Lords Sitting of 19 November 1976

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

BNOC: PURCHASE OF CRUDE OIL
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed that BNOC shall enjoy an option to purchase crude oil from producers on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf at "market" prices as stated in agreements concluded hitherto or at "fair" prices as proposed in the recent letter to licence applicants circulated by the Department of Energy.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would expect market price to be the fair price for BNOC's purchases of oil from its partners in participation agreements.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which was even better than I had been led to expect? It is a pleasure to give the noble Lord genuine thanks from the bottom of my heart.

WIDOWS AND CHILD BENEFIT SCHEME
11.8 a.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose taking to remedy the reduction in benefits to
1592
50,000 widows with children as a result of the replacement of family allowances by the Child Benefit Scheme.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the proposal announced by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place on 16th November is that, for 1977–78, £52 of the taxable dependency allowance for each child of a widow or retirement pensioner should be exempted from tax. This will ensure that those who are liable to tax on other income are not any worse off as a result of the introduction of child benefit in April 1977. I am arranging for the full text of his Statement to be circulated in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
Proposals for tax changes in 1977–78 consequential on the phasing-in of child benefit

1. It is the Government's intention, as was announced in the statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 23rd September, that from April 1977 child tax allowances should be phased out and replaced by child benefit. By April 1979 it is intended that child tax allowances at the current £300 rate for children under 11 should be entirely phased out, leaving only residual allowances for older children which will themselves be subsumed in child benefit as soon as possible thereafter.

2 For 1977–78 it is proposed that, as the first steps in the phasing, child benefit, at the previously announced rates of £1 for the first child —£1.50 for families now getting child interim benefit—and £1·50 for each subsequent child, should be exempt from tax clawback, and that child tax allowances should be reduced as compared with their current rates by an amount corresponding to the restrictions which would, under the Government's earlier proposals, otherwise have had to be made to take account of tax and clawback on the child benefit. These restrictions would have been £104—£52 for tax and £52 for clawback—in respect of the £1 benefit payable for the first child, and £130-£78 for tax and £52 for clawback—for each subsequent child. It is therefore proposed that the child tax allowance for a first child should be reduced by £104 and the allowance for each subsequent child by £130. Legislation will accordingly be introduced in next year's Finance Bill to exempt child benefit from tax and clawback and to reduce child tax allowances as follows:

Age not over 11 on 6th April 1977 (1976–77 rate £300), first child £196, subsequent children £170.

Age over 11 but not over 16 on 6th April 1977 (1976–77 rate £335), first child £231, subsequent children £205.

Age 16 or over on 6th April 1977, if receiving full-time instruction at a university, college or school, or being trained for not less than 2 years for a trade (1976–77 rate £365), first child £261, subsequent children £235.

1593

3 These new rates of allowance will apply whether or not child benefit is actually paid or is paid for less than a full year and irrespective of the rate paid for a particular child.

4 A separate statement will be made shortly on the treatment of parents of children who live outside the United Kingdom.

5 With regard to parents of students, those who are liable to a parental contribution will benefit from adjustments to be made in the parental contribution scales for student grants in the academic year commencing in September 1977, and subsequent years, to take account of the reduction in child tax allowances. Child benefit is not in any event payable for any child aged 19 or over, and in view of the adjustments to be made in student grant arrangements, it is proposed as from October 1977 to exclude from entitlement to child benefit students under 19 on advanced courses.

6 The "first child" for the purposes of the new rates of allowance will be the eldest child for whom the taxpayer is entitled to child allowance. Where a child tax allowance falls to be apportioned, the allowance to be apportioned will be the highest rate of allowance which would he due to any claimant.

7 Widows and others receiving taxable social security benefits—including pensioners—who have dependent children for whom they receive taxable dependency allowances are at present subject to tax, but not to clawback, on any family allowance received. When from April 1977 the first £1 of the dependency allowance for the first child is replaced by the £1 child benefit, the proposed reductions in child tax allowances, which take account of both tax and of a £52 clawback element, would leave some widows, etc., liable to pay more tax if no adjustment were made. It is, therefore, proposed for 1977–78 to exempt from tax £52 of the taxable dependency allowance for each child. No tax adjustment is to be made for war widows, whose dependency allowances are not taxable, but their dependency allowances for the first child will be reduced by 30p a week instead of £1, and for subsequent children increased by 35p. This will ensure that those who are liable to tax on other income are not any worse off.

8 One-parent families who receive the child interim benefit of £1·50 for the first child, and who will in future receive child benefit at a special rate of £1·50 for the first child, will have their child tax allowances for the first child reduced by £104, as for first children generally. This is less than the total restriction in allowances of £130 which they at present suffer to take account of tax and clawback on their benefit, but it would be difficult operationally for the Revenue to cope with a different rate for first children in one-parent families. These families will, therefore, be better off in 1977–78 by an amount equivalent to £26 allowances—£130 less £104—vis., about 18p a week. This is not intended to be a permanent feature, and they will be put on the same footing as other families as soon as that is practicable.

9 The changes proposed for 1977–78 will leave the great majority of taxpayers, including taxpayers at the higher rates in the same position, both in terms of take-home pay and net family income, as they would have been under the
1594
Government's earlier proposals. The father's take-home pay will go down as compared with 1976–77 by 70p, while the mother will receive the new tax-free child benefit of £1 Thus the family as a whole will be 30p a week better off.

10 A minority of higher rate taxpayers could be slightly worse off than they would have been under our earlier proposals, but this only arises for those paying at a marginal rate of 55 per cent. or over for whom it would have been advantageous to renounce child benefit had it been subject to tax and clawback, and then only if they had in fact chosen to do so. We do not consider that the position so far as 1977–78 is concerned calls for any special measures, given that the losses are small and only arise for a minority in the higher ranges of the higher rates. The position for subsequent years, when further reductions in child tax allowances are to be made without any compensating tax and clawback adjustments, is under consideration.

11 The Inland Revenue will, as has already been stated, be taking account of the changes proposed for 1977–78 in its revisior of PAYE code numbers this winter. Such codings are, of course, by their nature provisional, and the revised codes will not actually take effect until 6th April 1977. This is the date from which changes in tax allowances for 1977–78 to be made in next year's Finance Bill will be effective.

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that Answer will be received most gratefully, because there has been deep concern among widows with children that they may be worse off? Can the noble Lord say whether these tax concessions will coincide with the change in the payments so that there is no intervening gap when these people will be drawing less?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That is the intention, my Lords. I said that the introduction of child benefit in 1977 was when the other matters would come into being.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the Minister say what will be the effect of withdrawing the child relief on those who pay tax? Will there not in fact be a trap at the tax threshold in that those who had the benefit of £110 or £130 relief per child will not get that any more but the child benefit will not make up that difference?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Question was solely on the matter of widows, and that I have dealt with. There are many other factors which, I agree, have to be taken into account. There are beneficiaries with non-axable benefits who could, I recognise, lose £l

1595
of non-taxable benefit and get back 30p after allowing for tax changes when child benefit is introduced, but we must bear in mind what was said by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place when he pointed out that the taxation of short-term benefits was less an issue of principle than of practicalities. While short-term unemployment and sickness benefits remain non-taxable, people receiving them enjoy a much higher effective tax threshold than persons in work or beneficiaries with taxable benefits. In any case, as the noble Baroness knows, a person who is absent from work for a short time will still show a profit over the tax year because of the introduction of child benefit for the first child. We do not consider therefore that a case for special treatment arises in that particular situation.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, the Minister will of course be aware that I was not discussing the question of whether or not unemployment benefit should be taxed; I am concerned with widows and others—particularly widows—who pay tax and who will lose the tax benefit for child relief. I was asking whether there would be a trap affecting those who just come into the tax threshold when this tax relief is withdrawn and they get the new child benefit which will not match up with the tax relief that they originally received.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in April 1977 the dependency allowance for the first child will be reduced by £1 to take into account the introduction of £1 child benefit for the first child. The total benefit income of the widow will thus remain the same as before; the reduction is made on the principle that family allowances child benefit dependency allowances are all part of the same provision for children of beneficiaries.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while I hesitate to intervene in this rather technical matter, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the case that widows who do not pay tax will in fact be rather worse off under these new provisions?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have not been into that. I have been asked to deal with the question of 50,000 widows and I have dealt with it to the
1596
satisfaction of the noble Baroness who asked the Question.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, do these matters also apply to Service widows?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question but, so far as war widows are concerned, the answer is that because their dependency allowances are already tax free this will take the form of a reduction of 30p instead of £1 in the dependency allowance for the first child and a cash increase of 35p for younger children. War widows' pensions are unlike other benefits because they are taxable only in part.

BEECH BARK DISEASE
11.12 a.m.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the spread of beech bark disease is likely to cover the whole country as has happened with Dutch elm disease.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, beech bark disease has been known in Britain and Europe for well over a century. The agents involved are not as virulent as those causing the present epidemic of Dutch elm disease and serious losses from beech bark disease are likely to remain local rather than general.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but is he aware that, since putting down the Question, many people have come to me to say that, in different parts of the country, this is indeed a very serious problem? How much research is going into the development of strains of hard-wood which will be resistant to diseases such as this?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, research work is proceeding on the biology of the causal organisms and on factors affecting the severity of the disease with a view to the development of improved control measures. I regret to say that this is an

1597
endemic disease in this country. There is quite an interesting booklet on beech bark disease which has been produced by the Forestry Commission and which I shall put in your Lordships' Library.
The LORD BISHOP of LONDON: My Lords, has the noble Lord any information about the disease afflicting sycamore trees, which it is said could be as devastating as is the Dutch elm disease?
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords, I regret that that is a different Question.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, do the Government recognise that this disease also has important fiscal implications? Do they realise that the disease renders the timber valueless on felling? Will therefore payments made under capital transfer tax be repaid to the owners thereof?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government have of course recognised the widespread concern expressed by private forestry interests about the influence of taxation on private planting, and they have recently set up an inter-departmental review group to consider the whole question of how private forestry is affected by Government policies on taxation grants and amenities.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication as to whether any progress is occurring in connection with the elm disease which is more serious than the beech bark disease? Does he agree that the Community Service should be alerted to the possibilities for service in assisting or in executing the cutting down of dead trees and the distribution of the wood to the needy during the winter?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take note of the very useful suggestion of my noble friend, if I may call him that. With regard to the question of control, in woodland the removal of affected trees during normal silvicultural thinning operations is recommended, and sanitation felling may be undertaken in seriously diseased strains.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when there is a fairly large plantation, and this is really widespread, it is completely impractical to take the action suggested unless there is some financial assistance?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that is a point which I will pass on to my right honourable friend.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords will the Government give some degree of urgency to this matter, because as the noble Lord will be aware, Dutch elm disease ravaged approximately two-thirds of the United Kingdom, Scotland excluded, and they were unable to assist in the problem?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that this disease cannot be compared with Dutch elm disease. As I said, it is endemic. It is widely scattered over the country. Recent major outbreaks have occurred mainly on the chalk downlands of Southern England, but it Joes not spread as quickly as Dutch elm disease. However, I agree that there are no grounds for complacency, but we have had this disease for 100 years, I regret.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I, finally, from this side of the House put forward the plea for the Government to look deeply—
A noble Lord: Question!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I have already said, "May I". What is the matter with this House? As an interspersion I should say that it is rather nice that we finish in difficult times, like this, this morning. May I ask my noble friend whether he will press upon the Government the need to look in depth into the problem of our national forestry, which is one of our great assets? Certainly, whatever Government are in power, this matter should now be given a priority because of the devastation involved.
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; I agree with my noble friend. As I said with regard to the review group, the Government expect that the findings of this group will be available by the end of the year, and I think that it would be premature to offer any comments before then.

