benefit the housewife. I beg to move.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

I, too, find anxiety as to the wisdom of these provisions. In industry one of the things which has caused our efficiency to deteriorate has, in a measure, been the family business where management is peremptory. One has found so many businesses in which the sequence is that the first generation makes the business, the second generation carries it on and the third generation destroys it. It seems to me somewhat unwise suddenly to introduce this system of hereditary management into agriculture at this stage.

I have a neighbour which is one of the large landlords in the country at the moment—King's College. I know that it has a firm rule that it will never allow a son to succeed in a tenancy. What it says —and I do not say that I agree with this rule; I suppose that I ought to declare an interest in that I, too, am a landlord—is that if you are going to develop farms and make them progressive you need a genuine change of management at least once in a generation. The son who stays on with his father may be plus for conformity but is probably minus for enterprise. You are not likely at that point to get a progressive change in the farm management, and this is even more unlikely if the son is put under capital pressure to provide for death duties.

Certainly this large, humane and sensible landlord, a university college, takes the view that it is entirely wrong. I would not go as far as that, but I would certainly say from my own experience that it is quite often wrong. In these purely hypothetical cases, one may have a landlord who is providing for his son or his family. At a certain point, a farm may be conveyed to a son after consultation with the tenant, and the son may be in the Army or something like that; will come out and go to Cirencester to study in order to take up the farm that is his. If that arrangement is suddenly upset it is a little unreasonable. In a way, it is also very hard on the tenant because he is put in a very unhappy position. In my experience, farmers are exceptionally honourable people. In circumstances of that kind, they would feel that if they tried to upset an arrangement to which they were a party they were doing something which they found dishonourable. At the same time, they would have the awkward feeling that if they did not try to do so, they would not be serving their families.

I believe that on the whole it is undesirable to put people in that kind of dilemma. Again, speaking purely hypothetically, sometimes a landlord may have allowed a tenant to continue to a very considerable age because he is satisfied with the farm worker or farm manager who does the tenant's job and it has been understood by him—and probably he has continued in his job and not looked elsewhere because the landlord is interested in his land—that that would be the succession. It may be that there is a son who has played a minor part in the farm, but not much more, because nobody else would conceivably employ him, and again it is a little hard if that kind of arrangement is upset.

There are various provisions in the Bill. There is the provision as between husband and wife, that the wife should have the succession to the management of the farm. Almost certainly that puts an end to progress so far as that farm is concerned, because a wife who takes over in the kind of circumstance in which she succeeds her husband simply means that the old system will be carried on. I just do not think that this is at all good for agriculture.

If I may turn to a slightly wider question than this, " landlordism has played a very important role in British agriculture. When Britain led the Industrial Revolution the landlord had a very real function. It was the day of the big estate. There was probably a group of 10, 20 or maybe 30 farms. There was the home farm which carried on the experimentation. It tried the new crops for the estate. It was the stud farm for the estate. That was where the hulls and the stallions were kept. The home farm was the wood yard for the estate. There you had your carpenters and your hedgers. Also it was the building yard for the estate. There you had your estate bricklayers and builders. This was the most efficient form of agriculture that I think the world has ever seen.

There was the landlord's agent. the bailiff. He was the efficiency man. Then there was the landlord himself who was the human link. He was interested not only in agriculture but in the shooting. the fishing and. maybe, the hunting over that land. He wanted to have a human relationship with his tenants. He had been brought up in it. He had visited their farms as a boy. He saw to it that the bailiff did not break that human relationship and a very happy balance was created. The squeeze has excluded landlords from ever being able to do their job and on those grounds I have always been a land nationaliser.

I should like to see—and for 30 years I have been advocating and writing articles with regard to this—the State buying large blocks of farms, putting in a manager of the home farm and putting in also a management board consisting of local people. including people from the National Farmers' Union and prominent men of the county whom everybody knows, to act as the kind of cushion which the landlord always was between the too-efficient bailiff and the way of life of the countryside. I believe that that is a manageable basis. but if the State is not going to take the responsibility it seems to me to he very ill-judged to go further and make it impossible for the existing landlord to do his job.

If the Bill goes on to the Statute Book in these terms, no farms will ever be let again. There will he the kind of situation which exists in Ireland. In Ireland, the rights of the landlord have been eliminated. Irish farming is astonishingly worse than British farming. When you have been motoring in Ireland and come back to this country. the contrast between the standard of farming you see in this country and over there is enormous. This is because the landlord has been totally eliminated from the Irish tenant farm. All his authority has gone. As we probably know—

Lord CARRINGTON

I wonder whether the noble Lord w ill forgive me. I enjoyed greatly the first half of his speech, although I do not so much like the second half. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, what he is saying does not seem to have much to do with the Amendment. If we are to get through a very long Committee stage, I think that your Lordships should stick to the Rules of the House and speak to the Amendments which are being discussed.

Lord PAGFT of NORTHAMPTON

I agree entirely with the noble Lord, but I feel that during Committee stages, of which I have had far more experience in another place than here, there is generally an initial Amendment upon which one goes rather wide and discusses the general issues. On this initial occasion I have sought to go a little wide and indicate something of what I feel, from my experience, of the function and nature of " landlordism " which at this point we are seeking to eliminate.

I am saying that if we do not carry this Amendment but introduce into farm management the rigid hereditary system, there will never again be another farm to let. It may he that your landlord is an Arab sheikh, or a college, or an absentee landlord who is quite unconnected with the land. None the less, his function will be performed by a land agent who is very well connected with and used to the land and whose living depends to a great extent upon his capacity to get on with the farming community. That is how absentee estates in this country are managed and it works very well, but on these terms no land agent can ever again conscientiously advise his principal to enter into a tenancy agreement. It means he is throwing away at least a third of the capital value which is then available; and he is throwing it away permanently, not merely postponing it. This just does not seem to me to be a sensible thing for a Government to do.

Lord MELCHETT

If I may intervene briefly. I do not intend to make my main speech now but I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. It may be it is general in another place to have a wide-ranging debate at the start of the afternoon but I would point out that we have two major new clauses suggested under Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 which will inevitably necessitate a wide-ranging debate over the relationship between landlord and tenant and the type of tenancies we want to see, and with great respect I would suggest that if we need to have a wide-ranging debate those are possibly the Amendments on which we should have it.

Lord LLOYD

If I may be as brief as the last noble Lord was lengthy, although being a landlord myself, I agree with much of what he said about landlord and tenant. In my opinion the most important thing he said was, " If this is passed there will never be another farm to let ". That is true.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

If I may be permitted to make a general, but relevant, comment, I regret that I was unable to be here for the first day of the Committee stage on this Bill, but I read with delight the preamble of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Agriculture is one industry where personal relationships count a great deal and those of us in the business know only too well how valuable these relationships are. It is imperative therefore that as little disturbance as possible is caused to the everyday arrangements, 99 per cent. of which at the moment are normally settled easily, fairly and sensibly between the parties thereto. My remarks are therefore put forward in the same spirit as those of the noble Earl, and from a professional viewpoint, giving due regard to the interests of both the tenant and the landlord and the interests of the agricultural industry.

I stated during the Second Reading debate that I felt the net for potential eligible successors was too wide and I therefore support this Amendment on the following grounds. The very extended list of relations that have the right to claim inheritance of the tenancy is in my view not in the interests of agriculture and I doubt very much whether it is in the interests of the existing tenants and their immediate family. The proposals at the moment would seem to go beyond the original intention of preventing hardship to tenants, to a point where the extensive list is almost certain to lead to family disputes with embarrassing and costly appearances before the Land Tribunal. A simple case in point is where a holding is farmed by brothers but the tenancy is in the name of only one of them as it was considered at the time that he was the more capable and the more responsible and therefore the one who should have the tenancy. He dies and leaves a son who has equal rights to the vacant tenancy as his uncle. The result is probably not a situation that would maintain or encourage family unity.

We must not take the precedent of Scottish family inheritance too strictly for, as your Lordships will know, the law systems and practices are different in that country, especially when it comes to the law of inheritance. This clause must be looked at on its own merits, and from my own experience it is my considered opinion that the interests of agriculture would best be served by adopt- ing the new limitations proposed by this Amendment. There is a further Amendment, No. 15, which relates to landlords and their close relatives. If we reduce this clause it will affect them as well and I feel it is only right that it should apply to both parties.

Lord FORBES

think it would help to speed up proceedings if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would state exactly what the Government are trying to achieve by Clause 17. I have a good idea what they are aiming at. I believe what they want to do is to split up agricultural holdings and the reason for that is quite apparent. We now have penal taxation, and with Clause 17 we are going to have tenancy of agricultural land at a very much lower value than existed before. This will mean that landlords will have to sell more land. How does this tie up with the fact that the Government are using taxpayers' money to give grants for farm amalgamations, trying to increase holdings? It really is a question of the Government's not knowing what one hand is doing and what the other is doing: the two are opposing each other. We really must sort this out. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say what the Government are trying to achieve by Clause 17.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I should like to declare an interest as a landowner, but I disagree with the noble Lord opposite who criticised the handing on of farms to sons. In my case, I can say that every single son who has asked for a tenancy on my farms has been given the farm, with the exception of one who was obviously incapable of running it properly. As has been said already, if these farms are let now they will be let for generations.

One matter which has not been raised is the question of improvements. In the future, whereas, as all other landlords have done, I have tried to make every improvement, think I shall be very circumspect about putting capital into farms which f know will then be lost for probably a hundred years. I shall be much more keen not to put capital into them. Perhaps this will be a way of encouraging the tenants to give up their tenancies. But what a rank bad way it is of running land, and how totally untypical of everything that good landlords are doing at the moment.

We then come to the question of who is going to select the tenant. The son or the brother, or whoever it may be, will go to the Tribunal to ask whether he may have his tenancy made up in his name. What reason is there to suppose that a civil servant—and let us face it, we have all been on Committees—

Lord MELCHETT

If the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, I think I should correct that point immediately. As I understand it, the Agricultural Land Tribunal does not have any civil servants; it has an independent qualified legal chairman, a representative of the landlords' interests and a representative of the NFU farming interests.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I thank the noble Lord for that correction. If it is then totally without any permanent staff it is an unusual type of Committee, and one such as I have not come across before. I think the noble Lord said there would be a legal chairman—a lawyer. What reason is there to suppose that a lawyer, 30 or 40 miles away in the nearest town centre where this hearing will take place. knows more about the character of the son, the land, and so on, than the landlord who knows all the people and the land and everything intimately? I believe there would be at least a clerk who would be advising the Tribunal. So there would be some form of permanent staff. What reason is there to suppose that they know more about it than the landlord?

It has been mentioned already—and this must be stressed—that there will be no further farms to let, which will be very discouraging to people who now perhaps have smallholdings and would like to have farms. We must remember that the object of smallholdings is that somebody may learn to farm so as then to move up to be a tenant of a bigger farm. They will have to stay on their smallholdings because they will never get into a tenanted farm. I wish to support the Amendment.

The Earl of ONSLOW

With the greatest respect to the noble Lords who have spoken, we are speaking now about brothers and sisters, and not sons. The whole point of the Bill, which we indicated on Second Reading we did not like, was to accept sons and children. We are not challenging that because that is the will of the elected House: what we are now asking for in this Amendment is for brothers and sisters.

Lord HOME of the HIRSEL

I did not intend to intervene on this Amendment, but before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and his colleagues proceed with this clause, I wonder whether they would take some consultation, for example with the National Farmers' Union in Scotland and other agricultural bodies there. I am certain that I am right in saying that our experience of our present practice in Scotland is leading to second thoughts. Even now, as a result of our practice, very able young farmers are being squeezed out and cannot become tenants of farms. This will make things infinitely worse as the noble Lord. Lord Paget of Northampton, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, haw said. It will make it more difficult for young farmers to get into the tenancy of good farms. I hope the noble Lord will look at the Scottish experience before finalising matters.

Lord MELCHETT

I am in a difficulty in responding to that request, and also to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. I do not want to get into trouble with either the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, or the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. Both made the point that this Amendment is concerned with the categories of close relatives entitled to apply for the tenancy under the Bill—to reduce the eligible categories by omitting brothers and sisters. I indicated that we are inevitably going to have a general debate on later Amendments, and I will reserve my general remarks and, in particular, my remarks about Scotland which I intend to make. I have indeed carried out the investigations that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, suggested it would be wise to carry out, and if I may I will leave them until we reach Amendment No. 28 when the general point comes up.

As I said, with this Amendment the noble Earl would amend the categories of close relatives to exclude a brother or sister. The noble Earl has explained why he thinks this Amendment is desirable. I accept that some people feel that the position of the brother or sister is more open to argument than that of the widow. widower or child who are, of course, the immediate close family of the tenant. As the noble Earl said, and as was said also by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Second Reading, to that extent, the extent to which the scheme entitles the succession by the son or some other close relative. noble Lords opposite were not intending to challenge the scheme, but seeking to limit it and, as they thought, to improve it.

But it is the case that many farms are run by two brothers or by a brother and a sister, especially when they are unmarried. I do not believe we can really say that, for example, even though a farm may have been built up by the toil and sweat of two brothers, the surviving brother should not have any right at all under the family succession scheme to apply for the vacant tenancy. The National Farmers' Union recognise the hardship which could arise in this situation, and support the inclusion of a brother or sister in the designated categories. The point has been made to me that it might be difficult, if the eligible categories are I drawn widely, to decide between the competing claims. I accept that in some cases, the Agricultural Land Tribunal will have a difficult decision to make, but I remind your Lordships that the close relatives have to go through several tests before they ever come before the Agricultural Land Tribunal. In particular, they will have had to work on the farm for some years. I should have thought that if several members of the family were all working on the farm and therefore all would satisfy that test, it was likely that they all got on quite well together and in all probabliity one rather than the rest would be put forward as being the most desirable successor. If that were not the case, then there would not have been a happy relationship up to then, and it might well be that the landlord would have a good case for repossession when the decision came to be made by the Agricultural Land Tribunal.

Lord HENLEY

Is it not a fact that the landlord cannot question the eligibility: he can only draw attention to the suitability as to character and so on? He cannot challenge the eligibility. Might there not be difficulties here?

Lord MELCHETT

No, I do not think so. I have already said that when it came to the decision by the Agricultural Land Tribunal; I was trying to make it clear that this was at the second stage, where the competing claims of the landlord and the eligible tenant are looked at by the Tribunal. At that stage, if the farm had been badly run by the family in the past, and the eligible tenant, who was indeed eligible, had been involved in the had running, I am saying that in all likelihood the landlord would have a good case for repossession, after eligibility had been decided and at the second stage of the proceedings.

I will not follow up what was said by my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton, if he will forgive me, for the reasons I have given in the general points. However, I would say to him that I find a little confusing the distinction between the hereditary element in management as between the tenant and the landowner of a farm. I always looked on the landowner as the manager of land in many respects and I fail to see the distinction between the hereditary element at one level and at another. As has been made clear already, the Bill will not he introducing the hereditary element into tenancies in this country in the sense that that already happens. As I understand it, most good landlords are perfectly willing, in most circumstances, to see the son or the close relatives of the tenant succeed to the tenancy where that person will make a good job of farming the land. From all sides we have laid considerable stress on the importance of some continuity in the involvement of those running the farm and managing the land.

I agree that the scheme should not be drawn too widely, but it is important not to draw it so tightly as to he unjust. In the circumstances I have described—of the two brothers running the farm and the surviving brother, if the Amendment were passed, not having any rights under the scheme—there could be real hardship: and it is just this sort of hardship that the scheme is designed to avoid. I regret to say it is for those reasons that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Lord FORBES

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, dealt adequately with the hardship situation. Will he please give some indication of what Clause 17 is going to do to improve food production?

Lord MELCHETT

I dealt with that in at least half of my speech on Second Reading. I think it may be tedious if I repeated all of it now.

Lord BURTON

I have two questions for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. He said that he consulted the National Fanners' Union, presumably meaning the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales. Has he had consultations with the National Farmers' IJ Mon of Scotland, where somewhat similar legislation has already been passed'? If so, can he say what has been the result, because, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, they are having second thoughts. Is the Agricultural Land Tribunal a privileged body?—because one of the complications in Scotland is you cannot object to a proposed son coming in because you may be liable to libel. If you say that he is idle, a drunk, or is unsatisfactory. you Would be in difficulty in proving this, and might well he into other troubles.

Lord MELCHETT

I can assume that that intervention was phrased in the form, " Before the noble Lord sits down " and deal with the two points now. On the latter point, my understanding is that the landlord would he able to object in front of the Tribunal in the normal way, and that he would be protected, as he would he in a court of law. But if that is not correct, I will let the noble Lord, Lord Burton, know before the end of the Committee stage. I do not think it is particularly relevant to this Amendment. It is a general point. As to the position in Scotland, I have looked into the situation there, since the law was changed, and I have some figures. As I said to the noble Lord earlier, I should like to deal with that on Amendment No. 28.

Earl FERRERS

One can understand the hardship given to the brother of a tenant who has died, to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. referred. I would not wish to discuss here whether this is worthy of recognition or not, but certainly there is hardship. Can the noble Lord tell me, if these words " brother and sister of the deceased " are included, whether the case would operate in the case of a farmer/tenant who was a bachelor or widower, and was looked after by his sister as a housekeeper. When he died, provided she had derived most of her livelihood from the farm for five years, and provided she had had the appropriate qualifications, would she not therefore be entitled also to inherit the tenancy—which may not be, as one so often thinks, a small 30-acre farm; it may be a 500-acre or 600-acre farm? That sister would be entitled to claim the tenancy even though she in fact merely had derived her livelihood from it by looking after her brother.

Lord MELCHETT

It may well be she would be eligible, in the circumstances described by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but one would need to know more detail about the precise nature of the work she was doing. However, I think it would be generally accepted that a husband and wife, living together on many farms, particularly where they were the only people working on the farm, or possibly had very few others working on the farm, would both be carrying a full share of the burdens involved in running that size of holding. But that is not the end of the matter, as the noble Earl knows. The Agricultural Land Tribunal, having been satisfied that the sister was an eligible close relative, then has to decide that in all the circumstances the sister is going to run the farm properly. At that stage, the landlord would be perfectly free to come along to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to point out that the sister had in fact been doing work which did not involve her in the running of the holding to any great extent, that she had no experience in running the farm, or in managing the people involved, and it was at that stage that this sort of decision would be made. I think, with respect, that the Agricultural Land Tribunals are on the whole experienced enough and sensible enough to make these decisions wisely.

The Earl of ONSLOW

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for trying to answer the many questions put to him. In my mind there are two doubts which remain. Has not the noble Lord read Cold Comfort Farm, in which they all squabble like mad? I think this bland assumption that all the brothers and sisters, and the wife, and all the cousins, and God knows who else!, are all going to agree that this is the one who has the right to the tenancy is taking a view of human nature which I certainly would not take. Before I withdraw the Amendment, I would hope that the noble Lord might comment a little more on Lord Gisborough's points on farm improvements, and the difficulty, in the event of the Cold Comfort Farm situation arising, of how the tenants are to be selected. After that I will be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord MELCHETT

I think I have said as much as I can on the Amendment. I have pointed out that the hoops that the eligible applicants have to go through, first eligibility and then suitability, are very considerable, and that an impartial body, with representatives of the National Farmers' Union on the farm side and from the CLA on the land-owning side, with an independent and experienced and qualified lawyer sitting in between the two, will decide on the suitability of the applicant. I think there is little more I can say, unless the noble Earl wishes to direct a particular question to me.

As to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, if I may say so with great respect they more appropriately arise when we are discussing the concept of a fixed term tenancy, which, as I understand it, will be designed particularly to get round the sort of problem which the noble Lord foresees. I regret to be saying the same thing again and again, but it would be more appropriate to discuss that on Amendment No. 28 or Amendment No. 30.

The Earl of ONSLOW

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel)

Before I call Amendment No. 6, I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6A.

3.54 p.m.

The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 21, line 12, leave out paragraph (d).

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, and perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 8, which goes with it. All the arguments which have been deployed on the previous Amendment, about the extent of the number of people who should be entitled to hereditary tenancies, apply to this Amendment. The possibilities of confusion are further enhanced when this subsection is taken together with Clause 20. As your Lordship will know, Clause 20 says that certain people who are not eligible can be treated as eligible; that is shorthand for it; we will come to discuss that clause later and I do not want to get sidetracked into that discussion now, although it is relevant to what I am now saying. It is within the bounds of possibility that an orphan child of a second cousin who has come down at holiday time to help with haymaking or harvest will have the right to apply for a statutory tenancy. Her Majesty's Government, in all their wisdom, cannot possibly have meant this sort of situation to arise. In the inheritance legislation—and by the inheritance legislation I mean the ordinary goods and chattels inheritance legislation —there is now provision to stop a man leaving all his money to a cats' home or to his mistress and leaving his dependants destitute. What other, if any, precedent for the deemed children exists? How is someone " treated " " as a child of the family in relation to that marriage "? Does that mean adopted children? Because, if its does, adopted children are covered by Clause 17(1)(c). Does it mean stepchildren? Then would it not he better to say so?

