Lords Sitting of 7 February 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
The Lords following took and subscribed the Oath:
Philip William Bryce, Viscount Leverhulme
Harold, Lord Woolley.

Tributes to the late Lord Byers
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, as Leader of the House it falls to me to pay tribute to the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, whose sudden death yesterday came as such a shock to me and to your Lordships. The noble Lord became a Member of this House in 1964, having already achieved distinction in several fields. While still at Oxford he won renown as an athlete, and held the British Universities' record for the 440-yard hurdles as well as taking part in several international athletic meetings.
The noble Lord had a distinguished career in the Army in the Second World War, in the course of which he served under Lord Montgomery as a member of the Eighth Army staff and, later, of the 21st Army Group Headquarters. He was awarded the OBE, was mentioned in despatches three times, received the Croix de Guerre and was made a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour.
Between 1945 and 1950 he served as a Member of Parliament for North Dorset; and from 1946 to 1950 he was Chief Liberal Whip in another place, an appointment which, as your Lordships will appreciate, personally endeared him to me. After ceasing to be a Member of Parliament, he remained a prominent and active member of the Liberal Party. In 1965, soon after he came to this House, the noble Lord became Chairman of the Liberal Party, an office which he held until his appointment in April 1967 as Leader of the Liberal Peers. That post was one which he was to hold with distinction for the rest of his life—almost 17 years. In 1972 he was appointed a Privy Counsellor.
Many of your Lordships will have had much longer experience than I of the major contribution which he made to this House over a period of many years, particularly in his position as Leader of the Liberal Peers. When I came to this House and found myself working with him as a fellow member of "the usual channels", I found him very much true to the form which I would have expected from my friendship with him over the years. He was always friendly and a pleasure to work with, while at the same time vigorous and determined. My own sense of loss will I know be shared by noble Lords in all parts of the house, for Frank Byers was a devoted and assiduous worker in the interests of the House as much as of his own party. The whole House will wish to express its deepest sympathy to the noble Lord's widow and family.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I would wish to say that we share the sorrow and the shock which everyone felt on hearing the sad news of Lord Byers's death. Frank Byers gave outstanding service to his country in war and peace, and to the Liberal Party, to which he was dedicated; for although he was respected and successful in the business circles in which he became active, it is as a devoted Liberal that he will be remembered. He had served in this House for 20 years, and it was clear that he had a great affection for this place and was well-versed in its ways. As Leader of his party here he was firm, sensible and plain-spoken. Frank Byers never left you in any doubt about his views. He will be greatly missed, and we send our warm sympathy to Lady Byers and the family.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the Liberal Peers deeply appreciate the tributes that have been paid to their late Leader, both by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition Peers, Lord Cledwyn. Those tributes were generous and yet at the same time were entirely well-merited.
Of Lord Byers's achievements in public life, it is perhaps not right that I should devote too much attention this afternoon to them, although as a friend of his for some 40 years I am very much aware of them. Perhaps I might say just a few words about his service as Leader of the Liberal Peers for the unprecedentedly long period of some 17 years. During that period he became ever more mindful of the traditions of this House and ever more keen to act as their guardian.
He was the ideal leader for a minority party. He was firm, he was incisive, he was the most able of negotiators, and he had an instinctive political flair which meant that his judgment was almost infallible. Added to those qualities, he was a superb administrator, he was totally efficient; and he was extremely effective in your Lordships' House. The House will remember his speeches: invariably short; invariably packed with original thought and common sense; and always imbued with a warm humanity. Your Lordships may have seen that one of the obituaries in this morning's papers referred to the fact that, had he chosen to join another political party, he would no doubt have held high ministerial office. I have no doubt that that is true. I have no doubt also that the thought would never have occurred to him because he was at all times passionately imbued with his political ideals.
He passed away yesterday afternoon suddenly, and I think as he would have wished it: in his room in the Houses of Parliament to which he had devoted his life and to which he had contributed so much. I join with what has already been said in expressing our deepest sympathy to Lady Byers who was his happy partner in marriage for some 44 years, and to the members of his family of whom he was so proud and who brought him so much happiness.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I hope that I may join in paying a short but very warm tribute to a great parliamentarian and a most co-operative colleague. Although it was as long ago as 1945 that I first came

997
to know Frank Byers, and well remember how at that time as Liberal Chief Whip he earned the respect of all of us who were Members of Parliament, it was only in more recent times that I had the privilege of working with him very closely, very co-operatively, very harmoniously, and indeed very happily. Your Lordships have already been reminded what a great all-rounder he was; and I should like to endorse what has just been said about the force of his speeches, which always seemed to me to be equally remarkable for their clarity, their common sense, and their brevity. But I feel that it is to his wife, Joan, that our first thoughts must go. I can only hope and pray that out of the love of her family and the warm and affectionate admiration of his very many friends she will find the inner strength to cope with her sudden and tragic bereavement.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, I am sure that all those sitting on the Cross-Benches will want to be associated with the sympathy and tributes already expressed to the family of Lord Byers and to the Liberal Party. It was the noble Lord's clarity of thought and therefore brevity of speeches that set such an example to us all. He will be sadly missed in this House.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I should like to associate those of us on these Benches with the expressions of sympathy that we have already heard. We respected Lord Byers as a forthright speaker; as one who, in the words of today's psalm, "spoke the truth from his heart". He never wasted time or words, and he was a consistent guardian of the rights of minority groups in your Lordships' House. We greatly regret the suddenness of his passing. We should like to express to his colleagues on the opposite Bench and to the members of his family the assurance of our sympathy and our prayers at this time.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, there are a number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, who will remember Frank Byers from the Parliament of 1945–50 when he was a Member of the Commons. He showed then some of the qualities which have already been referred to both in the Army and later in Parliament, but I should like to refer to an area which has not been mentioned; namely, his contribution in industry. He was one of the driving forces, with Val Duncan, in creating the Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation. It was his liberal views which permeated and created a sense of humanity, particularly in the activities of that company in Africa, which have made a mark for history. This is particularly true in Zimbabwe, and I would not want this real achievement to be forgotten. He was a modest man. His entry in Who's Who is a very short one, but it could he a very long one.
Other noble Lords have referred to his parliamentary performance. Along with a number of colleagues, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I worked with him on House of Lords reform. Although it did not come about (for reasons I shall not go into now) he made a contribution of common sense, and was a good colleague. He was a colleague whom one
998
implicitly trusted; somebody with whom one was happy to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has already referred in felicitous terms to the brevity of the speeches of Lord Byers. A number of times I have said to Lord Byers, "I really am jealous. You can say in 10 minutes what takes me 25 minutes". It was this succinct and decisive mind that contributed so rapidly and usefully to your Lordships. We all had an affection for him. He was a man of great energy, and he was properly described as a true Liberal. He was a man of the highest integrity.

Parole Policy and Prison Discipline
2.50 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what additional disciplinary problems are being encountered in prisons in England and Wales as a result of the Home Secretary's declaration at the Tory Party conference that parole is to be denied automatically to certain classes of prisoners.
The Parlimentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, parole is not being automatically denied to any prisoners. My right honourable friend has every confidence in the prison service, and the small number of minor incidents allegedly linked with the new policies on parole have been handled quietly and well.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister knows perfectly well that parole is being automatically denied to the classes of person referred to by the Home Secretary in his speech to the Tory Party conference. Is the Minister aware of the remarks made by the prison chaplain in Parkhurst which were quoted in yesterday's Guardian, that the Home Secretary's decision gives inmates more reason to be actively disruptive? Is the noble Lord aware that the Prison Officers' Association recently had to see the Secretary of State to tell him that he had created enormous problems for it by his announcement? Is he aware that prisoners and their families are bewildered and dismayed, particularly those on the point of being released, at being knocked back sometimes for years? Does he not think that in those cases the decision of the Home Secretary constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot accept almost anything that the noble Lord has said. The policy was worked out and openly stated in the full light of understanding of the pressures that might result. There have been pressures. My right honourable friend is aware of them through the channels that the noble Lord mentioned and others. As I have already said, they have been handled well and successfully The fact is that we have a policy which reassures the public that there is a direct relationship between the seriousness of

999
an offence and the length of a prisoner's service of sentence as a result of that offence. This was introduced at a time when the public was becoming disturbed by perceiving that these two factors were diverging.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does not the noble Lord the Minister agree that in any study of penology a policy that gives no hope must be hopeless in itself?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is no policy that gives no hope. There is a policy under which those serving for serious offences and those serving for life know where they stand and what they can expect.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that Parole Board reports over the past 15 years since the Parole Board was set up have shown clearly that few prisoners serving long sentences for acts of violence and for drug trafficking have received parole at the first review with the maximum eligibility, that most have to wait a second and, in many cases, a third review if they are to get parole for a few months before their normal date of release? Against that fact—I think that the Minister will have to agree that is so—can he explain what useful purpose is likely to be served by the Home Secretary's new policy which would justify the great difficulties now created for prison staff owing to tension in prisons?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the purpose of imprisonment is not only reform—which is rarely achieved—it is also deterrence and retribution. The cases of all eligible prisoners will continue to be reviewed by the local review committee as before, and will continue to be selected for reference to the Parole Board as before. All cases will continue to be considered by the committees and the board on their individual merits, bearing in mind the Home Secretary's stated intention in relation to the exercise of his discretion. The Parole Board, to which the noble Lord rightly gives great weight and of which he has great experience, is still involved in every case. I believe that the system is just.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is widespread indignation in the prison service, both among governors and among members of the Prison Officers' Association, that neither of their professional organisations was consulted before the right honourable gentleman made his speech at the Conservative Party conference?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the prison governors and the Prison Officers' Association are fully in the confidence of my right honourable friend who has had discussions about this matter. The policy was not worked out in conjunction with them in detail; but he has been in close consultation with them ever since and he does not need reminding of the close involvement of these dedicated members of the service, without whom no prison policy would work.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether child sex offenders are supervised when they are eventually discharged? Would not some form of parole system be a safeguard when they go back into the community?
Lord Elton: My Lords, prisoners are customarily under supervision when they are on release on parole.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the Prison Officers' Association made representations to the Secretary of State on the lines that I have mentioned, and that they feel a continuing anxiety about the possibility that serious disturbances may result from the psychological pressures on these prisoners whose expectations have now been dashed? Does he not think also that when the courts originally sentenced those persons they did so in the expectation that parole would be considered on its own merits by the statutory authorities constituted for the purpose, and that the Secretary of State, by usurping those powers, has created a dangerous situation?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, certainly the Prison Officers' Association came to see my right honourable and learned friend, and it was proper that they should. They told him of the feelings in their service and it was also proper that they should. There is no feeling of panic or alarm. The only thing that contributes to the danger of ugly incidents now is the way people constantly say, "Isn't it going to happen?", in the terms that the noble Lord has. On the noble Lord's final point, I am glad of this opportunity finally to debunk a complete misunderstanding of what has happened. The Lord Chief Justice has refuted the heresy that sentences are made in the expectation of parole. If I may quote the passage in The Times Law Report of 13th December 1983 which could not have made this clearer,
"Questions of parole were not for the Court of Appeal. Their Lordships had repeatedly said that the sentences were imposed by trial judges and reviewed by the Court of Appeal without regard to the impact or lack of impact of possible release on parole",
I hope that will be remembered.

Probation Service Statistics
2.58 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the collection of probation statistics in view of the advice given by the National Association of Probation Officers to its members not to carry out such work.
Lord Elton: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deplore the continuance by the National Association of Probation Officers of action to disrupt the collection of probation service statistics. The loss both to the Home Office and to the probation service caused by the lack of timely information, both local and national, about the service's activities is likely to be substantial and will undoubtedly prejudice the effective management of the service's work, to whose value many noble Lords and I myself have often paid tribute in this House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he not agree that the

1001
failure to obtain adequate information through probation statistics will make it increasingly difficult to argue the case for increased resources for the probation service?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is something that I hope will be noticed by the probation service itself.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, in correspondence with the National Association of Probation Officers last August, his department expressed their readiness to discuss the setting up of negotiating machinery especially to deal with this very controversial problem of trainees' pay? Does he not agree that this would be by far the best procedure for dealing with this controversial and sensitive problem? Is he able to let the House know what progress, if any, has been achieved in the setting up of this machinery during the past five-and-a-half months?
Lord Elton: My Lords, subject to correction, I think that the exchanges started a little more recently than last August; but I can confirm that the National Association of Probation Officers has expressed a wish for fuller involvement in discussions on the pay of probation students through the establishment of formal negotiating machinery. The Home Office has been discussing this matter with the national executive committee—and I stand corrected by my own words—since last August. These discussions are now continuing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, stating first, if I may, my great admiration for the probation service, may I ask my noble friend the Minister why it is that they are being obstructive about this? Could he inform the House?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the action that they have taken is about the fact that from 1983 the salary paid to probation students newly embarking on Home Office-sponsored courses was reduced. I should add that it was reduced to a level which was, on average, at least £1,000 a year higher than the points being paid to student social workers and teachers.

International Development Association: Funding
3.2 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their present policy towards the potential shortfall in the International Development Association's budget for 1984–85.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the reply given in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 27th January to the effect that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make a contribution to supplementary funding of the seventh
1002
replenishment of the International Development Association on the basis of the usual equitable burden-sharing among donors.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this gives me the unique opportunity of congratulating the Government twice within the last two weeks on the lead which they have taken in this matter. May I ask the noble Lord to clarify some of the words of his honourable friend in another place? These are questions of elucidation. Is it the case that the British contribution will be 195 million dollars or £139 million? If it is, how does this square with the report that the United Kingdom's share has fallen from 10·1 per cent. to 6·5 per cent? Thirdly, when he quotes his honourable friend in another place by referring to equitable burden-sharing among the countries concerned as a condition for the new British contribution, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that, if one of the other countries defaults or refuses to pay, the British Government will not make their new contribution?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's last question is, no. This does not mean that we should not make a contribution at all but it means that we should not enhance our contribution to make up for any shortfall from some other source. As to the earlier supplementary question that the noble Lord put to me, our contribution to the main replenishment of IDA 7 will be £403 million out of 9 billion dollars, which, as the noble Lord says, is 6·7 per cent., but that does not take into account any supplementary contribution which we may make. That supplementary contribution was taken into account in the earlier contribution of about 10 per cent. which we made to IDA 6.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the original target was 16 billion dollars, that this was reduced to 12 billion dollars and that the 12 billion dollars was the sum which the United Kingdom, Japan, Western Germany and France were anxious to achieve; and the reduction to 9 billion dollars (which the noble Lord has just mentioned) is a serious lowering of the level of aid which the United Kingdom was anxious to achieve? Could he say whether the 12 billion dollars is still negotiable, whether there is still a possibility that more might be achieved; or whether the United States is insisting on the 9 billion dollars? If that is the case, why is the United States so anxious to reduce the figure?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the 9 billion dollars is the figure which has been agreed among the donors for the main replenishment. We hope that the figure will be made up to around 12 billion dollars by means of supplementary funding and we shall be ready to play our part in that.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any chance of the supplementary contribution taking into account the fact that apparently British Leyland are thinking of closing down their car and truck division whereas the third world is desperately short of trucks?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course, we take all such considerations into account.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two further questions? Is it not the case that, unless the 16 billion dollars is provided for the next tranche starting next July, the work of the IDA will have to be cut because it requires 16 billion dollars just to stand still? Secondly, I was referring to the supplementary amount that the British Government have offered, and I understand that the British Government, along with other governments, are hoping to hold a new meeting later in the year in order to make up some of the shortfall. Can the noble Lord tell us how the arrangements for that meeting are progressing and whether, as happened in the case of Japan and West Germany, it is likely to be deliberately sabotaged by the United States administration?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would not accept the terminology which the noble Lord chose to use at the end of that supplementary question. I can say that negotiations on the creation of the supplementary fund are proceeding and that we hope very much that they will be in place by the 1st July this year.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my first supplementary question. Is it not the case that unless 16 billion dollars are provided for the IDA this year then, according to the World Bank, there will have to be a cut in the operations of the IDA?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that 16 billion dollars was ever a realistic target for this replenishment. The Government were able to agree to the 12 billion dollar figure to which I referred.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Severn crossing.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time of 7.30 this evening. The Report stage of the Agricultural Holdings Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and during that adjournment the Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 1984 and the Report stage of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill will be taken.