INDIAN AND PACIFIC OCEANS AND THE USSR
11.17 a.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have congratulated the new Governments in Australia and New Zealand upon their increased determination to play their part in countering the growing Soviet threat in the Indian and Pacific oceans.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we welcome the determination of Australia and New Zealand to play their role in countering any threats to the stability of these two areas.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that assurance. But is he aware that some of us are a little concerned that the relationships between ourselves and our Commonwealth are not quite as warm as they used to be? Would the Government in that connection —this is a general question—endeavour to maintain this relationship? May I ask the noble Lord two specific questions: First, is he aware that the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Malcolm Fraser, on 12th January this year, commenting on Soviet naval expansion in the Indian and Pacific oceans, and giving his Government's reasons For re-activating the naval construction at Cockburn Sound (Cockburn Sound being able to take some of the largest ships, including American ships), said that this was no confrontation of the Soviet Union—having been charged by them in that connection—but that there was no such thing in that area as unarmed neutrality? Is the noble Lord further aware—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point the noble Lord made, I can give him a complete assurance that our connection and consultation with the Commonwealth is at least as good today as it has ever been, and we propose
1600
to maintain it, and indeed to deepen it. In regard to our relations with Australia and New Zealand, who of course have a primary interest in the two areas the noble Lord has mentioned, I can equally assure him that we discuss with the two Governments every detail of the implications for the stability and security of that area.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the Minister therefore welcome the recent statement of the Prime Minister of Australia that they are going to increase their defence expenditure by 25 per cent.; and is it not somewhat ironical that this Government should be able to have, as according to the Minister they do have, such satisfactory consultations when the defence of this country is being cut by such a major figure?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Baroness may of course want to launch a debate on public expenditure cuts: one wonders. However, on the point she has made, it is not for me to comment on the internal policies of Australia except to say that expenditure by them on their own defence in relation to their allies is a matter for discussion between them and their allies, and I would regard this country as being pre-eminently a friend and ally of Australia. Similarly it would not be for the Australian Government to comment on our internal policy in regard to our own expenditure.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that we have cut the strength of our Navy, and cut and cut the strength of both manpower and ships, over the last 10 years, and that if we are not able to exercise with the New Zealand and Australian Navies in the Indian Ocean we shall be of little help should they need support in their operations against the increasing strength of the Russian Navy in that area?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, this is a matter for discussion and argument, I agree. I would put it to the noble Lord, who is a former Service Minister himself, that our decision to concentrate our strength in NATO is a reasonable and practical one. Similarly a move in the Pacific and Indian Ocean area by the indigenous countries of that

1601
area to look to their defences and security is equally a sensible course to adopt.
Lord SH1NWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the part that the New Zealand and Australian Governments can play in the Indian and Pacific Oceans is of a very limited character; and, as we have contracted out of that area, or appear to have contracted out, both the New Zealand and the Australian Governments have to rely, in the event of any intervention by the Soviet Union, on the United States of America?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, in so far as we can envisage the future, which is perhaps less dangerous than we anticipated it might be a few months ago, although it is dangerous to slip into complacency. I agree with my noble friend that the indigenous Powers in a given area must in the first instance rely upon their own efforts, but it is never the case that they are entirely dependent on their own efforts. They have allies, and very important and powerful allies.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether it is not true that a decision to rely upon the United States of America to assist Australia and New Zealand in the defence of the Pacific and Indian Oceans was in fact made by the Australian and New Zealand Governments many years ago; that therefore it was a deliberate decision of policy to rely on the United States rather than on the United Kingdom; and that the whole of the standardisation of their weapons has followed that particular policy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord has put in direct terms what I was indicating in terms which I hope are more appropriate for a Minister —and he, too, was a Minister once. It is indeed a factor that the indigenous countries have a right to take the initiative in regard to the best courses for their own defence, and many years ago, as we have just been reminded, the two great Commonwealth countries of that area decided precisely to lean more markedly towards the United States than towards the United Kingdom.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lards, does the noble Lord remember that up to 10 years ago there was the joint exercise "Trincomalee", and that only because Britain took the lead in promoting this naval exercise with India and Pakistan, who had their own differences, was it possible to exercise with the Sinhalese, the Malaysian, the New Zealand and the Australian Navies together? Does the noble Lord not agree that we have a part to play as a member of the Commonwealth in bringing these sort of exercises about; and that, albeit we may make only a token contribution, as a catalyst we can make a moral contribution to exercises in that area between different navies which may have quarrels among themselves?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not dissent from that. It is perfectly possible—in fact, it is happening —that, to the extent of our power, always remembering that our first concern must in modern conditions be to concentrate on Nato and the Nato capability, there will always be the possibility of such a contribution—token it may be, larger it could be; I cannot look into the future —and therefore I cannot fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord.

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
11.25 a.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, Commons Amendments in lieu of certain of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to certain, of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, Commons Amendments in lieu of certain of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (303) as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Page 1, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
2 Page 1, line 17, leave out "grazing, meadow or pasture land or"
The Commons disagreed to the Amendments for the following Reason:
4 Because the protection of the Bill should extend to persons engaged in the activities which the Amendments seek to exclude.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. It may be for the convenience of the House if I deal at the same time with Amendment No. 25, to which the Commons have also disagreed. We accept that the question of the application of the Bill to dairy farming and livestock-keeping and breeding is one of the areas over which many noble Lords opposite have felt strongly. This came out during our Second Reading debate and during the Committee stage, and I understand their reasons, naturally. They put their views forcefully at all stages, and I listened very carefully to what was said. Their Amendments are, however, unacceptable for the simple reason that they would exclude from the protection of the Bill large numbers of people who everyone would recognise to be agricultural workers.
It is true that there always has to be a boundary drawn in any legislation, and that some individuals will inevitably fall outside it, but it is surely only common sense to draw the boundary in a logical way and not arbitrarily to cut the agricultural industry into two pieces. In other words, an attempt to do this would mean to wreck the Bill, and I am sure noble Lords would not want to do that. I thought that the arguments we have been having showed that they wished that the Bill should work properly, and most of our discussion has been devoted to
1604
that end. As the Liberal spokesman in another place said on Wednesday night, it would be very hard for a farmer to explain to his dairy stockman why the tractor driver should be protected but the stockman should not. So I must tell your Lordships that the arguments of noble Lords have been based on nothing more than an assumption, which is that the re-housing obligation in the Bill will not work. It has been suggested that it is necessary to restrict the scope of the Bill so that it can do the least damage and that the dairy sector, in particular, and livestock generally, are the prime candidates for removal from the Bill because they are the areas in which the presence of workers close to the farm is of paramount importance.
The Government do not dispute the importance of the dairy and livestock sectors, and their manpower needs. One has only to read Food From Our Own Resources, which I initiated, on which I had discussions with the industry and which was blessed by the industry, to realise the importance of the dairy industry, not only from the point of view of milk production but also from the point of view of our beef supplies. So we accept that it is important to consider this livestock sector. Meeting those needs was inevitably in the forefront of our minds when we drafted the Bill, with its special provisions establishing ADHACs and requiring local housing authorities to take full account of their advice. If the assumption that the rehousing obligation will not work is shown to be unsound, the Opposition's case for these Amendments collapses. I put it to the House that the evidence is that the housing authorities are indeed mindful of the weight of the rehousing duty imposed upon them; that they intend to meet it and they do not see any general or insuperable difficulties in their path in doing so.
My Lords, I will quote an example from a newspaper publication in East Anglia on 16th November this week where the Suffolk branch of the NFU are reported as having had encouraging replies from the housing authorities to their inquiries about the implementation of the Bill. The East Anglia Daily Times of 16th November says in its headline:
"NFU encouraged by tied cottage situations."
It goes on

1605
"Suffolk National Farmers' Union has written to district councils in the county asking how they think they will cope if the tied cottage Bill becomes law.
" County Secretary Mr. Tony Hillman, told last night's annual meeting of Bury St. Edmunds NFU branch that they had asked district councils whether they would use their best endeavours to house workers if the Bill becomes law."
It continues:
"'We have had encouraging replies from St. Edmundsbury and Forest Heath,' he said. 'Both have said they feel they will be able to implement what the Bill would require.'"
That is, I think, an important quotation representing a measure of opinion in the rural areas. Both authorities involved were reporting something which is positive. I know that many noble Lords were sceptical about this; but I think that when they see this Bill become an Act and that it works, the tide will flow and they will have no worries and we will have acted in a sensible pragmatic manner rather than being doctrinal about political prejudices on either side.
My Lords, it is hard to refute arguments based on an assumption but I would say to noble Lords opposite that they have far from convinced us that their assumption is so sound as to justify the moving from the protection of the Bill 16,000 or so workers who are engaged whole time in dairy farming and livestock keeping and breeding. Indeed, I believe it to be quite unsound. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 4—(Lord Peart.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, by way of prologue I think I must take this opportunity to say a number of things which the noble Lord the Leader of the House will not particularly like. They are addressed to a much wider issue and that is the conflict which has arisen in another place when his honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Gavin Strang, spoke on Wednesday, 17th November on this Amendment. I do complain in the strongest terms to the Government about what took place on that occasion for the following reasons. First, the Government did not choose to provide the Amendments in sufficient time; secondly, they failed to communicate
1606
with the Opposition; and, thirdly, and most importantly, the Parliamentary Secretary chose to make this Amendment the point at which to mount an attack on all noble Lords in this House. I think that if noble Lords have read the record on that occasion they will agree with me he addressed another place in most intemperate language.
For the purpose of the record I think I should repeat that this brings Parliament into disrepute and both Houses of Parliament into conflict with each other. I believe that that should be avoided and I am certain that my noble friends on this side or indeed noble Lords on all sides of the House, if they have had difficulty in obtaining a copy of the record, will not mind if I quoted two paragraphs of what the honourable gentleman said. This is at column 1400 of the Official, Report of the Commons on Wednesday, 17th November. He said:
"The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has campaigned for many years for the abolition of the agricultural tied cottage. In the course of my interest in these issues, which goes back a number of years, I have discussed them with farm workers throughout the country. Some of them have been remarkably conscious that the Bill would have to be passed not only by this House but by the other place. They were aware, and more of them than ever are now aware, of the anachronistic composition of the second Chamber, which gives landed gentry'—
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will give way. I hope he will make his remarks relevant to the Amendments. To go wider on issues about the future of the second Chamber would be out of order. I know that speeches are sometimes made in another place—as has often been the case in reverse—where sometimes politicians use intemperate language. All I know is that we have not done so in this House. Indeed we, as the Government, have been extremely courteous to noble Lords and have been helpful in many ways by assisting them. I hope that we shall not push this matter too far.
Lord SANDYS: Naturally, my Lords, I would listen to the plea of the noble Lord the Leader of the House but I was addressing myself to a Government statement in another place where very intemperate language was used in an attack on Members of this House. If I may be allowed to complete the sentence and