This subsection does seem to me very ill-defined, it seems open to abuse, and, above all, it seems open to the possibilities of litigation of the Tichborne claimant complexity. It was said on the previous Amendment that everything will go perfectly easily and there will not be litigation. I am not convinced of this. Who is to pay the cost of all the possible litigation that could arise out of this? Is the landlord, or the tenant, or the unsuccessful applicant, or will the legal aid system be introduced? How long is it likely to take with all these people—three months, three years?—and, if' so, is the land to be unused during these prolonged arguments? It is for these reasons, the reasons advanced on the previous Amendment, only much more strongly so, that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will see fit either to agree to our Amendment or to redraft it and tighten it up, so as to say exactly who it means and not leave it floating about in mid-air. I beg to move.

Earl FERRERS

I said at Second Reading that we, of course, do not like many provisions of this particular Bill, because they are highly controversial; we do take a different view from the noble Lord's view, and I should like to think that these are not personal views but because we believe that the effect of this Bill on agriculture will be a bad one. 1 also told him that the Amendments which we would put down would be constructive; that we do not seek' to alter the principle of the Bill. I do hope that the noble Lord will realise that these are constructive Amendments and will address himself to this thought when he comes to answer this Amendment.

I can well understand the argument that a son who worked on a farm and loses his farm when the father dies suffers hardship, and I can understand those who say that that hardship ought to he met. But, of course, this 'particular clause goes infinitely further than that. The Scottish law says widows and sons and daughters of the deceased and adopted sons and daughters. Under subsection (1)(b) we have now got brothers and sisters of the deceased. This paragraph (d) puts in: …any person…who, in the case of any marriage to which the deceased was at any time a party, was treated by the deceased as a child of the family…". In other words, incorporated into this collection of people who may apply for the tenancy are people who are no blood relative at all. I find this an extraordinary widening of the provisions, and I really wonder whether it can be justified. I think that the courts would have considerable difficulty in defining what is " treated … as a child ". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would have a go at that. And, indeed, why the words " in relation to that marriage " are inserted, because somebody who is a child in relation to a marriage must surely be a blood child. Yet, as I understand it, this subsection would allow people other than blood children to claim the tenancy.

Indeed, what determines the criteria by which parents treat their child? Parents treat their children in very odd ways. Some treat them by not talking to them for twenty years; some treat them even by cutting them out of their will. How are you going to depict what treated as a child of the marriage can be? It surely can only be that the person who has worked on a farm may be a nephew of the tenant, or she may have been a Land Army girl during the war, or he or she may be the son or daughter of a friend of the tenant who has worked with the tenant for some years. I find it very hard to believe that that person should also have a right to claim the tenancy.

This is a severe widening of the provisos, and I would hope that the noble Lord will be able to recognise this and, if so, try to find some way of curtailing it. It may be that what the noble Lord is trying to suggest is that it should be a stepchild (because I understand that adopted children are already covered); but if it is just stepchildren he is trying to cover I suggest that this clause ought to be drawn tighter.

Lord HENLEY

Would the noble Lord in reply say something about the possibility of abuse here? I said at Second Reading that I thought there was a loophole here for, perhaps, the sale by premium of the position to be a " treated child ". I do not know how the noble Lord sees a possible way of preventing such an abuse.

The Duke of ATHOLL

I too would like most strongly to support this Amendment. Already in Scotland it has become the practice not to let farms to bright and up-and-coming young farmers because they can always marry and have children, but rather to let them to what I might describe as barren 55-year-olds. It now seems to me that under this Bill we are going to have to let them not only to barren 55-year-olds but also to those who were only children, who have never had any marriage of any sort and never shown any interest in anyone less than 20 years younger than they are. It seems to me that this subsection goes much too far, and if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, feels that he cannot accept this Amendment I very much hope that it is pressed to a Division.

Lord MELCHETT

Before the noble Duke sits down, I wonder whether I could ask him, as I am constantly pressed from the other side of the Committee to provide figures, whether he could provide me with any figures to support the assertion that new tenancies are being let only to barren 55-year-olds?

The Duke of ATHOLL

Since 1968, when these provisions became operative, there have been, comparatively speaking, very few new tenancies contracted into. This is one of the problems; the figures are over such a small sample it is hardly worth while producing them. I know that the noble Lord will produce them, to show that in fact the acreage that has been let has not gone down; but what people are doing is either taking the land in hand themselves, which of course reduces the acreage, or else they are amalgamating it with other tenants, which I think we are all agreed is highly desirable because it makes their holdings bigger and more viable. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House thinks this is a good idea. This Government have encouraged it, and the previous Government encouraged it. Therefore the figures are not very reliable.

I believe that the number of farms of more than 250 acres which have been let since 1968 shows a very small reduction on the number let in the equivalent period before 1968. However, this of course is not a very reliable figure because we are now encouraged to amalgamate the farms, and therefore there are more farms creeping up to the over 250 acreage bracket; and you cannot say from this that landlords in Scotland are still letting farms to the best available tenants. I am convinced from my personal experience that one is far more interested not in the farming ability of the tenant but whether one is likely ever to be able to get the farm back into one's hands again in the future if one should so want it.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

I too should like to support this Amendment. I think that, on the whole, the object of legislation should be simple, straightforward, easily understood, and easily executed. This piece of legislation seems to me to be infinitely complicated. It seems to have been drawn up by people who are quite unaware of what happens in ordinary life. It is completely and absolutely the most complicated thing in the world. Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, you can put in here. Quite honestly, if one is interested both in farming and in who shall continue farming one's land, or whatever it may be, you want the best person you can get. You are going to be absolutely tied by every sort of complication here. I honestly think you are doing a great deal of harm to the agricul- tural industry, as such, and also to good tenants and young people whom you would like to help. You are making the situation infinitely complicated. This is quite inexplicable. I am completely opposed to this clause, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to explain what it all means, because it is impossible to understand for any ordinary person.

4.6 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

I certainly will do my best to explain why the term " treated child ", which the Amendment would delete, appears in the clause. This particular category of designated close relative follows a similar provision in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. A " treated child " can include a stepchild, a foster child, or a child taken in without formal adoption provided that the child was treated by the deceased for any length of time as a child of the family in relation to any marriage of the deceased. I hope that that explains at least why the phrase appears in the Bill. The child may well have been treated by the tenant as his own child in these circumstances, and I do not believe it would be right to exclude such children from eligibility, especially as, as I have said, their position is now recognised by the families inheritance Act which came into effect last year.

As I understand it, noble Lords opposite are fearful that the provision for such persons in the scheme would be open to abuse. This was the point made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The scheme contains adequate safeguards against such possibilities and against the sort of possibility the noble Lord, Lord Henley, described. The applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the Agricultural Land Tribunal that he or she is an eligible person, and his or her eligibility will be open to challenge by the landlord at the hearing of the application. If I may apologise to noble Lords in speaking to the previous Amendment 1 might have got it slightly wrong when I said that the landlord would be able to challenge the tenant's suitability at the second stage. I should also have made clear that the landlord will be in a position to challenge the tenant's eligibility when the Agricultural Land Tribunal is deciding that, as it were, in the preliminary stage of the proceedings.

Lord HENLEY

It is not at all clear from the Bill that that is so, and I am very glad that the noble Lord has said so in terms.

Lord MELCHETT

I checked up on it as well before I said so, and I am quite clear that that is correct. I apologise if I misled the Committee when speaking to the previous Amendment. I am confident that, given these safeguards, the Tribunal can be relied upon to recognise the imposter and that he, or she, will fail at the first hurdle at the decision on eligibility, before the Tribunal, with the landlord's evidence and presence there, goes on to consider the suitability of the applicant.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

I wonder whether the noble Lord could assist me in this: supposing a farmer has a housekeeper and a child is brought into the family and treated as though he were a son, does his eligibility under this Bill depend on whether or not the housekeeper has marriage lines? Otherwise, what marriage is there for him to be in relation to? The relationship to a marriage seems to me to be a little irrelevent in this kind of relationship.

Lord MELCHETT

As I understand it—and I confess that I am not entirely clear on the point about which the noble Lord asked me—the child would have to be treated as a child by the tenant when the tenant was actually married. In other words, the tenant, when married, treated the child, from wherever the child originated (if I may put it that inelegantly) as a child of that marriage. In those circumstances, the child would be " a treated child " as defined in the inheritance provisions of the Act of last year, and at that stage the child would be eligible to go towards the first step at the Agricultural Land Tribunal.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

I was making a point about a tenant who was not married. Quite often very respectable tenants have a housekeeper: it is a perfectly respectable relationship. It may be that a child, possibly of the housekeeper or a relation, or perhaps no relation, is brought up, starts to work on the farm and acts on the farm. It seems rather ludicrous that that child should be excluded because he had been playing a part in the farm run by a farmer who had a housekeeper rather than one which was run by a farmer who had a wife. The whole thing seems to be irrational.

Lord MELCHETT

I am sorry if I did not maze myself clear. I am quite certain that the tenant would have to he married and treat the child as a child of that marriage before the child would be eligible.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

With great respect to my noble friend, that demonstrates that this is a very bad clause.

Lord MELCHETT

It demonstrates, as I said, that the clause follows the previous enactment passed last year by, among others, your Lordships' House.

The Duke of ATHOLL

Could the noble Lord say how that phrase in that Act is working out in practice; has there been any experience of it?

Lord MELCHETT

I am afraid that I could not provide that information without notice.

Earl FERRERS

The noble Lord has explained the categories of people to whom this could refer and it seems that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, is very real. If in fact there is a strict category of people to whom this Bill should refer, then those people should be in the Bill. Anybody who is going to look at this w ill be a land agent or a tenant. Flow will he be able to look up the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 which deals with roles? I hope that the noble Lord will undertake to form a closer definition before the next stage of the Bill or that my noble friend will press the Amendment.

Lord MELCHETT

I would be happy to consider the point that the noble Earl has made. It seems valid, and I am all for making Acts of Parliament more easily understood. If it is felt, after I have taken advice on this subject, that it would be helpful to have a definition of the phrase " a treated child in the Bill rather than for people having to refer to the previous Act, then I would be happy to move an Amendment to that effect, but, of course, I would have to take legal advice on the matter first.

Earl FERRERS

I am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to that course because this is an important point. We will see what he comes up with on Report and in the meantime we reserve our position.

The Earl of ONSLOW

I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has shown his customary wisdom in listening to the advice that has, I hope, been constructively presented, but there remain certain points that I do not think he has answered. First, can he give some idea of how the costs of this operation will be met? Second, I asked in my opening remarks if there were any precedents other than the family inheritance Act, about which I knew. Third, although the noble Lord laid great stress on the eligibility provisions, he made no comment on how, if the Land Tribunal is to be able to say that, even though a man is not strictly legally eligible, he is eligible, that will not take away much of the force of the noble Lord's argument that the Tribunal will strictly enforce the eligibility clause.

Lord MELCHETT

I apologise to the noble Earl for not dealing with the question of costs which, as he said, he raised earlier. I understand that the costs of a hearing before the Agricultural Land Tribunal are normally paid by the Minister with the parties to the hearing paying their own expenses. In other words, the administrative costs of setting up the hearing would be paid by the Ministry of Agriculture and the parties would bear their own costs. The Tribunal can however order costs to be paid, whether as a lump sum or taxed, by any person whom they consider has acted vexatiously, friviously or oppressively in applying for or in connection with an application or reference to the Tribunal. In other words, the position is much the same as before a court, except of course that legal aid is not currently available before a Tribunal of this sort.

I regret to have to tell the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that having had a chance to look at the inheritance provision in the 1975 Act and especially at Section 1(1)(d), I see that we have in fact used exactly the same words in the Bill as appear in that Act, so I do not think there would he any scope, as I suggested earlier, for omitting the need for people to refer back to that Act because it appears that we have already used exactly the same words in the Bill as are used in the Act. I regret, therefore, having been given time by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to look at the matter, that I find that there is no scope for increasing the words used in the Bill.

Earl FERRERS

With great respect to the noble Lord. I expected that he would give more than two minutes' consideration to the:words used in the Bill, because what he has said does not meet the point at all. He has said that because this is in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act, everybody else, all land agents and all tenants trying to find out what their rights are, and all solicitors, will know that they must look up that Act. That is not adequate.

Lord MELCHETT

I did not say that, with respect. I said when speaking earlier that if we had used a phrase in the Bill which was explained in greater detail in the family inheritance provisions Act, then I would be happy to consider whether we could put the expanded definition into the Bill. I now find that the expanded definition in the Family Inheritance Provisions Act also appears in the Bill itself. I understand therefore that there is no need to refer to the Act.

Earl FERRERS

It appears in this Bill?

Lord MELCHETT

Yes.

The Earl of ONSLOW

Is the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, now saying that he is not, between now and the next stage, going to see whether the definition needs tightening up to refer to stepchildren, adopted children or foster children, in respect of all of whom, even though we disagree with the principle of the Bill, we would accept—at any rate, speaking for myself, I would accept—that it was not totally unreasonable? If, on the other hand, the noble Lord is saying that he is not going to do that, then I think that we should feel inclined to press the Amendment. The noble Lord has still not said whether there is any precedent other than the family inheritance provisions Act. When I moved the Amendment I referred to that Act. We knew about that. We now want to know what other precedents, if any, there are and the noble Lord has not answered that question.

Lord MELCHETT

Once again I apologise for omitting to answer the noble Earl. The answer is, as I think he knows, that there are no other precedents. The Act was passed last year and it is the most up-to-date expression of Parliament's will on the way in which these sort of children should be treated. What I said to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was that if a phrase was used in the Bill which necessitated anybody—the noble Earl gave the example of land agents and so on—having to go to the 1975 Act, that was a nonsense and I would see what I could do about it. But that is not the position. We have already forestalled that. In other words, we have already thought of the suggestion because the words in the 1975 Act and in the Bill are identical.

Earl FERRERS

May I ask the noble Lord to say where the definition appears in this Bill?

Lord MELCHETT

It appears on page 21 in Clause 17(1)(d) which uses, with the exception of the words " not within (b) or (c) above exactly the same words as may be found in Section 1(1)(d) of the 1975 Act.

Lord CARRINGTON

Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. My difficulty, and I am sure it is my fault, is that I do not really know what subsection (1)(d) means. I know that I should and probably the noble Lord will tell me that if I had followed the debates on the 1975 Act I would know exactly what it means, but I do not know from anything that the noble Lord has said or from anything that my noble friends have said exactly who is eligible under these words to apply for the tenancy. Can the noble Lord satisfy us about the narrowness of the category of those who are entitled to apply? In other words, what exactly do these words mean?

Lord MELCHETT

If the noble Lord would like me to, I am happy to repeat myself. A " treated " child can include a step-child, a foster child or a child taken in without formal adoption, provided that the child was treated by the deceased tenant for any length of time as a child of the family in relation to any marriage of the deceased. In other words, when the tenant was married, he treated the person as a child.

Lord CARRINGTON

But what does it mean?

Lord GISBOROUGH

Would " treating somebody as a child " include the case of somebody who was simply living with a family?

Lord MELCHETT

I am not a parent and I find myself in some difficulty compared with the experience and wisdom of many parents on the benches opposite. However, I should have thought that a parent would know when he had a child and when he had not.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

Will the Minister reconsider this with regard to the qualification of marriage? It seems to me quite outrageous that, for instance, in a case where there is a tenant who is living with his mother or his sister, or indeed his deceased wife's sister, and there is a child who is brought up in that farming family and works on the farm, running it with the father, one should say, " Oh no, he doesn't count because there isn't a marriage to relate him to. " Why the hell should there be a marriage to relate to? Why on earth should this clause not read: … any person who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family "? Why not cut out all the others? I cannot see the point of the relationship to some marriage lines which, in the case of a farmer who was living with his mother or his sister, would not apply. Why on earth should this provision disinherit the chap who has worked on the farm and been brought up on it, working as a member of the family?

Lord MELCHETT

I am delighted to be attacked in an opposite sense from that in which I have been attacked all the way through this stage of the I am always ready to consider widening the scope of eligibility at present laid down in the Bill and I shall certainly take up the point raised by my noble friend. If he would be prepared to move an Amendment at a later stage and if he can get the support of the Committee, I shall be happy to support his suggestion.

Lord HOME of the HIRSEL

That is one of the reasons why we are putting the other side of the case. I do not want to see the child of the housekeeper of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, added. There are far too many people already included under sub-paragraph (d). The result of including all these persons will be to clutter up intolerably the waiting list of good young farmers who are waiting to take over farms. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will divide on this, because I do not believe that by adding a new definition we shall make matters any better at all—indeed, they will probably be worse.

The Earl of ONSLOW

I wish the noble Lord would seriously think again and say that the clause will be limited to stepchildren, adopted children and foster children. Why is it that the landlord has to make up for the failures of the tenant to carry out adoption or fostering? With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, this really seems slightly dotty. If the noble Lord will not give us that undertaking, which I have a terrible suspicion he will not—and 1 see that he is shaking his head —I very much regret that I shall have to press the Amendment and ask the Committee for its opinion.

4.25 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents 109: Not-Contents 56.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Ferrers, E.	Newall, L.
Aldenham, L.	Forbes, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.	Onslow, E. [Teller.]
Amherst, E.	Gisborough, L.	Paget of Northampton, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Goschen, V.	Porritt, L.
Amulree, L.	Grenfell, L.	Rathcavan, L.
Atholl, D,	Gridley, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Balerno, L.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Redesdale, L.
Banks, L.	Halsbury, E.	Romney, E.
Belstead, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Ruthen of Freeland, Ly.
Berkeley, B.	Harvington, L.	Sackville, L.
Bourne, L.	Hatherton, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Boyd of Merton, V.	Hawke, L.	Salisbury, M.
Burton, L.	Henley, L.	Sandys, L.
Byers, L.	Home of the Hirsel, L.	Savile, L.
Cathness, E.	Hornsby-Smith, B.	Selkirk, E.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Hylton, L.	Sharples, B.
Carrington, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.	Somers, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Iddesleigh, F.	Spens, L.
Clwyd, L.	Jessel, L.	Stamp, L.
Coleraine, L.	Killearn, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Kimberley, E.	Strathclyde, L.
de Clifford, L.	Lauderdale, E.	Strathspey, L.
de Freyne, L.	Lloyd, L.	Sudeley, L.
De La Warr, E.	Long, V.	Swinton, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Loudoun, C.	Templemore, L.
Derwent, L.	Luke, L.	Tenby, V.
Drumalbyn, L.	Lyell, L.	Teviot, L.
Dundee, E.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Thomas, L.
Dundonald, E.	Margadale, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Ebbisham, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Vickers, B.
Effingham, E,	Merrivale, L.	Vivian, L.
Elles, B.	Middleton, L.	Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Monck, V.	Westbury, L.
Elton, L.	Monk Bretton, L.	Wigoder, L.
Emmet of Amberley, B.	Munster, E.	Young, B.
Erskine of Rerrick, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arwyn, L.	Goronwy-Roberts, L.	Phillips, B.
Aylestone, L.	Hale, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Birk, B.	Hanworth, V.	Platt, L.
Blyton, L.	Henderson, L.	Popplewell. L.
Bradwell, L.	Hoy, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Brockway, L.	Jacobson, L.	Samuel, V.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Jacques, L. [Teller.]	Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)
Burntwood, L.	Janner, L.	Shinwell, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Kirkhill, L.	Slater, L.
Champion, L.	Leatherland, L.	Stedman, B.
Collison, L.	Lee of Newton, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Stow Hill, L.
Crook, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Lovell-Davies, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L.	Maybray-King, L.	White, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L.(L. Chancellor.)	Melchett, L.	Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]
Evans of Hungershall, L.	Northfield, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Gaitskell, B.	Oram, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.
Geddes of Epsom, L.	Pannell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

4.35 p.m.

The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 6B:

Page 21, line 20, at end insert— For the purposes of this Part of this Act a tenant who surrenders his tenancy at or after the age of sixty-five years shall be deemed to have died on the date of the surrender.

The noble Earl said: It may be tactless to declare a retirement to be deemed death, but I believe this to be the tidiest wording for what I wish to do. As I have previously said in the Committee stage of the Bill, we do not like the principle, but once the principle is there it ought to he done as tidily as possible. We see little merit in the inheritance clauses. As was said on Second Reading there is not a little irony in the fact of the believers of no privilege and no inheritance creating privileges and a right, albeit limited, to certain people to inherit not their own property but someone else's. That right is now being created and the object of this Amendment is to try to prevent the following situation. A tenant at, say, 65 or 70 wishes to retire and his son, who fulfils all the criteria of eligibility and suitability, wants to continue to farm, and will be able to pass all the stringent tests which the noble Lord assured us of on consideration of previous Amendments, and will be able to be given a tenancy by the Tribunal. I raised this matter during Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that the retirement provisions already existed. But with the greatest respect to him they exist only with the consent of the landlord.

I concede that the landlord is probably being unintelligent if he does not allow retirement at 65 or 70 to be deemed as death. But being a cynic, I am also sure that unintelligence is no rare thing in this world. The tenant, under the circumstances of the landlord not wanting to consent to the son's continuation of the farm tenancy, will now he forced, if he wants his son to inherit, and if the son inherits, to go, on farming until the day he drops down dead. This cannot be a good thing. If he does this, it is to the detriment of all concerned. It means that there will he an old and tired man continuing to farm and the young man, who probably has son-le ideas —and I am, admittedly, doing what I accused the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, of on a previous Amendment: that is, painting the most satisfactory picture—will not be able to farm, nor be able to put his new ideas, new capital and new learning to the benefit of what we all want; namely, to keep farming at its most efficient.

