LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 19 November 1976)

§ 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.

§ 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.