1607
this portion, which is very brief, I would say that the speaker went on to say:
"…which gives landed gentry the power to dominate its decisions. An overwhelming majority of the peers who voted for this wrecking amendment are hereditary Peers—perhaps not suprisingly, since they number over 800, as opposed to 295 life peers."
Lord PEART: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I have a responsibility for how the debate progresses and I hope that he will not go into irrelevant arguments which would carry us out of order. I have made my plea courteously and I hope that the noble Lord will take heed.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I responded to the plea and sought leave to continue the quotation to the end of the sentence. I believe that for the purposes of the record alone that is necessary. But let me address myself to the point at which the Parliamentary Secretary sought to make this Amendment the point at which he would make an attack on the composition of this House. In his concluding speech (which will be found in column 1431) he addresses himself exclusively to this Amendment in a moderate speech; but I believe it is quite wrong for Ministers in another place to conduct themselves in the manner they have and that I have every right, if I may say so, to quote a Minister who addresses the other place in such intemperate language. The noble Lord disagrees. I bow to what he said.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, surely what my noble friend is doing is quoting a Minister in another place when he was talking about this Amendment and who said that we were acting only out of self-interest. I personally would strongly agree with my noble friend that we were not doing that. We were acting according to our duty as we saw it.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into an argument with the noble Lord the Leader of the House; but my noble friend is in order because the Parliamentary Secretary whom he is quoting was speaking to this Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, if I may proceed, I believe that this is a very important Amendment as the noble Lord,
1608
the Leader of the House, has referred to the Government case as being a sensible and pragmatic one. I believe that it ceases to remain in the realms of sense and pragmatism if the Parliamentary Secretary chooses to use this language about a totally different matter when speaking to this Amendment.
I pass to the problem itself. As your Lordships discussed the situation on Committee in great detail it will not be for the benefit of the House to return to the same argument again. Nevertheless, your Lordships will be aware that totally non-political organisations, such as the Milk Marketing Board, addressed themselves with particular concern to this problem. The noble Lord the Leader of the House has referred to a National Farmers' Union branch who made different comments. That is not representative of all branches of the NFU, which have shown great concern about the future working of this Act.
There are other bodies greatly concerned about this Amendment: the Country Landowners' Association, and other organisations and persons who addressed themselves to research into this subject. Perhaps I may quote one, Miss Ruth Gasson of Cambridge University, who carried out a specific research project. I am perfectly certain that she and others will be particularly interested to read the report of the discussion of these Amendments in another place. I do not wish to pursue this Amendment. I feel your Lordships were perfectly entitled to express dissatisfaction at what the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I should be much happier with the House not insisting on this Amendment if the other place had seen their way to accepting the Amendment referred to in Amendment No. 29 about best endeavours. If that had been left as it was when it went from this House I should have been much happier to agree to the deletion of the Amendment under consideration.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I should like to put on the record that I spoke on this Amendment. I declared to the House that I had not a scintilla of interest in it. I view with contempt any suggestion that this case cannot be argued on its

1609
merits and that arguments against it always spring from private interests.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say from my point of view that I never made that accusation. I understand that arguments put forward by noble Lords opposite are based on the importance of the dairy industry I know the situation from my own experience. I would never dream of accusing an individual of speaking only in his own interests, either landlord or farmer. I have interests, and I have been previously connected financially with the industry when I was a director of FMC. That interest I declared. I hope that we will not pursue this line of argument. Let us have a sound, constructive argument about the merits of the Bill. We have had a very good debate. I make no complaint of hard criticism, hard argument and discussion. I am glad that the noble Lord is not going to press this point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
11.45 a.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Page 1, line 20, leave out "and (v) forestry;"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
4 Because the protection of the Bill should extend to persons engaged in the activities which the Amendments seek to exclude.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. It may be for the convenience of the House if I deal at the same time with Amendments Nos. 5 and 23, to which the Commons have also disagreed.
I am sure noble Lords would not want me to rehearse all the arguments which the Government have put forward both here and in another place as to why forestry workers should be treated under the Bill no differently from workers in other sectors of agriculture. Suffice it to say that we believe that the two industries are inter-related to such an extent that including agriculture and excluding forestry would be indefensible and would certainly lead to the same kind of problems as I mentioned on Amendment No. 1.
1610
I should, however, like to take this opportunity to scotch the argument that the provision in the Bill for a separate and subsequent appointed day for forestry in some way implies that the Government are less happy about applying the Bill to forestry than they are about applying it to the rest of agriculture. The reason for the delay is purely to enable us to gather information. The purpose of the survey now being conducted into forestry tied cottages by the Tavistock Institute is purely to establish factual data about numbers of forestry cottages and so on, similar to that which is already available in respect of other agricultural tied cottages. Quite simply, we do not believe that it would be right to apply the Bill to whole-time forestry workers until we know more about the extent and distribution of tied accommodation in forestry.
My Lords, I do not know of any compelling reason why forestry workers should be denied the protection of the Bill. There is every reason why they should be protected. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.—(Lord Pearl.)
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader if the House has not gone through all the arguments again, but may I rehearse two of them which seem the key arguments which the Government have deployed in favour of including forestry workers in the Bill. The first one was that the pay and conditions of many forestry workers are subject to the Agricultural Wages Act. The second was that forestry is an integral part of the agricultural industry. We should counter those arguments. First, the pay and conditions of the Forestry Commission workers are not subject to the Agricultural Wages Board, and I am sure that noble Lords will accept that the Forestry Commission employs the majority of woodsmen and houses them in 1,500 houses. This leaves only a relatively small number employed by private woodland owners.
On the second point, that forestry is an integral part of the agricultural industry, no previous legislation has defined forestry as part of agriculture, neither the Agricultural Holdings Act

1611
1948 nor the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. The truth of the matter is—and we infer this from what the noble Lord has said—that the Government simply do not know enough about the housing conditions of forestry workers, and so they include forestry in the Bill and, at the same time, say that the Bill shall not apply to forestry workers until a later date. The Consultative Document, which has been so often quoted during other stages of this Bill, says:
"The provision of tied cottages for forestry workers has seldom given rise to the kind of problems or controversy found in agriculture".
As the noble Lord said, there is so much uncertainty about forestry workers and their housing conditions that the Government are having a survey undertaken by ihe Tavistock Institute in order to provide tnformation. Almost all the forestry workers, including Forestry Commission workers in Scotland, are excluded from the Bill because Scotland is not included in the ambit of the Bill. All the Forestry Commission workers in England are excluded. Who is left? A very small number indeed, of whose problems, if any, the Government are wholly ignorant.
I would have thought that there would be enough strain on the local authorities to perform their existing housing duties, to which would be added new duties under this Bill in respect of farm workers, without adding this small number of forestry workers as well. This strain on housing authorities is surely the reason why the other 80 per cent. of tied houses are not being legislated for. I suggest that this small number of forestry workers could, without any hardship whatever, have remained outside the ambit of the Bill. I think that the Commons Reason, that the protection of the Bill should extend to forestry workers, is a bad one, considering that the Government themselves are quite in the dark on the matter.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I fear that it is not only the nationalised industries that are suffering from too much Government interference. Alas! That disease has crept further into agriculture and now into forestry. However, despite legislating in advance of the report on the industry, and despite the fact that there has been an improper length of time for disscussion, I am sure that the private
1612
foresters of England will try to make this Bill work, as well as trying to look after their retiring employees as they do at the moment.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, there are the strongest reasons for disapplying this Bill to private forestry, as we heard in Committee and, indeed, on Second Reading. I believe that the Government have made a grave mistake here in insisting on writing-off our Amendment. It would have been no particular concession to those who have advanced this case. It does not add either pragmatism or anything else to the Government's argument in this instance. It appears to be out of spite to the industry.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I in reply to noble Lords say that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has put his case moderately, but has repeated many of the arguments which we heard on a previous occasion. I do not think there is any bigotry at all here, and I believe strongly that forestry should be included, for obvious reasons. It is often very difficult to separate forestry from agriculture. In reality, the Agriculture Minister always becomes the Forestry Minister in this country, and in many other countries forestry is regarded as part of the agriculture scene, as it inevitably is. The whole question of developing agriculture is involved here; for example, whether or not one provides more trees for shelter belts. I could go on showing the close link between the two sections. I have never regarded forestry as being apart, even though we may have different administrations in the sense of having a Forestry Commission. One could argue about the different sections of farming. Indeed, noble Lords opposite are pressing for fish farming to be included as an agricultural project. So that one cannot be too dogmatic. I shall not rehearse all the main arguments, and I hope that noble Lords will not press this Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, there is one point which I should like to make. When he was Minister of Agriculture, the noble Lord was responsible for deep-sea trawling. I should not have thought that that was necessarily part of agriculture.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am not talking about that. I am talking about artificial breeding and trout farming. Many honourable friends of the noble Earl have continually pressed for this, and indeed there has been a debate in another place on the subject.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, may I question something which the noble Lord the Leader of the House said? He said that forestry is an integral part of agriculture. I agree that it is an integral part of agriculture in large parts of the world, but I would not say that it was in this country. The noble Lord gave the example of shelter belts to show that it is an integral part. But I should have thought that it was highly unlikely, if I were in agriculture and wanted to plant some shelter belts, that I would employ a forester and give him a cottage for the purpose of doing that. I would employ an outside contractor.
Lord PEART: My Lords, there are noble Lords who employ foresters who are doing agricultural jobs.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
5 Page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
6 Page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
7 Page 2, line 34, leave out "subject to subsection (6) below"
8 Page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (6).
9 Page 28, line 4, leave out "or forestry"
10 Page 28, leave out line 37.
11 Page 28, line 39, leave out "or forestry"
12 Page 29, line 3, leave out from "Food" to end of line
13 Page 29, line 6, leave out "or forestry"
14 Page 31, line 12, leave out "or forestry"
15 Page 31, line 30, leave out "or forestry"
16 Page 31, line 32, leave out "or forestry"
17 Page 34, leave out lines 8 and 9.
18 Page 34, leave out line 13.
19 Page 37, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 38.
20 Page 38, line 33, leave out "or in forestry"
21 Page 38, line 34, leave out "or in forestry"
22 Page 58, leave out lines 26 to 31.
23 Page 64, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 31.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
24 Because the Amendments are consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 1, line 20, to which the commons have disagreed.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5 to 23 for the Reason numbered 24. These Amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5 to 23 for the Reason numbered 24.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
25 Page 2, leave out lines 13 to 17.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
26 Because the Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment in page 1, line 9, to which the Commons have disagreed.
11.55 a.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 25 for the Reason numbered 26.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 25 for the Reason numbered 26.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
27 Page 19, line 44, at end insert—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to accommodation which would, apart from this subsection, be deemed to be a dwelling-house subject to a protected tenancy if—

(a) the accommodation consists of only one room, and

(b) at the time when the tenancy was granted, not less than three other rooms in the same building were occupied as residential accommodation by separate occupiers, or were available for such occupation, on such terms as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above."