Public Health (Control of Disease) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It seeks to consolidate those parts of the Act relating to public health that are concerned with the control of disease. Besides the general regulatory provisions for preventing the spread of disease, it contains specific provisions relating to burial and cremation and the regulation of common lodging houses and canal boats. In order to produce a satisfactory consolidation, the Law Commission have
1004
made recommendations which are set out in their report on the Bill laid before this House on 20th January. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the ordinary way to the Joint Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think the House would want to pay tribute to the Law Commission, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, if I may say so, to the Joint Standing Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, for the many consolidation measures which are coming before the House. Obviously they are extremely welcome and I think that the House ought to note the point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. Of course, the praise goes to the Law Commission, but I attach a great deal of importance to the work of consolidation which makes the duties of the legal profession and those who have need to know the text of the law so very much easier than it would otherwise be.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Determination of rent of agricultural holding]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("holding") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("at the next termination date").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I fear we have another long session in front of us, but I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench will defend his angles slightly better than his compatriots did at Murrayfield, although I was delighted at the way they played. This amendment is really a very small one. It is designed to bring the rent review date into line with the normal contractual rent reviews by requiring the arbitrator to determine the rent payable on the termination date; that is, the relevant anniversary date of the tenancy. It is illogical and unsatisfactory to have a rent review date which can vary widely when the intent should be to fix the rent properly payable at the anniversary date. It would otherwise be possible, as it is at present, for a landlord or tenant to judge in, say. May or June how the levels of the rents are likely to move between then and the date of termination, and to demand an early reference to arbitration, if that were felt to be in his personal interest.
The point I am driving at is this. As worded, the Bill presents an opportunity for an aggressive landlord or an aggressive tenant to use the Bill to manipulate the situation with regard to rent reviews. I think this is a dangerous precedent to set. Although it has worked satisfactorily to date, in the future when everybody has had time to scrutinise the Bill and go through it with a fine toothcomb they will want to seek every opportunity to maximise their interests. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, may I start the afternoon by agreeing with my noble friend Lord Caithness. I have some sympathy for this amendment. If I may give an example to fortify his case, what is happening today is that some land agents are negotiating Michaelmas rents now under the old rules because they fear—in my opinion, quite incorrectly—that the new rules under Clause 1 might not be attractive for them.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Belstead and the House in general will agree that such a practice is unattractive in the extreme while legislation is going through your Lordships' House. Similar situations could be envisaged, as my noble friend has said, whereby the tenant might want to go early because he thought farming was improving or because the landlord in the case was going early. I hope that the Government will give this some thought.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have indeed given this quite a lot of thought and I have discussed it outside the House with my noble friend Lord Caithness; but I think that his cure may be rather worse than the disease. At the moment an arbitrator is required to determine the rent properly payable at the date the arbitrator is appointed, and in most cases I think it is fair to claim that he is appointed close to the termination date so there is no real gap between the date at which the rent is determined and the date on which it comes into effect. It is true that arbitrators may be appointed well ahead of the termination date, in which case there will be a period of perhaps several months between the date of the reference and the termination date. I absolutely take that point. In these relatively few cases, therefore, the rent is determined some months in advance.
The purpose of my noble friend's amendment is to overcome this perceived difficulty by seeking to delete the date of the reference and insert the words "at the next termination date". This would require the arbitrator to embark on the really very difficult task of trying to estimate what the rent properly payable would be at that time, which of course could be several months ahead. He would be required to guess what the conditions would be relating to the holding at that time, rather than proceeding as he does at present under the law on the basis of the actual conditions obtaining at the time the arbitrator is doing his assessment.
This would be an additional obligation upon arbitrators, The present date for making an arbitration is well established and is one which I gather has become well used to in agriculture. Indeed, I think that my noble friend very fairly said that it has not given rise to any difficulty. I think we ought to bear in mind that of course the rent will be payable for a whole three years until the next rent review, and I suggest to my noble friend Lord Stanley that just a few months really are not of very great significance in the context of a three-year review, whereas, as I have said, there would be a difficulty in requiring arbitrators, on top of all their other work, to have to look ahead in some cases and conjecture what the rent ought to be at a date not even reached.
1006
It is for these reasons that I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment. I am sorry, because I know that my noble friend feels that this would be an improvement, but, as I have said, I think it may not turn out that way.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has taken the line that he has with regard to the amendment. I would suggest that he canot really have it both ways. As I understand his argument, it is twofold. Either there is absolutely no difference or there will be no difference between the rent at the time the arbitrator is setting about his work and at the time the tenancy comes to an end and the new rent comes into force. That is one argument; and the other argument is that it is impossible for an arbitrator to look so far ahead, that he is not going to be able to see what the conditions are at that time. They seem to me to be mutually contradictory arguments.
The difficulty could be overcome, although I am not suggesting that it should be in this case, by stipulating that the arbitrator may not give his judgment until, let us say, two months before the termination of the tenancy. In default of that-—and I do not put that forward as a realistic suggestion—it seems to me that this amendment is a minor one though a useful one. I very much hope that, if not at this stage at any rate at some later stage, either here or in another place, the noble Lord and his colleagues will see fit to accept this proposal.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I might just reply to that point, which is the one point I have not replied to. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, uncharacteristically, is being wholly fair in this matter. What I am saying is that, on the one hand, there are not many cases where the arbitrator has to look a long way forward. Therefore, in the context of the three-year period for every rent review, I do not think the problem is a very great one. But, on the other hand, if I accepted my noble friend's amendment we would be requiring the arbitrator in every case always to have to look some period of time ahead in order to conjecture what the rent ought to be, instead of being able to say what it ought to be at the time the arbitrator is doing his work.
I do not want to be difficult about this because I realise there has been support from both my noble friends and from the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I shall be happy to look at this again, if that were the wish of the House. It might be possible, if we were persuaded, to bring forward an amendment on Third Reading. I will not give an assurance on that, however, because there are difficulties. If my noble friend would agree to withdraw his amendment on the basis of what I have said, perhaps I could meet him again and talk about it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the support I have received, and also for that last answer from my noble friend the Minister. He referred to there being few cases where the arbitrator would have to look ahead any length of time. We have spent many hours in Committee, and we shall spend a few more hours today, debating the very few cases where rents go to arbitration, so I do not think that that is any justification for excluding this from the Bill.

1007
My noble friend also raised the point that rents will not vary greatly by making an arbitration decision a few months in advance. I can well remember rent reviews in which we started our homework in February for a Michaelmas review, and by the time we came to Michaelmas the rents had changed substantially, depending on the farming climate during the summer. It is exactly that situation that I am trying to avoid. However, in the light of my noble friend's kind words when he said that he will look at this again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment with a view to discussing it with him and, perhaps, bringing it before the House at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 2 is accepted I cannot call Amendment No. 11.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 2
Page 1, leave out from line 22 to end of line 17 on page 2 and insert—
("(3) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection the rent properly payable in respect of a holding shall be the rent at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let by a prudent and willing landlord to a prudent and willing tenant, taking into account (subject to subsections (4) to (6) of this section) all relevant factors, including (in every case) the terms of the tenancy (including those relating to rent), the character and situation of the holding (including the locality in which it is situated), the productive capacity of the holding, and the current level of rents for comparable lettings, as determined in accordance with subsection (4) of this section.
(3A) In subsection (3) of this section "productive capacity", in relation to the holding, means the productive capacity of the holding (taking into account fixed equipment and any other available facilities on the holding) on the assumption that it is in the occupation of a competent tenant practising a system of farming suitable to the holding.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, and would speak also to Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18; and, coming towards the end of the Bill, Amendment No. 74 brings into the Bill exactly the same concept.
Amendment No. 14: Page 2, line 18, leave out ("subsection (3)(d) of this section") and insert ("that subsection").
Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 27, leave out ("those relating to rent)") and insert ("terms fixing the rent payable)").
Amendment No. 16: Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 30 and insert ("disregard—").
Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 36, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(aa) any element of those rents which is due to the fact that the tenant of any comparable holding is in occupation of other land in the vicinity of that holding that may conveniently be occupied together with that holding; and").
Amendment No. 18: Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("holding") to ("and") in line 15.
Amendment No. 74: Schedule 1: Page 27, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert—
(""(6) For the purposes of this section the rent properly payable in respect of the holding shall be the rent at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let by a prudent and willing landlord to a prudent and willing tenant, taking into account all relevant factors, including (in every case) the terms of the tenancy or prospective tenancy (including those relating to rent) and any such other matters as are specifically referred to in subsection (3) of section 8 of the 1948 Act (read with subsections (3A) and (4) of that section)".").
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend has considered, and whether the noble Lord on the Woolsack has considered, the desirability of discussing all the amendments between Nos. 2 and 11, inclusive, together. One general discussion on the various alternatives which arise on those amendments would undoubtedly save time.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have discussed with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and, through the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Walston, the desirability of doing just that. I understand that all noble Lords are agreed, except that Amendment No. 11 falls outside in the sense that it is not an amendment to Amendment No. 2. But for the Government's part I should be only too pleased to discuss Amendment No. 11 at the same time also.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, if we are taking all amendments between Nos. 2 and 11, I would say that my amendment No. 7B hardly falls in the general discussion. So I should like to reserve the right to say something about that separately.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker said that if Amendment No. 2 was accepted No. 11 could not he discussed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that would be a very grave misfortune.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, my Lords. I said that if No. 2 was agreed to I could not call No. 11. I cannot prevent your Lordships from discussing Amendment No. 11.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I take it, then, that we are agreed that I am moving on behalf of the Government Amendment No. 2—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend very briefly, we are getting ourselves into the most appalling muddle, totally by mistake, and with no disrespect meant to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in the Chair. Some of us feel that Amendment No. 11 makes a very great deal more sense than Amendment No. 2, because it happens to be written in rather better English, and that is something which we all appreciate. I do not see why, if it receives a large amount of support on the Floor of the House, and if noble Lords on all sides of the House say that my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Dilhorne are correct in their interpretation of what we want to do, we cannot have a Division on it, if the spirit so moves your Lordships.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that I ought now to move Amendment No. 2 and speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 with it. It seems to be generally agreed by noble Lords that they will be speaking to Amendments Nos. 3 to 10, which are of course amendments to Amendment No. 2. I think I must leave it to my noble friend Lord Renton to allude to Amendment No. 11 if he and my other noble friend wish to do so, and I shall not stop them.

1009
Indeed, if my noble friend raises points on Amendment No. 11, then on behalf of the Government I shall of course do my best to reply.
Your Lordships will recall that during Committee we had a very extensive debate on the rent formula. I believe that we had under consideration no less than eight different formulas, although your Lordships seemed to be agreed on one objective, which was to do no more than provide statutory cover for arbitrators' current practice. The Government had hoped that the original formula contained in the Bill had achieved this objective, but in the light of the arguments put forward by your Lordships in Committee I undertook to consider whether we could introduce modifications which would help to achieve a greater measure of agreement. Over the last two months we have tried to do just that, and I hope with some success, for Amendment No. 2 and the related amendments reflect views expressed in Committee by many of your Lordships.
I must say a word about the organisations which are closely concerned with this and which have also been involved in consultations. All of them have approached this issue in a very constructive way. There has been broad agreement on the objective; namely, to find a way of reflecting in law what arbitrators currently do. I hesitate to claim that we have got everything quite right, and indeed my noble friend Lord Onslow has already said that he favours another amendment, although with the very greatest respect I am not completely sure that that amendment is entirely, in some parts, in line with what almost all your Lordships agree you would want to be doing. But we can look at that in a moment or two. What we have done in Amendment No. 2 is to retain the key elements of the original formula. This is very important, since we have been careful to avoid doing anything which might upset the delicate balance which was established in the NFU/CLA agreement which underpins the concept of the Bill.
The individual changes in detail which I am moving are these. First, there is a newly-drafted subsection (3) to Clause 1. The first part of this subsection reflects much of the amendment which was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, and which was tabled also by the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, Lord Northfield and Lord Northbourne. The effect is to give arbitrators a starting point and, more importantly, an end point, by expressing the rent properly payable in terms of the rent at which the holding might be expected to be let by a prudent and willing landlord to a prudent and willing tenant. There is, however, an important qualification. In arriving at this rent an arbitrator must in every case pay full regard to the four particular relevant factors mentioned in subsection (3). The factors are those contained in the original rent formula, but I will say just a word more about that in a moment. Subsections (3) and (4), because of the words "in every case", must be taken by the arbitrator as a whole.
There are two further changes in subsection (3). We have made it clear that the arbitrator can consider under the terms of the tenancy any terms relating to rent, including the current rent if he considers this particularly relevant; and this is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, attached importance at
1010
the Committee stage. We have also accepted that the locality of the holding ought to be included. This was always the intention, but I am indebted to the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Prys-Davies, for bringing out this point, although I see from the amendments that my noble friend Lord Onslow does not agree with them.
In subsection (3A) we have not reproduced the reference to profit from farming the holding. I see that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has Amendment No. 10 down on that, so may I explain why. In the discussions on the rent formula which have taken place since Committee, it was pointed out to us that the words which we included in that formula,
"could reasonably be expected to profit from farming the holding",
could be regarded as precluding the arbitrator from considering, for the purposes of rent determination, any other profit produced by the holding from non-farming activities. The most obvious example is the letting of land for rent sites, or something of that kind.
We did not believe that this would be the case, since any additional profit of this type could be considered as an additional relevant factor. But if the specific reference to farming profit put, alone, into the Bill jeopardised the consideration of earnings generally, we felt that we had to do something about it. We felt that it was advisable to delete the reference to "profit", since the most important factor is the productive capacity of the holding in the hands of a competent tenant. This encompasses the idea of profit, since in converting productivity into the rent properly payable the abitrator must form some idea of the degree of profit which the holding can produce when farmed by a tenant of average ability.
Having said this, I shall listen very carefully on behalf of the Government to what is said on the profit issue. If it is the general wish that these words ought to be reinstated without endangering the reference to earnings generally, the Government will of course not stand in the way, but I believe that the formula we now have, for the reasons I have just given, preserves the interests of everyone and endangers the interests of no one. In summary, these amendments seek to introduce into subsection (3) a change that I believe achieves an objective to which great importance is attached by noble Lords.
There is also one change to subsection (4). It was brought out by your Lordships in two very interesting debates. It is this: the purpose of paragraph (aa) is to make it clear that in considering the rents of comparable holdings the arbitrator must disregard any element in these rents which is the result of proximity—that is, the fact that the tenant of the comparable holding is occupying other land close to it. That puts into the Bill the effect of an amendment which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley moved in Committee. At the same time, however, we have deleted the latter part of subsection (6)(a) which would have required an arbitrator to disregard proximity in the case of the subject holding. The advantage which proximity gives to a tenant will therefore be something which the arbitrator will be permitted to take account of in assessing the rent for subject holdings.

1011
This is the response to the amendment which was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. And that is the effect of Amendment No. 2 and the related amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, I call Amendment No. 3. If Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 3:
Line 3, leave out from ("let") to end of line 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. Clause 1, as amended, reproduces the nine or 10 elements which were contained in the original Clause 1, with one exception—that is, the second limb of (3)(c)—but they have been moved about and they reappear in Clause 1, with one exception and one addition. The additional words which we are unable to support are in lines 3 and 4: the reference to a prudent and willing landlord and a prudent and willing tenant.
We are not sure what is the true significance of this modification. I have seen at least two interpretations of the significance of the additional words. According to one view, they are merely cosmetic because they do not include a reference to the "open market". The opposite view is that, although the words "open market" have not been introduced into the new section (although they were included in the old 1958 Act), their sense has nevertheless been retained.
One wonders what the arbitrator will make of these additional words. What meaning will be attach to them? Obviously that is not ascertainable. Arbitrator A may consider that he has to pay regard to market value, to be discounted later on in order to have regard to scarcity. But arbitrator B may take a different view and consider that, as the words "market value" have been omitted although they were included in the 1958 legislation, there is no duty on him to seek a rate which might be acceptable as between a willing and prudent landlord and a willing and prudent tenant. There will therefore be considerable uncertainty.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that the code set out in Clause 1(4), which determines the rent, is sufficiently complex without the concept of a willing and prudent landlord and a willing and prudent tenant being introduced on top of the eight or nine other elements to be found in Clause 1. My noble friends and I pleaded in Committee for a simpler code. Therefore we press this amendment because of the uncertainty which the words introduce. We believe that they will lead to conflicting interpretations and will take us perilously close to the open market. I beg to move.
Lord Renton Lord Renton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Line 4, leave out first ("prudent and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak now—hoping that I am in order in doing so—to Amendment No. 4. I invite your Lordships to consider
1012
at the same time Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 inclusive and Amendment No. 11 as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Belstead when he opened this debate.
Amendment No. 5: Line 4, leave out second ("prudent and").
Amendment No. 6: Line 6, leave out ("(in every case)").
Amendment No. 7: Line 7, leave out ("(including those relating to rent)").
Amendment No. 8: Line 9, leave out (", the productive capacity of the holding,").
Amendment No. 9: Leave out lines 12 to 17.
Amendment No. 11: Page 1, leave out line 22 to end of line 19 on page 3 and insert—
"(3) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection the rent properly payable for the holding shall be the rent at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let without premium by a willing landlord to a willing tenant, the arbitrator taking account of all relevant factors but disregarding—

(a) any effect on rent of the occupation of the holding by the person in occupation thereof

(b) any effect on rent of the proximity of the holding to other land occupied by the tenant;

(c) any scarcity of comparable holdings in the part of the country where the holding lies;

(d) any tenant's improvements or fixed equipment other than improvements executed or equipment provided under an obligation imposed by the terms of the contract of tenancy; and

(e) any landlord's improvements, insofar as the landlord has received or will receive grants out of moneys provided by Parliament or local government funds in respect of the execution of those improvements.

(4) On any such reference the arbitrator shall not fix the rent at a lower amount by reason of any dilapidation or deterioration of, or damage to, buildings or land caused or permitted by the tenant.").