If the answer is that we cannot do this because the man will have to go through the stringent tests, in the event of the tenant retiring, then it must be remembered that he has to go through these stringent tests on the tenant's death. All I am saying is that voluntary retirement at over 65 should be classed exactly the same as death. I beg to move.

Lord LEATHER LAND

I do not want to go into what we might call the technical ethics of this proposal, but I do want to complain about the cruel and brutal phraseology that the noble Earl has employed. Here am aged 78—

The Earl of ONSLOW

I can assure the noble Lord that he certainly does not look over 65. I should be very happy, if the Government see fit to accept the principle behind this Amendment, to let the Government draft it in a way which takes more account of old-age pensioners' susceptibilities. As I think I said in my opening remarks, I realised that this was a cruel way to phrase it, but f certainly did not intend to be rude or unkind in any way, or to get anybody cross. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, looks as young or as old as I am.

Lord LEATHERLAND

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for having given me 13 years of life by his gracious permission, but, nevertheless, we all know that when draftsmen sit down to draw up the phraseology of measures they sometimes take a paragraph from a previous measure and say, " A precedent has been established for the use of this phraseology and so we will incorporate it in a new Bill ". IT we go on like this we will have this phrase incorporated in an Old Age Pensions Bill; namely, that at the age of 65 people shall be assumed to be dead. I think the noble Earl should have more regard for the sentiments of people, and should have been able to devise a different form of words for this clause. It is very brutal indeed. It says: For the purposes of this Part of this Act a tenant who surrenders his tenancy at or after the age of sixty-five years shall be deemed to have died on the date of the surrender "; that is to say, he shall be deemed to have died on his 65th birthday. This is all rubbish. It is rot. ft is not the way to devise legislation. Surely another form of words could have been devised so as to say that on his 65th birthday he should cease to enjoy the privileges or the benefits of the Act, or something of that kind.

That is all I want to say, except that I find it very strange indeed that it should be left to us on this side of the Committee to uphold and defend the hereditary principle, where we say that the son of a father who has farmed a farm for 50 years and who put his heart and soul into that farm should have the right to continue to farm it. I am surprised that noble Lords opposite have cast aside the sanctity of the hereditary principle in this respect. Nevertheless, my main objection here is to the form of words, and I will let my noble friend on the Front Bench argue about the merits or the demerits—the demerits particularly —of this proposal.

Lord BURTON

While I fully appreciate the noble Lord's objection to the wording of the Amendment, I support my noble friend in the principle. A well-known landowner who managed his land very well once said to me, " A change in land managership every 20 years has a great deal to commend it This, I have noticed, is the case time and time again. I am afraid this legislation encourages the land manager, in this particular case the tenant, to carry on until he dies, thus failing to permit new blood to come in to renovate the management. I feel it is very important that new ideas are instituted as frequently as possible, and that old men who are stuck in their ways should not be allowed to continue farming for ever and a day.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

I would rise to support this Amendment. I work for a firm, and I shall be retired at 65. I think that farmers ought to retire at 65 by compulsion. They can still advise their sons, who have taken on the tenancy, and they can still be of great use: but I feel that a change of blood at that time would be beneficial to the farming industry. One has seen on numerous occasions the situation of a tenant who has got stuck in his ways slightly, farming the farm by using a system which is not adapted to present-day circumstances. Surely it would be better for the son to take on and bring in new ideas, bring in some more capital and bring in bigger machinery so as to give the holding the boost that it needs and improve British agriculture.

Lord MELCHETT

Perhaps I could first of all say to my noble friend Lord Leatherland that I do not think he should be surprised to find noble Lords on this side of the Committee sticking up for the rights of the near relatives of tenants. I think that we on this side of the Committee feel that we are always sticking up for what is right and just, as we are in this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for moving this Amendment. It introduces what I think noble Lords would agree is a very interesting concept. As I understand it, without going into the elegance or otherwise of the wording which the noble Earl has chosen to use in this Amendment, this new provision would provide, in effect, for a retirement at the age of 65 to count for the purposes of the scheme. As the noble Earl may know, a new clause providing retirement by the age of 65 was in fact considered in another place. One effect of that Amendment—that is, the Amendment discussed in another place—would have been that, if the landlord and the tenant's successor were agreed, the successor could apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to take over the tenancy even though the tenant himself might not wish to give up the tenancy. This element of compulsory eviction of the sitting tenant was not acceptable to the Government. and the Amendment was defeated. If I may say so, the noble Earl's Amendment has wisely avoided any compulsory eviction of the tenant, and in that respect is obviously an improvement over the Amendment discussed in another place.

As I understand it. the noble Earl's proposition in practical terms is that if a tenant gives notice to his landlord of his intention to quit the holding when he has reached the age at which he is entitled to the old-age pension. he shall be deemed to be dead, and the provisions of Part II of the Bill shall then apply. A tenant who is a woman presumably has to go five years beyond her official retiring age before she is eligible to give notice. I confess that when the noble Earl first told me about this Amendment and his feelings about it, I felt there was much to commend it. It seemed to me a simple and logical extension of what is already in the Bill, and it would deal with the problem of an aged tenant of which the noble Earl has spoken. Unfortunately, several strong objections to the proposal emerged upon a closer examination. We have already discussed the Amendment with the NFU and the CLA, and the views of both the NFU and the CLA coincide with those of my own advisers, so if 1 may say so there is a fairly united opposition within the agricultural industry to the noble Earl's proposition.

The first objection is a technical one. We are extremely doubtful whether this proposition can be implemented by a simple Amendment such as the one on the Marshalled List, reworded or not. On the contrary, I am advised that there are a number of changes which would have to he made to the Bill, which would have the effect of lengthening and complicating it still further. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, in view of her remarks on an earlier Amendment, would agree with me that that is something which, if possible, should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, noble Lords may agree that what is really quite a simple concept has already taken approximately 13 pages of legislation in an Act, and we should try, if possible, at this late stage of the passage of the Bill, to avoid lengthening it a great deal more. However, I do not place too much weight on that objection to the noble Earl's Amendment, which is, after all, only a technical one.

The second objection is a practical one. We very much doubt whether the new provisions would ever be used. There are two essential elements, as I understand it, which must be satisfied if the noble Earl's proposal is to operate. The first is that the tenant should be prepared to surrender his tenancy whether or not his close relative succeeds, because once the notice to quit is served by the tenant on the landlord it cannot be withdrawn without the landlord's consent. The second is that the landlord is not prepared to accept the tenant's close relative as the new tenant. If the landlord were agreeable, the retirement provisions which were recently inserted in this clause as subsection (6) would of course apply in any event, and the transfer could be arranged by agreement quite simply.

So the tenant has to serve notice on the landlord that the tenant intends to quit knowing that the landlord is not prepared to see his close relative succeed willingly, voluntarily. If a tenant farmer knew that the landlord was opposed to his close relative, say a son or a daughter, taking over the tenancy, and knew that the landlord would object to the Tribunal under the provisions of Clause 21, I would suggest that it is not very likely that the tenant would be prepared to make his own tenancy in effect a hostage to fortune, because this is what he would he doing. He would have to serve a notice to quit on his landlord. I also very much doubt that tenants will take that sort of risk and the NFU and the CLA, as I understand it, share those doubts. If the landlord refuses to accept the son or daughter, the tenant is almost certain to decide to stay on the farm and allow the normal provisions of the family succession scheme to apply. In the meantime—and this seems to be another objection in practice to the noble Earl's suggestion—the tenant would presumably (and I want to look on the bright side, as would the noble Earl and noble Lords on all sides) in most circumstances hand over the running of the holding to the close relative, as normally happens today, when the tenant becomes too old to farm the land. The close relative, by running the farm until the tenant's death, would, incidentally, he strengthening his claim to succeed the tenancy because of the eligibility and suitability tests that the successor will have to go through in front of the Agricultural Land Tribunal.

My second objection could be met by providing that if the close relative was unsuccessful the tenant should continue on the holding until he died and then the landlord will get it hack. This has been considered, as have a number of other variations on the same theme; but they are all more complicated than the proposition put forward by the noble Earl in his Amendment and they would entail further complicated Amendments to the Bill.

My advice to the Committee is therefore this. Our existing scheme provides for transfers at death and transfers on retirement when the tenant, close relative and landlord are all agreed that the close relative should succeed. I would suggest that we get this scheme on the Statute Book; see how it works and then consider it in the light of experience. We should know then whether anything needs to be changed to make the scheme more workable and whether the scheme is as fairly balanced between the landlord and tenant as the Government believe it is. We should know whether it needs to be extended in the way the noble Earl has proposed in this Amendment. But our first priority is to try the basic scheme and then to consider more sophisticated extensions in the light of that experience.

The Duke of ATHOLL

I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I agree entirely with what he said. It seems to me that there is one further disadvantage with this particular suggestion: and that is there could be cases where the tenant would like to retire and the landlord agrees he should but both the tenant and the landlord agree that the nearest close relative is not suitable for any number of reasons—he may be a little simple or something—but in any case he is not suitable to inherit the tenancy. In this case, although both tenant and the landlord agree about this, the close relative would still be able to claim the tenancy. Admittedly, the Land Tribunal probably will not give it to him: hut a great deal of time and money would be wasted in settling this point. I hope, therefore, that nothing on these particular lines will be pursued, for there would be a difficulty.

The Earl of ONSLOW

As I hope I said in moving this Amendment, I would not dream of asking your Lordships to divide on it for I am certain I should not get more than three people, at most, into the Lobby. It was just a discussion point. I think that the noble Duke had a valid point and I think that some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, were valid. I should like to say possibly that, if it was amended in this way, it would make more certain that Clause 17(6) would be used. The only thing that I am afraid of—and as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said—is this farming gerontocracy. Again, before I withdraw the Amendment I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, for offending his susceptibilities. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 21, line 21, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to speak to Amendment No. 19 when moving Amendment No. 7. These are purely drafting Amendments. Subsection (2) of Clause 17 is removed from its present position by Amendment No. 7. It is placed without alteration in Clause 19 by Amendment No. 19 where it will become subsection (14) of that clause. It was evident in dis- cussion in another place that, because it was in the wrong place, subsection (2) tended to confuse people. With hindsight we recognised that as a procedural matter it was more appropriate to Clause 19 which is the main procedural clause for the scheme. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

Amendment No. 7A. The Earl of Onslow.

Lord LEATHERLAND

He must have reached his 65th birthday.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

Amendment No. 7A is not moved.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 8.

Page 21, line 41, leave out (" (d).) and insert (" (c) ").

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 6 which has just been agreed to. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 22, line 28, after (" course ") insert (" in agriculture or any other subject Which would improve his qualification for farming.").

The noble Earl said: In discerning who should be eligible to claim a tenancy, one of the provisos is that in the seven years prior to the death of the tenant, five must be spent on the farm and that this would have been his principal source of income. But of these five years, three can be counted as such even if the prospective tenant was not on the farm but was doing a course in a university or college or other establishment of further education; so that in fact he only needs to spend two years actually on the farm.

I understand the object of this clause. Clearly. if the young man (if it is a young man) after having done two years work on the farm decides to go to a university or college to take a course in agriculture or something like that, it would improve his knowledge and should not debar him from claiming the tenancy on the death of his father. But I venture to suggest that this clause. as at present in the Bill, is too widely drawn; because if the boy were to leave and to have done a three-year course in Chinese at a university that would still enable him to be eligible. If a daughter had done two years on the farm and had gone off and done a domestic economy course and then spent the remaining two years cooking directors' lunches in London that would still qualify her for a claim to a tenancy. If a young man had got fed up with farming and decided to go and do a course on interior decoration and then had gone around London doing up people's flats he would still he eligible for claiming a tenancy. Even if the gentleman concerned had done a course in law or criminology, that period of time would still count as being eligible for a tenancy.

I believe this is an absurdity. I understand the Government's point because there was a little consideration of this in the other place. If one put in the words " a degree in agriculture " this might be too restrictive. The young man might have taken a degree in genetics or biology, all of which would have been useful in his farming operations. What I have tried to suggest in this Amendment is that the degree which he takes, which is going to count as part of his 5-year period, should be such as will qualify him the better to farm. It is a reasonable Amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

I support this Amendment very strongly indeed, partly because of the excellence of the courses which can be taken in both agricultural colleges and technical colleges of agriculture, which are such that they would be an enormous advantage to any young man or young woman who was going into farming. Also they are very accessible, and easy to get to. They are scattered all over the country. We have some excellent ones in Scotland and England. It would be a great pity not to utilise one of the real advances of learning the modern technology of agriculture. One has known farmers who never had the opportunity of going to any college of any kind, and how much they regret that fact in the modern world where there is so much technology connected with farming! It is not the only thing by any manner of means but it is very useful to have some technical knowledge. It is an enormous advantage to our people to train for agricultural qualifications.

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that it really is silly to think that someone who has a degree in a totally different subject would then be qualified. I have known people who have obtained degrees in one subject and then taken another degree in another subject or a two-year course. There is no reason why they should not do that. That there should be no mention in the Bill of the courses being allied to farming and agriculture is a great mistake. I hope very much that the Government will accept this Amendment.

Lord COLLISON

My Lords, there is another side to this coin. If this Amendment were agreed to, as I understand it, the young man would be prohibited from reading any other subject except agriculture. Surely, that is completely unfair and illiberal. It seems to me, in addition to what I have just said—which I think is a very strong point—that if he were to read history or literature, or what-you-will, Chinese maybe, to broaden his mind, to give him a greater understanding of life, thought and logic, it makes him a better farmer. A man who is a good farmer could be good at any other trade because the attributes required are very similar. You need a good mind, thought, application and ability. The other side of this particular coin is so obvious that to say to a young person, " You cannot develop your mind, you cannot read something of interest to you; apart from the professional interest you are restricted - is entirely wrong.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Collison, to think that I meant that they should not have another degree. Somebody can take a degree in history, but when he goes to farm he should have had some technical education in agriculture as a qualification for taking on a farm. There is no reason why he should not do both.

Lord COLLISON

An owner-occupier could go to university or technical college, or what-you-will, and read and take degrees or diplomas in whatever he likes. There is a distinction being made there between the two: the tenant farmer and the owner-occupier farmer.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

Surely it is a different distinction. He could go to university and read Chinese or any other subject. The question is whether reading Chinese should count as farming. I should have thought it should.

Lord BALERNO

It is important to support this Amendment. As I read it it would allow the young man to study economics, and politics. It is classed wide enough for that. I would object to somebody succeeding to a tenancy who at university had only read Sanskrit.

The Earl of ONSLOW

We do not appoint nuclear physicians who only have a degree in Latin.

Lord LEATHERLAND

There is so much common sense in the arguments from the other side, that a degree in agriculture should permit a man to take on a farm, whereas a degree in some other subject should not. But is that the whole of the question? The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, rather ridiculed the idea of a man going to university and reading Chinese. If he were to do that, he would probably come back and introduce into this country the vast industry of growing soya beans which would solve half our dietary difficulties at one stroke.

Earl FERRERS

What makes the noble Lord think that if you read Chinese you read anything about soya beans?

Lord LEATHERLAND

Because in his Chinese reading he would have, as part of his textbooks, books on the history of China, a book on the Marxist Revolution in China and another book on the agriculture of China. He would pounce on page 49 immediately, " The growing of soya beans ". He would read that and become enthusiastic about that. He would come back and plant the whole of East Anglia with soya beans and everybody would be happy ever after.

There are other subjects besides the theoretical ones of history which have been mentioned. There are university courses in business management and economics. Surely an improving knowledge of business methods is going to make farming far more efficient in this country than it is today. I happen to know a Lloyd's underwriter: he has never studied farming. He was educated at Eton and Oxford and has travelled throughout the Continent—the usual type of education with which some noble Lords opposite may be acquainted. He is the best farmer I have ever met; he lives within 10 miles of me. We ought to take a broad, liberal view here. If a man has studied for three or four years and therefore made himself a better man, a man more capable of thinking than he was before he embarked upon those studies, then he is not to be despised if he wants to take up farming.

Lord SLATER

It is said that experience is the greatest teacher. I know of a case in my own area where an owner-occupier sent his son to the agricultural college in Durham in order eventually to take over the responsibility of running the farm, which would automatically have fallen to the inheritance of this young man if he had been prepared to get down to his studies and take a proper interest in that form of agriculture. He completed his term at the college and came through with good results. Since then he has been in five or six different forms of occupation. He went straight to the farm from the college and worked at bailing and everything else concerned with the farm.

The father used to take the son as a young boy everywhere to instill in him the desire to take over the responsibility of the farm when the time came and ensure that he would be able to do so. But at this time the young man is a manager selling motor-cars on Teesside. His father is still working the farm as the owner-occupier. The farm has always been in the family and he wanted it to pass to his son. It is no use our thinking for one moment that by sending someone to an agricultural college to take a degree, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Collison, that individual is going to finish up eventually with one desire in life, which is to take control and live through a long period of experience of being attached to the agricultural industry, which is not an easy form of occupation. It is the same as mining or the sailors who sail on the high seas, who are battling with Mother Nature. This also applies to agriculture.

What would happen—I put this question direct to noble Lords on the other side— if every decision regarding the tenancy of these particular farms once they become vacant was left to the estate agent rather than to the landlord himself? I know that in my own county and in places not far away, it is not the agricultural worker who has had the opportunity of buying a farm which has become vacant but the solicitors who have been able to buy the farm rather than the agricultural worker who has spent his time on the land from being a boy and whose right it should have been to take over the farm that was becoming vacant. But no, he was defeated. He could have got the money from the bank, but he was outwitted and outbid in taking over the tenancy, and although he had the experience, it was a solicitor's son who got the farm. He had to put in a manager to run the farm while the agricultural worker continued to work on the same farm.

Lord FORBES

The argument is really going rather wide at the moment. The Amendment states quite clearly: in agriculture or any other subject which would improve his qualification for farming. Let us stick to what the Amendment states.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

I realise that the Agricultural Tribunals might have difficulty in determining other subjects, but I should certainly think that business management and economic courses would come within that sphere and be beneficial to the potential tenant. But if potential applicants are to have had the benefit of further education taken into consideration in assessing their eligibility for inheritance: it must be logical and entirely correct that the training should be directly associated with practical farming. It would be ludicrous, for example, if a student studying music were to be considered on equal terms with one who had spent three years at an agricultural college. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment.

Lord HENLEY

There is, it seems to me, an anomaly in both the Bill and the Amendment because a young man who has spent three years out of the seven not at a university but learning agriculture on a neighbouring farm would not be eligible for consideration.

Lord HAWKE

There is, I think, another anomaly in the original Bill. We have been arguing about this on the assumption that the man is a stock or arable farmer. But suppose he is a horticulturalist. Surely two or three years spent in Covent Garden, or wherever the main market is now, as a seller of horticultural crops would be a very fine qualification for a future horticultural farming career. But apparently he would be earning money while he was doing that and so would not be eligible under this clause.

Another point is that one of the most important jobs on an agricultural holding nowadays is that of being able to mend the machinery. Supposing a young man has studied engineering: presumably he will have been earning money and therefore again will be excluded for that reason.

Lord MELCHETT

I will begin by saying that I very much agreed with the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Leatherland and Lord Collison about the difficulties to which this Amendment might give rise, except that I do not know that I relish the idea suggested by my noble friend Lord Leatherland that the whole of East Anglia should be covered with soya beans. I am not sure that would do much for the soil structure or for the ecological diversity of East Anglia, which some of us value very much.

When the family succession scheme was first published, the application in subsection (4) related only to courses in agriculture at a university, college or similar establishment. Our first thoughts were to follow precedent, which in this case was to be found in the Smallholdings (Selection of Tenants) Regulations, paragraph 3(1) which states that: Provided that any period during which a person was attending a full-time course in agriculture at a university, college or other establishment of further education shall, up to a maximum of three years, be deemed to be a period during which he was occupied in full-time practical farm work. Those regulations were passed through Parliament in July 1970. On reflection, it seemed to the Government that this requirement was unnecessarily restrictive in an area where tightly drawn conditions were not necessary. Perhaps I might reiterate to your Lordships that before he or she can hope to obtain a direction from the Agricultural Land Tribunal, an applicant has to pass through two selection processes. The first is mainly factual. Its purpose is to check the credentials of an applicant and to satisfy the Agricultural Land Tribunal that an applicant is indeed a close relative as defined in the Bill and that he or she has established a close link with the holding and does not occupy a commercial farm elsewhere. Unless the landlord wishes to challenge any of the credentials of an applicant, this first selection process will be simple, straightforward and quick.

The applicant will then move on to the much more rigorous process where the Tribunal will have to satisfy themselves that he or she is in all respects suitable to become a tenant of the holding. This, of course, is an extremely important matter not only for the applicant but for the landlord; and the Tribunal will be expected to carry out their duty with great attention and care. I am sure the Land Tribunals will do that. This duty may well entail a final selection process as well; namely, choosing between more than one suitable applicant. So if the main selection process is carried out with attention and care, I see no harm in practical terms in relaxing the educational requirement away from our original and tightly-drawn requirement. I do not want to get into a detailed argument as to the merits or demerits of the various degree courses, and particularly in regard to the merits or demerits of courses in law and criminology. But as the noble Lord has referred to my academic qualifications, I must say that as I am also a farmer I have strong views on this matter.