The Commons agreed to this Amendment and proposed the following Amendment thereto:
28 Line 8, leave out from ("were") to ("on") in line 10 and insert ("let, or were available for letting, as residential accommodation to separate tenants")
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28 to the Lords Amendment No. 27. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 35 to 42 inclusive. Amendments Nos. 27 and 35 both deal inter alia with the exclusion of occupants of hostels from the protection of the Bill. When I spoke to the Amend-

1615
ments on Report, I warned the House that we had received the information on hostels, which we required and for which we had asked, only at the last moment, and that it might therefore be necessary to tidy up these Amendments. This appears in Hansard for 11th November at column 660. This has proved to be the case, though I must emphasise that these new Amendments, Nos. 28 and 36 to 42, are purely technical and drafting Amendments which will ensure that the aim which I outlined on Report, and the aim which was asked for by the House, is achieved; that is, to provide that the protection of the Bill will not extend to a worker sharing a dwelling with three or more other persons, where each person has one room, and one room only to himself. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28 to the Lords Amendment No. 27.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Baroness on explaining in so few words an exceptionally complicated problem. My noble friend Lord Ferrers addressed himself to that problem on Report, but I should like to make this comment. If your Lordships have studied the Reports of the discussions in another place, and indeed the arguments which took place in regard to the new Schedule 1A, you will know that this is a matter of very much wider concern than simply hostels. It is a matter of the working of previous Rent Acts. We have had a major discussion on earlier Rent Acts, but I should like to say this. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, I did not have an opportunity of discussing it with him, but there are, of course, 13 operative Rent Acts and this will no doubt become the fourteenth operative Rent Act in due course. There are matters of abstruse and particular complication, as the noble Baroness is all too well aware, and this Amendment, which relates to the 1968 Act, has been only briefly discussed. It has not received sufficient detailed attention. We are very well aware of the discussions which took place in your Lordships' House. We are not going to oppose this Amendment, but I should like to say this to the Government. The consolidation of the 13 exist-
1616
ing Rent Acts with the present Bill should surely be considered for early review. It is quite intolerable, for those who have to interpret the provisions of the many Rent Acts, that we should have a Statute Book so littered with such deep complication.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, just in order to be quite clear about this matter—and I agree with the noble Lord that the Rent Acts are extremely complicated—I should remind him how this arose. It arose because his noble friend Lord Ferrers asked a question on hostels, and I said in Committee that what I wanted was information from the National Farmers' Union, from noble Lords and from anybody else. In fact, we did not really get any, and it was only the fact that we sought it out at the last moment that allowed us to do something to improve the Bill.
I believe that the noble Lord is unnecessarily worried about the result of this, because the effect of our Amendment was to apply the relevant sections of the Rent Act to agricultural licensees or tenants not now protected by Rent Act legislation. This is what my honourable friend in the other place put forward during the recent debate. As he stressed then, it does not have any effect on those already protected by the Rent Act. It was because of efforts made by the Government and the honourable friends of noble Lords opposite that this was further clarified and made more precise. Consolidation has been raised before by the noble Lord, and it is something we want to have. Indeed, we tried to get it started by trying to have part of it in this Bill but, understandably, the noble Lord and his friends did not feel that was the right place. But we were trying to get it started.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
29 Page 24, line 10, leave out "they shall use their best endeavours to provide the" and insert "it shall be their duty to secure the provision of"
30 Page 24, line 12, leave out from "accommodation" to end of line 16.
31 Page 24, line 16, at end insert—
"(7A) Where the committee advises under subsection (3) above that the authority ought to provide suitable alternative accommodation as a matter of urgency, the

1617
authority shall provide such accommodation within three months from the date of that advice."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
32 Because the Amendments would interfere with a housing authority's general responsibility for the allocation of housing to an unacceptable degree.
12.1 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 32. This is the part of the Bill which above all others has been the focus of attention. I do not propose to lengthen our discussions unduly by rehearsing yet again the many arguments which have taken place on the subject of the rehousing duty. But it is worth while to state briefly two points which lie behind the disagreement expressed by another place and indeed expressed by the Government in this House.
The first of these is that the duty to use best endeavours does indeed place a strong and potent duty on local authorities, as the Association of District Councils has well recognised. They can do their best, as the Bill requires of them, but it would be misleading to suggest that they should be required to do better than their best, as Amendment No. 29 would have them do. Hence, we prefer to remain with the wording in the Bill as it first reached this House from another place. I think there is a very strong element of semantics in this, but on balance we really believe that "best endeavours" is a better expression than the solitary word, "duty".
My second point relates to the combined effect of Amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I suspect that even now some noble Lords may not be fully aware that Amendment No. 30 would debar local authorities from looking at their resources and from looking at other claims made on their housing in order to meet rehousing applications made under the Bill. That is absolutely essential, because it has never been the purpose of the Bill to put local authorities in the position of not being able to weigh up their other claims at the same time.
Finally, the result of the Amendments would be that any application from a farmer which met the criteria in Amend-
1618
ment No. 29 would go to the top of the housing queue, even if agricultural need was not urgent in the case in question. I cannot believe that noble Lords, who have throughout the discussions on this Bill stressed the need for defining the agricultural need, can possibly mean to support this. Elected housing authorities, in our view, must remain responsible for deciding who is to get council houses from among all their various claimants. In carrying out this task, they must look to the resources available to them. That has been said by everyone from all sides who has taken part in this debate. We believe that the duty we are proposing—and "best endeavours" is a duty—offers a fair deal to farmers, especially when compared with the present system, within this framework. We cannot agree with the contention that the framework needs to be dismantled so as to give overriding priority to applications under the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House dot not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 32.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, may I just say that, as regards Amendment No. 30, I entirely accept what the noble Baroness says. However, on Amendment No. 29, to say that to substitute the word "duty" for the words "best endeavours" would interfere with the housing authority's general responsibility for the allocation of housing to an unacceptable degree, seems to me to be exaggerating the position to a wholly unacceptable degree. The reason for our preference for the words,
"…it shall be their duty to secure the provision…"
was that it would then be within a legal framework. If the time comes when the duty to rehouse laid on local authorities by this Bill is challenged in the courts, then the words, "best endeavours" would be shown to have had a very uncertain legal pedigree. I remember pointing out at Committee stage that there are two conflicting judgments, each giving a different meaning to the words, "best endeavours" I will not go into the history of them now, because I did so at an earlier stage, and I am sure the noble Baroness will remember what I said.

1619
I think we should perhaps remind ourselves that the words in the Amendment are taken from section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, and the words have been interpreted in the Court of Appeal in 1974 in the Bristol Corporation case. The judgment there was that a local authority fulfil their duty completely when they do their best as soon as practicable to get other accommodation. That seems to me to be exactly the kind of duty which the Government intend to put on to local authorities under this Bill. It is not a duty that would be impossible to discharge. It is not a duty to do, in the words of the noble Baroness just now, "better than their best". It is not an absolute duty which would erode in any conceivable way the responsibility of the housing authority to an unacceptable degree. I think the Government simply have not paid any attention whatever to the legal arguments in favour of this better wording and the reasons that we have given, and which I am now giving again, for preferring the words, "best endeavours". I think the Reason given in another place is simply not acceptable.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words on this point because, as so many noble Lords have said, it is the nub of the Bill. Since we last discussed this, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has very kindly written to me on this matter and I hope he will not mind if I say a word or two about it. In his letter to me he said that "best endeavours" is a stronger and more positive term than "take such steps as may be reasonable". That wording was used in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I agree that in that Act we are not talking about houses, but the principle is the same. However, if we look at the case of Terrell v Mabie Todd, which was decided in the High Court in 1952, we find that the judge decided that "best endeavours" meant that the company involved should do what is reasonable in the circumstances.
That leaves me and, I am sure, your Lordships, too, with the thought that "best endeavours" is not strong enough, bearing in mind that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on 15th October said that she hoped this Bill would place on local authorities a statutory duty. Earlier in
1620
her speech this morning she has said it was "a strong duty" I think that our Amendment did what the noble Baroness wished, and I am sorry that another place did not accept it, especially as their grounds for refusing it run contrary to the Bill's intentions. A statutory duty will often interfere with a responsibility to a degree, but if it is intentional to insert that duty then surely it cannot be classed as unacceptable. Surely there is something wrong there.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I wonder whether I might switch the scene of this argument from the law courts to the farming village street. I agree there is some semantic difference between the words, "best endeavours" and the words "it shall be their duty". If called upon to pursue their best endeavours, I think that most councils try to do their best, but let us see what could happen if the alternative form of words were used and councils were told, "It shall be your duty to provide this house". Farm workers live in rural areas and councils which administer rural areas are not, as a rule, very big builders of houses. You do not see an enormous number of council houses in farming villages and the ones which do exist are invariably occupied, and are likely to continue to be occupied until the death of the occupants because there is a stability about that kind of inhabitant. If the council is instructed that it is its duty to provide houses and it has no houses vacant on its housing list, what is it to do? Should it evict existing tenants? I think that most of us would say, No. Its alternative is to proceed to build a house in order to house a farm worker who is being evicted from his farm cottage.
How long does it take to build a council house? First, one has to procure the land, which is a lengthy process. Then one has to get the architect to prepare the plans for the house. Perhaps this is not quite so lengthy a process, but it takes time. Then one has to solicit tenders for the building of the house and if it is for the building of an isolated, single house not many tenders may come in. Assuming that one obtains a satisfactory tender and that the builder is not trying to bleed the council by quoting an excessive sum, then one has to get down to digging the foundations, laying the bricks and mortar, putting the slates upon the roof, and so on. Perhaps 18 months