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has just referred to the complexity of the law. It really is most unfortunate that our largest industry, which affects the lives of so many of our people, should now, from the legislative point of view, be overridden by one of the most complex groups of legislative provisions that we can find on the statute book. I only wish that I could say that Amendment No. 2, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Belstead as an alternative to what appears in the Bill as amended at the Committee stage, had reduced the complexity. I fear that I shall have to explain in some detail that it increases the complexity. Before I go any further, may I say that I have no objection to Amendment No. 3, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, but I prefer Amendment No. 4, which I have moved. That is clearly understood.
I propose, although this is such a big and complex subject, to simplify as far as I can my remarks to your Lordships by dealing with the amendments in this way. First, I propose to comment on Amendment No. 2 in detail. Second, I shall draw attention to Amendments Nos. 3 to 9, which are intended, modestly, to improve the Bill. Third, I shall invite your Lordships to consider Amendment No. 11, which is a constructive and more simple alternative to Amendment No. 2 and, indeed, to subsections (3) to (6) inclusive as they stand—or as they will stand if Amendment No. 2 is accepted.
I have to accept the fact that, owing to the nature of our procedure, I could be stymied, and those who agree with me could be stymied, if Amendment No. 2 is carried. I shall therefore ask my noble friend Lord Belstead, who has shown such wonderful open-mindedness in this difficult matter—open-mindedness in the face of all kinds of conflicting advice which he has received—whether he will be so good as to take

1013
away Amendment No. 2 in any event, so that we may have a further chance of getting it right. I hope very much that either there will be no Division on Amendment No. 2 or, if there is one, that it will be defeated.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am rather puzzled. At the top of page 2 of the Marshalled List there are printed the words:
"[As amendments to amendment No. 21]",
which I take it cover all the amendments to the bottom of page 2, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. So his is really an amendment to Amendment No. 2; it is not a separate amendment to the main Bill. If we discuss the two or three other amendments and they are all withdrawn, voted upon, or what-have-you, we will then come, before the main amendment, Amendment No. 2, is put, to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which is Amendment No. 11. I should like some guidance, but surely that is the process, is it not?
Lord Renton: My Lords, it may be that the noble Lord is a much greater authority than I am, but, with respect, that is not my understanding of the procedural position. The procedural position is that before Amendment No. 2 is put to your Lordships for voting, Amendment No. 3 will be put. If that is carried, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 will fall. Then Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 will be put. If any of those amendments are carried, or if they are not, then Amendment No. 2 will be put. If Amendment No. 2 is carried, with or without amendment, then Amendment No. 11 cannot be put or discussed any further. I understand that to be the position.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the noble Lord is not quite correct, because Amendment No. 10 is an amendment to Amendment No. 2. So we shall go through all the amendments to Amendment No. 2; that is, from Amendment No. 3, which we are now debating, to Amendment No. 10. They also include Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord on the Woolsack. He is of course quite right; I should have mentioned also Amendment No. 10.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, why not include Amendment No. 11, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 2?
Noble Lords: No, it is not.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I try to save time by dealing with the matter in the three ways I mentioned? First, I should like to comment on Amendment No. 2. My noble friend, as I said before, has been wonderfully patient and open-minded, but I suggest to your Lordships that he has been much too indulgent. The outcome as expressed in Amendment No. 2 is not satisfactory. I am also very sorry for the draftsman; I should think he has had an awful time behind the scenes.
In order to try to please somebody, my noble friend Lord Belstead has introduced into the rent formula the
1014
requirement that the parties must not only be willing—which is plain, sufficient, well-understood and established—but that they must also be "prudent", which is new, unnecessary and, as I shall show, likely to cause confusion. If the word "prudent" has been inserted to make it unnecessary to introduce an express disregard of scarcity, or an express disregard of what has come to be known as "marriage value"—a strange expression which is very descriptive, because although it has nothing to do with marriage between human beings it does concern the marriage of pieces of farmland—then it does not achieve either of those purposes. If that word is added, arbitrators and those addressing them will have to consider why it was added by Parliament. That in itself will cause people to wonder.
It cannot be assumed that a prudent landlord will necessarily ignore the scarcity factor. Indeed, some landlords—a minority, no doubt—may concentrate upon it. The National Farmers' Union will then indeed have something to worry about—and I believe that they, among others, were content for the word "prudent" to be inserted. The insertion of the word "prudent" certainly will not bring rents down, or stop them from going up. Indeed, in the long run—and I stress "in the long run"—it may cause rents to go up still further.
I am told that when the present rent formula in the 1958 Act was being devised in that year, the word "prudent" was thought about but was rejected on the ground that it added nothing to the law. Strangely enough, I was then responsible, as Under-Secretary at the Home Office, for agriculture in Northern Ireland. I was therefore a sort of "mini agriculture Minister". I must confess that I remember nothing of that particular discussion, but I am convinced that the word "prudent" does not add anything to the law and would have no legal effect.
My next criticism of my noble friend's Amendment No. 2 is that all the words appearing between brackets are unnecessary. One wonders why they were put between brackets at all, rather apologetically. Let us consider each instance. The first occurs in subsection (3), where it says:
"(subject to subsections (4) to (6) of this section)".
That is a very strange point to insert, because all subsections of every section in every Act of Parliament are subject to all subsections within that section. So those words are unnecessary.
Then we come to the words:
"all relevant factors, including (in every case)".
Of course the law applies in every case if we enact it, and it is mere surplusage to write that in, whether or not it is between brackets. There then appear the words:
"the terms of the tenancy (including those relating to rent)".
One wonders whether any sane arbitrator can take account of the terms of the tenancy without thinking of those relating to rent. So those words between brackets also are mere surplusage.
The next words appearing between brackets occur in the phrase:
"the character and situation of the holding (including the locality in which it is situated)".

1015
The only relevance of considering the situation of the holding is in respect of its locality, so those words between brackets are also mere surplusage. I hope that my noble friend, with all his wisdom and patience, will agree that all the words appearing between brackets in his amendment should disappear. Then we come to "productive capacity". May I say in passing I am so glad that the references to profit have been cut out; that would have taken up an awful lot of time at every arbitration without getting anyone anywhere. But what would "productive capacity" do? That is mentioned in line 9. I suggest that there is a nice little pot of gold for professional people in that concept. There will be endless argument as to the facts, as to what is the productive capacity of a particular holding, and endless arguments in law as to my noble friend's definition of "productive capacity", and even more perhaps as to the way in which that definition affects the amount of rent to be fixed by the arbitrator in the particular case. Would it not be better to leave this question of productive capacity to be dealt with simply as a relevant factor, a broad question of judgment on the arbitrator's part, instead of trying to pin him down with a formula within a rent formula?
The net result of Amendment No. 2, coupled with the minor amendments to which my noble friend referred, Nos. 14 to 18, would be this: to leave subsections (4), (5) and (6) of the Bill intact, having redrafted subsection (3) and added the new subsection (3A). The rent formula would then be contained in one and a half pages of detailed directions to arbitrators, some of them unnecessarily verbose and complex, when in my opinion we should leave matters mainly to their judgment, after hearing the parties, inspecting the land and buildings, and using their knowledge of the part of the country. I have tabled only six amendments to leave out unacceptable parts of my noble friend's amendment, and may I say with humility that in doing so I have been surprised by the restraint that I have shown. I hope that some or all of my amendments to my noble friend's amendment will appeal to him.
Lastly, I come to the constructive alternative to it contained in Amendment No. 11 on which I have the valuable support of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne and other noble friends who have said that they agree with Amendment No. 11. It has the merit, first, of being short and simple. It reduces the length of the statutory directions to arbitrators from one and a half pages to half a page. That is of no mean merit in itself. We start with the simple hypothesis that the rent should be that at which the holding might be expected to be let without premium. Subsection (4)(b) of the Bill as at present before us refers to "premium" in a different way. I suggest that it is right that the arbitrator should assume that the rent to be fixed should not have any key money element in it and should not have any regard to premiums. That should be clearly stated in the initial and important part of the instructions to the arbitrator. Then we say it should be between a willing landlord and a willing tenant, the arbitrator taking account of all relevant factors.
There is a danger in being selective about the factors to be taken into consideration, because as a rule of interpretation which binds our courts and everyone who has to apply the law, if you express one thing you
1016
are presumed to have omitted other things intentionally: if I may use the Latin tag, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius". My noble friend has selected in lines 6 to 9 some things that the arbitrator has to bear in mind as relevant factors. There will be a temptation perhaps on the part of some arbitrators, and of those addressing them and trying to persuade them, to say, "These are the factors that matter; really, Parliament is not worried about the others". Whereas we say that we should invite arbitrators to take a broad view of this vital matter.
However, we say—and we agree with the Government, the Opposition, and with others, too—that there are some matters which should be expressly disregarded by the arbitrator, and that this should be made plain to him. We have mentioned five, partly for removal of doubt and partly to meet the views expressed by interested bodies. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in our new subsection (3) are already in the Bill in various ways. We have simplified the drafting. Paragraphs (d) and (e) are taken from subsection (5) of the Bill as it stands using just the same drafting, so presumably there is nothing exceptional about them.
If I may finally refer to the drafting of paragraph (c)—"any scarcity of comparable holdings in the part of the country where the holding lies"—that brings together several different propositions. I hope your Lordships will feel that it has been done in a compendious and fair way. There should be no difficulty about the expression "part of the country". If I may give an example, I am not a Yorkshireman but I would say that the plain of York must be regarded as a different part of the country from the Yorkshire Dales. In the part of the country where I live and which I used to represent in Parliament, I would say that the Fens are so different in character and in locality that they must be regarded as a different part of the country from the neighbouring Clayland. So there should be no difficulty about that definition. If we look at the Bill as it stands, without my noble friend's amendment, there is nothing new in our amendment as expressed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
In conclusion, may I say that we are trying to help—and this is not a wrecking amendment; this is a constructive alternative to my noble friend's amendment—by asking your Lordships to consider a simple alternative to the Government amendment, which I ask my noble friend not to press today. In spite of his valiant efforts to get it right, it really will not do as it stands.
4 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to speak on one or two points made by my noble friend Lord Renton, but first I should like to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for his Amendment No. 17. I do not think it is quite right and I propose amending it with Amendment No. 17A, but I shall speak to it then.
Secondly, my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to earning capacity and how that has been left out. That is a very grave error and I cannot accept the case that he put forward. It might happen that there is a very highly productive farm producing potatoes, but it has no quota so, therefore, it has no earning capacity. The same could apply to hops or sugar beet

1017
and it does not take a great stretch of the imagination to see further controls like those being put on through the common agricultural policy, which I believe is in surplus on certain items.
I should like to speak very seriously on Amendment No. 2, and also Amendment No. 3, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, because that is where my sticking point lies. My noble friend Lord Renton said that the National Farmers' Union was perfectly happy with the word "prudent". I can assure him that we are not. Secondly, as regards what my noble friend said—much of which, as usual, went well above my head—there is one part of the words in brackets which I should like kept in. I agree that the rest do look pretty unnecessary. The words I refer to are:
"including those relating to rent".
My noble friend will find in the original draft the words,
"other than those relating to rent".
I would rather deal with this point when my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, speak to Amendment No. 16A because it is a valid point.
I support Amendment No. 3 because despite what my noble friend Lord Belstead said I am still not clear what the words "prudent and willing" mean. If my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, care to tell me what they think the words mean I shall be deeply indebted to them. Do the words "prudent and willing landlord" and "prudent and willing tenant" mean in practice the same as the original amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull in Committee, including the words "open market"? If they do not, can someone tell me the difference? I know that your Lordships will consider that I am excessively sensitive about the words "open market". Indeed, I am. I am sensitive about the whole of Clause 1 which is, for me, the whole reason for the Bill.
I have heard that certain organisations, particularly the landowning charities, consider that the phrase "prudent and willing" in effect means that it is the open market rent that is referred to, in which case we might as well go back to the original amendment of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. Certainly, the CLA says in its brief that these befuddling words:
"give the arbitrator a clear objective and starting point".
If this interpretation is correct I shall find myself at the end of the day in the same Lobby as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. Frankly, I do not think—I do not hope—that these interpretations are correct. Listening to my noble friend Lord Belstead, I think he takes my view. The trouble is, I only think; I do not know. Despite the soothing words of my noble friend to reassure me and the soothing words he has addressed to the House, at the end of the day it will be the arbitrator in the field, appointed by the RICS, and eventually, perhaps sadly, the courts, who will decide what this funny phrase means. That is my real objection.
The original Clause 1 was clear; or it was to me. Perhaps the institutions did not like it, but it was clear. We now have substituted a new clause which is not clear. That is bad parliamentary practice. It should be
1018
our job to make the law as clear as possible and I fear that the Government, in order to try to placate everyone, have fudged the issue and produced this very difficult clause.
It is always difficult to be unkind to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I listened very carefully to his opening remarks but I am still not happy. I shall wait to see what the lawyers outside your Lordships' House make of the new Clause 1. If in their wisdom the lawyers persuade me that this phrase "prudent and willing" and Clause 1 are not as originally agreed between the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, I shall object on Third Reading, in which case the Government may well have to proceed with this Bill without the support of the National Farmers' Union.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, today I am standing in the shoes of my noble friend Lord Mackie—shoes which are rather too large for me—and it is the only time that I have intervened on this Bill. My noble friend told me that he was broadly in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, but having listened to the criticism of the drafting of it by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I very much sympathise with the viewpoint of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I think that he is basically right. It seems to me that the great danger in drafting this kind of Bill is that there are so many lobbying interests that one tends to get a cosmetic Bill. The interests concerned want to see the words that they have suggested to the Minister, and were agreed when they saw him privately in his room, in print in the Bill itself. That leaves very bad drafting.
I should like to talk for a moment or two about Amendment No. 3, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Your Lordships have to consider whether the words:
"by a prudent and willing landlord to a prudent and willing tenant"
add anything to the Bill. I am astonished to learn that they are regarded as a disguise, as it were, for an open market rent. It appears to me that the two words "prudent" and "willing", in juxtaposition as they are in this drafting, are very difficult to interpret. After all, we are concerned with an arbitrator deciding a rent in a controlled tenancy. I am told that in the present economic climate the situation is that if a landlord is prudent he is not willing, and if he is willing he is not prudent.
How do you interpret the words together? It seems to me that the words are put in to satisfy lobbying interests and add nothing to the clause. The message has come loud and clear from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, over many years that we should be much more simple in our drafting. He must be basically right and his criticisms are entirely justified, but I do say to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that I entirely support him in his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as I tabled Amendment No. 7A I should like to talk very briefly to it. My amendment proposes that we leave out,
"(including the locality in which it is situated)".
This refers to the situation of a holding. It seems to me tautological that one could add that set of brackets after the first sentence. It is rather like saying. "a blackboard is black". How one can avoid a situation

1019
where something is situated and ignore the locality blows one's mind and imagination as to how that could have been drafted. My criticisms are the same as those made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lord Renton. The Minister's amendment does not make sense. I suggest that we are attempting to do something which, if I were to draw a parallel with the 1920s, would be to enact an Act of Parliament and say, "You will not take into account the scarcity value of tenants and therefore you will automatically charge 5£ an acre rent", as opposed to the market rent which was something in the region of 30 shillings, "or give it away if you can possibly get it farmed".
If you mess about with the open market formula beyond a very limited amount on the sideline, you will destroy that market. It is as simple as that. If we try to hedge about with the tautological subsections that we have in the new Government amendment, we shall make a situation which is bad, worse and it will not achieve the objects of the Bill. As I understand them, the objects of the Bill are to produce more order and slightly less injustice than that caused by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and also to produce more tenancies. This clause will not produce one single tenancy more.
I strongly suggest that the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is much, much clearer. It sets out in words of one, and at a maximum three, syllables something that we can all understand. I make a small criticism of that amendment. It is the same point that was made forcibly in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. If a farmer for the next-door 50 or 60 acres when it comes on the market bids silly money—by that I mean £120 or £130 an acre, or even £60 in some circumstances—I see no reason why he should go back to the arbitrator three years later and say, "Look, I obtained this land by bidding silly money, but the Act says that I have to be acquitted of my silliness and I need not hid the money I offered the landlord". In those circumstances, it seems to me totally right that, if the tenant is prepared to pay silly money for his tenancy, he should be made to pay for his misjudgments. That of course means deleting the word "prudent".
If a tenant can suddenly go back to the landlord and say, "Look, I made the most terrible mistake. I was not prudent over this", and the arbitrator has to say, "No, I am afraid, dear boy, you were not a very prudent fellow. We shall reduce your rent by 50 per cent.", that is not how to run an agricultural landlord and tenancy system, nor even a sweetshop on the corner. It is a total and utter formula for disaster and will not improve the letting of land, which for social and agricultural reasons we all want to see. I beg my noble friend, who is a wise and civilised man and for whom we all have great respect, to take this away and he less wise and civilised and slightly nastier to the people who have been banging on his door and begging him to do this.
4.13 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, there has been a lot of talk about muddle. I am one of the people who are muddled by the Bill, the clause, these amendments and the omnibus discussion of all the amendments. It
1020
is very difficult indeed. I presume that I am now talking to our Amendment No. 10 and may speak to all the other amendments at the same time, including the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, Amendment No. 11. I apologise for being a little befogged about why it was not an amendment to Amendment No. 2. I see that it deals with the original Bill, as amended, and not with Amendment No. 2. Had the noble Lord thought that he would be frustrated in the way that he has been, he might have put down his amendment to Amendment No. 2. That would be a perfectly sound approach. However, it is too late for him to take my advice now.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he could not agree to the word "profitability". He thought that a curious difficulty would arise, as extra activities on a farm—and for some reason the parking of caravans seems to be the main one—would distort the situation if the word "profitability" was inserted. I cannot follow that at all. After all, on how many farms do caravans make much difference to profitability? That may occur along the coast and in one or two other places, but there are 200,000 farms in the country. The main point in the NFU brief is that there must be some reference in the clause to profitability.
The matter was well enough put by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. A whole host of things can control the profit of a high productivity farm. I had a first-class farm in Scotland in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Its productivity was very good indeed but we could not make a profit. If the word "profitability" is not included, I can imagine a farmer producing his books to an arbitrator and saying, "Look at the past three years and see how low my profits have been", or, "Look at my losses"; and the arbitrator saying, "I am sorry, old boy, but it is not in the Act that I take any account of that. It is just too bad".
At this point I must take to task the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others who seem to think that, irrespective of what happens in farming, people who have invested in agricultural land must have their cut, whatever else happens. That seems to be the basis of the amendments that they have put down—whether or not a tenant farmer makes a loss, he has to pay the rent to the landlord and that cannot be an argument to bring down the rent. When people invest in shares and various other things, if they fall in price there are no dividends, and they have to accept that. Why should farming be different?
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, does the noble Lord not recognise the fact that there is a rent review every three years?
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, yes, but I point out that three years is a long time if you are making a loss. I want to insist on our amendment, which would insert the words:
"taking into account the extent to which a competent tenant practising a system of farming suitable to the holding could reasonably be expected to profit from farming the holding".
To a certain extent that should satisfy the NFU.
I should like to say a word or two about the earlier amendment to which my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies spoke concerning the terms, "prudent and willing tenant" and "prudent and willing landlord". I