Lord HENLEY

But the noble Lord is not a whole-time farmer.

Lord MELCHETT

The noble Lord is quite right. I accept that from the practical point of view a course in agriculture will obviously fit the potential successor for a farming career. On the other hand, I should have expected everyone to accept that higher education in any subject is likely to change people's minds in a way that should enable them to apply themselves better to the generality of problems, including those that tenant farmers have to face.

I should like to correct something that the noble Earl said. I think he suggested that somebody who has spent one year in college, two years cooking lunches and two years on the farm would be eligible as a suitable applicant for the tenancy. It would have to be one year in college, then it could well be two years cooking lunches and then four years on the farm. There would have to be a total of five years altogether, taking the time spent in full-time education with the time spent on the holding. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, I think, that although the Tribunal would have quite a difficult job if this Amendment were passed, they would be quite capable of carrying it out. I am not sure I agree with that. All along in debates on this Bill I have said that the Agricultural Land Tribunal is a sensible and well-qualified body to give opinions on farming matters. But if the noble Earl's Amendment were passed, the Agricultural Land Tribunal would have to decide whether one course or another at a university or a technical college would improve an individual's ability to farm. To my mind, this is an extremely difficult and philosophical question.

There is a point of view, which I must say I wholeheartedly share, that any course of full-time university education is likely to make the person who undergoes that course better at whatever job or career he subsequently follows in later life; and my understanding is that that view is shared by most. if not all. Vice-Chancellors and other people at universities. Indeed, my understanding is that that is what a university education is all about. I do not see, as some of my noble friends have said, that we should make a distinction between farming as a career, tenant farming or owner-occupier farming, and other careers in, for example. business. Businesses are often very keen to get applicants for posts who have undertaken university courses which may have nothing to do with the process in which they are involved. University graduates are in demand by businesses of that kind. because people feel that a university degree will better equip them for whatever task they have to undertake in later life.

If the Tribunal were to take that view. as I believe they should. then, of course. the Amendment would have no effect. What is much more likely is that we should be placing on the Agricultural Land Tribunal an impossible task in trying to decide between the view that any full-time course at a university suits people better for whatever job they do in later life, and the very narrow view that only something in agriculture or directly related to agriculture, such as genetics, would improve somebody's ability to farm. It is my view, primarily on those grounds, that the noble Earl's Amendment would be better not made to the Bill.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I clarify my point I said that it would be difficult for the Agricultural Land Tribunal, but I did not at any time state that they would be incapable of making the decision.

Lord MELCHETT

No, but I did. I said that the Agricultural Land Tribunal are an excellent body to give an opinion on questions which relate to farming. They are, after all, concerned with law and are comprised of a lawyer, a land owner and a farmer. But I am not sure that they are the right body to make what is largely a philosophical judgment on the relative merits of different courses of higher education. That is my objection to the Amendment.

The Earl of ONSLOW

First, could it not be true that the Agricultural Land Tribunal would build up, through the process of case law, for want of a better term, a general guideline as to what would be a suitable course? Several have been mentioned by noble Lords on both sides which would obviously be suitable and, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, these Land Tribunals are made up of intelligent and good public servants. Secondly, the noble Lord has not answered the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Hawke, both of which struck me as being very relevant to this issue.

Lord MELCHETT

I apologise for not answering those points, which I think related to the potential applicant getting experience of farming off the farm, but not in a full-time educational course. Once again, I am happy to consider broadening this scheme to take in a wider selection of applicants, although I confess I am surprised to find these suggestions coming from noble Lords opposite. The point of having the eligibility tests drawn up as they are is to ensure that the applicant has a close relationship with the holding in question, and that is why it is necessary for the applicant to have worked on the holding itself for a period of time.

There are, of course, circumstances—and we will discuss these on a later clause—in which the Tribunal need not follow the strict letter of the rules so far as the applicant's eligibility is concerned, if they think it wise not to do so, and it may be that the kind of instances which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and others have put to me would be covered by those. But if the noble Lord would care to put down an Amendment at the next stage, suggesting that experience of agriculture off a holding should also qualify, 1 should be happy to consider extending the scheme in that way, having taken due advice on the matter.

Lord HENLEY

Far be it from me to want to widen what is already too wide. I was merely drawing the attention of the noble Lord to an anomaly. I do not think anybody here would deny that a university education fits one for a very wide variety of other businesses. But when a man has a university education and goes into business, law, medicine or anything else like that, after having read something different, he still has to learn his job and here we get a state of affairs which seems to me ridiculous. Leaving out the four years on a farm, which I agree is a must, you then have the three years which can either be taken in a university or a college of further education reading anything you like, which scores you eligibility, or you can learn farming with a neighbour for those three years which does not score you eligibility. It is all patently absurd.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

It seems to me that there is some confusion of mind here as to qualification and suitability. A man may be a very suitable person, who has the best training but has never seen a farm before. Suitability is one matter, but this Bill provides that there shall be not only suitability but qualification. Under this Bill, qualification consists of two things: first, relationship to the late tenant; and, secondly, relationship to the farm which is so many years' experience on the farm, as to which limited period may be substituted a course at a university. I should have thought, when you were at the qualification stage, that what counted most was a course in agriculture, not in Chinese. As my noble friend pointed out, a course in Chinese, in business management, in engineering or in all kinds of things might make someone most suitable. But does it make him qualified under this Bill when one is insisting on a connection with the family and with the farm? I cannot see how studying Chinese at a university connects one with a farm.

Earl FERRERS

This discussion shows the kind of muddle that one gets into when trying to alter Acts of Parliament in a very small degree, such as this Bill does. I do not think there is anything particularly partisan about this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, quite rightly, that when it was first introduced the words were too tightly drawn. I accept that, and that is a matter of opinion, but I respectfully suggest that they are now too loosely drawn. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, said that this is not fair, because a man is being forced to read agriculture. With respect, he is not being forced to read agriculture at all. All that is being said is: if a person has been disconnected with a farm for a number of years, have those years been sufficiently well used to qualify him not to farm but to stake a claim to a statutory right to use something that is not his? Of course, if someone has a degree in Chinese, in Sanskrit, or in engineering he may be a greatly improved person and more qualified to be a farmer, but does that really give him a right to claim a certain place, over and above the other laws which cover the subject? I do not think it does.

I referred to the person who did a course of domestic economy and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that it is a one-year course. In fact, it can be three years. One can take a degree in hotel catering. The kind of person I am considering is not a small farmer. One can have a tenant farmer on 500 acres. He may have a daughter who says, " I think I want to go and help my father on the farm and milk the cows. " After two years she gets fed up and goes to take a degree in hotel catering or domestic economy. Then she goes off to London and, as an example, cooks directors' lunches. Father then dies and she comes back to claim the right not just to the farm but to this very valuable thing, the tenancy.

Lord MELCHETT

I apologise to the noble Earl for interrupting and I am grateful to him for giving way. Is the noble Earl seriously suggesting to your Lordships' Committee that the Agricultural Land Tribunal, which admittedly may have found that this tenant's daughter has passed the eligibility test, will then find her a suitable person in all the circumstances to farm the holding?

Earl FERRERS

No; I am suggesting that the Agricultural Land Tribunal should not be given the option to consider it because she should not be eligible in the first place. I do not think it is right to put undue emphasis on the Agricultural Land Tribunal because they will have enough problems to cope with to discover whether or not in the end that person is suitable. This is a point which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will look at again. This Amendment is not a way of disqualifying people but it would be a way of disqualifying those who should have disqualified themselves because they have gone away from the farm. They need to have worked only for two years on the farm. I do not believe that is sufficient justification then to be allowed to come back to claim that one has a statutory right to take on something from which one has almost cut oneself off.

Lord COLLISON

I am sure the noble Earl will not mind my correcting him but, for the sake of the record, I did not say that it would be forcing a man to take a course in agriculture. He does not have to do so, anyway, to qualify for possession. I said that it is prohibiting him from taking any other subject, and that is what is wrong about it. It is a restriction of his liberty.

Lord MELCHETT

I agree with the noble Earl that this is not a partisan point. The difference between us is not one of politics. I hope it is a philosophical difference as to the importance we attach to a university degree. Certainly there is nothing partisan about it. Secondly, I hope that there is not a difference in our view of the practicalities of the situation, were this Amendment to be passed. First, I should like to make a general point in response to something which was said by my noble friend, Lord Paget. We are getting into a muddle between eligibility and suitability, but with great respect to my noble friend the situation was not helped by his using words in the opposite context to which they are actually used in the process that the tenant successor will go through, as decided in the Bill.

As I pointed out, first of all the Agricultural Land Tribunal will decide upon eligibility. It is at that stage that the question arises as to whether they have been doing one course or another for three years. The Agricultural Land Tribunal, having decided upon eligibility, then goes on to consider the suitability of the applicant, with the benefit of the landlord's views at the Agricultural Land Tribunal hearing. So the degree, whether it is in agriculture or some other subject, has no bearing on suitability—or at least it need not. If the Agricultural Land Tribunal do not wish to consider what course was taken they need not do so. They look at the person as a potential tenant farmer and decide whether or not he is suitable to farm the holding. The educational course comes in at an earlier stage when one is considering the mechanics of the scheme: whether or not this person is eligible.

Why bother to have an educational let-out for three years? It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Collison has hit the nail right on the head. He is saying that if the Amendment were passed there would be a clear discrimination between the son of a tenant farmer and the son of an owner occupier. In these circumstances, let us say that in both cases the farmer currently farming the land is about 50 years old and that his sons at the age of 22 or 23, having worked on the farm for, let us say, two or three years, both decide that they would like to take a full-time course at a university. Both qualify and are able to go to university and both decide initially to read agriculture. When they go to university they discover, as many students do, that agriculture does not suit them or that they wish to read something else—sociology, social science, or any subject you like. The son of the owner occupier will be free to change courses without any fear as to whether or not he will be able to go back to his farming career, as he has always planned. However, the son of the tenant farmer will have to bear this in mind. If his father dies while he is at university or just after he leaves university, having done three years there and two years on the farm, he will not be an eligible successor to the tenancy because of the type of course he has done at university. It seems to me that that problem is an overwhelming one which should be considered before any changes are made to the Bill, as the noble Earl has suggested.

The second point I should like to make on the Amendment—and it is one which no one has remotely satisfactorily answered—is how the Agricultural Land Tribunal are to make this choice, because there are people who firmly believe, as I confess I do myself, that any degree taken at a university fits the person who takes it for whatever he happens to do in his future life. If the Agricultural Land Tribunals take that view, the Amendment will not need to be passed because it will have no effect and I have had nothing said to me this evening which convinces me that an Agricultural Land Tribunal would not necessarily take that view, shared, as I believe it is, by everybody who is involved in university education.

Earl FERRERS

The whole nub of the noble Lord's argument was that if this Amendment were to go forward the tenant's son would be at a disadvantage compared with the landlord's son because he would not be able to claim the tenancy, and that therefore this was inequitable. However, if this does not happen, the landlord's son is in any event at a disadvantage because he has no right to the tenancy. It is the tenant who can claim the statutory right. I do not believe that the noble Lord can use the argument of equity between the tenant's and the landlord's son.

Lord MELCHETT

The owner occupier's son.

Earl FERRERS

Well, the owner occupier's son. I think that the noble Lord is very persuasive but I think he is wrong and that this clause, as it is drafted, will unnecessarily widen the scope and put a great deal of unnecessary strains upon the Agricultural Land Tribunal. If we are to legislate in this complicated and narrow field, I think that it ought to be legislated for properly. I am not going to press this Amendment this evening but I hope that the noble Lord will think about it between now and Report stage. I will also think about what he has said, and perhaps we can come back with a similar, or even possibly the same, Amendment. However, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give some consideration to the Amendment because I do not think that at the moment the position is just. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 23, line 36, after (" if ") insert (" either (a)").

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, with the Committee's permission I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. The object of these Amendments is to limit successions under this part of the Bill to one generation only. By Clause 17(5)(f) the successions are limited to two successions. These Amendments would amend Clause 17(5)(f) so that the successions remain limited to two except where on the last occasion a child—or, if we are going to have one, a treated child of the deceased tenant—obtained the holding.

It is accepted that the original object of Part II was to prevent hardship on the death of a tenant to a son or close relative who had worked on the holding. The question of how many successions there should be was debated at length in another place where opinions ranged from those who advocated succession in perpetuity to those who thought that one succession was enough. The compromise we reached was Clause 17(5)(f). It was claimed by the Minister himself who spoke in the Standing Committee that this would follow the precedent of two successions provided for by the Rent Acts. So far as the Rent Acts are concerned, I believe it is true to say that the two successions provided for therein often do not extend beyond one generation, the reason being that the first successor has by the Rent Act 1968 to be a surviving widow, if there is one. The next successor under the Rent Acts would usually be the only one from the next generation to that of the deceased. If, on the first occasion, a son succeeded then his widow would succeed him. In other words, under the Rent Acts the succession to a statutory tenancy of a house must go sideways before it goes downwards; and if it goes downwards the first time then it still has to go sideways.

With regard to farms, the first successor who will be deemed to be most suitable for a farm is far more likely to be the son, as the Minister agreed in another place when he said, … the normal run of family successions is father, son, grandson, and transfer from father to brother and sister must be in a minority of cases ".

So instead of sideways and possibly downwards and then sideways, it is downwards and downwards. To allow the son to pass on the farm in his turn to a grandson of the deceased can extend the tenancy over three generations. This could cover a period of at least 75 and and possibly 100 years.

In company with other noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading of the Bill, I referred to the danger that landlords would be unwilling to grant tenancies in future if through legislation the balance was weighted too heavily in favour of the tenant. I do not propose in Committee to repeat the economic arguments against a collapse of the landlord/tenant system following the drying up of new tenancies, but it could hardly be better put than it was by the document which the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs recently produced, called A Farming Future for Young Farmers. Referring to tenancies, the Young Farmers said: Legislation is currently before Parliament which would remove from the landowner the definite right to terminate the tenancy on the death of the tenant. The possibility that a Land Tribunal would give right of a new tenancy to a family member would, we believe, effectively dry up the vast majority of new tenancies. We feel that were we in the position of a landowner we would not be prepared to take the risk of not being able to repossess our property.

They go on to say: We think that the result of legal intervention will be no farms for anyone.

I take it from that extract that the young farmers do not want Part II of the Bill at all. All this Amendment does is to recognise possible hardship to a son or near relative but, by limiting the succession to within the span of one generation, it seems to give some encouragement to landlords to continue to let their farms. I beg to move.

Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD

I should like to support this Amendment because in fact the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has repeated substantially what I said on Second Reading. It is surely quite long enough to have one generation after the present tenant has died, because without a doubt the capital for improvements will dry up. No landlord is going to pour capital into the land if he knows that his land is going to be tied up for perhaps as long as 100 years.

We have had experience of this in Scotland since 1968, as we have heard from the noble Duke, the Duke of Athol!, and it has not been entirely satisfactory in many cases. In my opinion there is no doubt that the chief reason why the Government want to make it three generations is that they want to confiscate all tenanted land without any compensation. That is what the Government are really after. If you lose your land for nearly 100 years, it will probably drop in value by about two-thirds. With the present taxation and if one has to find a lot of capital transfer tax or some wealth tax or whatever tax is introduced in the future, it will destroy all land owning, certainly as regards tenanted land. Once the Government have done this it will be an absolute tragedy for tenant farmers.

Lord MELCHETT

Is it the noble Viscount's view that all the land in Scotland has already been confiscated without compensation, because of course a scheme such as this already applies in Scotland?

Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD

The scheme in Scotland started in 1968, but we had similar legislation for a period some years ago, which was not satisfactory. Of course to all intents and purposes one can call it confiscation in favour of the tenant because the landlord has no power over his land. You can go to the Rent Tribunal every five years in Scotland, although they do not call it a rent tribunal. You really have no power at all over your land, although you are expected to put capital into it. The whole thing is so grossly unfair that I would use the word " monstrous ". There would be something to be said for it if in the end it was going to help tenants, but I do not think it will. It will dry up the money for tenants, as we said on Second Reading; it will make farming a closed shop and a young man coming out of agricultural college will not get a farm.

I warmly support this Amendment because I think one generation is enough after the existing tenant has died.

Lord MELCHETT

This Amendment introduces the concept of a maximum of two successions where the first succession has been to someone of the same generation as the deceased and only one succession where the succession has been to a younger generation. The intention behind the Amendment is presumably to reduce the time-span which the scheme covers. The two succession concept has aroused considerable controversy. There are those who feel strongly that there should be no limit to the number of times a tenancy can pass to an eligible and suitable close relative, that in effect the scheme should be in perpetuity as is the case in Scotland, that the hardship will be just as keen whatever the cut-off point. It has been running successfully in Scotland without any noticeable drying-up of fresh lettings, the argument runs, so why should it not run successfully here? The argument at the other extreme is that if the landlord is to have any chance at all of regaining possession of his land within his own lifetime the scheme should apply for one succession only, otherwise the hardship to the landlord and his family will far outweigh the hardship to the tenant and his family.

I accept that there is considerable weight in both the arguments I have put. But my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture felt that to go from no inheritance scheme at all to inheritance in perpetuity would be too extreme a course and would be likely to cause serious damage to the landlord-tenant system and do considerable harm to the farming industry. On the other hand, he felt also that to limit the scheme to one single occasion would be an unnecessary restriction and would deprive it of much of its effectiveness. Moreover, in the worst case the scheme's effect could be measured in terms of months, and not years.

An up-to-date precedent was to be found in the Rent Acts. These allow a tenancy to pass twice—to widow and son or to son and grandson. My right honourable friend considered that there was sufficient similarity between the hardships covered by the two schemes to justify adopting a similar course. He therefore decided that the scheme should extend for a maximum of two successions to an existing letting. We have subsequently resisted attempts by my honourable friends in another place to increase the number of successions, or to have a minimum period of years. We also resisted the attempts of' colleagues of noble Lords opposite in another place to reduce the number of successions to one only. As I understand it, an Amendment exactly similar to this was discussed, but not passed, in another place.

This Amendment would allow two successions in one set of circumstances, from tenant to widow followed by son, and only one succession in the other set of circumstances, that is, from tenant to son only. But the time span achieved in practice would be the same in either case, so the tenancy would be handed down through only one generation, whereas the Government's scheme based on the normal run of family succession is intended to hand down the tenancy through two generations, that is, from the death of the father to the death of the grandchild.

I accept that if you are going to limit a scheme like this from not being in perpetuity, it is very difficult, even given precedents in Rent Acts, or whatever, to find a logical cut-off point. I would say that however drastic a change, probably the only logical change is to go to a scheme which runs in perpetuity. In the Government's view, that was not a practical step to take at the moment, however logical it may appear in principle. That is why we have limited the scheme to two generations. I am not claiming that there is any magic behind the choice of that figure as opposed to any other, but I would say to noble Lords opposite that should they feel that the scheme should be limited more than it is now, there are a great many who feel. with, I suggest, logic on their side, that it should be extended to further generations than it is at the moment. It seems to me we have struck a reasonable balance which, after all, is what the legislative programme of this Government is all about. I would hope that we can leave the Bill as it is.

Lord BURTON

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate, but I was disappointed to note that my noble friends Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lord Balerno gave an impression that the succession proposals had worked well in Scotland. No doubt these proposals have worked satisfactorily so far in their areas, but the results of hereditary succession take many years to show, and in other parts of Scotland have already proved unsatisfactory. Two of my tenants are particular examples of how unsatisfactory these have become. I mentioned them on Part I; one tenant was an alcoholic and one had a stroke, and both are hanging on to permit successors, so their tenancies pass to their heirs. The idea of succession of tenancy to at least the son originally arose in my NFU area where there was friction between a certain landlord and a certain tenant, and the son was not allowed to succeed. This very same branch of the NFU realises the pendulum has swung too far; and as I mentioned on Part I, the farming community now realises that few farms are becoming available to let and farmers are hanging on to their tenancies far too long.

Lord MONK BRETTON

I should like to make a comment about this. The Bill was ostensibly to prevent hardship to the sons of tenants. I think the reason why this hardship arose was because back in 1948 it was decided to introduce whole life tenancy instead of working life tenancy. If we had introduced working-life tenancy at that time everybody would have known where they were; the tenant would have retired at the age of 65, and a new letting would have taken place. We made that error, and I think now our difficulty is that we are going to compound that error in getting ourselves into this great difficulty of trying to produce a new type of hereditary system for tenancies.

As the Bill stands at the moment, these tenancies having continued again, are we not going to get in any case apart from a few families dying out, very nearly the same number of cases of hardship right at the end? I should have thought myself that one generation of extension was enough, and that the satisfactory way out of the hardship was to couple that with the stipulation that that extension of one generation should end at the end of the working life of the tenant who had received the extension. I think, then, the hardship problem would in fact have been answered.

Earl FERRERS

I think there is a real problem here because the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that there is no particular logic in the figure of, I think it was three successions and two generations, but on the whole it was a balance between, on the one hand, no succession and, on the other hand, total succession. I accept there are many people who feel there ought to be a move towards total succession. I do not accept that if you do not have total succession therefore this is necessarily the right balance. I think that there are two different arguments here. One is the argument of the requirements of the tenant and the rights of the tenant versus the rights or the requirements of the landlord. The other argument, which I think is what worries most people on this side of the Committee, is that this provision will actually dry up the supply of tenancies.

