AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (Hansard, 29 June 1976)

§ Lord SANDYS

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Ferrers I should like to express some views from this side of the House on the Third Reading of this important Bill. We ranged very widely in our discussions on Part I of this Bill, and I should like to say what a landmark it is to see this new clause, Clause 5, providing that " aqua-culture " be deemed to be " agriculture ". This is a very significant step, because the campaign which has been pursued by my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley and my noble friend Lord Balerno over a 672 period of years has culminated in this new clause in the Bill; and, my Lords, it is a very important element in the battle for food in this country. Of course, it was very significant that it was only yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who made a most interesting Statement on fisheries policy, should have replied to a question put to him by my noble friend Lady Emmet on whether the fisheries policy was going to include the matters to which she referred.

My Lords, in our deliberations we considered in very great detail Part II of the Bill and the inheritance provisions, which have preoccupied much of the time; and if perhaps, from this side of the House, I were to stress one quotation, it would be that of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel in col. 937 of the Official Report of 14th June:

… 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 ". That quotation really is the synthesis of our views on much of Part II of the Bill. Although it was the Government's intention to bring the inheritance provisions applicable in Scotland in 1968 into line with those in England, perhaps I might remind your Lordships most respectfully that this was not new in Scotland since the 1968 Act restored a system repealed ten years earlier.

I am very much aware that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is not present this afternoon as he has been officially representing the Opposition in the Seychelles on the occasion of their celebrations of independence, but during the earlier part of our discussions he referred to his own law, Ferrers' Law, which states that Statutes frequently have precisely the opposite effect from that which their instigators intended. The Government have embarked upon a course of action, we believe, without adequate preparation and with only superficial discussions with the industry—I think this has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—and from the outset we have been worried about Clause 17, which amends Section 24(2)(g) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. We are still anxious about it. We still believe that this will prove to be a very good instance of the law of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, 673 and that the repercussions and consequences of this piece of legislation may be quite the opposite of those which the Ministry of Agriculture intend, and indeed the promotions of Her Majesty's Government.

My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank all those who have assisted in our deliberations. It would be invidious to thank any individual noble Lord, but I feel I must thank especially, in his absence, my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the very prominent part he played at all stages of the Bill. Further, we have been reinforced in our discussions by many contributions from all over the House. It has been significant that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has carried the whole weight of the Bill himself, and on behalf of my noble friend, and indeed myself, I should like to thank him for his very courteous replies on many occasions, and for his very careful explanations. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, did assist him in the case of one or two Amendments, I think, but, nevertheless, the whole weight of the Bill lay with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.

I think it would be inappropriate at this stage to make specific further comments on particular clauses. I have spoken for a sufficient length of time to mention our views about the Bill, and, as I am about to sit down, I should like to say finally that we on these Benches believe that the Government have been misguided to bring it to us.

§ Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I was going to thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks to me in saying how I had dealt with the Amendments, but I am not sure that thanks are entirely due in view of his parting shot. The noble Lord started off with a reference to " aquaculture ", and, of course, we had a worthwhile debate on the subject when the Amendment was introduced into the Bill. He said that it was a landmark. I think it would have been very helpful if he had given us some indication of the public expenditure effects of the Amendment which he and his noble friends have pressed into the Bill; exactly what expenditure they see arising from the Amendment, how it is to be met and, indeed, what other expenditure they would 674 like to see cut to make room for this expenditure. That also would have been very helpful to myself and my colleagues in considering the Amendment further.

The noble Lord went on to talk about the family succession scheme. I certainly have never accepted at any stage of the Bill's passage that it was introduced after only superficial discussions with the industry. Quite the reverse. I said on more than one occasion that the family succession scheme was introduced into this Bill in large part because of the urgings of the industry that the scheme should be introduced quickly. That, indeed, is why the scheme, while it was not in the Bill when it was first introduced and had its Second Reading, was introduced at the Committee stage. It was precisely because of the urgings from the industry. As the noble Lord knows, the Government, and I believe the bulk of the farming industry, are firmly of the belief that the scheme will work and have the desired effect, and will be much to the good, the long-term good, of British agriculture. The stability that it will bring to the tenant farmer can only be in the long-term interests of farming and of the way in which tenant farmers look after their land.

As all noble Lords who have anything to do with farming know, farming is a long-term business. If one is looking to considerations of the health of your soil structure, this is something which may well take several generations to improve in the long run. That is why we believe it is important that tenants should not feel that at the existing tenant's death the whole family, who may all have been working on the farm for many years, are going to be asked to leave by the landlord for no good reason at all. We believe the scheme that we have introduced in the Bill will be welcomed by the farming industry—indeed, as I have said, it was at their urgings, in part, that it was introduced —and that it will be very much to the long-term benefit of agriculture. That is why we have included it in a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill and why I am glad to say that, while some undesirable changes and some fairly fundamental changes have been made to the scheme while the Bill has been in your Lordships' House, your Lordships have seen fit to leave the basic scheme in the Bill. I am sure that that has been a wise decision.

675 Finally, may I thank the noble Lord and his noble friends for the way in which they have put up with the fact that I have done my best to answer what at times has been a series of questions from different sources on the Benches opposite to the best of my ability over here, and say that I hope that when the Bill comes back to us again from the Commons we shall be able to see the scheme much improved yet again and see it on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. I believe that many noble Lords on all sides of the House feel that if we are to have a scheme it is desirable to see it on the Statute Book as soon as we can.

On question, Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.