1021
am glad that it has considerable support from the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and to a certain extent from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, although he seems anxious to retain the word "willing".
I move now to Amendment No. 11.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the word "willing" is in previous rent formulas and is now well established and understood.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I take that point; but in the noble Lord's amendment it would appear that both words could be left out and the proposition still remain perfectly sound. In Committee we put down an amendment to simplify Clause 1. It was almost the same as the noble Lord's amendment, apart from missing out his disregarding points. We left it to the arbitrator to use his common sense about what he had to disregard. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not support us then, but I am glad that he has had second thoughts and produced Amendment No. 11. We shall have great pleasure in supporting it. We are perfectly certain that it is much, much better than the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, Amendment No. 2. Having listened to what every speaker has said so far, it seems to me that that is the feeling of the House. It will be interesting to see what happens in due course.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I think it is time that there was voiced some support for my noble friend Lord Belstead and for the Government amendment. As my noble friend Lord Belstead has reminded us, in recognition of the very long debate in Committee, he then undertook to consider some of the improvements that were proposed, to see whether they could be incorporated in the Bill without destroying the sense of the original formula that had been threshed out over such a long time, and with such care, by the CLA and the NFU, and, despite what is frequently said to the contrary, with valuable help from the profession.
My noble friend also undertook to see what measure of agreement he could obtain before the Report stage. Just as one would expect, he has honoured those undertakings in the most painstaking way, and I and other noble Lords who are interested in Clause 1 are very well aware of the immense trouble that he personally, and his departmental advisers, have taken to do precisely what he promised your Lordships in Committee he would do. The result of that labour and consultation—I repeat, consultation—is the amendment which we are now debating.
I think that we should also congratulate my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe—and I say this despite what was said just now—on introducing the idea of the prudent and willing parties, which is incorporated in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Belstead. I remember saying in Committee that I thought that their original amendment contained elements which, if incorporated into a new amendment, might stand a chance of wider acceptance.
Though I was involved in the negotiations which produced the recommendations for the original rent formula, I was well aware of the constraints under
1022
which we were working, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Government amendment, Amendment No. 2, that we are now looking at is an improvement. I believe that it meets some of the quite understandable criticism of the original version. I believe that it could easily be understood by arbitrators. I consider that it is helpful to landlords without being disadvantageous to tenants. It is not perfect, and this fact is clearly reflected in the debate that we are having this afternoon. But it is the best that we shall get and still obtain substantial acceptance.
I always have enormous respect for the advice and wisdom of my noble friend Lord Renton, but I shall not support any of the amendments to the Government amendment. I very much hope that we shall agree to Amendment No. 2. That is the one that I shall vote for, and so I hope will a great majority of noble Lords.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may remind your Lordships' House of the fact that some years ago my noble friend Lord Renton chaired a committee which looked into the murky subject of the quality of our statute law. The hostile verdict which that committee, with justification, felt obliged to deliver on that occasion was endorsed by a very slender audience in another place. That endorsement was accompanied by expressions of every kind of regret and determination to do better. It came as no surprise I think to anyone present that such expressions of determination and good resolutions were soon jettisoned.
While I have every sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench, who is obliged to father this amendment, I am bound to recall my own agreement of years ago with my noble friend Lord Renton that opaqueness was not necessarily a virtue in the law. Here in Amendment No. 2, proposed by my noble friend on the Front Bench, we have a quite extraordinary marriage between confusion and explanation where none is needed, but explanation which when offered only seems to make things worse.
We are told—I suppose that we should greet the information with some surprise—that the terms of tenancy are in every case intended to include rent. That, I am bound to say, came as no news to me, and I do not doubt that it will not be news to any of your Lordships. Then we are told that character and situation, which are also to be considered, should include locality, but the words "in every case" are omitted.
I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time, nor to add to the pain which my noble friend must already have experienced in listening to my noble friend Lord Renton. But in conclusion I wish to make a modest plea that my noble friend on the Front Bench should take away this rather nasty, messy amendment. Though I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said about my noble friend's patience and his willingness to take pains, I hope that he will take away the amendment and inflict some pain upon those who produced it.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I think that we are due for a speech from this side of the House. First, I should

1023
like to echo what noble Lords have said from all sides of the House about the immense patience and courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Since the Committee stage no one could have worked harder, nor, I guess, longer hours than he has to try to reach agreements about this matter. In a very long parliamentary experience I have known no other Minister who has put so much effort into reaching agreement, and I think that we should all record that with immense gratitude to the noble Lord.
However, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, that does not absolve us from being immensely critical of the net result of his labours. I suppose that the noble Lord is sitting thinking that he is doing rather well; he is sailing carefully between the Scylla of the excessive demands for protection of the NFU and the Charybdis of those who want the total open market situation restored. The noble Lord must think that that is rather a good position to be in, and that he will finally carry the troops along with him.
The noble Lord also might think that we who are critical of this draft are making a mistake; namely, that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said—and, if I may say so, I very much agree with him—we are concentrating too much on the fine print and the drafting and forgetting to examine whether the solution that the noble Lord has provided is in principle a good one. It is that question which I wish to ask.
What is the noble Lord proposing? He opened the debate with what I thought was a very skilful speech. In listening to his first speech no one could have thought that this was a climb down, that this was the Government doing a volte-face, and saying, "Of course we must bring back in the open market". Oh, no, the noble Lord did not say that at all. What he said was—and I can almost quote him—that he thought that noble Lords wanted to bring back what is now happening in practice and legislate for it. That is a very skilful way of disguising his retreat.
But is he really doing that? Of course he is not. What he is bringing in is a system of regards and disregards. He is saying that the arbitrator must regard a whole list of factors, but he must also disregard one other main factor, which is scarcity in the market, and one or two other factors as well. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that that is not what arbitrators are doing at the moment. In the package he is not legislating for what is going on at the moment. He is altering it to bring in a mandatory disregard of scarcity. That is not in either present law or present practice. It is what many of us feel will end up as the real basic trouble.
What the Northfield Committee said was that there should be no mandatory disregard of this kind. As I remarked on Second Reading—we all seem to come back to this—what we should have basically is an open market situation for arbitrators to take into account with discretionary, not mandatory, ability to say that sometimes they had better use their common sense to disregard some elements of scarcity. That perfectly sensible practice happens now. I would legislate for it tomorrow. It is not what we are legislating for here. We are bringing in the mandatory disregard of scarcity. That will cause all hell and high water.
1024
An example was given by Mr. Peter Trumper, of Cluttons, in a lecture last week. Let us get down to what happens on the ground. We have three farms. Rents are at the moment £35 an acre. One of the farms comes up for re-letting and goes out to tender. The tenders come in at anywhere from £75 to £55 an acre. People say that this is a sensible sort of level of rent given the passage of time and possibly taking into account some scarcity in the market and the ability of the new tenant to work harder and make the farm pay at a slightly higher rent.
What does the poor arbitrator have to do? Or, to take it one stage further, what would a sensible landlord do in those circumstances? He would probably disregard the bottom tender and the £75 an acre tender. He would probably say that the sensible answer was about £65 an acre. But the poor arbitrator under the Bill has to say, "I am sorry, but that rather sensible approach, which is to discount ridiculous tenders, cannot now be followed. I have to discount for all scarcity in the market. I have to pretend that there is equilibrium in the market, just enough people demanding and just enough farms on the market".
The arbitrator will have to say—this is mandatory, so he has no discretion—that it is not £75, it is not £65 and it is probably not £55 an acre. It is probably, in practice, nearer £40 an acre. We shall therefore have a special class of tenant created, if you like, who will be able to say, "I am now protected from all those elements of scarcity in the market and, whereas someone who was prepared to work harder or take an extra risk would have paid £55 an acre, I have had my rent assessed as if there was total equilibrium in the market". In a totally artificial situation which no one can imagine, the rent comes down to about £40 an acre.
That is not the end of the story, as Mr. Trumper points out, based on his years of experience in valuing and arbitrating. You have then to take into account whether the present rent of £35 an acre contains an element of scarcity. If so, the figure has to be brought down even further. If you take such examples, you see the absolute folly of legislating to make this disregard of scarcity mandatory. We shall have a totally artificial set of tenants on totally artificial rents with no room for play of market forces and everyone regretting that greater elements of market forces had not been left in the picture. It will mean disaster, as many people have forecast, unless—our best hope, if this poor proposal goes through in its present form—quite sensibly, as at present applies, arbitrators take no notice of it and begin to use their common sense all over again. I hope to goodness that this is exactly what will happen. I hope that arbitrators will put this on the shelf in the belief that no one will challenge their common sense as they have practised it up till now. So we end up having spent all this legislative time for no good purpose except to tell arbitrators that we have made such a mess of it that they had better continue using their common sense.
There are two other points that I wish to make before I conclude. I shall make it one point, and spare the House the other. It is the point that the noble Lord said that he had met. In his kind opening remarks he referred to me and said that he had met the point about taking into account rents that the tenant is

1025
already tendering for land he is farming. With respect, I do not think that he has met the point. Again, let me give an example. A farmer has a tenancy but also has a separate piece of land, another 10 acres on which he is paying a fancy rent because he can average out the rent beautifully over the whole holding. When he comes to a rent review on the original holding, not on the extra 10 acres on which he has bid a fancy rent, the arbitrator must discount this silly money that he has paid to get hold of an extra piece of land. It is a comparable holding. Under subsection (4)(a) it must be disregarded. It is one of the disregards.
Can we really have anything much sillier than that? Here we have a farmer who goes round bidding up land all round him because he knows, happily, that he is sitting on a lovely island in the middle of rent protected land. He can bid up all the others round him to get extra acreage without it ever being reflected on the rent of his original holding. To try to meet that, I have put down Amendment No. 7B which says that this is to be taken into the regards as opposed to the disregards. We must pay regard to what he is tendering and getting in the way of land all round him. His own actions on the market must not be disregarded; otherwise we are in a very silly position with his freedom to avoid all the penalties of his own folly.
I must ask your Lordships to consider these fundamental points about the amendment. I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, into the Lobby, if he so wishes, on his redraft. Given what the Government intend, that is a much better way of putting it. I beg noble Lords, however, to address themselves to the fundamentals. Do we really want mandatory disregard of scarcity with all the nonsense that it brings instead of discretionary disregard, which I would favour? Do we want farmers able to go round bidding up land and this not having any effect on their present holding when rent reviews come along? I hope that we shall discuss the fundamentals of the Government's approach and leave on one side for a moment the redrafting so eloquently suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he comment on the possibilty that if you have a silly rent bid for a neighbouring piece of farmland, the arbitrator can then reduce it, disregarding the scarcity value?
Lord Northfield: My Lords, that is another point. The noble Earl has made the point successfully. I did not want to repeat it. I think that he is right and that farmers will be able to get their rents down at rent reviews under the present draft if they have offered silly money for it in the past. If so, the situation is even worse than I had imagined.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for all the time that he has devoted between Committee stage and now in trying to arrive at a formula that he believes would be acceptable to everyone, taking into account the manner in which he has been pushed and pulled. The proposal is a great deal better than what we had originally, but I still do not like it. The reasons have been well expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton
1026
and by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I dislike the last part of Amendment No. 10 to which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, spoke in regard to the word "profit". I can think of nothing worse than an arbitrator being put in the position of assessing the farm accounts which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, wanted to present as evidence of the profitability of the holding. I would not mind looking at the accounts of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, but I would not trust at all the accounts of some tenants. That would be a very dangerous opening.
With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Stanley, may I just remind him that it is not the NFU that makes laws? It is Parliament that makes laws. If the NFU wishes to go off by itself, let it go off. I think, however, that the NFU would do better to stay with us and work to try and improve the situation.
If my noble friend Lord Belstead presses his Amendment No. 2, I shall not be able to speak to my Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which are amendments to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Therefore, if the House will bear with me, perhaps I may briefly go through them.
There is much to recommend in the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Dilhorne. It is noticeable for its conciseness and brevity, while at the same time conveying the essential points which my noble friend Lord Belstead wants to get across to the arbitrator. I hope that it will receive the support which it deserves for its principles and its drafting. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has already stated, it embodies many of the thoughts behind his amendment, which he moved in Committee.
To my noble friend Lord Belstead I would again pose the question, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, did: why tie the hands of the arbitrators? They are highly qualified, experienced and respected surveyors who—and there is no dispute on this point—have performed an extremely good job to date on a brief and concise rent formula. Surely it is wrong for us to tell them now: "Here is a list of items that you must include; here is a list that you must disregard; but if we have missed any, do not worry because you are covered by the words 'relevant factors' ". On a point of law, I know that my noble friend Lord Renton says that that is not quite correct because, having put something into a Bill, the Government are automatically saying that one must disregard everything else. At the same time my noble friend Lord Belstead says that that is not the case because one can include it under "relevant factors". I believe that what we are doing is an insult to the intelligence of the arbitrators; that it reveals a lack of understanding of their work and shows a lack of confidence in them when, quite plainly, this House has given them a tremendous vote of confidence in the job that they are doing.
On a point of detail in relation to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton, my Amendment No. 12 seeks to leave out the words relating to what we now call "marriage value" in lines 8 and 9 of his amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has gone into this in some detail. I would also add the point that it would be retrospective legislation, for, as

1027
I explained in Committee, on behalf of owners I and many others have let vacant farms to existing tenants. The farms remained separate holdings on separate agreements, but it was agreed that, when assessing the rent of one holding, the fact that the tenant was in occupation of the other was also taken into account. The tenant was happy with this, for by farming the two units he was able to improve his efficiency and the farms' ability to make money.
Turning to my second amendment, I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton has got it wrong when he refers to the "scarcity of comparable holdings". Surely we are all concerned with the effect on the rent as a result of that scarcity. Amendment No. 13 therefore defines "scarcity" and seeks to reduce a tender rent, should the need arise, to one which a willing tenant would agree with a willing landlord. I believe that this covers the point that we want to take the froth off the top of the tender rents, because at the moment there are three tiers of rent: there is the mad tender rent, which none of us really wants; there is the open market rent, or thereabouts; and there is the sitting tenant rent—and the sitting tenant always gets the benefit of the doubt. He takes a long time to change his habits; he takes a long time to adapt his farming policy in the light of the common agricultural policy.
Therefore, on review, we must seek to discount the mad tender rents, but at the same time we must give the arbitrator a base to start from and a point at which to finish, saying: "Ignore that froth on the top, if there is any; if it can be proved that it was a mad tender rent, we will reduce it a bit"; but let us work on that and then let us go for what the sitting tenant in occupation could reasonably afford to pay.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I spoke at considerable length a great many times during the Committee stage of this Bill. On this occasion I do not intend to repeat that performance, but there are one or two comments which should be made from these Cross-Benches on what has been said this afternoon. First. I wish to join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the extreme courtesy with which he has treated all of us, and for the way in which he has tried to reconcile often irreconcilable positions.
Secondly, I should like to deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about simplifying legisation. It is all very well to talk about simplifying legislation, but that is a very different matter from trying to do it. I speak as someone who is not a lawyer. Due to continual criticism of a similar nature in previous years, when I was about four years of age a Bill was introduced which had something to do with rent, which was supposed to express in simple, understandable, everyday English what the new law was to be. As I have understood it since—and it is true that at that age I was not reading Acts of Parliament—the amount of legislation on that matter which subsequently ensued has exceeded that of any other Act of Parliament. If one wants to be clear, one often has to be abstruse. I am afraid that that is a fact of drafting life.
I want to return to one or two of the points that I made at an earlier stage of this Bill, and in particular I want to thank the noble Lord for bringing to the front
1028
of this particular provision a clear objective towards which the arbitrator can work. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord. Lord Northfield, who mentioned a military analogy, but previously we had a position in which we told the infantry what their start line was and what their time was, and similarly we said how the barrage was to be operated as the artillery progressed; but what we forgot to say was what our actual objective was—whether we were trying to capture a particular hill or wipe out a particular formation of infantry, or whatever it might be. Therefore, in this provision we now have a clear statement of the objective.
I would further remind those noble Lords present who have been associated with agriculture for many years (and who have perhaps forgotten) of one of the first phrases they ever heard in connection with the relationship between landlord and tenant; namely, "a prudent and willing landlord and a prudent and willing tenant". I suppose that that is one of the best understood phrases in the business. It may be a term of art; I do not know. I shall not attempt to define it exactly for the House. Anyone who has anything to do with the landlord-tenant system in this country knows exactly what it means. It means that we exclude the loonies; it means that we work towards the kind of objective which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, expressed so very clearly and without any humbug whatever in his speech.
If we had asked the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, to draft the brief to parliamentary counsel for this Bill, rather than adopt the somewhat extra-parliamentary convention of getting organisations which have nothing to do with this House to do so, then we might have had a much better Bill. Certainly the clauses relating to scarcity would have said that this is one of the elements which must be considered and which must not be completely disregarded, because if one did completely disregard it one would get a lunatic situation. Certainly we would have something better than we eventually received. We might even have had a better solution in relation to the further lunacy of succession of tenancies; but as that does not come under this clause, obviously I must not refer to it.
However, of all the amendments which I see on the Marshalled List at the present time, I shall certainly vote for the Government's amendment. All that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has to commend it is that it is shorter than the Government's amendment, but I do not think it expresses as clearly as the Government's amendment what the Government themselves are trying to do.
4.50 p.m.
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, may I briefly say that I have sat through all stages of this Bill. I also sat through all the stages of the 1958 Bill because I moved it from the Front Bench here as the junior Minister. I totally agree with what has been said to us from the Cross-Benches, that us "oldies" know perfectly well, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, knows perfectly well, what a prudent and willing landlord and tenant relationship is. It is a term that has always been used in the Ministry, and that we had to deal with.
All I wish to say now is that I have listened carefully to all these matters. Over and over again a phrase has