One could argue for a long while as to who has the better claim to a piece of land, a landlord or a tenant. The Government have taken the view that sons, or children, or spouses, should have a degree of security of tenure. If you assume a tenancy to last for 30 years, under the process at the moment there could be three generations of tenancies, which means land could go for 90 years. Clearly the result of this is going to be that landlords are not going to let farms. Whether this is right or fair or just, or wicked, is a matter of opinion, but it will be fact because people will not do it.

I should have thought that if the Amendment of my noble friend were accepted at least you would have the right of two successions, but it would only move for one generation. That would at least give the person directly affected by the passing of the original tenant the right of succession, and that is the person who is going to be most grievously affected. It is the son or daughter, or spouse, or the other claimants of the original tenant. That is the person most affected. I suggest that if the Amendment of my noble friend were accepted you would meet that point of fairness, justice and rectitude, and you would give some slight encouragement for farms to con- tinue to be let. As my noble friend, Lord Middleton, said, young farmers have come out strictly in a way of great agitation about this because they can see no chance, if the Bill goes through as it is, of their ever being able to rent a farm. For this reason, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will accept the Amendment of my noble friend.

Lord GISBOROUGH

I wonder whether we are doing such a service to the tenant farmer. Perhaps the noble Lord could put me right on one factor, because the Government may not thank the law for this. When the farmer dies, with two successions in front of him, would it not be a fact that the Inland Revenue would say that there is a right there which is of very considerable value, almost as good as freehold, for 90 years—certainly a long lease? Would there not be a very substantial capital transfer for handing that right over to his family?

Lord MELCHETT

If I may take that point on its own first, the tenant does not hand anything on to his family. The Agricultural Land Tribunal decide whether a near relative who applies for the tenancy is eligible, and having decided that, they then decide on the competing claims, for example, of the landlord's son and the tenant's son, or whichever near relative it is. There is no question of the tenant handing something on a plate to somebody. I think all the uncertainties, and the very careful sifting the Agricultural Land Tribunal will have to do before giving the tenancy to the successor, would mean that there was no certainty whatsoever that someone was going to inherit the tenancy. This seems to me to be one of the arguments that counters the view that this is going to alter dramatically the present system of landlord-tenant relationship.

Various people said on Second Reading that, of course, now any good landlord who knows what he is doing will let the tenant's son or a near relative, if going to farm the land well, take over the tenancy. I must say that since I have been involved in taking this Bill through your Lordships' House several landowners have made that point to me. In my view, all that the provisions in the Bill will do is to ensure that landlords who do not take that enlightened and farsighted view of their responsibilities will have to go to the Tribunal and show some good reason why a suitable and eligible applicant should not take on the tenancy.

I know that several people have made the point that tenancies are going to dry up and the Young Farmers' Clubs are against this. Of course, in making that point noble Lords do not also mention in the same sentence that the National Farmers' Union, with a slightly more substantial membership than the Young Farmers' Clubs, take the opposite view. It may be said by noble Lords opposite—though I must say it would surprise me if anyone did say it—that the National Farmers Union do not have the longterm interests of agriculture, including young farmers and new farmers, in mind when they support the provisions of the Bill. I believe that they do, and I believe that they share the Government's view that the provisions of the Bill will be in the long-term interests of farming.

Lord BURTON

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, my noble friend said that the tenancies would dry up, but I would emphasise that tenants are remaining far too long in their farms in the hope of handing it on to their successors. As I have aleady pointed out, an alcoholic and a man who has had a stroke are both trying to continue farming; this is not good farming, and it is bad for the land.

Lord MELCHETT

There are two answers to that. First of all, if the noble Lord feels that whoever will be the eligible applicants for the two tenancies mentioned are suitable to farm the land, he should enable them to take on the tenancies straight away. If not, it seems to me a very good argument for getting these provisions on the Statute Book as soon as possible, and I hope the noble Lord will support me in that aim.

Lord BURTON

If I may intervene again, I am afraid that boys of 12 years of age are not eligible.

Lord MELCHETT

Then we are left with getting the Bill on to the Statute Book as quickly as we can, and the noble Lord and I will together work with that end in mind.

I said I would refer to the position in Scotland, and as this has been raised on this Amendment it might be a convenient moment to mention it. According to figures prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the proportion of full-time farms let to tenants stood at 46 per cent. in 1967, 44 per cent. in 1971, 43.5 per cent. in 1973 and 43.6 per cent. in 1974 and 1975. The very marginal decline shown by these figures would not appear to be more than a continuation of a long-established trend, and the rate of decline in the proportion of let farms between 1971 and 1975 is in fact lower than in the preceding period. I do not claim a great deal for these figures; they are, of course, not based on a very large sample and they are taken over a not very large number of years. But the trend has been quite consistent for a very long time and it does not appear to have been altered in any way by the passing of the legislation in Scotland in 1968.

If I may make one other point on the passing of tenanted farms to new tenants, I do not myself believe—and, as I said, I think this is the good landlord's practice at the moment—that if a farm passes from a tenant to the tenant's relative, particularly the son, that in any way involves the drying up of new tenancies. That is standard practice of good landlords at the moment where the tenant's relative is suitable to farm the land, and if that continues to happen under the Bill I think there is a lot to commend it.

Lord BURTON

The noble Lord referred to tenancies not drying up in Scotland. Is it not the case according to his figures, that where a son succeeds his father there is a new tenancy, but in fact this is rather a bogus figure. The landlord has no option but to relet to the heir, but this does not mean that a new tenancy has become available to the community at large.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I would make the point that I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is in a great difficulty here, because we are really arguing about a matter of opinion, as to whether the changes he proposes to make will have the effect in the long-term of drying up farm tenancies. Of course, the major weakness of this Bill is that there was no attempt at an objective assessment of the position and this particular proposition before the Bill was introduced. It is normal practice in this country when we arc going to make a major change—and this is what this Bill would make—that an expert committee is set up to examine the matter, to take evidence from all concerned, and to try to reach a balanced point of view as to what would be the effect of legislation of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is in a great difficulty here because he does not know, and nobody behind him knows, what the effect of this will be. It is not going to help him all that much to claim that he is supported by the National Farmers' Union and therefore he is right, when all of us know that many tenant farmers, members of the National Farmers' Union, do not agree with the view expressed by the National Farmers' Union. On the other hand, we have got the Young Farmers' Federation against. Again it is a matter of opinion by these outside bodies.

Here on this side of the Committee the noble Lord has a large number of noble Lords who are themselves landlords and therefore have some idea of how this would affect their mentality. The point that he cannot deny is that it is bound to have an effect on the individual landowner in restraining him from investing capital in his farms, as a start, and, almost certainly, whenever he gets the chance to take a farm back in hand, to do so. These are such strong probabilities that the noble Lord is really up against it in trying to establish a case that this is not going to have the effect that he is being told it will have. His argument that he is striking a fair balance between unlimited succession and no succession at all is a completely theoretical argument; it just does not have any conviction at all. Whereas this Amendment which is being put to him, which does at least make some sort of compromise—and he is being advised by men of great experience of letting farms—will probably have the effect of causing landlords to see some prospect of getting their farms back some time, if they want to; and, of course, he is right in saying that usually they will let again to the son of the farmer. If they know they can get it back after one generation, there is a fair prospect that they will say, " Well, it is not too long to wait, even if it is 50 years altogether ". This is the very long-term business of land owning, especially with farms, and this is not unreasonable.

I should have thought the noble Lord would have been very well advised to accept this Amendment, as being a sensible compromise, which evidently has the support of the CLA, which is a very important body in this matter, and might have some prospect of avoiding the damage this Bill would do.

Lord MIDDLETON

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. It is a matter of opinion. The opinion of my noble friends and I—and this is where we differ with noble Lords opposite —is that if by legislation you introduce the possibility that an owner is going to be separated from his land for up to 100 years, that possibility must discourage lettings. I should have thought that was perfectly obvious. Of course, it is difficult to say how long successions should last, what span successions should last for. That is the difficulty that the Government have got themselves into by introducing this Bill now, without, as my noble friend said, proper consultation and preparation. Of course, it is a difficult matter, a matter of balance and of opinion, We think, on the matter of balance, that if you are going to introduce the possibility of the system collapsing because of the drying up of the supply of tenancies, then you are going to endanger agricultural production. It can be done from the most well-intentioned motives to try and relieve hardship. It will do great harm and it will be greatly to our detriment in competing in Europe, and the reason will be that the economic advantages of the system, of which we have all spoken about at great length, will be lost. If the supply of farms to rent dries up, then no young farmer will ever be able to get his feet on to the farming ladder.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, raised the point about what the National Farmers' Union think of this. It is true to say that the National Farmers' Union are broadly in agreement with the inheritance provisions. I think they are mistaken. I think that they take the short-term view. However, I also think (and I have good reason. for saying this) that the NFU agree that it may be desirable to provide that succession should not extend over more than one generation. Indeed, in view of their stated opinion that a tied cottage should not be given more than one successor on the death of an occupying farm worker, it would hardly he consistent if they felt otherwise. This Amendment would restore some balance. It might conceivably encourage some lettings in the future, and if it does that it can only be for the good of

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

agriculture. I must press this Amendment and ask the Committee to decide.

6.12 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105: Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Dundonald, E.	Monk Bretton, L.
Amherst, E.	Ebbisham, L.	Monson, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Elibank, L.	Morris, L.
Ampthill, L.	Elles, B.	Munster, E.
Arran, E.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Newall, L.
Atholl, D.	Elton, L.	Northchurch, B.
Auckland, L.	Emmet of Amberley, B.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Avebury, L.	Ferrers, E.	Onslow, E.
Balerno, L.	Forbes, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Pender, L.
Banks, L.	Gainford, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Barnby, L.	Gisborough, L.	Redesdale, L.
Belstead, L.	Grenfell, L.	Renwick, L.
Berkeley, B.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Boyd of Merton, V.	Harcourt, V.	Salisbury, M.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Sandys, L. [Teller.}
Burton, L.	Hatherton, L.	Savile, L.
Caithness, E.	Hawke, L.	Selkirk, E.
Carrington, L.	Henley, L.	Sharpies, B.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Home of the Hirsel, L.	Sherfield, L.
Coleraine, L.	Hornsby-Smith, B.	Somers, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Hylton, L.	Spens, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.	Stamp, L.
Craigavon, V.	Ingleby, V.	Sudeley, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Killearn, L.	Swinton, E.
Craigton, L.	Lauderdale, E.	Tenby, V,
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Thorneycroft, L.
Daventry, V.	Long, V.	Thurlow, L.
De Clifford, L.	Loudoun, C.	Tweedsmuir, L.
De Freyne, L,	Lyell, L.	Verulam, E.
De La Warr, L.	Mancroft, L.	Vickers, B.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Vivian, L.
Derwent, L.	Merrivale, L.	Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Drumalbyn, L.	Middleton, L.	Westbury, L.
Dundee, E.	Monck, V.	Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arwyn, L.	Hale, L.	Oran, L.
Aylestone, L.	Hall, V.	Pannell, L.
Blyton, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.	Platt, L.
Bradwell, L.	Henderson, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Brimelow, L.	Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Popplewell, L.
Brockway, L.	Jacobson, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.
Brown, L.	Jacques, L.	Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Burton of Coventry, B.	Kirkhill, L.	Shinwell, L.
Caradon, L.	Leatherland, L.	Slater, L.
Champion, L.	Lee of Newton, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Collison, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Stedman, B. [Teller.]
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.	Longford, E.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Cudlipp, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	McCarthy, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L.	Mais, L.	Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Maybray-King, L.	Wilson of High Wray, L.
Gaitskell, B.	Melchett, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Geddes of Epsom, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L.	Northfield, L.

6.20 p.m.

Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 24, line 5, at end insert— (" or, (b) on the last occasion when there died a sole (or sole surviving) tenant (within the meaning of subsection (I) above) of the holding or of such an agricultural holding as is described above a direction as mentioned in (i) above or a grant as mentioned in (ii) above was made in favour of any person mentioned in paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (i) above.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential, and I move it formally.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 11A:

Page 24, line 6, leave out paragraph (g).

The noble Earl said: I have tabled this Amendment to find out why the Government have introduced a Bill permitting hereditary tenancies to be claimed on all farms but have specifically excluded smallholdings run by the Ministry of Agriculture and county councils. It seems to me that if we are to have the principle that hereditary tenancies should be claimed by people who are related to deceased tenants, the same principle should apply whether the land belonged to a private landlord or to the Minister, but for the Minister specifically to exclude himself seems extraordinary and I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would explain the purpose of this exclusion.

Lord MELCHETT

All statutory smallholdings are in public ownership. Just over 10,000 are held by county councils in England and Wales and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has about 760 on the Farm Settlement and Land Settlement Association estates. They are administered under Part III of the Agriculture Act 1970 and the selection of tenants for them is governed by the Smallholdings (Selection of Tenants) Regulations 1970. The purpose of statutory smallholdings is to afford opportunities for people with experience in agriculture to be tenant farmers on their own account and the regulations specify the minimum requirements as to agricultural experience to be fulfilled by persons who may be selected as tenants.

There are two reasons why statutory smallholdings have been left out of Part II of the Bill. First, the intention under the 1970 Act was that they should be a gateway into farming, for example for the able and experienced young man who wished to enter on a farming career. The number of statutory smallholdings is decreasing as local authorities get on with the implementation of their Ministerially approved plans for the reorganisation of their estates: nevertheless, they still provide a gateway which would otherwise be closed and, moreover, existing tenants are often able to progress within the estates from smaller to larger holdings. The second reason why we believe it would be inappropriate to include them in the legislation for family succession is that, unlike private landlords, smallholdings authorities are democratically elected bodies and their proceedings and decisions are open to public scrutiny.

As I said when the Bill was given its Second Reading in your Lordships' House, this matter was debated at length in another place. Honourable Members there acknowledged that it would be appropriate to amend the Selection of Tenants Regulations to provide for family succession and the Department is 'in touch with the Association of County Councils about this. I am delighted to say that the Association have been most co-operative and it now only remains to agree with them the precise wording of a suitable Amendment. The regulations are followed by my right honourable friend and any Amendment will apply with equal force to the statutory smallholdings which he holds. I hope that that explains both why these smallholdings were left out of the Bill and makes it clear that the provisions will be followed in regard to the smallholdings as well, and that the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment.

The Earl of ONSLOW

If the regulations are to apply to statutory smallholdings and are going to be made to apply to people on them, why not say so in the Bill? My second point is a comment on our times. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that local authorities were democratically controlled. May I draw his attention, if he has not noticed it already, to the fact that there is a democratically controlled authority not far from Manchester which has been elected on one platform and the Government have told it to do something else? This is not necessarily a complete parallel, but it slightly undermines the faith in democracy which the noble Lord holds vis-à-vis local government.

Earl FERRERS

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for explaining this provision. He will forgive me if I say that I have never heard a less convincing argument than that which he portrayed. He said that these smallholdings were a gateway into farming and that if we were to close it we should have no more young farmers. That was precisely the argument we were using about the last Amendment, which the noble Lord rejected. Then he said that these people were democratically elected, as if that means that they will function any better or more suitably than a normal landlord. The fact of the matter is that the Government have produced a Bill providing hereditary tenancies for all classes of landlord except those which the Minister and local authorities control. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that this is rather like the practice of the medieval Church, when they taxed everyone bar themselves. It is a thoroughly bad precedent.

I could not help but be somewhat amused when I read the Hansard of the Second Reading debate. Lord Melchett said that the fair and reasonable landlord had nothing to fear from the Bill. Why, if the Minister is fair and reasonable or if the county councils are fair and reasonable or if the Land Settlements Association is fair and reasonable, should they have anything to fear from the Bill if they, too, were incorporated in its provisions? One reason why they have not been incorporated was given by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, who said he was completely satisfied that the LSA had always behaved in accordance with the principles that had been outlined, and he added that he had never known them to behave harshly to a tenant's family when the head of that family died. I cannot see any reason for excluding them because of that from measures which the Government have put across all hereditary tenancies.

Lord MELCHETT

Perhaps I did not make it clear that the Association of County Councils and the Department of Agriculture are in close touch over this. The noble Earl asks why they are not put in the Bill. I do not know whether he has been in touch with the Association of County Councils about his Amendment. I should be interested to hear whether they agree with its inclusion, because he and I both believe that we should take considerable care to consult people affected by a Bill before the legislation is passed. I agree that they may not always like the legislation after those consultations, but at least we take care to hold such consultations and, for our part, we are in touch with the Association of County Councils. They have been very co-operative with us and have accepted the view expressed in another place, a view which both noble Earls opposite have expressed this afternoon and, as I said, all that remains is to agree the precise wording that will he put into the regulations so that the import of the scheme will apply equally to them and to my right honourable friend as it will to other landlords. So I do not think that there is anything between us,. We want to proceed, as always, if possible by agreement.

Earl FERRERS

I think that there is a great deal between us because, if the noble Lord has been to the Association of County Councils to ask them for a form of words that we can all agree, why has he not put it in the Bill? The fact is that that is where it ought to be but he has not done it because, as he rightly says, if he does, it will close the gateway to new tenancies. I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I believe that the reason is a thoroughly bad one.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

I do not know whether this is the right moment to ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but there has been considerable misunderstanding over this exclusion of smallholdings, particularly in The Times the other day. Does this exclusion include land other than statutory smallholdings let by the Ministry of Agriculture and, indeed, other Ministries? I was under the impression that ordinary land let by the Ministry of Agriculture was included in the scheme. If the noble Lord cannot give me an answer now, perhaps he would let me have the answer at a later stage of the Committee's proceedings.

Lord MELCHETT

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for suggesting that I might look into the matter and write to him. I shall be happy to do so.

Earl FERRERS

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.32 p.m.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 24, line 15, at end insert— (" (1) if the holding is incapable, when farmed under reasonably skilled management, of providing full-time employment for at least one man.")

The noble Earl said: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that he liked to go ahead by agreement. I am so glad to hear that. I hope that we shall have a little help from him because at the moment we seem to be having a rather uphill struggle. The Amendment seeks to prevent the hereditary tenancy provisions from operating. Before I go any further, I should like to remind the noble Lord that this is a helpful Amendment, so I hope that he will be able to give it consideration.

There are cases when a unit is so small that it cannot provide full-time employment for at least one man—that is, the Amendment refers to the smallest and least viable units. This point was raised in another place and the Minister of State said that he would consider it. Then, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, earlier on, he decided about a minute later that he would not consider it. I hope that the noble Lord will consider it. Over the years, a great effort has been made to get the structure of farms right. They have grown bigger and bigger. One of the reasons why this was done was that the Government have helped the restructuring by giving what might be described as " golden bowlers to encourage farmers to retire from unviable units.

The Government have a scheme called the Grants to Outgoers Scheme. This enables grants to be paid in order for units to be amalgamated. This is all to the good and it has enabled units to become bigger. The grants are given for " uncommercial units ". The word " uncommercial " is used rather than " unviable ". An uncommercial unit is one which, by definition, requires 100 to 600 man days per year. A 600 man day unit could provide work for two people, but that is regarded as uncommercial. My Amendment would refer only to those holdings which were so small they could not provide full-time employment, not for two but just for one person. If a holding is that small, that uncommercial and that unviable, I suggest to the noble Lord that it is absurd to allow the tenant's son, daughter, brother and sister, all to make a claim that they should be allowed, on the death of the tenant, to succeed to this unviable, uncommercial, uneconomic unit. I beg to move.

The Duke of ATHOLL

I believe that there is something like this in the Scottish provisions in the 1968 Act. However, the real reason I am speaking is that normally when these very small units are amalgamated—and I believe that the noble Earl's Amendment might have been better if it had mentioned that they should be amalgamated with a neighbouring unit—nearly always the family living in the house on these very small units can continue to stay there because the neighbouring unit will not want to take on an extra man in order to farm the very small unit. That is the point of the amalgamation scheme. In passing, I should like to say that the amalgamation scheme has, on the whole, worked extremely well and has enabled quite a lot of rationalisation of small farms to take place. I should have thought that the Amendment was not quite right as it stands but that the principle was well worth considering.

Lord HENLEY

Would it not be true to say that in any case there is no eligibility, for no close relation of the tenant could have been deriving any livelihood from the farm if it employs fewer than one full-time worker?

Lord MELCHETT

I apologise to the noble Lord. I was receiving a piece of information and I did not catch the last part of what he said.

Lord HENLEY

My point is that, if the holding is as small as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, indicates, there can be no person eligible to claim the tenancy on the death of the tenant because he could not have been deriving his livelihood from the holding.

Lord MELCHETT

I do not believe that the noble Lord is right and I shall try to explain why. I do not believe that it would be right to exclude part-time holdings from this scheme. There are about 28,500 holdings, wholly or partly rented holdings, in England and about 6,500 in Wales which would immediately be excluded if the Amendment were accepted—in other words, we are talking about a very large number of holdings. There are many full-time units which are of mixed tenure or which are rented from more than one landlord and which would also be affected, because each rented part on its own would have to meet the criterion. That answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.