1621
will have elapsed between the threatened eviction of the farm worker and the availability of a house for him to occupy. What will have happened during those 18 months? I suppose that the chap will have emigrated to Australia. Although it sounds very well, the word "duty" is not a practical proposition.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I want to support what my noble friend Lord Leatherland has just said. I have observed in the course of our debates, not only on this subject but on a variety of subjects including shipbuilding—I need not mention them all because Members of your Lordships' House are only too familiar with them by now—that the Opposition have not demanded the insertion of a definite term. There has been flexibility about their approach. There can be no question that "duty" imposes an obligation or a responsibility from which there is no escape. Throughout the course of our debates the Opposition have been demanding flexibility. I am satisfied that if Members of your Lordships' House care to study Hansard over the past few weeks they will find the term "flexibility" emerging from the mouths of Opposition members and that it has been more frequently used than any other term. Now that it comes down to brass tacks they say, "Oh, no, we do not want flexibility". The Opposition are now asking for inflexibility. Why is not a little more consistency shown by members of the Opposition?
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I think differently. I believe that the Government would have done better to have accepted Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31, or something very close to them, as well as having, as we shall see presently, relented somewhat—I am not quite sure of the precise terms in which they have relented—on Amendment No. 45 regarding temporary accommodation. I believe that this Amendment ought to work in a situation where there are urgent cases relating to livestock. I am glad that now that we have reached this point we can speak about livestock, as livestock is back in the Bill. It is in relation to those urgent cases that I do not believe that "best endeavours" may prove enough. When one has to take into account competing claims I do not believe that "best endeavours" is sufficient, and I
1622
do not know how this term is going to be interpreted by local authorities. I believe that the result will be a patchwork. The one thing, however, which I do know is the devastating effect on the industry, which cannot be emphasised too much and too often, where livestock which is in need of constant attendance is involved.
12.16 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, complains of our use of the word, "flexible" and suggests that we are being inflexible in this Amendment. If the noble Lord would address himself to the Bristol Corporation case which was quoted in Committee by my noble friend Lord Middleton and I, he would see that the situatior allows a degree of flexibility. We went in great detail into the Bristol Corporation case and I believe that the quotation in Committee of that case and, indeed, other cases dealing with the use of "best endeavours" was very important, I quoted a commercial case—I think in the year 1876— where "best endeavours" was used over a beerhouse dispute and the phrase was found not to be entirely satisfactory. It is a phrase which gives rise to some vagueness, whereas the phrase in the Amendment, which is drawn from the Land Compensation Act 1973, is one which has had a very clear meaning before the courts in recent years.
The intention of the Government, which they have pursued through another place, to retain the words "best endeavours" in the Bill will give rise to great complication in the courts and I warn the Government of the consequences of their action. Indeed, all my noble friends have warned the Government of the consequences of this particular action. I believe that a number of problems will arise here of which the Government are at present totally ignorant.
I should like to make one final point regarding the question of the guillotine. Your Lordships will remember that on Report in another place the guillotine operated prior to discussion of Clause 30. Owing to the strenuous efforts of my right honourable friends in another place it was possible to bring forward Clause 30 for earlier discussion. No fewer than 40 minutes of the six hours available in another place were devoted to addressing themselves to Clause 30, to which we shall

1623
come in a later Amendment. I believe that the Government are misguided not to accept our Amendment. Considerable ingenuity has been displayed both here and in another place in order to find a form of words which allows just that degree of flexibility which would, in the circumstances, be desirable.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I could make one or two small points. Taken together with Amendment No. 45, "best endeavours" possibly is not a total disaster. If we take "best endeavours" together with subsection (9) of the same clause, it means that the authority shall be obliged to provide suitable alternative accommodation. Therefore we could say that "best endeavours" means "obliged". That is my first point. My second point, which is, practically speaking, the most important one raised so far, was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, when he referred to the patchwork effect. When the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was speaking to the first Amendment, he quoted a letter and said that Suffolk County Council would have no difficulty. May I ask the noble Lord whether I am wrong?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I said the National Farmers' Union at the county evel, but it was actually the local authorities under the county.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I stand corrected, my Lords. I have spoken to our local authority—admittedly unofficially and only to one member of it, and he was under the impression that they would regard it as a duty. These local authorities will not be worried about the term "best endeavours": it is the patchwork effect, the effect of local authorities who will not do as well as the others, because if there is immobility, if there is sticking, then it really will be disastrous. If, however, the best endeavours are good enough all over the country and they really are best endeavours, it could be interpreted that this is an improvement on the present lengthy and boring method of changing houses. If it is not—and this is the absolute linchpin—if the local authorities cannot re-house, then even the grubby present arrangements would be a vast improvement.
1624
My Lords, I think we can but wait and see and cross our fingers—and heaven knows what else! If my interpretation of "the best endeavours", taken together with Clause 9 "shall be obliged", means something slightly stronger than the Government are saying it means, then perhaps the Government wording is not quite so bad as all that.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, seems to have understood very well the point here and what we are trying to do. He is perfectly correct when he refers to Clause 30(9). I would also draw the attention of noble Lords to the sidenote of the clause which says, "The duty of the housing authority concerned". My noble friend Lord Shinwell is absolutely correct when he refers to the need for flexibility. Incidentally, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, if I said "a strong duty" I think it is because I have now taken it so for granted at this stage of the Bill that we know that it is a statutory duty; but perhaps to be quite correct I should say a "strong statutory duty", and this is what "best endeavours" is. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, seems to think that Clause 29 would not have the effect that I cited at first if these Amendments were accepted. In fact with great respect he is not correct about that because the effect of these Amendments would be to take out the urgency of the case; they would take out the competing claims and they would also take out the resources at their disposal. This is difficult and we have spent a great deal of time on it.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, which was taken up by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on the patchwork effect, I can only say that circumstances differ in different local authority areas, and really all I can do is to end on the note on which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, ended—let us for goodness sake give it a chance. In our view this is the strongest form of duty one can put on a local authority without putting it completely into chains from which it could not break out.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
33 Page 24, line 20, at end insert:
"(8A) Where an agriculture dwelling-house advisory committee advises that in the interests of efficient agriculture there is

1625
urgent need for the provision of suitable alternative accommodation, and the authority has been unable to provide such accommodation within three months from the date of the advice, the applicant shall have the right to use land in his occupation as a site for a caravan for agricultural worker without any requirement for a site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and without planning permission, until such time as suitable alternative accommodation is provided by the local authority.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
34 Because occupiers of agricultural land should not be exempted from statutory requirements relating to the siting of caravans.
12.25 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth insist on Amendment No. 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 34. With your Lordships' permission I will take a few moments to explain why I believe it is so important for your Lordships to insist on this Amendment rather than the seemingly far more vital Amendments which we have been discussing so far. We have been so battered and bewildered by the barrage of legislation which has been thrust upon us in such a short time by the other place that we tend to forget quite how doctrinaire and how harmful is each one of these five Bills.
There has been a slight tendency to concentrate upon the worst of these Bills: first, the Dock Work Regulation Bill—and surely this week's incidents in Portsmouth, Plymouth and Southampton demonstrate what a lucky escape the British public have had in this regard—and secondly, and to a lesser extent, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. So doctrinaire are these two Bills that they have somewhat masked (not so far as your Lordships are concerned but from the public at large) quite how harmful in their practical effect the other three Bills will be if they become law in their only very slightly amended state. Yesterday noble Lords of the greatest eminence in the medical profession rose in all parts of the House to testify just how harmful the Health Services Bill would be to the National Health Service and to the interests of patients—
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was under the impression that we were discussing the Rent (Agriculture) Bill; we seem to have
1626
gone through docks, aircraft and we are now on health. I shall be very grateful, and I am sure the House will be, if the noble Lord will speak to the Motion.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I will try to do so, but I think it is a necessary preamble to explain the reasoning behind my Motion. However, in deference to what the noble Baroness has said, I will refrain from saying what I was going to say about the Education Bill and the harm that would cause. The attitudes towards this present Bill are slightly ambivalent because there is a natural reluctance to appear to take the side of the fictitious wicked and plutocratic farmer against the equally fictitious starving tenant. It is all too easy to be misrepresented. That is why the House has, rightly I think, decided not to insist upon those Amendments which would remove security of tenure from certain classes of farm worker, however justified those Amendments may be—and I think they are justified from the point of view of British agriculture. Also, I think the House was marginally right not to insist upon imposing obligations on local authorities which they might have found somewhat difficult to fulfil (much as I sympathise with that Amendment) because of the difficulties cited by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland.
However, this is a totally reasonable Amendment which cannot possibly be objected to on serious political grounds, or indeed on any moderate political grounds. That is a point to which I may have to return later, although I hope not. Yet it was rejected without any discussion whatsoever in another place—in other words, it was guillotined—by 21 votes. It is pertinent to point out that every single Liberal present voted with the Conservatives in that Division, and I hope the Liberals will follow me into the Division Lobby today if the Government do not yield.
I think the Commons should be given an opportunity to look again at this Amendment, to study it at greater leisure. The Amendment was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at Report stage on 11th November, and in introducing it he said:
"One can think, for example, of farms with only one cottage which may well be paralysed if the cottage continues to be occupied by the