1029
come into my mind as I have listened this evening. The late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who spoke from our Benches in the past, used to say—and he wrote a book about it—that politics is the art of the possible. I am certain that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, today is by that definition politics. It is the art of the possible.
That could help the noble Lords, Lord Middleton and Lord Stanley of Alderley, to keep the cohesion between the landlord and the tenant side of this industry which, after so much trouble and so much hard work, has to get together. We should not revert to the legalistic troubles and bothers of everybody hoping to get something frightfully complicated so that they can all go to law about it. These are things we shall not settle here tonight, and I hope that we can support the Govenment amendment which has been thought out with so much care.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, may I intervene briefly to say that I have never known so many experts on a subject such as the Agricultural Holdings Bill both inside and outside the House. I suspect—and I do not know whether noble Lords and noble friends will agree—that at the end of the day the arbitrators will carry on the good job that they have been doing for many years. Having said that, I believe that this debate has proved two things. First, it is understood, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, suggests—and perhaps he was not completely briefed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—in the industry what is a prudent and willing landlord and a prudent and willing tenant. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, it is a firm understanding, and I assure the noble Lord that it is understood in the professions, among landlords, and among tenants.
The second thing I would say which has not been said is that so far as I know both the NFU and the CLA have gone along with my noble friend's amendment for the Government. That is important to remember. The third thing one should remember is that this all arose because there was considerable concern outside the House as to the original drafting of this rent clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said it got us nowhere. It used the strange words:
"shall determine what rent should be properly payable".
The question really was: should Parliament leave it all to the arbitrators to decide what decision they made—there are no registered rents; there is no appeal on their decision; there is even no criticism if there is inconsistency—or should Parliament give some clear guidance? I think that my noble friend with this amendment has done that. He has given an objective and he has restored a vital confidence among those who are investors in land; and, after all, that is the purpose of this Bill.
I say finally something that other noble Lords have said, and that is a word of thanks to my noble friend for the effort he has shown in seeking a way through this difficult rent clause. I do not think that I have ever known a Minister more patient, or indeed more willing to give sympathetic listening, and to give accessibility. I know the charities which have consulted many of your Lordships here are indeed grateful to the noble Lord for removing some of their anxieties in a difficult clause.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Renton very strongly and vigorously. I am really incapable of adding anything to what my noble friend has said for he put the point marvellously. However, I am forced to get to my feet by what has been said about the word "prudent". The word "prudent" may well be hallowed in jargon, in general chit-chat, but it has never been used in a statute, and it is the statute that is going to operate. It is not common chit-chat and jargon and what we talk about as "a prudent and willing landlord". What has to work is this Bill when it is enacted.
I do not wish to recite everything that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said; but I wish to bring before this House one or two things that my noble friend Lord Renton raised just to remind your Lordships. Under a new Section 8 which had the word "prudent" included in it, it would be extremely hard for a tenant to argue that a landlord who accepted a rent which reflected scarcity was imprudent, or that a hypothetical tenant whose bid reflected scarcity was acting irresponsibly. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, put it equally well as my noble friend Lord Renton, and to allow "prudent" to remain as part of this Bill would only cause confusion. The word "willing" does it all, and I really have no more to say on that particular point.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, would be give us the benefit of his experience? The term "willing" has often been used in Acts of Parliament, in the Rent Acts, and so on, but it has not been interpreted. It has never been held to add anything to the meaning, and therefore why should "prudent and willing" be in at all?
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I did not get the full sense of what the noble Lord was saying. Did I understand the noble Lord to say that "prudent and willing" really is just the same as "willing", and that really "prudent and willing" should be left out?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should like the noble Viscount's comments on whether the word "willing" is necessary. I know that it is time-hallowed in that it has been in previous legislation, but has it ever added anything? If a judge or an arbitrator is interpreting the matter, why should he be burdened with the word "willing"?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not know whether it would be in order for me, with the leave of the House, just to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that the expression "willing" has been interpreted by the courts in more than one case. It was held to exclude any element either of reluctance or of over-anxiety on the part of the assumed landlord or tenant.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I am most obliged to my noble friend.
Lord Woolley: My Lords, as I did not take part in the early stages of this Bill, your Lordships will perhaps forgive me if I wander about a little on matters that are well known and perhaps on a very well trodden path, so I ask your patience for a few minutes. The first thing that strikes me, coming rather fresh to the scene, is that

1031
we are rather losing sight of the origin of this Bill. For quite a long time there has been this great unease about the legislation and about the arbitrations, and about the whole of the private landlord and tenant system.
Ever since I have been involved, which is quite a long time now—I was involved in the original 1948 legislation as chairman at that time of the National Farmers' Union committee, the parliamentary committee dealing with it—there has been a high regard for our system of land holding. Granted that the proportion of owner-occupiers and tenants has been changing and there are now many more owner-occupiers, but things have been getting much more difficult. I have been rather concerned, not being as closely involved as I used to be, to find when I have taken part in my own county and listened to discussions on this matter that what I can only describe as disenchantment for the system seems to be growing. I believe we are at a stage where it is important for the landlord tenant/system that we try to get this right. It is no time for trying to seek party or sectional advantages.
Reference has been made to the National Farmers' Union. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was criticised for referring to it, as were at least two other noble Lords. But let us recall that this legislation could only come forward and the Minister for Agriculture could bring it forward only if there was agreement between the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association. They have been very much involved. As I appreciate the situation, it has been understood right throughout that there should be agreement of these fundamental points and a wide measure of agreement has been reached.
I am wondering now whether that agreement is beginning to split because one important element has been taken out, which I believe is fundamental to the Bill; that is earning capacity. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has referred to this. He has referred to his own experience. The productivity of the farm is different from the ability to pay a level of rent. It has a bearing, clearly. A more productive farm has a better capacity to pay a good rent; that is obvious. But it is important that, if we are to give these guidelines to arbitrators, we should do this fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that if these things are included others are automatically excluded. I do not think that is true in the Government's amendment. It says that regard shall be paid to all relevant factors and then it points to five or six particularly important factors. That seems sensible.
As regards the "prudent and willing", I see that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has returned. He has more enthusiasm for this phrase than I have. I suspect that this phrase will be received with much more enthusiasm by the landlords than by the tenants. I do not think it will be at all well received by the tenants. To say that it is supported by the National Farmers' Union is incorrect. At best it is simply flowery language. At worst it can be regarded as being sinister. I would rather see the Bill without it.
But far more important is the omission of the reference in the amended Bill, as it came from
1032
Committee, to earning capacity. I believe that Lord John-Mackie and his colleagues are right in their amendment. I say, without any question in my mind, that if this reference is omitted and the Act is brought forward finally without that reference—having regard to the fact that in the first instance the legislation is based on agreement between the NFU and the CLA; and there was agreement between the NFU and the CLA that this reference to earning capacity should be embodied—that will be regarded as being a sinister change. I am sorry to say that that is what will happen, and it is no use my not making that point clear.
It would be a great pity because we have the opportunity to do something. Of course the Bill will not cure the whole situation and immediately bring many farms on to the market to let. But it will move in the right direction. With other measures which are not appropriate for me to talk about now, we could be moving towards a sounder position in the landlord/tenant system which has served us well for many years. I am sorry to see this change but it is the fundamental point I wish to make. I hope your Lordships will support the amendment that the earning capacity should be embodied in the Bill.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, there is hardly anything I can say to help come to what I think would be a conclusion of the debate on this subject. We have had an extremely good debate this afternoon. On behalf of my noble friends in Opposition we pay tribute to the Minister for the work he has done. Someone said that no predecessor of his—I am one of them—could have done more to be co-operative in this matter. We recognise the way he has co-operated following his wise agreement to take back Clause 1 at a much earlier stage.
The House will recognise that Amendment No. 2 has very few friends today. I will summarise the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has enormous legal expertise, by stressing the appeal he made to his noble friend the Minister to take back Amendment No. 2 which, as he said, is at the very core of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, also expressed, as did many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, the importance of productivity. This is embodied in my noble friend's Amendment No. 10 which stresses that we should have regard not only to productivity but to profitability at the same time. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned several matters including potatoes and the quota, sugar, and we now can bring in milk which is in surplus, and we do not know about the future profitability of the milk sector. That is another point which stresses the importance of the amendment which has received widespread support on all sides.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, also stressed that Clause 1 will not produce more tenancies. Of course, this is what the Bill is all about. It is not just a matter of gaining more tenancies and allowing more people to enter farming, but there is also the matter of retaining the viability of those already in the industry. This is, therefore, most important.
The House is blessed with a great multitude of farmers, landowners, tenants and people such as myself who are concerned with charities. I am

1033
concerned with the Church Commissioners and the National Trust, although I speak for my noble friends in Opposition. We have had legal experts as well and the benefit of all their expertise. It is not only a matter of what is wanted in legislation, but how it is expressed to avoid any legal uncertainties when the Bill comes into force. The aim of the Bill is to encourage more to come into the industry. Although we applaud the cooperation of a package deal between the NFU and the CLA we also have to recognise that it is important to get the matter right now. Some have said on other occasions that we do not reform land law very often, so getting it right now is far more important than making progress, although we want to make both.
I also stress the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, that there is no party advantage in this. Indeed, comments have been sincerely made from all sides of the House, some from practical experience of farming, of tenants, of surveying, of land law and advice from our legal friends as well. I believe that it is most important that we should be free to vote on this occasion to get the matter right and not to pass something because it is an agreed package and that is the best we can do. That does no service to the industry which has such an important role to play in our economy.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, we have listened to a very long discourse but I think that it has been of value and it has clarified the matter—although it has obscured certain points. I should like at the outset to associate myself with those who have expressed thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, not only for his courtesy but for the care that he has taken over this Bill. It is refreshing to find a Government Minister who is prepared to listen to all the arguments, to do his best to take out the best of them and to reject the worst. My own opinion is that I dislike the language of his amendment and much prefer the language of Amendment No. 11 put down by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—and it is rather surprising that two distinguished lawyers should be able to write such clear and intelligible English. Although I prefer his method of expression, in the case of content I prefer Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
It has been criticised on a number of points. People have made great play with his "prudent and willing"—including my noble friend Lord Hooson. To me, as a layman, there is nothing confusing about this. Let me give one simple example which is relevant to the types of case that we might be discussing, You can have a landlord who has a farm for rent and he may be offered by one tenderer an inordinately high rent, a rent which has been described as a silly rent. A willing landlord who is not prudent, who does not understand the situation of agriculture, who has newly come into it, who possibly might be an institutional landlord or a landlord without good professional advice, willingly accepts this very high rent, ignorant of the implications for the future; whereas a prudent landlord would not accept such a rent. I believe that it is necessary to have the two words "prudent" and "willing" in this Bill.
1034
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, talked a lot about the importance of the free play of the market. I must say that it is quite refreshing and stimulating to find from the Opposition Benches, the Labour Benches, such forceful arguments being put forward for the free play of the market and the importance of the market mechanism. I believe that the market mechanism is of enormous importance but I do not think that it is of overriding importance. Amendment No. 2 bridges the gap well between reasonable control of market forces and the importance of market forces. After all, the arbitrator is instructed to take into account not only the productive capacity of the holding—and I shall come to that later—but also the current level of rents of comparable lettings. That surely must be a rather deep bow in the direction of market forces.
But there is a caveat after that (which is in the Bill as it stands) which tells him that he must not take into account any element of a rent which is due to appreciable scarcity. It may be that one can find better words to do that. I certainly cannot. But the meaning of that to me, as I think to most noble Lords, is absolutely clear; and it is what was expressed in our Committee stage. I believe that this amendment covers it adequately.
With regard to the question of productivity and profitability, I believe the use of the word "productivity" is correct because, to my mind, productivity is what is in the farm itself; whereas profitability depends upon the farmer. You do not see farms being advertised for rent or for sale saying, "This is a profitable farm" because nobody knows whether it is going to be profitable; that depends upon who will farm it. But you do see a farm advertised as a productive farm—which is something which can be objectively assessed by arbitrators. Therefore, I think that the wording here is correct.
It is very easy to criticise this amendment and this Bill on the grounds that it gives an undue number of instructions to the arbitrators. I have heard many people say—and some of your Lordships have said it—that arbitrators are skilled and experienced people who know their job; and that it is not for any Act of Parliament to instruct them as to every factor to be taken into account. Also, one has heard criticisms of this Bill and of other Bills saying that there is not enough instruction given, that the intention of Parliament is not made clear. This Bill could be criticised on both grounds. If I were to criticise it, I would say that it gives rather too many instructions and that some, without detriment to the Bill, could be left out. But those are minor criticisms. In general this appears to be a valuable amendment, an amendment which takes into account the expressions of opinion which we have heard not only today but at Committee stage, and I hope that your Lordships will support it.
Lord Northbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has just succeeded in saying everything that I intended to say and therefore I shall not weary you for more than a moment. I rise only to say how much I endorse what has been said by all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I would add our thanks not only for his industry and the care that has been taken in the preparation of this Bill but also his success in re-wording it. I shall support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I was once told that in religious matters we do well to follow the same sort of precautions that we would if we had a box of fireworks in our hands which we were about to let off—look carefully at the label which says that you are strongly advised to follow the makers' instructions. I wish that I could affix to Amendment No. 2 just such a label which reads: "There are the instructions. I ask you to follow them".
But I realise from the debate, which comes from an enormous amount of experience in this House, that there are areas of difficulty. Nonetheless, I should like to add to what the noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Northbourne, (the last two speakers in this lengthy debate) have been kind enough to contribute in support of Amendment No. 2 by saying only the briefest word about the areas, as I see them, of agreement. First, Amendment No. 2, as a result of the long debates in Committee on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, includes the concept of the prudent and willing landlord and the prudent and willing tenant. I would say to noble Lords opposite who seek in Amendment No. 3 to remove that concept that we are talking here of landlords and tenants who are not reckless and that in doing this we are following substantially the advice given by the Northfield Committee on this particular point when the noble Lord's committee said that rents needed to be acceptable to a willing landlord and prudent tenant.
But if that concept is to mark both the start and the finish of an arbitrator's work, it is important to make explicit that the whole rent formula in subsections (3) and (4) are to be taken together as one. So, we have inserted the words "in every case" into line 6 of Amendment No. 2, which confirm that the four particularly relevant factors must be considered by the arbitrator in every case in order to arrive at the rent which the prudent and willing landlord and the prudent and willing tenant would agree. For reasons which I gave when I opened this debate, we have not attempted to mention specifically either profit or earning capacity.
I am absolutely delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, here this afternoon. His name was a household word when I was starting to work in farming, and of course I listened with the greatest attention to him. But, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, he was not here during the previous debates that we had on this Bill, and I do not think that his interpretation of the difficulty of "profits" and "earning capacity" was quite on the nail. As I said earlier, by simply remaining silent on profit and earning capacity we have prejudiced the interests of none and preserved the interests of all. In particular, by making absolutely certain, as both the NFU and the CLA were so anxious to do, that the productivity of the holding is expressed in legislative form for the first time, the concept of profit must be encompassed when the arbitrator converts productivity into the rent properly payable which a prudent and willing landlord and a prudent and willing tenant would agree.
I was most grateful to my noble friend Lord Waldegrave for saying that politics is the art of the possible and that at the end of the day, however well or badly we have done, we perhaps ought just to try and get what we can. I say this because I think that if
1036
we are contemplating starting again with an entirely fresh draft, we have sadly only to look at Amendment No. 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton. My noble friend is an absolute authority on drafting—a very kind and wise counsellor over the years to me and to others of us who try to make our way in politics—and he is practically always completely right. But just for once Homer has nodded!
What does my noble friend's Amendment No. 11 do? First, it leaves out the word "prudent", which goes clean contrary to what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord Howard, Lord Northfield and Lord Northbourne, all wanted in Committee; and, if I may say so, that was quite rightly severely criticised in Amendment No. 11 by many noble Lords this afternoon. Secondly, Amendment No. 11 (for some reason which is not explained) disregards proximity so far as the subject holding is concerned. That was criticised root and branch by my noble friend Lord Caithness. Thirdly, Amendment No. 11 omits all reference to the four particular relevant factors which I guess would make noble Lords opposite and my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley go through the roof and come down again in a few hours' time.
Finally, Amendment No. 11 contains the words "without a premium", which I think, with respect to my noble friend, would have a meaning contrary to that which he intends. By putting those words in, instead of disregarding excessively high tender rents it could mean that without a premium there would need to be much higher rents assessed for arbitration, which would have an effect entirely opposite to that which my kindly and generous noble friend intends.
If I may say so, I think that we are left with a simple choice: that is, whether we want to put the simple concept of a prudent and willing landlord and a prudent and willing tenant into the formula. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite do not want that but that is what the Government are asking your Lordships to agree to. If we do that I believe it will be said that we have inserted a simple concept into the formula which will work. On that point I have had an extremely firm letter from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, saying that it most certainly will work and that we will have a formula which will provide legislative cover for the current practice of arbitrators and by that means therefore will not artificially alter rents from levels which they ought to be at.
I also believe that if we write Amendment No. 2 into the Bill it will be said that your Lordships have turned a difficult situation, through your skill and forbearance, if I may say so—and with perhaps just a bit of common sense—into an improvement in the law which people will welcome. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment to the amendment negatived.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 6:
[Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 7A not moved.]
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved. Amendment No. 7B:
Line 9, after ("situated), ") insert ("the rent of any comparable land already farmed with the holding.")
The noble Lord said: When we began our proceedings this afternoon I mentioned that I would like to say a special word about this and I said something briefly in the course of my general remarks, but I did not have a reply from the Minister on this general point. Could he now tell me whether he sees force in my argument on Amendment No. 7B that what we should include in the regards, as opposed to the disregards, which arbitrators have to take into account is the fact of tendered rents which the tenant has made and had accepted for other land which he is farming with his present holding.
As I said, I think it would be totally wrong for him to be sitting on an island of rent-controlled land bidding up other land and not having that fact reflected in the rent review of his original holding. I think the Minister is seized of the point. I do not think it is covered by his Amendment No. 2, as drafted. The effect of my words would be to bring this wider tendering which he does voluntarily himself into the regards which the arbitrator would take into account. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must apologise to the noble Lord that I did not reply to his point on Amendment No. 7B, which was put down on the list at a late stage. I do not cavil at that, of course, but I do apologise. My understanding is that my Amendment No. 18 would cover the point which the noble Lord is making. If he feels on reconsideration that this is not so, I most certainly say that we could and should return to the point; but for the moment I believe that Amendment No. 18 covers the point.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I had not realised, and do not yet realise, until I have studied what has been said, that Amendment No. 18 could possibly cover my point. However, the noble Lord has generously conceded that the point must be taken into account and therefore for the moment my best plan is to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 8:
[Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 10:
Line 15, leave out from ("holding") to end of line 17 and insert ("taking into account the extent to which a competent tenant practising a system of farming suitable to the holding could reasonably be expected to profit from farming the holding.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 10 (as an amendment to Amendment No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 173

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L

Bishopston, L.