It would be quite possible for someone to be eligible because he derived his income from a large collection of parcels of land rented from different landlords; each one on its own might not reach the criteria which the noble Earl has suggested should be put into the Bill, but collectively they would do so and would enable the tenant's successor to succeed. As I understand it, the Amendment would make that impossible.

Even on a small farm the tenant's family—very often his son—may be closely involved in working the holding and may be hopeful of succeeding to the tenancy eventually. There will be hardship when the tenant dies, just as there would be on a larger farm. I agree that ideally really small farms should be amalgamated with other land to form a larger unit. There is no difference between us on that point. The landlord can apply for consent for the notice to quit on that ground under the existing law. However, amalgamation is not always possible; the landlord may have no other land with which to amalgamate the holding. Inevitably, therefore, many of these farms will remain as separate units and I believe that it is only fair that the family succession scheme should apply to them as well.

The Earl of ONSLOW

I have two questions for the noble Lord: first, has the noble Lord any idea of the average size of these holdings? Secondly, some figures have recently been brought to my notice—and I am open to correction on the exact numbers—suggesting that the number of cattle in the average dairy unit in this country has risen, because of the amalga- mation schemes and various other factors, from 32 to 60 or 65. This is something which we must do to keep in advance of Europe and to keep our agricultural production as efficient as it is. This contrasts with the average size of Italian dairy units —and admittedly, I am taking the immediate opposite as an example—of between five and seven cows. What is the average size of these units, how will this affect dairying and what sort of general farming are they actually doing?

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, one question following from that of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I believe that the ALT will probably rule against the applicant taking the holding in most cases. If so, surely it is unfair to build up false hopes in a tenant. Therefore, I feel that the Amendment should be looked at very carefully and accepted.

Lord MELCHETT

Before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me on what grounds he feels that the ALT will normally rule against the applicant in this type of situation?

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

I believe that it will find that the holding is totally uneconomic and should in most cases be amalgamated, and that it will therefore probably rule against. Then the tenant will have been led up the garden path from an early age. That is what worries me. I feel that it would be better for him to be told that he will not get the tenancy.

Lord MELCHETT

I think that I dealt with that point in my earlier remarks, when I said that the landlord could already go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal and ask for the holding to be amalgamated with other land. That is already the position and that is what will happen. The noble Lord will agree with me that there may well be cases where this simply is not possible for a number of reasons. I mentioned the case where the landlord may simply not have any other land with which to amalgamate the holding. I do not think that the noble Lord has taken the point, nor has the noble Earl, so far as I was aware, that there may be a tenant with several small parcels of land which form a perfectly viable unit and this Amendment would have the practical effect of breaking up that viable unit because each individual landlord would be able to get that small parcel of land back from the tenant.

The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked me about the size of the holdings. I mentioned that there were 28,500 in England and 6,500 in Wales. I do not know the answer in the precise terms of the questions he asked in relation to the average size, but the figures I gave apply to holdings below 270 standard man days. I am well aware of the statistics, although I do not have the precise figures in front of me, and the difference between the average size of a dairy herd in this country and some other countries in Europe. As I said in my previous remarks, there is nothing between us on that point. We are all agreed that where amalgamations are possible, and may be economic in the agricultural sense, they should be allowed to go ahead and the existing law provides for that.

Lord CARRINGTON

All of us who are interested in farming know that there are a large number of holdings in this country which are uneconomic and ought to be amalgamated, and that has been the purpose of successive Governments. There fore there is nothing between the two Parties on the question of amalgamation. Nevertheless, it is true as the noble Lord opposite says, that the Amendment as drafted would apply to certain farms which it would be impossible to amalgamate, and I accept that. However, would the noble Lord be prepared to accept the Amendment if at a later stage it read: if the holding is incapable, when farmed under reasonably skilled management, of providing full-time employment for at least one man, and it is the intention to amalgamate it.

Lord MELCHETT

I do not see at first blush what that would achieve, and the noble Lord will appreciate that I should want to think about it if such an Amendment were tabled. But, as I say, the existing law and the Agricultural Land Tribunal at the moment are able to consider the landlord's application for repossession when the notice to quit has been given on the grounds that the landlord wishes to amalgamate the holding with another on economic and farming grounds. So I am not sure what the noble Lord thinks such a change would actually achieve—

Lord CARRINGTON

Those of us on this side of the Committee who, in rather an old-fashioned way, believe that ownership enables one to have some rights think that the boot ought to be on the other foot. At any rate it would be shown that the landlord intended to amalgamate the holding, and meant to do so and consequently was acting in the best interests of agriculture. Therefore the tenant should not have an hereditary right to continue farming an uneconomical holding.

Lord MELCHETT

It is not a question of anybody booting anybody anywhere. As I say, the existing law allows a landlord to take the initiative, give a notice to quit, and to say that he wants to get the tenant out on the grounds that the holding should be amalgamated.

The Duke of ATHOLL

If the noble Lord will look at the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 I am fairly sure that he will find that there are clauses which apply to Scotland.

Lord MELCHETT

I am glad that the noble Duke reminded me of that question I which I omitted to answer. My understanding is that there is not a similar exclusion in the Scottish provisions.

Lord MONK BRETTON

Does the noble Lord agree, in relation to these small farms or smallholdings, that although the degree of hardship is probably not very great for these tenants if they give up, or have to give up—but there is hardship—it will be decided by the Agricultural Land Tribunal on the basis of greater hardship? I should have thought that the Agricultural Land Tribunal would very often have to allow this situation to continue on the score of greater hardship and that we would get bogged down with this situation. This question should be looked at more fully than it probably has been in this short time. This is probably one of the difficulties of this being a miscellaneous provisions Bill and the matter not perhaps being studied as far as it should be. I should have thought that there was a great danger of greater hardship bogging down this issue.

Earl FERRERS

I found the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, slightly extraordinary when he said that the landlord has a right because he can give the tenant the notice to quit and then he can take the matter to an Agricultural Land Tribunal. But that is not the best way to encourage landlord-tenant relationships. if in fact he can take a tenant to an ALT, with a notice to quit, is it really desirable to put upon the tenant, first, the right to claim the tenancy, only to find that he has to go to an Agricultural Land Tribunal? 1 should have thought that it was not desirable. I take the point that there may be various smallholdings which are impossible to amalgamate. If one accepts the philosophy of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, it might be reasonable for the son of the person in question to accept the tenancy. Perhaps the noble Lord can think about this matter before the next stage of the Bill, and if an Amendment were put in to allow the hereditary tenancy not to be permitted if, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, the land was to be used for amalgamation, I should have thought that that would possibly meet the doubt which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has.

I did not quite understand the noble Lord's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he said that if the holding was so small as to he uneconomical for one person, how could the son possibly have derived the bulk of his livelihood from it.

Lord MELCHETT

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving way because it enables me to expound on my explanation. I was suggesting that the person might be farming a series of- say. three or four—small parcels of land, each of which on its own would be uneconomic in the terms of the Amendment of the noble Earl or possibly in terms of any other criteria, but farmed together they form a viable unit, although each parcel would belong to a different landlord. As I understand it, and according to my advice, each would be able to claim his own piece back under the Amendment of the noble Earl.

Earl FERRERS

I am still not absolutely clear about this because under the Bill as it is, the person involved has to derive the principal source of his livelihood through a continuous period of not less than five years, on an agricultural unit of which the holding forms part;". In other words, an agricultural unit can be a number of smaller units. But under paragraph (c)he can be disqualified because this paragraph says that he cannot be eligible if he is not the occupier of a commercial unit of agricultural land within the meaning of Part II …". To take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, let us suppose that the man we are considering is farming five small units. The noble Lord says that together these five small units will afford a commercial unit. One small unit then comes up. It could be argued that if the man continued to farm the other four units that would be a commercial unit and would debar him under paragraph (c).

Lord MELCHETT

I suppose that is just possible, but it might be a good argument that where the Agricultural Land Tribunal, under Clause 20, could look at all the circumstances of the case and take matters into account, it would decide that the person should still be an eligible applicant. That is one of the arguments for having some discretion allowed to the ALT under that clause which we shall debate later. I suggest that the noble Earl has slightly misrepresented the example I gave. I was trying to say that the five units altogether were a viable unit. I was not suggesting that four of them would be viable. I was saying that only when they are all taken together would they be viable. I accept that there is a problem in the example the noble Earl has given. If Clause 20 does not cover this point perhaps the noble Earl will consider putting down an Amendment to extend the scheme yet again.

Earl FERRERS

I am grateful to the noble Lord: clearly there is a grey area here and I should like to consider what should be done before the Report stage. It seems to me wrong on principle to permit an hereditary tenancy to continue on a unit that fundamentally is unviable, when at the same time the Government have provided grants to encourage people to join unviable and uncommercial units together. However, I will not press the Amendment but will consider the position before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Earl of ONSLOW

Before the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment. may I ask one question of the noble Lord. Lord Melchett? I should think L have probably got it muddled, but am I to understand that the son of a tenant of a smallholding can go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to get a statutory tenancy from him against the wishes of the landlord, and that the landlord can then go to the same Agricultural Land Tribunal and give him notice to quit on the grounds of amalgamation? Because if that is the case—and I. am quite prepared to admit that I have not understood it—then that is an even bigger muddle than some of the other things we have been talking about.

Lord MELCHETT

I am not quite sure whether 1 am in order as the noble Earl has in fact withdrawn his Amendment, but the answer to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is, I think, that at the first stage the noble Earl mentioned, when the tenant went to the ALT to invoke the succession of tenancies provisions under the Bill, the landlord, of course, has under the provisions of the Bill two opportunities to object. First, he can object to the eligibility of the tenant, and then at the next stage to the suitability. On the second stage he would be able to advance the claims currently allowed to a landlord to enforce a notice to quit, and the grounds of good estate management would be that he wanted to amalgamate the holdings. So it would be under the provisions of the Bill that the arguments about amalgamation would be heard, and there would not, as I understand it, be a need for a second reference to the ALT at all.

The Duke of ATHOLL

May I save the noble Lord time by saying that I have been able to check on the Scottish Act? The provisions for amalgamating small farms so that there is no succession appear in Section 18(2)(b), which is on page 807 of Volume I of the 1968 Statutes at Large.

Earl FERRERS

As I have evidently only partially withdrawn my Amendment, perhaps I could pull it a little further and withdraw it altogether.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.53 p.m.

Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 12A:

Page 24, line 15, at end insert— (j) if the landlord does not intend to let the holding on the termination of the tenancy of the deceased and so notifies the Tribunal within the relevant period.

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12A, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13A, 14A and 14B. I argued on Second Reading that if there were cases of hardship on the death of a tenant then, in order to alleviate hardship, and where possible to maintain the independence of our farming families, legislation might be desirable to provide for succession by a son, but I felt that the legislation should apply only where the landlord intended to relet anyway. To force a landlord to relet, even thought he might wish to take a farm in hand for any number of reasons, would endanger the system and would, in the long run, cause greater hardship to farmers and bad food production.

These Amendments are designed to ensure that the family inheritance provisions apply only where the landlord lets the land again on the death of a tenant. It is only fair that where the landlord is not reletting the land he should be allowed to retain the freedom to do what he wishes to do with it, on the principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that where there is ownership presumably, even now, some kind of rights should go with it. The Amendments would exclude the inheritance provisions where the landlord notifies the Tribunal that he does not intend to relet the holding, and where this is done the Clause 18 Amendments allow the notice to quit under Section 24(2)(g) of the 1948 Act on the death of a tenant to take effect. To ensure that the landlord keeps to his notified intention, the last Amendment imposes a penalty if the land is let within three years. The penalty is the same as that provided in Section 29 of the 1948 Act—an amount not exceeding two years' rental holding at the rate at which the rent was payable immediately before the termination of the tenancy. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

With the leave of your Lordships. may I be slightly out of order for a moment and respond to the noble Duke's remark about the legislation in Scotland? He is, of course, quite right, and I inadvertently ran together two things in saying that Scottish legislation did not apply. What I should have said, of course, is that part-time holdings are not excluded from the Scottish legislation; but, as the noble Duke quite rightly pointed out, amalgamation of part-time holdings is permitted. I apologise to your Lordships for getting it wrong on the previous occasion.

The Duke of ATHOLL

I should like to thank the noble Lord very much.

Lord MELCHETT

On that friendly basis, perhaps I can proceed to deal with the Amendment, which I am afraid to say would completely undermine the family succession scheme in the Bill. It would leave the decision whether or not to relet his farm or take it in hand entirely to the landlord, and bring the Agricultural Land Tribunal into the picture only for the selection of a new tenant when the landlord does decide to relet. In other words, there would be no change in the present situation as regards whether or not a holding is to be relet, but whereas at the present time the landlord has to select his own new tenant if it is to be relet, in future the Tribunal would do it for him—presumably on an agency basis.

The Government have decided, and another place has already agreed, that an eligible close relative can apply for the vacant tenancy and that the Tribunal will decide, first, whether he or she is suitable to be a tenant of the holding, and, then, whether or not to issue a direction to that effect. It is at that stage that the landlord can put forward his or her case for taking the land in hand, and it will be for the Tribunal to make the decision. If they should decide to make a direction, Clause 22(1) will make it clear that the tenancy so granted will be deemed to be granted by the landlord, whether or not a willing party. I hope that with that further explanation of the scheme and the fact that it would, in my view, completely undermine the scheme as provided in the Bill—and, indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said on several occasions, that is not the intention of the Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite—that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will see fit to withdraw this Amendment.

Lord GISBOROUGH

Of course, this is one of the most important suggestions and would, to my mind, make the whole Bill largely acceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has in the past said that good landlords are already letting to sons, and have been doing it for many generations, probably, and that this Bill does no more than maintain the status quo with regard to what the good landlord has done in the past. If he wishes to carry that further, he must accept the status quo in cases where the landlord has been able to take land in hand himself where necessary. It is a fact that there are cases—and I myself happen to be one of those cases—where, in the past, many landlords, instead of taking land in hand, have let it because they felt that the tenant would farm for perhaps 30 years, or whatever, by which time one son would likely be of the sort of age when he might want the tenancy himself, and that would roughly marry up in ages. Those landlords who have taken in hand all the land that came in hand over the last twenty-five years have enormously benefited over those landlords who have been, one could say, more generous to their tenants and who are now going to have to suffer for it. They are going to have to suffer for not having taken the land in hand, and they will never now be able to provide a farm for their sons.

It is a matter of interest also that if in fact they sell their tenanted land to buy a farm for their sons, for every 100 acres they sell, after paying capital gain on the increased value since 1965 and after paying the extra cost of buying a vacant farm as against selling a tenanted farm, they will be able to buy only 66 acres for their sons. So, as it is at the moment, it is extremely unfair on the landlord. I think this important suggestion would be absolutely right, and 1 think it should be pressed.

Lord MIDDLETON

I quite accept that this Amendment, if it were carried, would completely wreck the family succession scheme in the Bill. For that reason, bearing in mind what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said at the very beginning of the Second Reading debate and on the first day of the Committee stage, I think it should not be pressed. On the other hand, this is a perfectly valid point, and it is a point that should have been discussed with the various interests had there been proper consultation before these measures were put into this Bill at a very late stage in another place. Had there been adequate consultation this kind of point would have been considered. There was none. As a result, we have this hurried and piecemeal piece of legislation which is giving rise to a great deal of doubt and uncertainty. I think it is a very great pity that it was put in at this stage. It should have been done after proper consultation with this kind of point having been considered.

Earl FERRERS

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I think he is right in not pressing the Amendment because (as he said) we said that we would try not to wreck this Bill but to put constructive Amendments. I had hoped we would get a constructive attitude from the Government, but we seem to he coming up against a stone wall. I hope the noble Lord within the ambits of his brief, or even by extending them a little, realise that some Amendments are put down to make the thing workable and I think that he might go some way towards accepting some of them. if my noble friend is prepared to withdraw this Amendment, I will agree with him.

Lord MIDDLETON

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.1 p.m.

Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 24, line 35, leave out from first (" Act ") to first (" a ") in line 36.

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Amendment 13 is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. We are now dealing again with the question of the amalgamation of farm holdings, a matter to which, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, successive Governments have attached considerable importance. Grants, as he said, and financial help have been given to encourage the creation of more productive farm units by this means. The opportunity to do this usually occurs at the end of a tenancy when, as the law now is, the landlord will merely not re-let and the farm will be amalgamated with another holding. Alternatively, he may, but seldom does, give notice to a tenant to quit—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to this. He may give notice to a tenant to quit and this may be upheld by the tribunal on the ground that amalgamation of that holding is desirable in the interests of good estate management.

Under the Bill, there may be an eligible successor to that farm; so that Clause 21 provides that the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 shall be amended so that a new paragraph (f) is inserted in Section 25 of the 1948 Act. This would provide that a Tribunal would give consent for a contestable notice to quit by the landlord to he effective where the land does not amount to a commercial unit and the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of the lands being amalgamated with other land to form such a commerical unit. It is not very easy to interpret that, but I understand that, in effect, this means the joining together of two unviable holdings. This is far too restrictive and might seriously prejudice progress towards better farm structure. It is often desirable to join an unviable holding with a viable one and it might be desirable, on economic grounds, to amalgamate two holdings even though each is a commercial unit within the meaning of Part II of the 1967 Agricultural Act.

What these Amendments do is to restore the position where, as now, the question of notice for the purpose of amalgamation is covered by Section 25(1)(b) of the 1948 Act as amended by the 1958 Act that the carrying out thereof: i.e. the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of sound management of the estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part or which that land constitutes. It is true that the new paragraph (f) starts with the words: without prejudice to paragraph (b)".

The danger is that the new paragraph (f) will confuse what is at present clear. It would not be in the interests of food production if Tribunals are to be led to think that this new subsection which deals with the amalgamation of non-commercial units is to provide for the only kind of amalgamation that they can permit. beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, thinks that I have been behaving like a brick wall. I am always ready to discard any briefing that I may have had before coming here and to listen to the arguments. I have done my best to do that; but where Amendments have been pressed to a Division and have already been considered in another place, it is asking a little much to expect me to change my mind about them. However, as if by magic after the intervention of the noble Earl, I am glad to start off by saying I should be happy to accept this Amendment and the two consequential Amendments, Nos. 22 and 23. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not in the Chamber to see noble Lords opposite putting forward Amendments which would leave these particular grounds for amalgamating holdings under existing legislation as they are. It seems to me to be a firm demonstration that noble Lords opposite are happy with the existing provisions that allow amalgamations and do not want them changed in the way that the provisions in this Bill which this Amendment would delete were proposing.

It might be helpful to say a word or two about the wording in the Bill before supporting Lord Middleton's Amendment. The purpose of subsection (3) was intended by the Government to provide a balancing provision for the landlord, by enabling him to put forward a specific proposal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal that because the holding is below commercial size, the landlord intends to amalgamate it with other land within two years of the end of the deceased's tenancy to form a commercial holding. We thought that this would be a more positive and powerful ground than the one in current use; I refer, of course, to Section 25(1)(b) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 under which, as I have pointed out, a landlord can serve a notice to quit in the interests of sound estate management, one purpose of which would be the reorganisation of the holdings.

I understand that after careful consideration the landlord's representatives believed that the purpose of this provision is likely to be misunderstood, as Lord Middleton said, and could prove counterproductive as a result. I understand that their initial welcome for the provision has now become opposition to it. My advisers have discussed the matter in considerable details with the landlord's representatives, principally the CLA1 do not know whether the Young Farmers' Clubs are involved in this—and their view is now that the provision should be removed from the Bill. I do not wholly accept the CLA arguments but I agree that if there is a possibility of confusion arising as to the purpose of paragraph (f) then the paragraph could have the opposite effect from that intended; in which case it is best removed. I am happy to support Lord Middleton's Amendment.

Earl FERRERS

I am happy to think that the honeyed words I used made the noble Lord change his tactics. I appreciate it and I shall not weary him by saying the same things as before. Perhaps if he will be kind enough to assume them to have been said, he will be equally agreeable over the next Amendment.

Lord MIDDLETON

I do not think even Lord Melchett's stamina is being sapped. This is a sign that he is really being reasonable about this, and I am grateful to him.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 [Restriction on operation of notice to quit given by reason of death of tenant.]:

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 25, line 16, at end insert— (" or, (c) it is determined by the Tribunal that no hardship sufficient to justify the making of a direction under section 19(5) or (6) of this Act would be suffered by any applicant determined by the Tribunal to be a suitable person to become the tenant of the holding if the notice to quit were to have effect.")

The noble Lord said: In rising to move this Amendment. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 so that we have three even-numbered Amendments together. I hope that I shall not he striking a churlish note if I say that Clause 18 does not meet with our approval at all. The clause relates to the restriction on the operation of notices to quit given by reason of the death of the tenant. One of the first comments I would make regarding Clause 18 is the use of the double negative. I refer here to the views of Sir Ernest Gowers on the subject in his eminently readable work, Plain Words. If the Government were to refer to that hook they may perhaps take a leaf out of it and consider briefly whether it might not be possible for them in this and other Bills to refrain from using the double negative, since it creates a grey area, a haze and a doubt in the mind of the layman, and, indeed, on occasions the lawyer, when interpreting the meaning thereof.