1627
outgoing worker for whom there is no alternative accommodation available."—(Official Report, 11/11/76; col. 741).
Speaking of livestock, he went on to say that this might render completely impossible the task of looking after the animals.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was powerfully supported from these Benches by my noble friend Lord Robbins, but no really serious objections were advanced against this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, from the Labour Benches, hinted that such an Amendment would "condemn" farm workers to live in caravans. For what it is worth, shortly after I was married my wife and I lived in a caravan for two months. We could not straightaway find a furnished house in the area where I was working, 35 miles north of London; we could not afford to go on living in an hotel indefinitely. I cannot pretend that it was very comfortable, but we survived, and I am here today to tell the tale. So I do not think that this is a valid argument to put up against the Amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, spoke of putting farmers in a privileged position where change of land use is concerned without first obtaining planning permission. With respect, I do not see that any farmer, who has had a valuable cottage removed effectively from farming use, which will take £15,000 or more to replace—let at a net rent of £100 or thereabouts—could be said to be in a privileged position.
I think that the amenity argument was not mentioned. Nobody is keener on conservation, to use a rather overworked word, than I am. In the normal way I am fervent in defence of the countryside against the intrusion of caravan sites and so on. Equally, in an emergency situation, to use another overworked word, surely there are things that ought to override aesthetic considerations—on a temporary basis, and this is only on a temporary basis.
Reverting to what the noble Lord, Lord Collison, said about the discomfort suffered by the farm worker, I believe someone on the Conservative Benches reminded the noble Lord, because we are talking about incoming farm workers, that the farm worker is not obliged to take the job if he does not like the idea
1628
of living in a caravan. Perhaps because it was not printed on one of the main pages, the noble Lord may have missed a rather chilling speech made the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, speaking to a Press conference on 16th November. The noble Lord suggested that food rationing could be on the way in certain circumstances. Lord Rothschild went on to say:
"Unless we put our house in order food or, to be more precise, lack of it may well surpass all of the other troubles and crises that beset us".
In a very small way the object of this Amendment is to try to move back towards actually helping the efficiency of British agriculture. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 34. —(Lord Monson.)
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord who has just spoken, particularly for the reason that he has just given, that the Amendment in the other place was dealt with under the guillotine and they did not give any consideration to the arguments that were put forward in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, used the word "privileged"; why should these people be put in a privileged position with regard to the siting of caravans. In modern jargon, the privilege is a mini-privilege. It would only be used if there were an urgent need for agriculture, in the best interests of agriculture and because the local authorities could not provide at once alternative accommodation. It would only be used until they did so, so I cannot really agree that the privilege is of any consequence.
The noble Lord who has just spoken also mentioned what the noble Lord, Lord Collison, said about the undesirability of an agricultural worker living in a caravan. Of course it is undesirable if he can get other accommodation, but it might well be that an agricultural worker who wanted to come to a particular job would be willing to do so temporarily, recognising that it was for a short period only, in order to get the job that he wanted. I think that neither of those arguments against this Amendment, or those at the earlier stages, carry much weight, and should like to support the noble Lord.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, of all of our Amendments, Amendment No. 33 seems to me to be the one where the Government could have met us without going against any of the principles of the Bill, and without in any way damaging the interests or the security of tenure of farm workers. That Amendment was a practical way of getting a farmer out of an acute difficulty. The arguments in favour are given all the more force now that the Government have put back dairy and stock-breeding farms, as they have done this morning.
As it happens, I entirely agree with the words in the Commons Reason, that as a general rule,
"…occupiers of agricultural land should not be exempted from statutory requirements relating to the siting of caravans".
But this Amendment No. 33 covers only the case where there is urgent need for the provision of suitable alternative accommodation. It provides for a housing authority to have had three months from the date of the ADHACs advice before the right to place a caravan arises. It provides that that right will expire as soon as the situation is relieved by suitable alternative accommodation being provided, thus relieving the stockman's house for the incomer. The Government's argument is that those three months would give time for planning permission to have been sought and granted in the ordinary way. There probably would have been time to apply and for the application to have been heard, but there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that it would have been granted. I remember on Report I referred to the case of the National Parks, where refusal would be automatic.
My Lords, this is the other leg of our argument that would provide for temporary accommodation to be considered by a court as suitable for the outgoing worker where a housing authority did not have a house. I note with pleasure that the Government accept the principle of that Amendment. In refusing to accept this leg of the temporary accommodation argument, which received wide support in the early stages of the Bill, I think they are showing a high degree of inflexibility. Theoretically—and I agree with the theory —farmers should not be exempted from the statutory planning requirements relating to caravans. That the Government can never relax that principle, even for a
1630
temporary period when a farm business, farm animals and the incoming farm worker and his family are going to suffer, and they will suffer loss and hardship in an acute case, seems to me to be totally unreasonable.
12.38 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to address a very few remarks to the noble Baroness who is to reply. I agree substantially with everything that my noble friend Lord Middleton has said and, while I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I fear that we disagree with his stand on this particular Amendment, for the reasons that my noble friend has described. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has of course laid emphasis on the fact that this Amendment was cut out by the guillotine. I well understand his frustration in this field. When we discussed the Amendment in your Lordships' House in Committee, we entered into the problems of the Article IV directions and the situation which would arise in particular areas. I am not quite certain whether we mentioned areas of outstanding natural beauty, but certainly the siting of caravans in particular circumstances was mentioned. In the circumstances, we hope that the Government, if they intend to issue a circular will pay particular attention to the new situation as it develops.
My Lords, the Article IV direction procedure has some adaptations and I think the noble Baroness will be able to indicate in her reply whether or not her Department intends to combine with the Minister of Agriculture in issuing a joint statement. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us a reply in this regard.
12.40 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I really do not want to prolong this debate because we have been through it before on more than one occasion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for putting the matter into the proper perspective. The main point of the Bill is the question of the privileged position. When I referred to privileged position on Report stage, I was referring to the fact that as a matter of general planning policy we cannot lightly discard a planning system which has been deliberately designed and maintained to give planning authorities the job of assessing all the implications for their area

1631
of a change of land use. This takes into account the points made about the environment and places of national beauty and all the other ingredients which go into the making of a planning decision.
When I said that farmers should not be in a privileged position, this applies to any group of people, but it does not mean to say that they have no opportunity to make their case. We cannot assume that the case should be made and disregard all planning considerations. We have consistently pointed out that planning permission may be sought in advance on a contingency basis. The great opportunity afforded by this Bill is that farmers will be able to plan in advance.
Secondly, I have made it clear that in any case we shall cover the substance of the Amendment when we issue a circular of guidance to local authorities about the Bill. We shall stress that in cases where local authorities accept they have a duty—and incidentally this Amendment does not make this important point; it is essential that local authorities shall accept that it is a duty in cases of this sort$and where the ADHAC has advised them of urgent agricultural need, they shall accord priority to planning and site licensing applications for caravans if they cannot themselves for the moment provide suitable housing.
I should like to be able to confirm in writing that, as I imagine, we shall be having discussions between our Department and the Ministry of Agriculture on this matter; although, as the noble Lord knows, the housing circulars go out from the Department of the Environment, but obviously we would want that support. This is a joint effort in the same way as this is a joint Bill.
In view of our discussion on this matter before, and in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said on this occasion—and I have read carefully what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and also the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on Report$my feeling is that, if at that stage we had clarified the Amendment we are coming to shortly on the question of housing for a limited period, this would not have arisen; or it might have arisen perhaps as an idea but would not have been pressed quite so strongly. I would put it to noble Lords that the Amendment to
1632
which we shall shortly come, which deals with the point put forward by the Opposition—and when we looked into it carefully we found a need to clarify something already implicit in the Bill—covers the point very adequately of dealing with a situation to help local authorities where resources are very short. But it does not get us into the realm of putting so many spanners in the planning works.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, would the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, kindly explain what she means by "applications on a contingency basis"? How can a farmer apply on a contingency basis when permission for a caravan is an urgent matter which may arise all of a sudden?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the matter which will arise all of a sudden will arise all of a sudden anyway. The farmer will have to get a possession order granted, which will take some months in any case. I meant that if he knows that a worker is to retire and he wants a place for someone coming in, he can put in a planning application maybe a month or a year in advance. That is what I meant.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am disappointed in the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I cannot say I am surprised because I recognise that, to a considerable extent, her hands are tied. I am as zealous in my desire that the countryside should not be despoiled by caravans as the noble Baroness and the Government are, but we are talking about practical farming, emergencies and the question of urgency. The circular to be sent to local authorities is not binding in any way. On the constitutional position, I think the other place have a right to examine the arguments at their leisure. They have not been given the opportunity so to do, and therefore I hope the House will insist on this Amendment.
On Question, Motion disagreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
35 After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE
MEANING OF "RELEVANT LICENCE" AND "RELEVANT TENANCY"
Relevant licence
1. In this Act "relevant licence" means any licence for the exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house which—

(a) if it were a tenancy, and

1633

(b) if the provisions of the Rent Act 1968 mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 below were modified as mentioned in those paragraphs,

would be a protected tenancy for the purposes of that Act.
Relevant tenancy
2. In this Act "relevant tenancy" means any tenancy of a dwelling-house which$

(a) is not a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act 1968, but

(b) would be such a tenancy if the provisions of that Act mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 below were modified as mentioned in those paragraphs,

other than a tenancy to which Part I or Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies and a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948.
Supplemental
3.—(1) Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenancies excepted from the definition of "protected tenancy") is modified as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) omit paragraph (a) (tenancy at a low rent) and paragraph (d) (tenancy of a dwelling-house comprised in any agricultural holding etc).
(3) For paragraph (b) of subsection (1) (tenancy of a dwelling-house bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board or attendance) substitute the following paragraph—
"(b) it is a bona fide term of the tenancy that the landlord provides the tenant with board or attendance".
(4) For subsection (3) (payments in respect of attendance to form a substantial part of the whole rent) substitute the following subsection$
"(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that meals provided in the course of a person's employment in agriculture do not constitute board for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above; and a term that the landlord provides the tenant with attendance shall not be taken to be a bona fide term for those purposes unless, having regard to its value to the tenant, the attendance is substantial"
4.—(1) Section 102 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenant sharing accommodation with persons other than landlord) is modified as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (separate accommodation deemed to be dwelling-house let on or subject to protected or statutory tenancy) immediately before the words "the separate accommodation", in the last place where they occur, insert the words "then, subject to subsection (IA) below" and for the words "the following provisions of this section" substitute the words "subsections (2) to (7) below".
(3) After subsection (1) insert the following subsection—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to accommodation which would, apart from this subsection, be deemed to be a dwelling-house subject to a protected tenancy if—
1634

(a) the accommodation consists of only one room, and

(b) at the time when the tenancy was granted, not less than three other rooms in the same building were occupied as residential accommodation by separate occupiers, or were available for such occupation, on such terms as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above.".

5. The other provisions of the Rent Act 1968 which are relevant for the purposes of the above definitions, and which are therefore also applied by this Schedule, include—

section 1 (definition of "protected tenancy");

section 4 (no protected or statutory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to Crown);

section 5 (no protected or statu ory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to local authority, etc.);

section 5A (no protected tenancy in certain cases where landlord's interest belongs to resident landlord);

section 6 (rateable value and appropriate day);

section 103 (certain sub-lettings not to exclude any part of sub-lesson's premises from protection)"