Melchett, L.

Blyton, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Stallard, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ennals, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hale, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Willis, L.

Kagan, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Woolley, L.

Kissin, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Diamond, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Allerton, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Amherst, E.

Dundee, E.

Ampthill, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Avon, E.

Elton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Bauer, L.

Foot, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Forester, L.

Bellwin, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gisborough, L.

Brookes, L.

Glasgow, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Caccia, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Caithness, E.

Grey, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gridley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Grimond, L.

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Chitnis, L.

Clinton, L.

Halifax, E.

Cockfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hawke, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hayter, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hives, L.

Cox, B.

Holderness, L.

Craigavon, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigton, L.

Hood, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hooson, L.

Daventry, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Davidson, V.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

1039

Ingrow, L.

Radnor, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Raglan, L.

Kemsley, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Reay, L.

Kintore, E.

Renton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Rochdale, V.

Knutsford, V.

Rodney, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Romney, E.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lawrence, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Long, V.

Salisbury, M.

Lonsdale, E.

Sandford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Lyell, L.

Savile, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Seear, B.

McFadzean, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Shannon, E.

Mais, L.

Sharples, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stedman, B.

Margadale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sudeley, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Suffield, L.

Swansea, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Middleton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe. L.

Molson, L.

Terrington, L.

Monson, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mottistone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Trenchard, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Tryon, L.

Newall, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Northbourne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Northchurch, B.

Vivian, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Walston, L.

Onslow, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Orkney, E.

Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Whaddon, L.

Pender, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wigoder, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Windlesham, L.

Winstanley, L.

Portland, D.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 156; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Brookes, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allerton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Amherst, E.

Caccia, L.

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Avon, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Aylestone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Bauer, L.

Clinton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Bellwin, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cox, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigton, L.

1040

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Daventry, V.

Molson, L.

Davidson, V.

Morris, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Diamond, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northbourne, L.

Elton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Faithfull, B.

Northfield, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Forester, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Gisborough, L.

Portland, D.

Glasgow, E.

Radnor, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Raglan, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

St. Davids, V.

Halifax, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hawke, L.

Salisbury, M.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Hives, L.

Sandys, L.

Holderness, L.

Saville, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Seear, B.

Hood, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Hooson, L.

Sharples, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Simon, V.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ingrow, L.

Stedman, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strathspey, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sudeley, L.

Kintore, E.

Suffield, L.

Knutsford, V.

Swansea, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Terrington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teviot, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Vivian, L.

McFadzean, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Walston, L.

Mais, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Westbury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Whaddon, L.

Margadale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Windlesham, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Wynford, L.

Merrivale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Ennals, L.

Barnett, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bishopston, L.

Hale, L.

Blyton, L.

Hayter, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacques, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Collison, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McCluskey, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Molloy, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mulley, L.

1041

Nicol, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Onslow, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Oram, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Pearl, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Tryon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Underhill, L.

Renton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Willis, L.

Shannon, E.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stallard, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

The Severn Crossing
5.52 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, this might be a convenient time to interrupt the Report stage of the Agricultural Holdings Bill and, with the permission of your Lordships, to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a further Statement about the Severn Crossing, as I promised the House on 17th November last.
"As I explained on that occasion, there are three issues which need to be considered together: the strengthening of the existing crossing, the traffic control arrangements while the remedial works are carried out and the question of a second crossing.
"As regards the existing crossing, I have carefully considered the advice of the consultants, and have decided to proceed with a programme of strengthening and repair in order to enable it to cope with the expected loadings while at the same time meeting current safety requirements, as well as to operate without restriction on the flow of traffic. The programme is expected to take five to six years to carry out. The precise extent of the works and the timing of their execution will depend on the outcome of further technical studies. Preparations for the more important works have already been put in hand. 1 intend that such works will begin later this year.
"There will be the least possible interference with traffic while the repairs are being done. Wherever possible, the work will be carried out at off-peak times; complete closures of the crossing are expected to be few and brief, and where possible limited to overnight hours. Local authorities and user organisations will be consulted about any traffic restrictions that may be necessary. Advance warning of all restrictions will be given, and alternative routes will be signposted as appropriate.
"I am confident that when the strengthening and repair works have been completed the crossing should continue to provide a safe, ready and reliable communications link, vital to the prosperity of South Wales. I want to give a double assurance that this vital link will not be interrupted as a result of some unforeseeable event or circumstance.
"I have therefore decided that a study should be instituted into how a second crossing might be
1042
provided in the general corridor of the existing crossing. The study will examine other forms of crossing, as well as a bridge, and it will have regard to the desirability of convenient links to the M.4 motorway. It will start as soon as the detailed terms of reference and other arrangements have been drawn up. I expect the study to take about two years to come to conclusions. I emphasise that this is not a decision to build a second crossing. Before such a decision were taken the Government would need to take full account of the outcome of the study, forecast traffic requirements at the time, as well as of progress of the work on the existing crossing. But the completion of the study will ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in providing a second crossing as soon as it is needed.
"Mr. Speaker, the Government fully recognise the vital importance of the Severn Crossing to the economy of Severnside and South Wales. The three measures I have announced today—the strengthening and repair of the existing crossing, the conduct of the works so as to minimise traffic restrictions, and the study of a second crossing—all demonstrate the Government's determination to maintain an adequate and reliable communications link between South Wales and its markets in the rest of Britain and in Europe on which its prosperity depends. I believe that they should dispel any doubts among potential investors and the public at large about the Government's commitment to this aim, especially during the period while the strengthening and repairs are in progress. In all these matters I shall act in close consultation with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and shall keep the House informed of progress made".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this important Statement. At the outset I must comment that I am pleased that the Statement emphasises in a number of places the importance of the Severn Crossing to the economy of Severnside and South Wales. In general, we on these Benches welcome the three decisions, which are somewhat in line with the points made when the earlier Statement was made on 17th November last.
The fact that the repair and strengthening work will take five to six years indicates the degree of seriousness of the structural weakness of the bridge, and should remove any of the thoughts there were in the minds of some that the concern originally expressed about the bridge was creating something in the form of panic. In view of the long period of the strengthening and repair work, it is essential that there should be a sound and effective system of traffic control. Even though it is hoped that the closures, if they are necessary, will be in off-peak times, I presume that the monitoring of incidents will continue, as stated in the original Statement in 17th November. I presume also that there will be a continuous check on traffic arrangements, with opportunities for flexibility according to circumstances.
I am pleased to note that local authorities and users are to be consulted on any traffic restrictions. This is an important point because not only is advance notice

1043
required in time but advance notice of signposting is required on important routes if long diversions of traffic are to be avoided.
We welcome the feasibility study on the question of a second crossing. We completely agree that those concerned should keep an open mind on the nature of the crossing. It was stated that there will be a two-year study before any conclusions are drawn. I hope there will be full consultation with local authorities and road users in that study of possible alternatives and possible sitings and that it will not be left to a White Paper after the two-year study is completed.
Is there any estimate available of the cost of the structural work? May we assume that the cost will be met nationally, through the Department of Transport? This leads to the question of tolls. Noble Lords will recall that on 17th November I raised the question of tolls and asked whether, in the light of the traffic restrictions which have to be observed, the tolls could not be abolished at least during the period of restriction. I repeat that question in view of the long period of work that is to be involved. Would it not be sensible to remove tolls from the Severn Crossing?
Noble Lords may have seen from the debate in another place last night on the Dartford Tunnel that my honourable friend Mr. John Prescott questioned whether this is not the time to consider the whole subject of tolls. In connection with the study, could not that aspect be considered as a matter of some importance?
6 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Statement made is clearly very important because the importance of this crossing to the economy of South Wales cannot be over-estimated, nor indeed its importance to the rest of the country. Therefore, I welcome the three assurances that have been given by the Government. But would the Minister deal with one or two matters which are bound to cause some worry? First, he says that after the work has been done the bridge will provide a safe, ready and reliable communications link. But clearly it has to be used for the next five years in a more limited way. Will he confirm that during that period it will provide a safe, ready and reliable communications link, that though obviously basic remedial work is necessary, with its present limited use it is nevertheless a safe means of communication?
Secondly, in regard to the investigations to take place into a second crossing, there are the limiting words that a second crossing might be provided in
"the general corridor of the existing crossing".
These words seem to me to limit the remit of those investigating it. It might well be, for example, that lower down or higher up the question of the Severn Barrage ought to be considered at the same time, which might provide a means for both a bridge and a tunnel simultaneously. Therefore, why is it necessary to restrict that inquiry with the words,
"in the general corridor of the existing crossing"?
As the Minister will appreciate, this is a very important estuary, not only from the point of view of communication but because of the possible other uses that may be made of it. As necessity forces this second
1044
inquiry, it seems to me that a virtue should be made of necessity and the Severn Barrage should be looked at very seriously as a means of providing not only one means of crossing but possibly two.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Hooson, for their general remarks in response to the Statement I have repeated. Perhaps I could answer the questions in the order in which they were put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that the length of time for the repairs, between five and six years, indicated the great seriousness of the structural weakness of the bridge which had led to near panic. I have to tell your Lordships that the timescale of five or six years is not resultant upon any structural weakness nor grave serious deficiency. I was unhappy to hear the noble Lord use such an emotive word as "panic". The five-year or six-year timescale is to ensure that there is the minimum disruption of traffic. Quite obviously, if the lanes were even more severely curtailed than they are at the moment work could proceed a little faster. I have already explained that the major works will be carried out particularly at offpeak times. There is no suggestion that the bridge is unsafe for use at this present time—none whatever. That under certain circumstances, particularly wind and excessive loading at peak hours, my right honourable friend has thought that to be doubly sure traffic restrictions should be made, is, I think, quite reasonable.
Monitoring will continue, as will the traffic arrangements, and these are in the domain of the local authority, Avon County Council personnel and the police. So far as monitoring is concerned there is a live patrol across the bridge at most times that it is in use.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about publicity. Where there are to be major diversions, or in the event of the unlikely but possible necessity to make a short total closure, all responsible bodies, trade bodies, the CBI, and motoring bodies, will be consulted in very good time. There will be at the time what we consider to be adequate publicity via radio and local signing.
The noble Lord also asked about the cost. The estimated cost in September, or it might have been October, 1983 was £33 million, and although there are further technical studies to be undertaken it is not thought that this figure will vary greatly. The £33 million is, of course, at 1983 prices. He asked also about tolls. I can tell noble Lords that there is no intention to remove tolls, and the general principle that major estuarial crossings that give particular benefit to users shall be tolled remains Government policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked about the condition of the bridge over the next five years. I think I have answered that in my earlier remarks to Lord Underhill. I would emphasise that we are talking about "strengthening" and so on; I would have preferred to have used the general term, "remedial and renewal works". There have been further technologies developed in terms of concrete structures and steel work and so on; so any work undertaken during this five-year or six-year period might be classed as renewal.

1045
The noble Lord asked about the second crossing. So far as the so-called "general corridor" is concerned, the precise area of search will have to be defined when we finalise the terms of reference for the study. The existing corridor of traffic demand is along the M.4 motorway. As was said in the Statement, the study will have particular regard to the desirability of convenient links between a second crossing and the motorway. So to all intents and purposes I suppose one should really be saying that it would be reasonable to suppose that the area of search would be within the area of the existing crossing, as distinct from many miles up river.
The noble Lord asked about the barrage. I think that perhaps all I can say at this stage is that both the barrage proposals, the Bondi scheme and the smaller Wimpey-Atkins scheme, are still at the feasibility stage. Whether a barrage is built will be determined, I think, essentially by energy considerations. If such a project went ahead we would naturally look at the possibility of incorporating a road. At this stage the feasibility study is designed to indicate the various options. The Government have no firm view as to where the crossing need necessarily be. That would be determined in the light of the study in about two years' time.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the Severn bridge has deteriorated in such a comparatively short time for such structures? Is it because the designers underestimated the growth and density of traffic over the years? There must be some reason—possibly poor material. I do not want to ask the noble Lord a question to which he has not been given an answer, but if he has any clue I should be very glad to hear it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard is quite entitled to ask any question, and if I do not have the answer I can promise that I will provide it for him. He asks: why has the bridge deteriorated? There is no evidence of failure at the design stage nor of the actual building. There has been a very marked change in the traffic using the bridge and the densities at which the bridge is used. This has caused concern that, given certain circumstances, the margin of safety would be diminished to a degree which would be unacceptable. Certainly on any bridge or engineering structure repairs or renewals must be taken care of over a period of years. I think that there may have been a good deal of misinformed publicity in the early stages which have not been borne out by the studies undertaken by engineers.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the uncertainties and anxieties in relation to the Severn Bridge over the past two years or so, is the Minister aware that the three proposals in the Statement will be warmly welcomed in South Wales? Is he further aware that the proposal to have a study into a second crossing is, in all the circumstances, a sensible step to take?
Can the noble Lord clarify one point in the early part of the Statement which refers to further technical studies? The Statement says that the extent of the works on the bridge and the timing of their execution will depend on these studies. Are we to assume that the
1046
work of strengthening and repairing—the remedial work, as he described it—will start at once and will not be dependent on any of these technical studies which the Minister, quite properly, may require?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and I am glad that he accepts that the Government realise the importance of the crossing to the Principality. The noble Lord asked specifically about the further technical studies referred to in the Statement. A number of points in connection with the strengthening, repairs and renewals require further detailed examination. Basically, these include the choice of the hanger system, any change in the deck strengthening and the use of particular surface materials. It will be necessary for these further studies to be undertaken but in no way will they affect the basic feasibility of the programme.
The noble Lord particularly asked about the time scale and I can assure him—I do not know whether I can assure him, but I can attempt to assure him—that the studies will not delay the programme as they will be conducted while the other strengthening work is being undertaken.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, the Government will have had impressed on them again and again the enormous economic importance of the bridge link to the Principality and also the importance of a reliable link of adequate capacity, which I think is one of the things which annoyed us more than anything when I had quite a lot of responsibility for inducing industry to go to South Wales. Are the Government also aware that Bristol and parts of the South West also derive enormous benefit from the existence of the bridge because the economies of the two littorals have become, to some extent, interdependent through the existence of the bridge? To deprive either side of this enormously valuable link would be a great blow to both economies.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. The Government recognise the strategic and economic importance of the crossing to Wales, to other parts of the United Kingdom, and to Bristol and the South-West, as the noble Lord said.
As regards the capacity of the bridge, I can do no more than repeat what I said earlier, that apart from the bunching element which is due to the type of vehicle and the journey times now being undertaken there have been chages over the years. It is for those reasons that difficulties have arisen and not because of the total capacity, which remains quite adequate for the forecast volume which we see over the next few years.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether it would be possible to instal on the M.4 itself, and on the major roads leading to it, electronic notices which give up-to-date—I emphsise up-todate—information as to the periods of delay when there are considerable hold-ups? Is the Minister aware that there are very many users who, given that information well back from the bridge, could divert,