Having referred to the double negative, 1 should like to come to the substance of the Amendment and the meaning of the clause as such. Your Lordships will be aware that I am no lawyer, and very often it is the layman's role in your Lordships' House to elucidate certain matters which, perhaps due to obscurity in legal terminology, often have to be laid bare in a way that lawyers may not always appreciate or think is suitably professional. Nevertheless, if your Lordships will accept a layman's interpretation of Clause 18, it would read as follows. These are my words: A notice to quit shall not have effect unless

1. (a) no application is made;
2. (b) the situation consists of several applications for the holding:
1. (i) but none of the applicants is a suitable person;
2. (ii) the Tribunal consent to the landlord's notice to quit ".

This is quite frankly difficult of interpretation. The use of terminology here is very difficult to recognise. There is a real drafting difficulty in this case, and I seek the Government's assistance in this regard.

On the Amendment, I would refer to what my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said earlier regarding matters of opinion. Here we are dealing with a very important matter, that of hardship and/or greater hardship. It is here that there is a very large grey area with which a Land Tribunal will have to concern themselves. It is a question of whether in their opinion the greater hardship is to be encountered by the landlord in a particular set of circumstances, or the tenant or prospective tenant. It is noteworthy that in the Bill there is no definition of hardship. There are very few points at which the Bill touches upon hardship since it is not a requirement in this particular clause to investigate that point. So we have to return to the key Act. I refer of course to the 1948 Act, where hardship enters the scene, in Section 25(1)(c) and (d). Here we see the situation very carefully drafted. I quote from Section 25 (1)(c): … that greater hardship would he caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting consent to the operation of the notice; or "—

Then in paragraph (d) below: where the tenancy was created before the said … day … and the same person … that greater hardship would he caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice;

Two parallel situations with one variant.

In our view it would be much better if the Amendment, as drafted, were added to Clause 18 since we believe that the only reason ever given for this family inheritance legislation is that it is required to deal with cases of genuine hardship. Yet, as I have referred, the Tribunal is not required by the Bill to be satisfied on this particular score. If I may say so, once again we feel that this is an error. By Clause 19 subsections (5) and (6), once the Tribunal has determined that an applicant is eligible and suitable, they must make a direction in his favour unless the Tribunal, in its discretion, decides that consent should be given to the operation of the landlord's notice to quit upon his proving one of the grounds in Section 25 of the 1948 Act. It should be noted that the Tribunal, under Section 25 may, in its discretion, withhold the notice to quit even if the landlord proves one of the statutory grounds. We dealt in Clause 17 with the hardship occasioned to relatives.

The Tribunal's job under this legislation should not be to seek a suitable person to form the holding but to investigate whether there is a case of real hardship on the part of an eligible and suitable applicant. This Amendment would provide that the notice to quit served on the death of the tenant would take effect where the Tribunal decides that no sufficient hardship was suffered by any applicant to justify a direction in his or her favour. It may be argued that the landlord will bring hardship into issue by pleading greater hardship as a ground under Section 25 to which I have already referred. This may be so, but it misses the point for two reasons. First, the Tribunal may decide that neither the landlord nor the applicant has proved hardship. In such a case the applicant should not be given the holding. He may, for example, have sold the farm he occupied, in which case there will be no justification for the Tribunal handing him the holding on a plate, however suitable he was to farm it. Secondly, under Section 25 the Tribunal in its discretion may withhold consent to the notice to quit even if the landlord proves greater hardship. Hence the complexities of introducing Clause 18 into the legislation as it stands. I think your Lordships will agree it is labyrinthine. I hope the Government's draftsmen will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the Amendment which we propose is helpful. I beg to move.

7.18 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, spoke to Amendment Nos. 16 and 18 with Amendment No. 14. I hope he will understand if I address my remarks also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 which seem to me to cover exactly the same point. I must confess that I was expecting him to move those Amendments also as there does not seem to be any distinction. No doubt he will enlighten me if there is when we come to them.

We have given very careful thought to the question of whether a hardship test should be written into the legislation, because we accept entirely that in the operation of the scheme there must be social justice not only for the close relatives when a tenant dies but also for the landlord and his close relatives. We have consulted the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers' Union about this. The CLA believe that it is essential to have a hardship or greater hardship provision in the legislation. The NFU, however, do not support the CLA in this and they share the Government's view that such provision is unnecessary because a hardship test is already implicit in the family succession scheme.

When a tenant farmer dies, the potential elements of hardship are encompassed in the eligibility conditions of Clause 17. The applicant for the tenancy must be a near relative of the deceased tenant and must have been involved in the working of the holding; he or she must not be the occupier of a commercial holding, except in circumstances which give no security of tenure. In other words, he or she will have a strong prima facie claim to succeed to the tenancy. These factors in themselves imply there will be some hardship if the applicant is not allowed to do so. A greater hardship test is already operated by the Agricultural Land Tribunal at the present time. It is currently set out in Section 25(1)(d) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948 and is made applicable to the succession proceedings under Clause 21. I think the noble Lord quoted something from the right part of the right Act but which was unamended as regards this section; whereas I understand that Section 25(1)(d) of the Act was amended by the 1958 Act. Although 1 do not have both amended and unamended versions in front of me, I understand that the main change was that " hardship " is now only mentioned in Section 25(1)(d); so there has been some change in the position as outlined by the noble Lord.

The provisions of this section mean that after an applicant has satisfied the Tribunal as to his or her eligibility and suitability to farm the holding, his or her succession is still liable to challenge when the landlord seeks consent to the operation of the notice to quit. This is when the landlord has the opportunity to raise the point that greater hardship would be caused by the Tribunal's withholding than by giving consent. The hardship is not confined to hardship directly to the landlord himself. It can be of any nature, for example, to his son or to any near relative who may have hoped to take over the holding. The regulations will provide that the landlord's son be allowed to appear before the Tribunal—and when I say " son " it includes other near relatives—and the Tribunal will weigh the merits of his claim against those of a suitable applicant who has been adjudged to he the potential tenant. Another example would concern the case of the landlord whose financial position was unfavourable as compared with that of the prospective tenant. Here, too, the Landlord could raise the question of greater hardship. I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, why, although I have sympathy with the intention behind the Amendment and, indeed, in principle, I do not think there is a great deal between us, I do not believe the Amendment to be necessary.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

I should very much like to think that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on life were true throughout the country: but I fear that in this rough and tough world things are not as easy as that There is no doubt that a vacant tenancy is of value to a potential applicant, and we all know cases where there have been family disputes and arguments lasting many years following the death of a relative where a will is in dispute, and where greed and human nature take over. How much more worse the position would be when a tenancy is at stake. I do not believe there is going to be good family unity among tenants. I fear there will be a lot of strife and bitterness where, for example, a tenancy of 600 acres is at stake. One has to deal with this every day and, as I said earlier, it is personal relationships that count. Here we have the instance of a tenancy, and when one goes before the Agricultural Land Tribunal, one will, if one is acting on behalf of the landlord, be trying to show the tenant in the worst possible light. This cannot augur well for good relationships between the two if, in their wisdom, the Agricultural Land Tribunal see fit to grant the tenancy. It would make the Tribunal's job considerably easier and it would make relationships between the landlord and the tenant considerably easier and more flexible if this Amendment were approved. I would, therefore, support it. It seems to me that the cornerstone of this legislation is the avoidance of hardship to tenants and I should like also to think that this would be in the best long-term interests of agriculture. It must, therefore, be right that a potential applicant should have to prove to the satisfaction of the Agricultural Land Tribunal that hardship would occur if the tenancy is not passed on to the applicant. The principle of hardship, as we have already heard, is accepted in the 1948 Act so far as applica- tions for possession and the enforcement of a notice to quit by the landlord are concerned. It is, therefore, equitable that both landlords and tenants should be treated on parallel terms. Indeed, if it was to be a prerequisite that in order to become an eligible applicant one had to prove hardship then, as I say, it would make the Agricultural Land Tribunal's job much easier and would improve relationships, already under stress, between the landlord and the potential tenant. 1, therefore, support the Amendments that have been referred to, Nos. 14, 16 and 18.

Lord SAN DYS

In speaking once again to Amendments Nos. 14, 16 and 18, first, I should inform the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 15 and 17, which are excluded by these three Amendments. Having listened to the noble Lord's reply, and recollecting what he said on Second Reading at column 17 on 24th May, I feel there may be grounds here for reconsideration. If I may remind the noble Lord of what he said in that column in respect of a holding being available to the landlord's son on equal terms with the tenant, I will quote his words: We propose to make it clear that any claim by the landlord's son to the vacant holding as part of the landlord's notice to quit is to he given an equally fair hearing. That gave us grounds for feeling that perhaps there was some opportunity for moving these Amendments and I was glad to listen to the noble Lord's reply. Coupled with what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has said in reminding us of his professional view in this regard, I believe it might be in the interests or further discussion if I were to withdraw Amendment No. 14 at this point.

Lord MELCHETT

Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, perhaps I might echo a chord in what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, have said, by repeating something which I think my honourable friend, the Minister, said in another place. As I have already said, I do not think there is anything between us in principle here. Certainly, if the noble Lord would consider this and get the agreement of the CLA and the NFU to an Amendment, when he comes back on Report I am sure the Government would consider it very carefully. But I would emphasise that our aim here, as the noble Earl has said, and which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is to proceed by getting agreement and establishing good relationships. I would stress the importance I would attach to having the agreement of the CLA and the NFU jointly to some proposed Amendment.

Lord SANDYS

I cannot precommit myself to that in reserving my position on this Amendment, but we shall bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Application for tenancy of the holding]:

7.30 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 27, line 9, at end insert— (14) Provision shall he made by order under section 73(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947 (procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals) for requiring any person making an application to such a tribunal under this or the following section to give notice of the application to the landlord of the agricultural holding to which the application relates and to take such steps as the order may require for bringing the application to the notice of other persons interested in the outcome of the application.

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

I should like to ask one question of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. When both the landlord and the tenant go before the Agricultural Land Tribunal, can they cross-examine each other on eligibility and suitability? In particular, can they employ counsel to cross-examine each other?

Lord MELCHETT

The answer to both of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is certainly, Yes. They will be able to employ counsel if they so wish. and if the noble Lord will refer to Hansard he will see that I responded earlier to a question about costs. But they would be able to employ counsel if they wished and either party would be open to cross-examination, which is normal in proceedings before a tribunal of this kind.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 [Application by not filly eligible person to he treated as eligible]:

7.31 p.m.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 27, line 18, leave out (" some ") and insert (" a major ").

The noble Earl said: We now come to Clause 20, which was added at the Report stage in another place. Clause 17(3) states quite clearly who is eligible to claim a tenancy, and Clause 20 then makes eligible those which Clause 17(3) describes as not being eligible. In this respect. we are getting miles away from the original intention of the Bill, which was to prevent hardship to close relatives or tenants who had worked for years on a farm and then faced loss of livelihood when the tenant died.

One of the criteria for ascertaining whether someone is eligible is in Paragraph (b) of Clause 17(3), which states that for at least five out of seven years before a tenant's death a holding should have been the only or principal source of livelihood of the applicant. I am bound to say that I question what " livelihood " means, but I assume that the effect of that provision is, first, that the applicant must have worked and lived on that farm. But perhaps it does not mean that he must have lived on that farm. Perhaps it means that he must have lived away from the farm but worked on it, and, consequently, that his only or principal source of income came from the farm.

But Clause 20 waters this down and says that if a person has not satisfied those criteria, he is still eligible if he satisfies some of them. What is " some "? If a person has been on a farm for not five years but three years he will have satisfied the criteria to some extent, as will a person who has been on a farm for two years or one year. It is the same with one's livelihood. Presumably, if 80 per cent. of one's income comes from a farm, one will have satisfied the criteria to some extent. If one has received only £100 from a farm, one will still have satisfied the criteria to some extent. I do not believe that that is what the Government want, nor do I believe it is what the Bill should state. and this simple Amendment tries to make the position a little easier to understand.

What I have suggested here is that instead of the word " some " we insert the words " a major ", so that a person would have to satisfy the criteria to a major extent. It may be asked: what does " major " mean? Presumably, " major " means more than minor so it must mean more than 50 per cent. I assume that the Government are trying to cover people who have done only four and a half years. If this Amendment were accepted. the scope of the Bill would be infinitely wider than the Government originally intended, but it would make the position clear. Even if it were accepted. a person who had done only two and a half years on a farm could still claim to be an applicant, and under Clause 20 the Agricultural Land Tribunal would be bound to say, " Yes. this man has done his time." I do not know how applicants who had gone off to do a course at a university would fit in. If they have to do only five years out of seven and they do two and a half years at a university, are they still eligible? This is a very great deal wider than the Government intended, and this Amendment would make the Bill a little tighter. I beg to move.

Lord MIDDLETON

With his great charm and courtesy, my noble friend Lord Ferrers has been very kind to this clause. I think it is a terrible clause. It is an Agricultural Land Tribunal's nightmare. It is clearly laid down in Clause 17(3)(b) who they can and cannot accept as eligible. The period for which they must have worked on the farm, and the question of their livelihood, are also very clearly set out in that paragraph, and, presumably, the Tribunal would not have great difficulty in determining whether or not somebody was eligible. Then they have to turn to Clause 20(1)(b) and determine whether the condition, which was perfectly clear beforehand, is not fully satisfied but satisfied to some extent. How are they to determine that question, and what do the words " to some extent " mean? Then they have to look at Clause 20(4). I shall not read it out, but if any noble Lords here can understand what it means I shall be very grateful to hear. I shall also be extremely glad if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will tell me what it means, because I have been reading it for the last fortnight and it seems to me to be complete gobbledegook.

Then the Agricultural Land Tribunal are faced with subsection (6) which states: … cases where the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(b) "— which one would have thought was fairly clear— … might be less than fully satisfied include cases W here the survivor's agricultural work on the holding fell short of providing him with his principal source of livelihood because the holding was too small. As several noble Lords have said, this legislation is all about hardship. but if the principal source of livelihood was not forthcoming because the livelihood was too small, what hardship was there? As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, this clause was put in at a very late stage. This is legislation by dithering.

The Earl of ONSLOW

I believe that this clause could be classed as the " How long is a piece of string?" clause, in that it is the word " some " to which we on this side take objection, as has very clearly been said by both the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. This reminds me of the death duty legislation, and we go back to the days of the five-year gift rule—is it possible for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to pay attention?—when, if you were given a sum of money by your father, your grandfather or your great aunt, they had to live for five years and it was rightly deemed grossly unfair if they dropped down dead on the 364th day of the fourth year. Consequently, there was a scale introduced into the Finance Acts which clarified the position and, I believe, satisfied most people.

But this has gone much too far and the clause must be tightened up. Otherwise, if a sister has gone to pick apples on her brother's tenanted farm in Kent during her summer holidays, and has spent three years on a cookery course, has done a fortnight's apple picking and has been paid 7s. 6d., or some similar sum for it, then " some " in Clause 20 applies. I fully realise that that is reductio ad absurdum, but it does not necessarily mean that if, sometimes, things are unclearly enacted the law may have to take cognisance of the reductio ad absurdum argument and give effect to the provisions. I beg the Government, please, to think again and to try to make it slightly more logical and not require the Agricultural Land Tribunal to ask: " How long is a piece of string?

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

I should like to support this Amendment. When I first read the Bill I noted the words describing the clause: Application by not fully eligible person to he treated as eligible". They seem to me to be a contradiction in terms. How can you legislate for that? It is absolutely impossible. If this clause is passed, I cannot imagine anything more difficult for a member of a Tribunal than trying to be fair and to administer Clause 20 of this Bill which is headed with these totally idiotic words. Furthermore, when it uses very indefinite words like " some—and there are others in the clause—one is putting a perfectly impossible task before the Tribunal. If it is worth anything, legislation must be simple, clear and state what it means. If you do not fulfil the requirements which that legislation describes, you are not then able to reap the benefits of that legislation. That is simple. To frame the clause like this means that you are imposing upon the Tribunal an impossible burden. Let us suppose that a Tribunal is adjudicating in a dispute or quarrel between people who believe that they are entitled to inherit a certain property or tenancy. There will be many legal battles because there will be disputes regarding whether or not the interpretation of these vague phrases is correct. Also, a great deal of legal trouble will arise from this Bill. I beg the noble Lord to take back this clause and say to his advisers, " Put this in simple language that we can understand and let us have something which is capable of being adjudicated upon ". This is not capable of being adjudicated upon.

Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH

Through the courtesy of the Lord Chan- cellor's Office, recently I have been reappointed to the Agricultural Land Tribunal in my part of the country. So far as this Bill is concerned, all I would say is that it encourages one to send in one's resignation. So far as this clause is concerned, may I implore the noble Lord to accept this Amendment in order to make our job a little easier.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

I was sorry to hear those words from the noble Lord. I hope that we do not receive any resignations from Agricultural Land Tribunals. The job is complicated enough without people wanting to hand in their resignations. I have already stated my views on eligible applicants. Therefore, I shall simply add my support for this Amendment, which w ill limit the scope that little bit which will he necessary. In most instances the matter of selection of the tenant has already been taken out of the hands of those who know best the holding—that is, the landlord or his agent—and put into the hands of an Agricultural Land Tribunal. This clause complicates their work to an unwarranted degree. As it stands, the clause is not, in my opinion, beneficial for the future of the agricultural industry.

Lord MELCHETT

First, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, asked me for an explanation of subsection (4) of Clause 20. I shall try to give him one, although I do not promise that the explanation is any simpler than the subsection itself. However, after I have read it out he may care to study my reply in Hansard and come back to me if he is no clearer about it.

This subsection ensures that a person who is the subject of a determination under subsection (3) is not to be treated as having satisfied the principal source of livelihood test to a greater extent than is in fact the case. For example, it will prevent an applicant who has worked on the holding for only two years out of the last seven from claiming that because of a determination by the Tribunal, given under subsection (3), he is to be regarded as having worked there for at least five years. I do not know whether I have the noble Lord with me up to this point.

Lord MIDDLETON

You have not got me!

Lord MELCHETT

I stand to be corrected if I elaborate on the explanation. It seems to me that what we are getting at is that if the Tribunal use their discretion under Clause 20 to say that notwithstanding the fact that somebody has worked on the holding for only two out of the five years instead of for five years, he will he considered eligible. The Tribunal use their discretion to make that person eligible, hut that does not mean that the person has worked there for five years rather than for two. In other words, the fact that the Tribunal have used their discretion to make them eligible does not re-write history and mean that they have done something which they have not. I see that the noble Earl is very kindly nodding to me, which is giving me a great deal of encouragement!

Earl FERRERS

The noble Lord does much better when he leaves behind his brief. We can understand him then.

Lord MELCHETT

I am not so sure that I am getting it right, though. However, having got that far, the relevance of this clause is to an application for suitability under Clause 19(8). In other words, it will be a great advantage to somebody to say, " Although in truth I have worked on the land only for two years out of five, the Tribunal have said that I am eligible. Therefore it must be seen as though I have worked on the land for five years. Therefore, I am suitable under Clause 19(8), or more suitable than I would otherwise be if you looked at the practicalities rather than at what the Tribunal had found ". As I say, I leave the noble Lord to think about it, and if the explanation is still not clear no doubt he will come hack to me upon it.

Turning to Amendment No. 20 itself, during the detailed consideration of Clause 17 in another place two particular criticisms were directed against subsection (3)(b) of the clause. These were that because of its inflexibility, the succession provisions would not apply where holdings were too small to provide the principal livelihood for two people or where the son had been unable fully to meet the five year qualifying period at the time of the tenant's death. Strong pleas were made that these two requirements should be relaxed. Clause 20 was therefore introduced into the scheme to provide a certain measure of discretion in the pro- ceedings of the Agricultural Land Tribunal I when considering the eligibility of an applicant.

The remit given to the Agricultural Land Tribunal by Clause 20 is this. A person who applies to them for a determination under this clause that he or she is to be treated as an eligible person must, first, satisfy them that he or she passes two of the eligibility tests; these are that the person concerned is a close relative of the deceased, as defined in Clause 17(1), and that he or she is not already the occupier of a commercial farm, whether as a tenant or as an owner occupier. The third test of eligibility, on the other hand— the principal livelihood test which still establishes the essential link with the holding—while still being satisfied has only to be satisfied to some extent. It is left to the good sense of the Tribunal what that means. In other words, the relaxations in Clause 20 do not apply to two out of three of the eligibility tests—the close relative test and the other test—but they do apply to whether the person has satisfied the principal source of' livelihood test.

The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, as a member of an ALT has asked what on earth the Agricultural Land Tribunal is going to make of this: what does " to some extent " mean? For example, it means that to be an eligible person, an applicant, instead of having worked full time on the holding for five years out of the last seven, can have worked either, first, full-time for less than five years; or, secondly, part-time for the full five years; or, thirdly, part-time for less than five years. There are three possible derogations, as it were, from the full eligibility test.

I suggest that if an applicant meets either of the first two of these categories; that is, full-time for less than five years, or part-time for the full five years, it could be an unreasonable act for the tribunal not to make a determination in the applicant's favour. In other words, if he missed the five-year period by a short time or possibly if the applicant had been working part-time for five years on the holding, hut only working part-time. I have in mind as an example a small farm where there is not enough income to support two people fully but the son of the tenant does a great deal of work in the evenings and at weekends—quite possibly more work than some full-time agricultural workers. I think on both sides of the House we accept that there are tenant farmers and their families who in these circumstances will put an enormous amount of work into the holding and it is for the sort of discretion needed to cover those cases that the clause is intended.