The Commons agreed to this Amendment and proposed the following, Amendments thereto:
36 Line 6, leave out ("for the exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house") and insert ("under which a person has the exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house as a separate dwelling and")
37 Line 9, leave out from ("if") to end of line 11 and insert ("section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenancies excepted from the definition of "protected tenancy") were modified as mentioned in paragraph 3 below")
38 Line 14, leave out ("of a dwelling-house") and insert ("under which a dwelling-house is let as a separate dwelling and")
39 Line 18, leave out from ("if") to end of line 20 and insert ("section 2 of that Act were modified as mentioned in paragraph 3 below")
40 Line 26, leave out from beginning to ("as") in line 27 and insert ("For the purposes of this Schedule the modifications of section 2 of the Rent Act 1968 are")
41 Line 47, leave out paragraph 4.
42 Line 80, leave out from beginning to end of line 81.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 35 to 42. I have already spoken to these Amendments when speaking to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28.
Moved, That the House do h agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
43 Page 34, leave out line 47 and insert "182 out of the last 208 weeks, the last 50 of which have been for the current employer"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
44 Because the Amendment proposes too long a qualification period.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 44.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 44.—(Lord Peart.)
Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44A as an Amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 43 to which the Commons have disagreed:
44A Page 34, leave out line 47 and insert—
"144 out of the last 156 weeks, the last 50 of which have been for the current employer".
I must first say that I know it is not very usual to move manuscript Amendments in your Lordships' House on Third Reading, but in view of the fact that the printed list of the Commons Reasons was not available until this morning. I had no other alternative. In particular, I notice that the Commons have said, in disagreeing to Amendment No. 43, that the Amendment—
"proposes too long a qualification period"
It does not say a word about the last half of the Amendment:
"the last 50 of which have been for the current employer"
To my mind, that is the very important part of the original Amendment. But in view of the fact that on Committee stage and on Report the length of time necessary for qualification was very fully argued, the agriculture industry considered the two years in the Bill much too short. The agriculture industry considered five years should be the correct time, but eventually we put down four years.
If the other place decides that four years is too long, I propose, in this Amendment, to compromise between the two years and the four years, and to make
1636
it three years. But it has the proviso, as I have said, which is the important part, that the worker should have spent a year in the cottage in which he is applying for security. If this proviso were not in the Bill, a man could work in agriculture for two or three or four years (whichever we decide); he could then move to another farm where he has possibly a better cottage; after being there a fortnight or a month he could give notice and go to work somewhere else and obtain security of tenure of this cottage, which deprives the owner of the cottage for his lifetime, or possibly even for his widow's lifetime, quite unfairly, because he has never worked for that farmer for more than a fortnight or a month. I think it is essential that the one year with the current employer should he in the Bill. I beg to move.
12.52 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, that some qualifying period is essential the Government, of course, accept. As we have said so many times, it is a matter of judgment how long that period should be. I think we said during the early stages that in our judgment the original two years is too short, and the argument in favour of a longer period roughly runs like this. First, by restricting the numbers of rehousing cases you lessen the burden upon already over-burdened housing authorities. Secondly, you make it more difficult for the man envisaged by the Government—and these are the words in the Consultation Document:
"… who is going to use the agricultural industry as a rapid passage transit camp through which anyone seeking rented accommodation in rural areas could obtain this and obtain it more swiftly than the generality of citizens".
I believe that the Commons Reason, that four years is too long, is not the correct judgment. I like the three years proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, better, but I must admit that I am not entirely happy about the last one year on the one farm.
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, the reason why I like Lord Swaythling's proposal better is simply that I believe that the period which the worker has worked in the industry before he qualifies for this entitlement as regards his housing should be somewhat longer than the period of apprenticeship. I think the Agricultural

1637
Training Board apprenticeships run for two years, and I believe a year over that would in fact be very much wiser. I do not want to go into further details now because I know this matter has been pretty fully discussed before, but I would just make that point.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like to say very briefly that I support the noble Lord's Amendment. I think it is a reasonable compromise. It is a compromise that the Commons have not had a chance to look at, and I think it reasonable, therefore, that we should send it back to them for consideration.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, once again the Parliamentary programme and the difficulty of obtaining papers and the pressure of business is such that we have been forced into a situation which I think with great ingenuity the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, has endeavoured to take us through. Here is a situation which is in many ways a repeat of what took place at two earlier stages of the Bill. We are endeavouring to meet the Government's point and declared intention in the Consultation Document and in previous debates in both Houses, that there should he a qualifying period. The length of that qualifying period must be subject to discussion. I think that the previous compromise suggestion, which was jointly agreed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, was one which could produce the Amendment we are looking at now.
The only reason why we hesitate before supporting the noble Lord's Amendment is the final point, the question of the one year. This has given rise to the argument that there could be a situation where someone was employed in the industry for a comparatively long period—perhaps 20 or 30 years—and who, during the final year of his employment, fell upon some misfortune, some unfortunate accident to either his employer or himself, which would make him unable to sustain his job in the industry. He would not qualify for occupation of that house. This is a real difficulty. We do understand it. Further, we addressed our minds to the problem of the agricultural worker in retirement, and we adduced arguments
1638
which the Government rejected in regard to this particular problem.
Having taken a particular part in those debates, I would find it very difficult to join the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, in the Lobby on this issue. I wholly agree with him that the three-year period is infinitely preferable to the two-year period proposed by the Government. I think that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Monk-Bretton, is very significant, because here is a suggestion which the Government have probably not addressed their mind to, that the period of apprenticeship should be taken into consideration. I hope that, in replying to this Amendment, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will give us his reasons why he believes that the two-year period is finally preferable.
Lord PEART: My Lords, this is an important Amendment, but there are differences of opinion, as we have seen already in the debate. I am not complaining about having this issue raised again. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, very kindly informed me what he was going to do when I met him this morning coming up in the lift. He was very busy, and good luck to him, but I am afraid I cannot accept his arguments I know he has suggested a compromise; that is, that the test should be three years work in agriculture with one year for the current employer. Again, I am afraid the arguments which we have used previously still hold. It is a matter of judgment. The district councils think two years. Our consultations led us to believe that this was the right decision. The Agricultural Workers' Union wanted one year; I think the National Farmers' Union wanted four to five years. We think two years is about right.
I have been asked about the question of apprentices. My immediate reaction to that is that this would not really change my view point in relation to the two-year period. We are dealing here with a different type of worker, a young man going into the industry; and I want more apprentices. I think this is a developing situation in the industry. The Agricultural Training Board have done a marvellous job, and more farmers are beginning to use the apprenticeship system. I think this is something we should have to look at when we see how the apprentice scheme

1639
works. It is a positive point and a constructive point, and I recognise it as such, but I hope we can still keep the two-year period.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it is all very well for the noble Lord to say that we will see how the apprentice scheme works; it may, of course, work in the opposite direction from what the noble Lord expects. Supposing a young man undertook a two-year training in the dairy industry, and at the end of that period, having occupied a house for a period, he decided not to enter the industry after all but to do something else.
Under the Bill as drafted, he would have a statutory right to retain the use of that property. I believe that this is a serious problem and I do not feel that the Government have paid sufficient attention to it. It is an abuse. My noble friends have pointed out the possible abuses and we feel that it is something the Government should consider.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I said that the Government would consider the point. I thought that I was being constructive. Clearly, at the last minute, there is not time to examine this further. As I have said, this could be a problem in the industry. As the noble Lord knows, many farmers take apprentices on the farm itself and this is something that we should have to consider in the light of the development of what is becoming an important part of the industry. However, for the moment, I think that we are right to do what we are doing.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, say that he could not have much sympathy with the last part of the Amendment which specifies 50 weeks with the current employer, particularly as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his noble friends supported the original Amendment to which the Commons have now disagreed. Your Lordships passed the Amendment with a substantial majority on Report. I feel that this is an important Amendment which should have more consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that it had been sprung on the Government at the last minute, but I feel that there should be time for more consideration.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord has stated his point clearly and, indeed, we have discussed this on a previous occasion, but I still think that there are clear and persuasive arguments for not pressing the Amendment. The suggestion that there should be a qualification of one year's service with the current employer would mean that workers would lose protection for a period every time they moved their job. I believe that that would bear especially harshly on long-serving farm workers who had been with one employer for a considerable length of time. Its further effect would inevitably be to discourage the mobility of labour. I believe that I argued this on a previous occasion. Agricultural workers would think twice about moving if that meant losing their security for a period. I believe that that would be particularly unfortunate where young skilled workers are concerned. We have definitely discussed this, and I hope, for the reasons that I have given, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
On Question, Motion disagreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
45 Page 40, line 45, at end insert "and in considering the suitability of the accommodation the Court has power to decide that temporary accommodation, whether in a dwelling-house or otherwise, fulfils the condition in this paragraph, where such temporary accommodation is offered by the local authority on the understanding that they will provide as soon as practicable alternative accommodation under this sub-paragraph and sub-paragraph (2) above"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
46 Page 40, line 45, at end insert—
("4. If the accommodation offered is available for a limited period only, the housing authority's offer or notice under paragraph 1 above must contain an assurance that other accommodation—

(a) the availability of which is not so limited,

(b) which appears to them to be suitable, and

(c) which fulfils the conditions in paragraph 3 above,

will be offered to the tenant as soon as practicable").
47 Page 60, line 42, at end insert—
("4. If the accommodation offered is available for a limited period only, the housing authority's offer or notice under paragraph 1 above must contain an assurance that other accommodation—

(a)the availability of which is not so limited,

1641

(b) which appears to them to be suitable, and

(c) which fulfils the conditions in paragraph 3 above,

will be offered to the tenant as soon as practicable").
1.5 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 45, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to Commons Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 in lieu thereof. This is the Amendment that deals with the provision for temporary accommodation. We have always made it clear that it would be no real improvement on the present situation if the statutory tenant whose cottage was needed by the farmer could be obliged to go into any form of temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfast or a hostel, perhaps for an indefinite period until the housing authority had long-term accommodation for him. Our previous discussions drew attention to the fact that when suitable—and I stress the word "suitable"—alternative accommodation is offered by a housing authority who are under an obligation under the Bill, there is nothing explicit in the Bill to indicate that it should be of a permanent nature. This provision may prove not to be used a great deal since most accommodation available to an authority which meets the conditions laid down in the Schedule will be permanent, but there may be some occasions when a housing authority can offer accommodation which does meet all the requirements of suitability, but the authority know that it will not necessarily be available indefinitely; for example, it may have been leased from a private landlord under arrangements like the North Wilts scheme. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Rent Act to suggest that an offer of such accommodation could not be regarded as suitable simply because of the limited period of time, provided that it was followed up by accommodation which also met all the requirements.
In order to clarify what is already in the Bill and thereby to avoid any unnecessary disputes in court when such accommodation may he offered, we have tabled the two clarifying. Amendments in lieu of Amendment No. 45. These make it clear than an offer of suitable temporary accommodation is not ruled out, but that
1642
it must be accompanied by a firm undertaking in writing to provide as soon as is practicable accommodation of a permanent nature which also meets all the requirements of suitability. These Amendments are not a significant change in the Bill; instead, they spell out something which is there already. They clarify the Bill and should allay many of the anxieties that were expressed during consideration of the Bill.
I must point out that, if a tenant felt that it was unreasonable for him to move into alternative accommodation for a relatively short period of time he would be free to argue that it was not reasonable for him to be moved from his farm cottage until a more permanent offer was forth-coming from the authority. This is because this Case in Schedule 3 is subject to Clause 8 which requires that, in this part of the Schedule, the court may only make an order if it thinks it reasonable to do so. I am sure that noble Lords will agree not to insist on Amendment No. 45 and to substitute instead the two Amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
Moved, That the House cloth not insist on the said Amendment but agree to Commons Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, While I regret that on an earlier Amendment—No. 33 —which related to caravans the Government could not support your Lordships' Amendment regarding that leg of temporary accommodation, we should like to thank the noble Baroness for the care and trouble that she has taken to follow up our arguments on this aspect and further to investigate the situation in detail and produce the solution that the Government have found. We have had only a relatively brief period in which to examine the Commons Amendments and a number of questions arise upon them. First, as regards the type of accommodation that the Government envisage, do they envisage a mobile home as satisfying these particular qualifications? Do they envisage hostel accommodation? Do they envisage accommodation which is perhaps not entirely satisfactory so far as all the fittings are concerned up to a standard that is acceptable? Or have the Government another situation in mind? I feel that the Government's proposal in these two Amendments as an alternative to