1047
particularly through Gloucester? At the moment one only finds that there is a delay when one gets into the traffic jam leading up to the bridge and by then it is far too late to turn off. Congestion would be alleviated if people could have information which would enable them to divert before they reach the crossing.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, yes is the short answer, but I think that the noble Lord would like something a little more expanded than that. Diversion signs were put up last year at junctions 15 and 24 on the M.4. They are manually operated and advise of delays on the Severn crossing. They are to be replaced with signs which are remotely controlled—which is perhaps synonymous with "electronically"—from the police point at the Almondsbury M.4—M.5 interchange. It is expected that the sign at junction 15 will be operational in a few weeks' time, at Easter. The sign at junction 24, however, will not be ready until the end of next summer. The criterion for activating the signs are likely to be delays of one-and-a-half to two hours at the crossing. The new signs also will be capable of warning of restrictions on account of high winds. The whole monitoring and sign procedure is continually under review and I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will ensure that adequate warnings are given should those currently planned not prove to be as effective as all of us should like.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that he will take into account the fact that the sign at the interchange between the M.4 and M.5 is too late? Surely motorists want the sign one step back from that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I certainly take note of what what the noble Lord said and will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to that. But I wonder whether, if motorists perhaps slowed down a little knowing that they were coming to the junction, they would have time to stop before they actually got there.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
6.18 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I think the House understands that Amendments Nos. 11, 12, and 13 cannot now be moved. We therefore come to Amendment No. 14.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 14:
[Printed earlier: col. 1007.]
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a string of amendments to which I spoke with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 15:
[Printed earlier: col. 1007.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 16:
[Printed earlier: col. 1007.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the next amendment is an amendment on a supplementary list, Amendment No. 16A, and it should be in the names of the Earl of Kinnoull, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, Lord Northbourne and the Earl of Caithness. It should not be in the name of Lord Northfield.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 16A:
Page 2, line 31, at beginning insert—
("In respect of tenancies which commenced not more than three years before the date of the Arbitrators' Award and of prospective tenancies").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that the amendment will be supported by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. Subsection (4) is a matter of very deep concern for those existing long-term landlords in the agricultural industry—the charities and the universities—which are at the sharp end of the interpretation and effects of the Bill, which we are trying to clarify. As the House knows, subsection (4) introduces a new concept of a discount of scarcity which arbitrators must take into account when considering evidence of comparable lettings. The language of the subsection is complex and somewhat vague. Although the concept of removing key money from comparable evidence is not at all in dispute, the wording and effects of the subsection are matters of considerable concern.
No one knows at the moment how the subsection will work, not even the greatest valuers or the greatest lawyers. Only time will tell. But we know that this new concept will be taken very much into account not only for new lettings—which was the original purpose of the working committee of the NFU and CLA—but also for existing lettings, which is not what it was intended to include. This little amendment which we have put down and to which I hope my noble friend will be sympathetic is to restrict the evidence of comparable lettings to new lettings. The wording is to cover new lettings which may have gone back three years and which have not had a rent review, or existing prospective lettings which are subject to negotiation at the moment.
Earlier on, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, gave examples of the effects of the rent clause which particularly concerned the provisions in this subsection about scarcity. He gave examples of three farms which a leading valuer at a meeting last Thursday used in his interpretation of the Bill. I must admit that they present a gloomy picture. This little amendment does not really at all remove the major worry but it limits it to new lettings.
This restriction, if accepted, will be identical to that in the Scottish legislation which was passed only last May. That is an important point which I know that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will take on board. The restriction was then accepted and no doubt the noble Lord spoke in favour of it. The amendment would restrict the potential harm if an arbitrator misused or over-calculated the discount element of the rent under subsection (4). I hope that my noble friend will give the amendment a fair wind and will accept the principle if not the wording. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I find this a rather interesting amendment, because it touches on the problem I raised in Committee. Does my noble friend Lord Kinnoull consider that after three years, when the rent goes for arbitration or review, the premia that the person has paid in order to get into the farm will be reduced to nil? If that is so, I would accept the amendment. But my reading of it is that that will not be so. The position will be roughly the same as today, where a new tenant comes in and is forced to pay a very high rent. He has no option. Over a period of, say, three reviews—nine years—his rent becomes more or less the same as those of his neighbours; theirs have gone up and his has gone down. If in the future that would be the position, I cannot accept the amendment, because there is an element of premium and scarcity after three years.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to require that any discount for appreciable scarcity under subsection (4)(a) shall apply only to newly or recently tendered rents. It would therefore exclude all sitting tenant rents, although for some reason my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has not excluded arbitrated or agreed rents for new succession tenancies, which, if I may say so, may be a defect which he did not intend.
Perhaps I may leave that aside for the moment, and go to the merits of the case. It is common ground that appreciable scarcity is likely to appear only in respect of newly or recently tendered rents. If I may, I shall come to the point of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in a moment. In the case of sitting tenant rents, the present practice of arbitrators has itself tended to eliminate appreciable scarcity, in that arbitrators tend not to apply the full rigours of the current rent formula. The proposal of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull would not therefore be likely to have a very substantial effect. The discount for appreciable scarcity is, however, an objective test, and it would therefore not be consistent to apply it to one category of rents and not to another, we believe.
If I may come to the point of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, it is not inconceivable that some element of appreciable scarcity could have crept into a few arbitrated rents. If this is indeed the case, then it would be right, we believe, and so apparently does my noble friend Lord Stanley, to ask arbitrators to apply an appropriate discount if these rents are to be used as comparables.
In short, what I am trying to say is that I think it is a difficult concept to try to say that some rents ought to be treated as comparables and others not. If I may say so, I think that this has led my noble friend Lord Kinnoull into a small drafting error which I think was not intended. But the point of principle is that the discount for appreciable scarcity is an objective factor and should therefore be taken into account in all comparable rents. What I am saying is that, if there is no appreciable scarcity, then there will be no discount. I think that that is how the matter ought to be left.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned my name when he mentioned the Scottish Bill. I cannot find the precise reference.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am quoting from a brief which I have received and which I have no doubt is accurate. It makes the point that under Scottish legislation passed last May the comparable evidence is limited to new lettings and does not cover existing sitting tenants.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, as I understand it, the object of this Bill is to make more tenancies available. If we are to achieve this objective, we have to be absolutely satisfied that the legislation to which we contribute and which eventually goes on the statute book is fair to both parties and is clear and unambiguous. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has done an enormous amount to clarify the intention of Clause 1 by the introduction of Amendment No. 2. However, there is still one major area which lacks clarity, and I refer to the words "appreciable scarcity".
It has been stated by a number of valuers and other reasonable people that it is impossible to assess the amount of a particular rent or of any other transaction which is attributable to "appreciable scarcity". Scarcity is in the nature of the market and the market is in the nature of scarcity. What is appreciable scarcity? What is great scarcity? What is no scarcity? If there were indeed no scarcity, the landlord would presumably be glad to have the tenant occupy the farm in order to see it being occupied and the buildings being kept up. Possibly there would be no rent at all. Some noble Lords have drawn attention to the situation in the 'twenties.
We must I think accept that the word "scarcity" is unclear. I for one should prefer to have the word "scarcity" entirely expunged from the Bill. This I understand is not politically possible. I should prefer to see it more clearly defined, or in some way limited. It has, for example, been suggested that it might be limited by introducing another subsection which would ensure that scarcity applied only in so far as the relevant rent was also in excess of the rent which would be agreed between a willing and prudent landlord and a willing and prudent tenant. That alternative has not been tabled today. This particular amendment was thought to be more moderate and, it was hoped, entirely acceptable. The amendment simply brings the drafting of the Bill back, as we understand it, to the intention of the original joint working party of the NFU and the CLA. In paragraph 3(a) of its report, the working party referred to:
"Rents paid or tendered in respect of comparable lettings to the extent that they contain an element due to scarcity of holdings available for letting…"
These must by definition be new lettings. Therefore it was in the minds of the NFU and the CLA when they made that agreement that the scarcity element should refer only to new lettings. It is the intention of this amendment to reintroduce that idea. I submit that it is most important that we should do so if we want the Bill to be clear and not to cause misunderstanding and fear in the minds of landowners, which would discourage them from letting their land in the future.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very keen to support the amendment. I must be very careful because the next amendment, No. 16B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, deals with appreciable or substantial scarcity, and I do not want

1051
to go over the same ground twice. To my noble friend Lord Stanley I would say that every rent contains a scarcity element because it is an integral part of rent. There cannot be a value without scarcity, and therefore if there were no scarcity, the land would be occupied free. Therefore, scarcity is an element of a rent; it has got to be; it is an element of anything which has value.
What concerns us is the situation with established sitting tenants. I have spoken to a number about this point, and they have all said that because they are on agricultural holdings, part of their rent relates to appreciable scarcity. Frankly, I think that is a very one-sided way of looking at the matter and it could lead to enormous problems. That is what really concerns landowners, and that is why we have come forward with the amendment to provide that when looking at comparables it is only with the most recent lettings—or, I think it would be fair to include, the most recent arbitrated lettings—that one must discount the element of appreciable scarcity. If a landlord and tenant willingly have agreed a rent, I do not think that there should be any scarcity element in it.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, my noble friend said that he felt that there was no substantial effect that this small amendment would have upon subsection (4). My advice from outside was that in fact it would have a substantial effect; it would have an effect of at least giving more confidence to existing landlords. This is a very complex subject and I do not intend to try to press it or to argue it further, but I should like to say that I shall withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I shall look at it again and perhaps see my noble friend before the Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 16B:
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("an appreciable") and insert ("a substantial").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, our earlier long debate was characterised by an anxiety on all sides to seek common ground, and I thought that that was a very laudable way to conduct our proceedings on this very important Bill. If I may say so, I voted with the Government on their amendment because, to use the words of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, given what is possible, they had not done too bad a shot with Amendment No. 2, and it went a long way along the road towards getting the Bill right.
But at one time or another we have all made the point that the common ground could be extended just a little further. I want to quote the words which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, used in winding up the debate half an hour ago, or whenever it was. I took down his words at the time. He said that what we want the arbitrator to disregard when he starts looking at comparable lettings in order to take them into account—and these were the noble Lord's words—"are the excessively high tender rents". I think that that is common ground. We would all agree that in
1052
rent fixing we want to exclude what the noble Lord calls excessively high tender rent, and what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and I call silly rents, the stupid ones right at the top end of the market, the crazy ones that we know nobody could really achieve.
If that is our common ground, how do we express it? I have suggested one way which the House has not followed. I suggested that the way that we should approach the question—and I shall return to it on Third Reading—is that we should allow the arbitrator discussion in this matter; it should not be mandatory for him to disregard every element of scarcity, which I think makes a nonsense of the situation. I gave examples of rental questions where I felt it would become a nonsense and arbitrators would simply take no notice of what is in the statute.
Another way to achieve what we want is contained in the present amendment. The amendment would provide that an arbitrator would disregard—to use the words which are at line 31 on page 2 of the Bill—
"any element of the rents in question which is due to a substantial scarcity of comparable holdings …".
My view is that if we were to say that, it would leave arbitrators with some discretion to say, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has just said, that there is always an element of scarcity around, and there is probably always an element of appreciable scarcity. What we want the arbitrator to take no notice of and to disregard are elements of substantial scarcity that have resulted in silly rents or, to quote again the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, excessively high tender rents.
That is the aim of my amendment. It is one step, I hope, towards a little more common ground in trying to exclude what we are really all trying to exclude, and not trying to pretend that somehow we can make an unreal situation real; that is, to pretend that there is any equilibrium in the market. All that the arbitrator should be asked to disregard in the comparable rents are the stupid ones. That is the aim of my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we did not have a very positive discussion on the words "appreciable scarcity" at the Committee stage because my noble friend Lord Belstead had already agreed to look again at the rent clause. At that time the amendment was, I think, No. 16, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who did not move it when we reached it. However, my noble friend Lord Belstead said in col. 149 of Hansard of 22nd November:
"Amendment No. 16, which deals with an alternative method of adjusting for appreciable scarcity, is something which need not perhaps present quite the same problems—certainly it is something which we should consider very carefully."—[Official Report, 22/11/83: col. 149].
Despite important consideration, we still have the same wording in the Bill but we have managed to tackle, with tremendous help from my noble friend Lord Belstead, the primary problem, which was the rent clause amended today. The words "open market" are a red rag to the NFU. I appreciate its concern. Similarly, the words "appreciable scarcity" and, particularly, the word "scarcity", are a red rag to the land owners. These two words, "appreciable scarcity", give rise to as much cause for concern as anything else in the Bill.

1053
During recent discussions on the matter, I believed that I had a revised form of words that met with the passive approval of the NFU; in other words, it would not oppose them if the Minister backed them. Alas, he did not. It is therefore right that the subject is being fully aired now. I am grateful for the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I am concerned by what the words "appreciable scarcity" mean. I have seen several lawyers, QCs and surveyors and each one has come up with a different answer. It is perturbing if one is to be faced with the problem of interpreting these words at a rent review. It will be the first point at which the landlord or tenant will say, "Right! Enough is enough. We are never going to agree. Back to the courts we go". This is one thing that we do not want to happen if we can avoid it. I therefore ask my noble friend, please, to reconsider the matter. The whole question of subsection (4)(a) was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the last amendment. Can he please have one more look at it?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I would have thought that "a state of scarcity" is a state of substantial deficiency. What does the word "scarce" mean in ordinary English? Does it need to be qualified at all?
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill, there was a good deal of discussion of the fact that one of the reasons why we had to have the Bill at all was that arbitrators and valuers generally were completely ignoring what the law said, in other words, that they were deciding themselves what they were going to do without any guidance from the law. Fears had been expressed that at some stage those same arbitrators or valuers might be taken to court, that the full rigours of the law would start to bite and that we should get huge rents, and so on. This was one of the reasons put forward for the Bill.
We are beginning to get back to the position where it is suggested that arbitrators and valuers will be told to do certain things in the Bill but that they will do what they have always done in the past. It cannot be good if the chief reason for the Bill is not achieved by the Bill. I do not know what the words "appreciable scarcity" mean. I have a fair idea what "substantial scarcity" means. I do not like the word "scarcity" at all. I believe, for all the reasons already given, that, without some form of scarcity, there cannot be any value. A little elementary economics of the sort that has not led us down too many garden paths, might prove rather helpful here. Nevertheless, without some form of scarcity, there cannot be any value. "Substantial scarcity" certainly means much more in the minds of those who have to deal with these things than "appreciable scarcity". I wish strongly to suport the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment for almost identical reasons to those given by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. I should also like, while we are dealing with this exact point of scarcity, to express my opinion that the reason for the scarcity of tenanted land is a scarcity of landlords willing to let at a return that they think reasonable. If that happens, it is almost
1054
impossible to legislate for substantial scarcity because I suspect that the scarcity will get worse anyway. Adam Smith must be revolving in his grave over this. All those lovely 19th century liberals who are Her Majesty's Government's present advisers must be equally going dotty because they seem to be in the vice-like grip of the NFU. It is rather like suggesting that a press law should be cobbled up by the National Graphical Association and the Newspaper Publishers Association with my noble friends expecting to push it through an unwilling House.
We have got ourselves into a muddle. I believe that "substantial" is better than "appreciable" because it means a big scarcity that we must ignore. That is what we want to ignore. We do not really want to ignore a medium sized scarcity. That is what we are trying to say. I do not think that it will work. I thought at first that it would be better. But the more one looks into it, the more dottiness comes bubbling happily to the surface. But the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who is probably a truer liberal than some of the present advisers to Her Majesty's Government in this context, says that it makes slightly more sense than "appreciable scarcity". I therefore support it.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we have now heard the word "dotty" together with the word "muddle" applied to the Bill. This seems to be an argument about the meaning of the word "appreciable" against "substantial" or the legal meaning of the word "scarcity". Frankly, I do not want to take part because I am neither a lawyer nor an English scholar. But "substantial" seems to emphasise it better, if emphasis is required. I therefore support my noble friend on the word "substantial".
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, at the risk of being labelled the noble Earl's 12th lawyer, may I say that in my view, as a lawyer, the word "substantial" is a great deal clearer than "appreciable". "Substantial" is a concept very well known to law, while "appreciable", I imagine, would be very difficult. If "appreciable" was, as it might well be held to be, to mean anything other than minimal, one would be landing arbitrators with the enormous task of trying to give a 2 to 3 per cent. discount on other rents because there was an appreciable scarcity, albeit not a substantial scarcity. I believe that "substantial" would be clearer and would make the arbitrator's task a great deal easier.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, perhaps some of the reason for this debate is the fact that it was I and not my noble friend Lord Belstead who spoke about scarcity and appreciable scarcity at the Committee stage. If noble Lords care to consult Hansard for 22nd November 1983 they will find the discussion recorded in cols. 205, 206 and 207. Perhaps, unlike my noble friend, I made no impression upon anyone, because noble Lords seem to have forgotten what took place. I did at that time go into a fairly lengthy description of the reasons for using the words "appreciable scarcity". I should like to repeat them.
The word "appreciable", I am advised, would exclude de minimis scarcity. It means something less than substantial but is intended to be a pointer to the arbitrator not to be influenced by insignificant