I wish to make one other point to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I have some experience in another capacity of having to administer the 1972 Industry Act, in which some very strict delineations were drawn up as to who should he eligible for grant and who should not be, and it seems to me that a very strict line can give rise to just as many problems for everyone concerned as something which gives a little more flexibility for the good sense of those concerned in adjudicating on these matters to have a little play. A strict limit, particularly where, as in the case of the Industry Act public money is concerned, or in this case a tenancy, can give rise to a far greater sense of grievance and injustice, and I should have said a far greater sense of frustration and injustice on the part of all the people, both those in the ALT and others who have to administer the Act (when it becomes an Act) than can the existence of some flexibility, because while it may place a greater burden in one sense, I would suggest that it removes a considerable burden from those administering these provisions.

I have dealt with two of the possible derogations, as it were, from this eligibility test—the full-time for less than five years, the part-time for the full five years, and, I said, there was a third possibility: namely, the part-time for less than five years—that is the two together. In those circumstances, I must agree that a case made under that category is weaker and in many instances may not justify the making of a determination. Therefore the question to be answered is whether the clause as now drafted makes this distinction clear, and 1 have to agree that it does not. Admittedly, the Tribunal will make a determination only if they consider that it will be fair and reasonable to allow the applicant to apply under Clause 19 for a direction entitling him or her to the tenancy, but I suspect that they will find the phrase " to some extent " too imprecise, as noble Lords opposite have suggested, and may not fully understand the intention behind it. I believe that the substitution of the words, " a major extent ", for, " to some extent ", as proposed by this Amendment would still not meet the case because, if I may say so, I think it also suffers from a certain lack of precision.

Given the arguments which I have outlined and which I think everyone will agree are fairly complicated and will require further study, I should like to suggest to noble Lords opposite that we take this away and think about it again. I, in particular, would like to have the opportunity to consult with the NFU and the CLA about this. The aim seems to me to he not so much to tighten up the requirement as to give the Tribunal a much clearer indication of how far the requirement for full-time work on the holding can be relaxed, and it is with that aim in mind that I should like to give this some further consideration before the next stage of the Bill.

Earl FERRERS

The noble Lord has come about one inch down the road. I congratulate him on that. I think I understood him to say that the only thing he would really consider was the part-time person on a part-time holding.

Lord MELCHETT

If I may correct the noble Earl, I was looking at the case of somebody who has worked part-time for less than the full five years. That was the situation.

Earl FERRERS

Somebody who has worked part-time for less than the full five years—that is the point which is giving the noble Lord concern and which he is prepared to look at. and I am delighted that he will look at it. But I am bound to say that his exposition of the whole of the answer to the Amendment only led one to realise what an absurd clause it is. He said that he could not accept " major " because it is imprecise. It is not imprecise: " Major " must mean more than 50 per cent., and if you put in " five years " why do you say that it is two and a half? If you mean two and a half, then put in two and a half. But if you are going to say, " Oh, we will have five years, but we will say that as long as that is satisfied to some extent "— well, it can he six months. It does not matter whether it is a part-time holding or a full-time holding or whether he has done five years, or what.

Lord MELCHETT

May I ask the noble Earl a question? If he is saying that " major " means more than 50 per cent., why not put in " more than 50 per cent"?

Earl FERRERS

Because I thought " major " was rather simpler. If the noble Lord would like to have the words " more than 50 per cent.", I should be delighted to put it in, or perhaps he would like to put it in at the next stage. We shall come to another Amendment later which I had hoped might possibly have gone together with this one. It is quite fatuous to produce legislation which says quite clearly that if you fulfil this, that and the other criterion, you are eligible, and then to put in another clause which says, " If you do not fulfil those criteria and are therefore ineligible, nevertheless you shall be eligible ".

When the thing is so wide as it is drafted at the moment, just to satisfy it " to some extent " really makes the interpretation of the intention of the Government completely impossible. The noble Lord has often said that it is up to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to produce considerations whether it shall be granted to a tenant or not. How are they supposed to understand subsection (4)? My noble friend Lord Middleton could not understand it. We began to understand it a little with the benefit of the noble Lord's brief, but the Agricultural Land Tribunal will not have that brief. They will have to try to interpret what is in this Act and I venture to suggest that Clause 20 is very badly drafted. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment but I will not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.59 p.m.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 27, line 32, at end insert— Provided that the Tribunal shall not determine that a person is to be treated as an eligible person if that person in the seven years referred to in subsection (1) above, had been engaged in agricultural work on the holding for less than five years, and for the purposes of this proviso any period spent by that person attending such a course as is mentioned in section 17(4) of this Act shall be. treated as time engaged in agricultural work on the holding, but not more than three years in all shall be so treated.

The noble Earl said: I do not suppose there is much point in moving this Amendment because it is more restrictive than Amendment No. 20. I was hoping the noble Lord would say that he would accept Amendment No. 20 which would mean that the person would have to satisfy the requirements to a major extent. In other words, they would have to have more than 50 per cent. of their livelihood derived from the farm; but that Amendment 21 would say that even so an applicant could be considered only if the qualification of having been on the farm for five years should stand. Quite clearly, as the noble Lord has not accepted the first Amendment, which would have allowed him to have to be on the farm for only two and a half years, he will not accept this Amendment which requires him to be on the farm for five years. Nevertheless, I will move the Amendment just to hear what the noble Lord has to say. I beg to move.

8 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

The noble Earl is quite right in saying that I am not disposed to accept the Amendment. Indeed, it is not surprising given what I hoped was a particularly constructive attitude to Amendment No. 20 which he has just withdrawn. We shall look at this again. I accept that it is wrong to have in the clause wording which is so inprecise in its effect that the Agricultural Land Tribunal will be placed in an impossible position in trying to interpret it. But I also said—and the noble Earl did not deal with this point—and it is particularly relevant to Amendment No. 21 which would place everyone in this position—that the line that would be drawn would be so rigid that it would lead to cases which are obviously not fair; that is, the kind of case where someone has been there for four years, 364 days and 23 hours, or what-have-you. It is rigidity of that kind which this clause is designed to remove; not precisely that rigidity, or the noble Earl will say to me, " Why don't you put something in, saying 364 days? ". It is to give the Agricultural Land Tribunal a reasonable amount of discretion to look at matters on their merits rather than having to apply a rigid distinction between who is to be eligible and who is not, on this one criterion out of the three grounds for eligibility. This should be in the forefront of our minds in discussing this clause.

This is not the only ground for eligibility. There are others, as I mentioned, where this does not apply; that is, where someone is either a brother or is not a brother. Although I know noble Lords would not particularly agree with me because of an earlier Amendment. I would maintain that someone is still a treated child or not a treated child, to take possibly the most extreme example. That remains the case. It is only on the principal source of livelihood test, the third limb of eligibility, that this clause has an impact. It is on that one bit of the limbs of eligibility, in order to give the Agricultural Land Tribunal a reasonable amount of discretion, that I said we would be happy to look at the previous Amendment to see whether, with some consultation with the NFU and CLA, we might come to some agreed wording for the clause.

Lord HENLEY

1 hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not forget that the NFU have already agreed to Amendment No. 21.

The Earl of ONSLOW

What I understand the noble Lord is doing is to say that the lady who has done her cooking course and has come to pick apples for one year has now to pick apples for five years, and then she becomes eligible. That is the first point. I may be tempted to think that the noble Lord might be tempted to move a new clause at Report stage, saying that even though the tenant is not a brother, the Agricultural Land Tribunal may think he is a brother because that is the same sort of clause as Clause 20. The noble Lord said when he was speaking to the last Amendment that there would be a remit on how the Agricultural Land Tribunal would work and think along these lines. Why cannot this be put into law? Why has he not commented on the precedents of the death duty legislation which had distinct variations descending in a curve? Admittedly, perhaps it went in steps rather than in a curve, but that would have presented a precedent for the noble Lord to look at and think of.

Lord MELCHETT

I am not quite clear how it is possible to inherit part of a tenancy.

The Earl of ONSLOW

I am trying to make myself clear and obviously have not done so. I see the point of what the Government are trying to do. They are saying, " Four years, 364 days, you do not get it: four years 365 days, you get it." I think there is some force in their argument. There are the precedents of the death duty legislation which went like this: until one of the Finance Acts, if you died after 4 years, 364 days, you paid the full " whack "; if you died after 4 years 365 days—in other words, 5 years—you did not pay any at all. There were the precedents. The Finance Act was cut back and subsequently amended, so there was a descending scale of death duties. Presumably there could be a descending or ascending scale of eligibility. I am trying to make myself clear, and I think I am in a bigger muddle than I was on Clause 4.

Lord BURTON

Am I right in thinking it is the intention of the Government that the Agricultural Land Tribunal will have discretion to relax Clause 17 over borderline cases?

Lord MELCHETT

With regard to the principal source of livelihood test contained in the clause, yes.

Lord BURTON

Could it not therefore he inserted in such simple language, or something similar?

Lord MELCHETT

All of us, particularly Government Ministers dealing with Amendments on Bills, wish that Parliamentary counsel could put things in simple language. Governments of all Parties have found that this is not always possible.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

Would wording such as this suffice? The Agricultural Land Tribunal shall still have authority to grant a continuation of the tenancy if it finds that while the seven years has not been precisely complied with, the departure was trivial and unimportant. If the noble Lord is simply thinking of cases of 364 days instead of 364;', days, that would cover it.

Earl FERRERS

I think that would have been covered if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had accepted my Amendment, hut he turned it down. I wonder whether the noble Lord would answer this question, which he did not answer before. If you have had to be on the farm for five years under Clause 17(3) in order to be able to claim the tenancy, under Clause 20 you only have to do part of that time. So, in fact, you have to do only two years of your time on the farm to qualify under Clause 20. Supposing during that two years you have been at university, but you are still eligible for the tenancy. In other words, you can be eligible for the tenancy, having been at university and never having been on the farm. Is that not right?

Lord MELCHETT

I should like to think about that, if I may, in the process of looking at the problems which I have acknowledged exist in the current wording of the clause. Whatever Clause 20 would actually empower the Agricultural Land Tribunal to do, it is quite clear that the provisions of the family succession scheme are designed to ensure that someone who has a close relationship with the holding itself is eligible to succeed. That is one of the reasons for Lord Henley's case of someone who has worked off the holding but has agricultural experience that does not count towards making them eligible; although I would think that under Clause 20, they would be able to meet the fears of the noble Lord. Lord Henley, in that direction. I should like to think about the point of the noble Lord in relation to a general view, which I have said we would like, of the precise wording as it applies to the eligibility test.

Earl FERRERS

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?

8.8 p.m.

Earl FERRERS

This clause is frankly an amazing clause in so far as, as we have just been discussing. it completely waters down the whole of the provisions which have been applied in Clause 17(3). The noble Lord said in relation to the last two Amendments that he would like to consider something. I am not absolutely clear what he is going to consider, because I thought he said he was going to consider my first Amendment No. 20 but, only in so far as it affected part-time holdings where people had worked for only part of the 5 years, which is a rather slender reconsideration. I did not understand him to say that he was going to reconsider the whole of Amendment No. 21 because, had he reconsidered that, it would go considerably further than Amendment No. 20. I understand what the noble Lord had in mind when he said that it is a pity to have things written into the Bill that are so rigid because then nobody can apply any discretion. But wherever you draw a line, someone will fall on the wrong side of it. If a person has done 4 years, 364 days—it is bad luck if he has not done 5 years—and if you want to get that person, then the answer should be that you ought to put in four years. If you mean that the person's principal or sole livelihood should be from that farm, you should say so. But then to go on and alter it and say, " We do not mean that at all, we mean something entirely different ", is, quite frankly, very bad legislation. I accept that Clause 20 has been put in because the right honourable gentleman was subjected to some pretty strong pressures; I understand that. But our job, surely, must be to make legislation understandable and reasonable and fair. I do not believe it makes it fair to say, " These are the criteria, one, two, three, but if you are ineligible for those do not worry, because we will make you eligible. " Nobody knows where he is. I do feel very strongly that this is a badly drafted clause. I would ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to take the whole clause back and look at it and make sense with it, because if he does not do that, as it stands in the Bill at the moment it goes far wider than just allowing the person who has only done four years and 360 days on the farm: it is infinitely greater than that, and it really is far too wide.

Lord MELCHETT

I do not accept for a moment that the clause completely alters the eligibility tests provided under Clause 17. As I said several times on the previous two Amendments, there are three eligibility tests which the applicant for the tenancy has to pass, and we are here only dealing with the decision about eligibility before we come on to the decision as to suitability. So we are looking at the first stage in the process before the Agricultural Land Tribunal and of that first stage we are looking at one of three tests of eligibility. The candidates have to satisfy the ALT that they are a near relative as defined in the Bill and satisfy them that they are not already the occupier of a commercial farm. We then get to the third test which is the one which is giving us the trouble. I would urge on the noble Earl to get this into perspective.

Earl FERRERS

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I have got it absolutely, wholly and entirely into perspective, because I never referred to anything else other than the eligibility under that one subsection.

Lord MELCHETT

I am not saying the noble Earl has got it wrong. What I am saying is that by using the phrase, " completely altering the purpose of the Bill ", or some such phrase, he is suggesting that this is a dramatic change in the whole family succession scheme. I simply do not accept that. It is a loosening of one of the three eligibility tests which an applicant has to satisfy before being considered by the Tribunal as to whether or not he would make a suitable farmer of the holding, bearing in mind the relative cases of the landlord's relatives and the applicant and so on. That is the point I am trying to make first of all. I think there is agreement on all sides of the House also—and I am afraid this might be lost sight of—that it would be unfair to have a cut-off point on something as important as this, where there is not, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the possibility of having some sort of sliding scale. Somebody is either eligible to be considered as a tenant or not. You cannot have somebody being half a tenant or a quarter of a tenant, getting half the holding or a quarter of it, depending on how many days he happens to have missed by. That part of the process has to be all or nothing: they are eligible or they are not.

You then go on to decide whether they are suitable or not. No one has suggested that if they are not suitable but jolly nearly are we ought to give them some sort of compensation. I think we must accept that when we get to that stage we are dealing with an all-or-nothing case. All we are saying is that if, as one of the three eligibility tests, someone has to satisfy the Tribunal that he has derived his principal source of livelihood from the holding, that should not be interpreted so strictly as to be demonstrably unfair to the applicant. I gave the example of somebody who may have worked part time on the holding for five years, whereas most of his income came from some other job, but in fact because the holding did not produce much income and because there was a great deal of work needed to be done he might have worked more hours on the holding than at the full-time job earning the bulk of his income. f was thinking of somebody working every evening and weekend on the holding. Nobody has suggested that that is not possible, and that it would be just for that person to be denied the right to succeed. It is that case, as well as the four years and so many days case, that Clause 20 is also designed to meet.

I would stress that I think there is an extremely good, fair and reasonable case for giving the Agricultural Land Tribunal some discretion in interpretation of this one out of the three eligibility tests. Having agreed with that, f also agree with the noble Earl that the wording to which his Amendment No. 20 drew attention may not be very satisfactory, and I would certainly like to have a further look at it with the interested parties, the NFU and the CLA. But, of course, it will not be possible to have consultations on this if the clause is deleted from the Bill. So I would hope very strongly that the noble Earl will not delete what I think is an extremely valuable, useful and sensible clause which will lead to a greater sense of justice to all those who have to work out the scheme and suffer the consequences of the judgments made under it. If the clause stays in the Bill we can have a further look at the precise point the noble Earl's Amendment No. 20 struck on.

Earl FERRERS

I want to be as helpful as possible. If the noble Lord says he wants to have a look at it, then, of course, one listens very carefully, but I want to know what he is going to look at. If he is going to say, " I will look at the whole of Clause 20 so that we can try and make provision for the person who only does four years and 350 days, so that he will not be disqualified ", that is one thing. But if he is going to say, " We have got to accept the fact that we must have in the Bill something which wholly widens the thing right up and down, so that a person of 21- years' standing can be considered eligible ", I think I would wish to delete the clause. What I am anxious to know is whether this is a genuine offer to reconsider the whole of Clause 20; then I would be prepared not to press the Amendment which is down in my name. But if it is only going to be a question of seeing how we can alter it a little for the person who had been working on a part-time holding for five years, or something like that, this would be totally inadequate.

Lord MELCHETT

I am frankly staggered by what the noble Earl says. I have made a genuine offer on an Amendment which he moved, in the spirit of his introductory remarks at Second Reading and on the Committee stage, that there was a genuine desire to improve the Bill where it was clearly at fault. I have acknowledged the clear fault to which his Amendment No. 20 drew attention and have undertaken, after consultation with the relevant authorities outside, to look at an improvement to the clause. The noble Earl is now saying, " Unless you get rid of the whole clause I will not allow you to do that ". That seems to me to be flying in the face of everything he has said on all the Amendments he has moved today. I would urge him to give me an opportunity of looking at the genuine difficulty to which he has drawn our attention, with people outside who have taken a close interest in these provisions, and not delete the clause.

Earl FERRERS

The noble Lord need not get quite so waxy. I did not actually say that unless he was prepared to remove the whole clause I would move to have it deleted. I wanted to know whether he would be prepared to reconsider the whole clause and not just that one Amendment. As I have tried to explain, in my judgment this clause as it stands completely alters the whole of that one of the three eligibility standards. If he is prepared to reconsider the whole of Clause 20, then, of course, I will not press this. I hope that he will be able to do so, because if it is a question of where you should draw the line, whether it is five years of 41, that can be done by amending Clause 17. I do hope the noble Lord will be able to reconsider the whole of Clause 20, and I will willingly not press this.

Lord MELCHETT

I think I should make it clear—which I did, and I have in front of me the words which I used when discussing Amendment No. 20— exactly what I was going to take away and consider. I went into considerable detail and took a great deal of the Committee's time in trying to get this clear. It seemed to me that there was one limb of this which could give rise to considerable difficulty, and clearly was going far further than we had intended in Clause 20. That was where somebody had worked part-time—not on a part-time holding, as the noble Earl has said more than once—for less than the full five years; in other words, not only have they not worked the right amount of time but they have not been working full-time either. When those two things came together Clause 20, as it is now drafted, would still give the Agricultural Land Tribunal discretion to make that sort of person an eligible candidate for the tenancy, and that is the only aspect of Clause 20 which I am saying that I would take away and look at in consultation. It is an important aspect, and I made it quite clear all along that that was all I was going to look at.

Lord HENLEY

I should like to support the noble Earl here. I think that the clause goes a great deal further than the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is aware. It leaves a whole area open to abuse as to how much time has been worked on a holding, and nothing to do with whether it is a part-time holding or a full holding. In all those kinds of area, as I say, it is open to abuse. If we were to delete this clause on a vote now, it would not preclude the noble Lord from discussing it with the CLA or the NFU, or anyone else, in order to put it back again in some different form, so I do not think that he need worry about that. But I think that the noble Lord is looking too narrowly at one aspect of the difficulties of this clause and not at the difficulties that the whole clause raises.

Earl FERRERS

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has now made crystal clear that the one thing he is going to look at is the issue raised on one part of Amendment No. 20, and he is not therefore prepared to look at the point that the clause, as it stands, will alter the fact that the person has to serve a five-year period, and alters it to such an extent that even if he only serves a four, three, two, or one-year period Clause 20 will make him

CONTENTS
Arwyn, L.	Henderson, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Birk, B.	Hoy, L.	Popplewell, L.
Blyton, L.	Kirkhill, L.	Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)
Brockway, L.	Lee of Newton, L.	Stedman, B. [Teller.]
Brown, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Caradon, L.	Maybray-King, L.	Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Champion, L.	Melchett, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L.	Northfield, L.	White, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Phillips,-B.	Winterbottom, L,

NOT-CONTENTS
Atholl, D.	de Clifford, L.	Morris, L.
Balerno, L.	De La Warr, E.	Newall, L.
Banks, L.	Denham, L. [Teller.]	Northchurch, B.
Belstead, L.	Dundee, E.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Berkeley, B.	Elles, B.	Onslow, E.
Bethell, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Rathcreedan, L.
Bourne, L.	Ferrers, E.	Redesdale, L.
Boyd of Merton, V.	Gisborough, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Bradford, E.	Glenkinglas, L.	Salisbury, M.
Bradwell, L.	Hanworth, V.	Sandys, L.
Burton, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Savile, L.
Caithness, E.	Henley, L.	Seear, B.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Hornsby-Smith, B.	Strathclyde, L.
Clinton, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Coleraine, L.	Long, V.	Swinton, E.
Colville of Culross, V.	Lyell, L.	Tenby, V.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Middleton, L.	Vickers, B.
Cottesloe, L.	Monk Bretton, L.	Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Monson, L.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Clause 20 disagreed to accordingly.

8.31 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

As we have made some progress this afternoon and as a large number of noble Lords are waiting to speak on the Unstarred Question which is to follow, this might be a convenient moment to resume the House. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

House resumed.

eligible. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is not prepared to look at that. then I would ask the Committee to join me in trying to eliminate Clause 20.

8.23 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30: Non-Contents, 57.