1643
Amendment No. 45 will take us quite a long way, but I should like to listen with care to the noble Baroness's reply.
Baroness BIRK: Very briefly, my Lords, the criteria are those set out in the Bill. If the temporary accommodation fits in with the tenant's place of work and is right so far as size and rent are concerned it will be considered suitable. The noble Lord is very well aware of the provisions so I need not list the requirements. The noble Lord asked about a mobile home. Yes, if that answered the other criteria it would be considered a suitable type of accommodation. As regards hostels, I should have thought that the answer would be, No, because there is no protection there. The suitability is exactly as it is spelt out in the Bill.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I have one question to ask the noble Baroness. She said that the tenant could refuse to accept the accommodation. What extra argument could the tenant put forward for not accepting this type of accommodation? Is it different from what is already stated in the Bill? Finally, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Baroness for taking all this trouble. I am sorry to take a little time, but this is good for her. I noticed that the noble Baroness was almost in tears the other day when she had to say, No, to us.
I shall embarrass the noble Baroness further by reminding her that I almost made her blush over what farmers thought about "best endeavours". This time I will embarrass her by saying how nice we think she is and how kind she has been to take all the trouble she has taken, with my noble friends on the Front Bench, to look at this again. I hope that in future she will not be completely wedded to the Department of the Environment, that she will cling very tightly to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and that she will listen, as she has done over the past three weeks during which we have discussed this matter, very carefully to the agricultural arguments. She so obviously has done.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is always a very great pleasure to me to cling very tightly to my noble friend. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for his very kind remark. The point which the noble Lord made was that a worker
1644
could argue that it was not reasonable for him to be moved from his farm cottage if it was likely to be for a short time or if he was told, "We can put you here for a time, but in another few months you may have to be moved somewhere else". This would be an argument on the basis that it was not reasonable to be moved. So far as suitability is concerned, as 1 explained previously, this is covered in the Bill, and if it was attempted to persuade the worker to take accommodation which was not suitable, he would have recourse to the courts. But the question of the unreasonable aspect of the matter would depend on the circumstances under which he was asked to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
48 Page 41, line 5, at end insert$
"OR
The tenant has been fairly dismissed for misconduct in his work on the farm."
The commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
49 Because the tenant's behaviour as an employee should not afford a ground for possession.
1.12 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 49. The main theme underlying the whole of the Bill has been to divorce farm workers' conditions of employment from the circumstances in which they are housed. Amendment No. 48 contradicts this basic principle because it means that a worker who has lost his job on the farm will also be liable to lose his home. Noble Lords will remember that we had a very lengthy debate on this matter at Committee stage. The idea of the Bill, as of the Rent Acts, is that tenants should not be at risk of losing their homes unless they misbehave as tenants. This is the point one must hang on to. To make this exception would be contrary to the basic tenet of the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 49.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I fear that this is another place where the Government have been inflexible. We heard in Committee about some fairly alarming

1645
situations where a tenant's behaviour as an employee clearly made it undesirable that he should remain in possession—cases which were in an entirely different category from those of merely not paying rent, which in the Bill is a matter which the court can consider as a good ground for possession. If I remember rightly, the example we were given was that of a farm worker who set the hay barn on fire and who appeared to be compulsively inclined towards acts of arson. Clearly there are degrees of a tenant's behaviour as an employee that should afford grounds for possession and degrees of behaviour which should not.
I should like to make two points. First, the Amendment did not cover anyone who had not been fairly dismissed and it did not seek to put the case into the category of cases where the court had no discretion. Under the Amendment the facts of the matter would be thoroughly examined by the court and if it came to the conclusion that in all the circumstances—and only then—it was highly undesirable that the man should remain in his house, then it would require him to give up possession. It seemed to me to be a very reasonable provision, and indeed a highly desirable one.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, as I moved this Amendment at the Committee stage, accordingly I should like to speak on the Reason for the Commons disagreement to the same. As I said on Committee, I fully appreciate the Government's view, but I feel that there is more than just a chance of difficulties arising here, some of which were dealt with on Committee; and again my noble friend Lord Middleton has brought this matter to the attention of the House. The worry to me is that a farm is such a closely knit community that misconduct is very much more noticeable and worrying than it is in urban areas. I believe that this is a genuine worry, and I had hoped that another place would have had more chance to discuss this matter. However, in the circumstances I accept what they have said.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, if we accept what they have said, then it is with very great reluctance because this Amendment came under the guillotine, and what they said was what was expressed at, I think,
1646
the Standing Committee stage. So far as I can see, another place did not discuss this Amendment at all. If the Government believe that they did, then perhaps they would draw our attention to it. But, in my view, although this issue has been discussed in general terms on Standing Committee, I do not believe that the Amendment has, because my noble friend Lord Caithness changed the wording when it was introduced in Committee in this House. I supported him in his Amendment. I believe that the Government are mistaken in this issue, but I do not wish to carry the matter further.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I trust that one is at liberty to make articulate one's opinion that the Government attitude in this respect is incredibly inflexible. I think of a strictly parallel case which very fortunately at the moment does not come under the law of the land. There are in various higher educational establishments residences for the vice-chancellors, or the provosts, or the masters or whatever they call them. Let us suppose that one of these individuals were consistently to be drunk and disorderly and were to create justifiable discontent among his students, and the fellows of the college were to get rid of him. Would it really be implicit in the principles of natural justice that he should not be disturbed in the tenure of his lodgings?
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I think that in relation to this particular Amendment there is a risk that the Bill may turn out to be a charter for those who leave the land, rather than a charter for those who stay on it. I think that a situation will arise in which a man who is dismissed for some fairly unsatisfactory conduct stays in his house because he has a right to do so and he is probably in the way of the long-serving employee about to retire, who might otherwise have wanted that house and been able to get it. Equally, the man who has been dismissed may well find that if he wants to move$ because he may not be frightfully popular in the village one way or another, or with other workers as well as the farmer, after what has happened on the farm—it may he fairly difficult for him to do so. The council will say to him, "You have a house. You have a right to it. Why are you asking us for a house?" If I am

1647
right in my interpretation, this I find to be rather a miserable social situation.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I think it is very sad that the Government are not accepting this Amendment. I should like to make two points. One, which was made by one of my noble friends, either at Committee or on Report, is on the subject of cruelty to stock. As a farmer, I know that I, at least, would be extremely worried if I had to dismiss a man—in the words of our Amendment, "fairly dismissed for misconduct"—in the circumstances that he had been cruel to stock. I would be very worried if that man could not be got out of his house and a new man could not come in—and I am assuming for the sake of this argument that the "best endeavours" are not working. I would be very worried, and I think it would put a greater strain on the other workers, to try to make sure that there was not a repeat, out of vindictiveness, of the previous misconduct. I am not in any way suggesting that this is absolutely certainly guaranteed to happen; of course I am not. I think it would be a very rare and unlikely thing to happen; but it is a possibility. One final note. When the voters of this country fairly dismiss Mr. James Callaghan from his job, he will have to leave his house for misconduct within 24 hours.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the arguments which have been put forward are fairly similar to the ones we went through at Committee stage, I think. I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, (to whom I must apologise for calling by a different name last time round), for his support, or lack of dissent, over this matter. As to the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, when he said it is incredibly inflexible and gave his example of a vice-chancellor, I would point out to him that if he looks at the original Bill he will see that under Case IV in Schedule 3 it says:
"The tenant, or any person residing or lodging with him or sub-tenant of his, has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers …".
I should have thought that the example he gave was covered under that. It would be a case where the tenant would have broken his obligations as a tenant,
1648
and would really have nothing to do with this particular case; but it does not mean, as the noble Lord seemed to imply, that in every circumstance the tenant has the right to stay there, whatever he does or however he behaves.
Many of the other examples that have been brought up would come under the criminal law, the worker would be prosecuted for them and there would be due execution in law. I would imagine that in some of the more horrific examples given—and they were given before—the worker would probably find himself in entirely different accommodation, in one of Her Majesty's prisons, so he would not be in the house at all. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that he assumed the "best endeavours" not working. There, of course, we part company because I am going to assume that "best endeavours" would be working.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I specifically said that in the particular argument I was putting forward the "best endeavours" would not work, and we have had the case—the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, brought this up before—of the patchwork ability. I am obviously, for the sake of my argument, assuming the worst, and I think that if we in Parliament do not assume the worst we are not doing our job properly.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that the man who goes to gaol for six months or a year, or whatever it may be, for setting the barn alight is still a statutory tenant of that house.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, but after that he may move or his wife may leave him, or something may happen to get him out. I was hoping that we would arrive at the end of that before somebody pointed that out. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made a point which is a very difficult one and which I think we all feel strongly about—the question of cruelty to animals. This is a case where I think the farmer would go to the ADHAC and stress very strongly the need for efficient agriculture; and I should have thought, quite frankly—and this, I think, is the advantage of having that amount of flexibility in the Bill given by the phrases, "best endeavours" and, "efficient agriculture"—that some arrangement would

1649
be made and that certainly the farmer would be able to get somebody into that house although the occupant would still have to be offered security of tenure somewhere else.
My Lords, we have not yet seen this working, and I really cannot believe that a way round it would not in fact be found, in these exceptional circumstances, without breaking the basic tenet of the Bill. I really must point out, since there has been a fair amount of discussion on this occasion about it, that a provision of this type would have an additional disadvantage, because presumably the verdict of an industrial tribunal would be necessary to establish whether a worker had been fairly dismissed for misconduct—and we are talking about being fairly dismissed, not being unfairly dismissed. But the tribunal exists for a worker to argue that he has been unfairly dismissed. If workers knew that by seeking their rights before a tribunal on the matter of their previous employment they risked losing their homes as well if the verdict went against them, then I think it is likely that very few would apply, and the tribunal would then be a dead letter so far as they were concerned. This would be wholly unacceptable, and I think is another example of the difficulties we get into—and I am not really minimising the other exceptional difficulties that could arise—if we start again intermingling security of tenure with employment.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Baroness has got me in a muddle now. She mentioned ADHAC. Do I understand her to say that on occasions like this ADHAC can rule that the man is a nuisance and that you should therefore have possession of the cottage? I must be in a muddle here, because I cannot see that they can do that. They can only rule, surely, that the cottage is needed to farm efficiently.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was really answering the point that I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made, that the farmer would not be able to get accommodation for somebody else; that he would be in a great difficulty, he would not be able to get somebody to replace this man so far as the work was concerned. But if it were in the interests of efficient agriculture for the fanner to have somebody living on the spot, this would be an argument which he would be able to put very strongly to the ADHAC and which the ADHAC would obviously take very strongly into account.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
50 Page 61, line 17, at end insert$
"27A. In section 122(8) of the Housing Act 1974 (duty to inform tenant of assignment of landlord's interest) after the words "Rent (Scotland) Act 1971" insert the words "statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976"."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment and proposed the following Amendment thereto:
51 Line 4, after ("words") insert ("and a").
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment No. 51 to the Lords Amendment No. 50. This Amendment simply restores two words which have been inadvertently omitted and which are necessary for understanding Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 50.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past one o'clock.