1055
scarcity. Scarcity must therefore be qualified and "appreciable" seems as good a word as any. In fact, we had quite a long and interesting debate. Noble Lords may care to refresh their minds by consulting Hansard.
I turn now to the proposal before the House of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. The effect of this proposal, by substituting "substantial" for "appreciable", would apply a much stronger test. I remind the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken that the qualification "appreciable" means that we have in the Bill a stronger wording than in the new Scottish rent formula where scarcity stands on its own. To go further and to refer to "substantial scarcity" would be a major change—in fact, a change of substance—which would markedly alter the balance of the new formula. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said he hoped that this would bring unanimity to the matter. I suggest that, far from bringing unanimity, it would bring discord. I was amazed that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, rose from the Opposition Front Bench to support his noble friend. I should like to remind the noble Lord that his colleagues on the Benches opposite pressed in Committee for all scarcity to be disregarded. I would not go that far. But, equally, I would certainly not go as far as the noble Lord proposes here by the insertion of the word "substantial". Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, replies, I should like for a change, to give a little help to my Front Bench. If this amendment is accepted, I would agree with my noble friend that it would drive a coach and horses through the whole idea of scarcity which is in the clause and which has been agreed, or has sought to be agreed, over a long period of time.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I think that the little debate that we have had has been very interesting, because it has raised two matters which have always amused me in this House, one is that when we want to disregard Scottish parallels, we do so by saying, "Why should we follow Scotland?" But we now have it plotted out the other way. The Government want it both ways. This time they want to say, "Of course we should always keep in line with Scotland". It is funny how it is used one way one day and the other way another day according to the suitability of the circumstances for the Minister concerned. Therefore, I think that that falls by itself. At this point I do not think that the Scots got it right anyway, and therefore I do not think we should follow it. Nor is their precise situation on holdings similar.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, in fact, "appreciable scarcity" is not in the Scottish Bill, so we are not going the same way. It is "appreciable" in England and Wales and just "scarcity" in Scotland.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, to use my own words, the noble Earl was saying that it is such a substantial departure from the Scottish formula. Never mind, he was having it both ways as Ministers do.£
1056
The other point that is interesting about this is that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, again let the cat out of the bag, as he has kindly been doing all the way along: this is one of those sacred tablets that came down from the NFU, and who are we to start disagreeing with them? Once again, it shows the sordid ancestry of this Bill. It did not start from principles; it did not start with Ministers saying, "This is what we want. Parliamentary draftsmen, go away and do it". There was nothing as sensible as that. No, it was a sordid deal in some smoke-filled room between men who we otherwise might look twice at, and then we are told that we must follow its hallowed words into legislation. Is it not tragic that the House is reduced to this situation? It really is tragic.
In his reply to me the noble Earl said that he accepts that "substantial" means more scarcity than "appreciable". I stick to that. I will join him in that definition. I thought that that was the common ground; that we wanted to exclude those silly tender rents that came in conditions of substantial scarcity, and we wanted arbitrators to be able to take account of, and not have to disregard, a reasonable appreciable scarcity. The noble Earl has called the troops in to vote down what I think is an amendment of common ground that was emerging beautifully from our earlier discussions. It is a very sad situation. I think that I will withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Northfield: No, my Lords? My instinct is to withdraw it and to ask the noble Earl at least to have some talks about it. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was extremely helpful during earlier stages of the Bill and if he would, by a nod of the head, indicate that we will have another talk about this, it would not close doors. If I were to divide on this and be voted down by the troops, who have obviously turned up given the number in the Divisions earlier on, it would not help me to get a bit of common sense on to the statute book. If the noble Earl would agree to have another chat about this with those of us from all sides of the House—not just on this side—who see the force of trying to get common ground extended this little step further, I should be more than content to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, by leave of the House, as this is the first amendment for which I am responsible, there is nothing I would like to do more than give way. But I think that this amendment would drive a cart and horses through this Bill and I simply cannot give way.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I will even try knocking at the noble Earl's door between now and Third Reading. But I shall move it and probably press it on Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 17:
[Printed earlier: col. 1007.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I shall now call Amendment No. 17A as an amendment to Amendment No. 17.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 17A:
Line 2, after ("holding") insert (", or any person tendering for such a holding,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether or not he will accept this amendment. I think that he should.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer is, more or less, yes. I have been advised that we need to look at the wording of this amendment. I agree with what my noble friend is trying to do. If my noble friend will accept from me that I undertake to bring forward an appropriate amendment to cover the point on Third Reading, or at least to discuss it with him so that perhaps he can bring forward such an amendment, perhaps he would agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I shall certainly be very happy, not more or less to withdraw it but completely to withdraw it until Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 17 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 18:
[Printed earlier: col. 1007.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I also referred to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, when I moved Amendment No. 7B the noble Lord was good enough to say that he thought this amendment covered the point I was making in Amendment No. 7B. I have taken some advice and I do not think that that is so. In this amendment he is talking about marriages; I am talking about something quite separate. Perhaps I could leave it that if the noble Lord would be kind enough to look again at what I said on Amendment No. 7B; we could then have some further discussion about it, as he indicated that Amendment No. 7B raised a matter that ought to be covered somewhere. If I may hold him to that, I would simply say that I am advised that Amendment No. 18 does not cover my point.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must apologise if I have misled the noble Lord. I have also taken advice since I said that and, to be absolutely frank, I have been told that I was wrong. I have a short speaking note here, but if the noble Lord would prefer to discuss this matter outside the Chamber with a view to returning to the point possibly on Third Reading, that would be the way to go ahead. Of course, I agree to the noble Lord's suggestion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18A and 18B not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to say that Amendment No. 19 has been the subject of an attempt by some splendid person in the Public Bill Office to improve upon my own work. As a result, I am afraid that he or she has got it wrong. It should read:
"Page 4, line 23, leave out (b)",
instead of as written. I only discovered this today so it was too late to put the matter right. It is hardly fair on my noble friend to ask him to comment on the point. In any event, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Like most of my remaining amendments, this one is detailed, technical, boring and important. Perhaps I may just explain the short point that arises here. The purpose of leaving out paragraph (b) is to ensure that variations in rent at times other than those specified in subsection (7)(b) of Clause 1 will not start or restart the three-year cycle: for example, a variation in size of the rent agreed within three years of the beginning of the term. I should mention that, in order to get over that difficulty, we shall also be doing something consistent with Section 8(3) of the 1948 Act. That is the short point involved. I think it is a sound one, recommended by the Agricultural Law Association. I beg to move, but sympathise with my noble friend.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend has explained that due to a slip between my noble friend's pen and the Marshalled List the reference to line 26 ought to be to line 23. This is a pity, I agree, because my noble friend—and indeed those whose advice he has been taking in the Agricultural Law Association—are on to a series of detailed but important points. Before we take any further amendments which have come from the advice of the Agricultural Law Association through my noble friend, I should like to say that the Government are indebted to them for the detailed work they have done on the Bill, and to my noble friend for the detailed' interest he has taken.
Having said that, I do not think that it is for anybody's advantage if I simply say that the reference was wrong, and therefore could we go at it again. I have a brief note here which I should like to use for the record in reply, because then my noble friend will know whether to pursue the matter or not, because with respect to my noble friend I do not think that this particular amendment is necessary. We are coming to one or two amendments soon which certainly are necessary, but I am not sure that this one is.
It is already the position, I am advised, under Section 8 as drafted that an increase or reduction of rent falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of Section 8(10) does not start the rent cycle regardless of when such an increase or reduction of rent is made. An increase or reduction of rent starts the three year cycle by virtue of Section 8(7)(b) unless the increase or reduction of rent falls within one of the categories in new Section 8(10) which are specifically excluded from the application of new Section 8(7)(b).
If that sounds complicated, then all I can say is that the amendment is complicated. I hope that my noble friend will think it is helpful for me to have given that

1059
brief and rather tortuous reply as to why I am advised that this particular amendment is not necessary. I hope that it may assist my noble friend in deciding what to do so far as the amendment is concerned for the future.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend has been more helpful than I was entitled to expect. I am grateful to him, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 28, at end insert (" , or any reduction of rent agreed between the landlord and the tenant of the holding in consequence of any change in the fixed equipment provided on the holding by the landlord;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an amendment similar to one I raised at the Committee stage. My noble friend and kinsman Lord Swinton agreed to have another look at it. It has been redrafted and is a technical amendment to make sure that if a reduction of rent is agreed between the landlord and tenant as a result of a reduction of fixed equipment, it does not start the three year cycle for rent again. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble kinsman for raising this point at Committee stage and putting down this amendment again today. He is absolutely right. It is something that had escaped us. Clearly where the landlord and tenant agree a reduction in rent in the way suggested by my noble kinsman this should not count for the purposes of the three year-old rule on rent reviews, and I am happy to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have made substantial progress. I am very grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 19, after ("tenant") insert ("either during any preceding tenancy held by him or during the current tenancy").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21, and suggest that No. 22 should be taken with it because they stand or fall together.
Amendment No. 22: Page 5, line 25, at end insert ("or without the tenant having been compensated therefore;").
Your Lordships will recollect that in subsection (5) of Clause 1 there is a reference to tenant's improvements. Then we find on page 5 in the new proposed Section 8A of the 1948 Act, and particularly in subsection (3) of it, a definition of tenant's improvements. I am obliged that that definition is all right so far as it goes, but it needs to have added to it the words on the Marshalled List set out in Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
The reason is that we ought to ensure that the tenant's improvements are disregarded whether they were carried out during the current tenancy or by the same tenant during a previous tenancy, unless equivalent allowance or benefit was made, or given, by the landlord in consideration of those improvements being made, or compensation paid for them. It is felt
1060
therefore that the definition on page 5 of tenant's improvements should be amended accordingly. That is the purpose of these two amendments, and I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for proposing this change. As I promised during Committee stage, we have considered the proposal put forward then by my noble friend, and it is really a single proposal of course although it needs two amendments. This amendment is a modification of what my noble friend was saying at that time. It has however been necessary to iron out certain difficulties which were raised by some organisations who were looking at the amendment, and who were I think entirely sympathetic to it; but I am glad to say that this has now been done although only in the past few days.
What I should like to do is to accept the amendment; but I am in a difficult position over this. Owing to the time factor, parliamentary counsel has not even seen it at all. If my noble friend will not think that I am cavalier in this matter, I would ask that I could have time to consult parliamentary counsel, but with an assurance that an appropriate provision will be handed to my noble friend to put forward, or if my noble friend by any chance is not in your Lordships' House to another noble Lord on my noble friend's behalf, or the Government on my noble friend's behalf. This is a matter which has been spotted by my noble friend and those who advise him, and we are extremely grateful.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am obliged. This is a satisfactory answer. As I said at an earlier stage, I have great sympathy with parliamentary counsel over this aspect. Trying to dovetail what the various parties want to get done by means of this Bill and dovetailing it into the previous law is a most frightful business. In the nature of things one could not table one's own amendments, even though people outside had been helping one with the drafting of them, until one saw the Government amendments on the Marshalled List. It is almost a vicious circle. But I understand, I sympathise, and I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
7.9 p.m.
Clause 2 [Abolition of statutory succession to agricultural holdings in the case of new tenancies]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) the tenancy was granted or vested in the circumstances specified in section 18(5) of that Act;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment No. 23 has as consequential amendments Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 to the first Schedule. They are set out on page 13 of the Marshalled List at the bottom of the page, and I should like to refer to them.
Amendment No. 63: Page 14, line 6, after ("let") insert ("(whether under a tenancy granted by the landlord or by an assignment of the current tenancy)")
Amendment No. 64: Page 14, line 8, after ("grant") insert ("or assignment")
Clause 2, as we all know, abolishes statutory succession to agricultural holdings in the case of new tenancies, but it states four exceptions to that rule. Those four exceptions are set out in subsection (2), and there is no need for me to repeat them. It is suggested that subsection (2) should be amended in such a way that Section 18(1) of the 1976 Act shall continue to apply in the case of an inter vivos cession. If I may, I should illustrate what may lie at the back of this. Let us suppose that in 1976 a tenancy was granted to a tenant whom we shall call T1. In 1985 the tenancy granted to T1 was surrendered by him in return for a new tenancy to T2 in circumstances specified in Section 18(5) of the 1976 Act. Unless Clause 2(2) of this Bill is amended, that new tenancy will be free of succession. That may be the wish of many of your Lordships. This, therefore, is a probing amendment. I am not committing myself to the principle. But the point should he clarified. The Government should state a view on it, one way or the other.
I am advised that what is in the Bill is not consistent with Government policy, which is to leave the arrangements already covered by the 1976 Act unaffected by the abolition of succession. In other words, the Government are saying—it is always right for Governments to say it where the citizen is concerned, where there are no concessions being given by the Government—"no retrospective legislation". It is to avoid retrospection that these amendments have been tabled. That is also the point I am making.
It could be said, "Let the parties in the circumstances I have mentioned contract in to the 1976 Act and make no special provision". That might work in some cases, but it might not be fair to some simple souls who were not alert to the need to contract in the avoid retrospection. Although my instinct is to go along with those who want to modify the right of hereditary succession, I feel that in justice and for the sake of clarity this is a matter that needs to be resolved. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend says. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the argument put forward by my noble friend but I feel that I must resist his amendment for the following reasons. After succession to new tenancies is excluded by Clause 2(1), a situation could arise in which the grant of a new tenancy is voluntarily offered by a landlord in circumstances similar to those discribed in Section 18(5). Your Lordships will remember that Section 18(5) of the 1976 Act is the provision for retirement counting for succession.
However, the landlord might voluntarily offer a new tenancy in those circumstances on condition, under this new law, that no further succession was to follow that tenancy. The prospective tenant may wish to accept these terms to avoid a contest and the risk of not succeeding at all. It is therefore not desirable for Clause 2(2) to apply automatically to inter vivos grants of a new tenancy in the circumstances to which Section 18(5) applies, because this would prevent agreements of the kind I have just tried to describe.
My noble friend said that it could be said that we were being retrospective. My noble friend fairly went on to say that he supposed that the landlord and the tenant could contract in. That is precisely what we
1062
should expect a landlord and tenant to do; to contract in to the succession arrangements by providing in the tenancy agreement that succession shall apply. An agreement in writing of this kind will be covered by Clause 2(2) (c).
I hope that that sounds fair. I believe it is and I hope that this has been a useful exchange and will enable my noble friend and those who are advising him to think whether they wish to carry this matter any further.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are indebted—everybody should be—to my noble friend for the clarification he has given as to the effect of the Bill in the circumstances I have described. It may be that that clarification is enough to alert all concerned, because it goes to show how in this branch of the law, which has become one of the most complicated branches of the law, nobody should ever act without the assistance of a professional adviser who can find his way through this labyrinth which already exists and which is becoming even more of a maze.
There it is. My noble friend's words are on record. I thought that he skated a little lightly over the retrospectivity point, but all concerned have been alerted and with what now is on the record I think we should leave the matter. It may be the subject of further consideration in another place, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("an agreement in writing") and insert ("a written contract of tenancy")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I regret to say that I cannot find my notes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 25:
Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the House was right to take the Minister on trust on the last amendment when he said that he could not find his notes, but sometimes we are giving too much trust to the Minister on the Bill. I am not being personal because the Bill is an agreed package, I will not say of a holy trinity, but of the trinity of the NFU, the CLA and the Government. It seems that we are taking a lot on trust today because, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, he has been among the foremost critics of Amendment No. 2 which, as he and others have said, is substantially the core of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said a few minutes ago quite correctly that this is a labyrinth of a Bill. I wish to be fair and say that that may apply to much legislation of this sort.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the noble Lord is quoting me he should do so accurately. I said that the existing law was a labyrinth and that this Bill makes it more of a maze.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an amazing observation. I will not go into the difference between a labyrinth and a maze, but I may be right in what I said, that any legislation of this sort

1063
is likely to be a labyrinth whether it is past legislation, present or future. When he says that those concerned would be well advised to seek specialised advice, that undoubtedly is true.
In the amendment we urge the House to leave out Clause 2, which is the clause which brings about the abolition of statutory succession to agricultural holdings in the case of new tenancies. This has been touched on in Lord Renton's last amendment. We have to look at the ancestry of this Bill. I think it was my noble friend Lord Northfield who referred to the sordid ancestry of the Bill. We must be absolutely sure that the industry and, in particular, all those who have an interest outside the NFU and CLA, are satisfied with the passage of this Bill and that it will achieve what it set out to do. That was, as we have said many times, to give more opportunity for new entrants into the industry and also to ensure the viability of those in the industry. We were also assured by the NFU that they were in support of the 1976 Act, which is concerned with succession, and in relation to which this clause seeks to end the statutory right. As we know, this concerns three generations, including the tenant concerned.
I do not wish to go into the merits of succession and of the 1976 Act because this has been debated many times and even many of those who support the Bill also have some regard for the 1976 Act with the security that it gives and the fact that a lifetime of work and capital investment and a lot of skill and training go into the building up of a farm and that this can be passed on to those who succeed. After all, there are still new entrants although one gets the impression that, unless land is put on the open market for sale to the highest bidder or what have you, the entry of new people is rather restricted.
It is important to remember that the NFU are exchanging the rights of many farmers in the succession aspects of the 1976 Act for the package which we have before us. The Minister will say that the House has voted in favour of Amendment No. 2—which was essentially the core of Clause 1 and much of the Bill itself with regard to the rent formula—but one wonders whether the voting in the Lobby was because that was about the best formula before the House and not necessarily because it was the right formula to do the job we have to do. I made a plea before we voted that it was not a matter of getting the best deal we can but of getting the right kind of deal. We all know that this kind of legislation does not come before the House very often and if we do not get it right at the start, then we are lumbered with a lot of shortcomings which will be irksome, to say the least, and cause an enormous amount of trouble to the industry. That, I think, accounts for the fact that the Government got Amendment No. 2 through the House. When one looks at some of the comments which were made during the debates on Amendment No. 2 and on other amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and my noble friends and others tried to amend with our amendments to Amendment No. 2, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as I said earlier, said, "Take back Amendment 2!" This is hardly a sign of great confidence in what it seeks to achieve. He had concern about the meaning of productive capacity. He
1064
called some aspects of the amendment unnecessarily verbose. I think I am right in saying that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that Clause 1 will not produce more tenancies. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, spoke about the extraordinary marriage of confusion with explanation and I think I am right in saying that he said, "Take this nasty thing away!"
There were an enormous number of critics and it is rather surprising to have a Government measure opposed by so many Lords who had misgivings about what Clause 1 would do. But the clause has been passed and, as I say, I think that is was because the House thought that it was the best amendment before us. If one were to ask noble Lords—especially noble Lords opposite—if they really believed that this is the kind of thing which the NFU and the CLA set out to achieve in the package, then I think that there would be some misgivings, to say the least.
This is the opportunity now on Clause 2 for us to ask whether in Clause 1 (which is the main part of the package) although it has been passed, we can all be satisfied without any doubt that this is exactly as we would have wanted it. I will not press that point. Maybe noble Lords will say what they think about it; although I am going by what has been said in the debates earlier today. The Minister rightly considered Clause 1 during the Committee stage and afterwards; and Clause 1 has been amended. But I ask whether it is the kind of thing that we should expect.
The House has voted after debate against the amendments which my noble friends and I tabled, amendments which added not only the need for productivity but also the profitability of a holding. It may be that in future, when the arbitrators are told by noble Lords opposite and their friends, that the profitability of a holding is not something of concern and is not in the Bill, then they may have some misgivings that they were not wise enough to vote for that when they had the opportunity. The CLA and the other bodies have been concerned that income from all uses of land, including non-agricultural land, should be taken into account in assessing the rental value. Amendment No. 10, to which I have made reference, sought to ensure that the holdings should not only be productive but profitable as well. It may be in the way in which things are going—and I have mentioned the dairy industry where the surplus is subject to a penalty and the co-responsibility levy and so on which will discourage over-production or, indeed, any production at all by cutting profitability—this is going to be an important point.
I would not want to say more about the CAP except that no-one in the industry can be happy about the future prospects of profitability on many aspects of food production. I say now that Clause 1 has been amended and that we are therefore, in this amendment, looking at Clause 1 not in view of the fact that the House passed it but as to whether it is adequate to do the job and whether it has justified the NFU saying that they are prepared to sacrifice the succession aspects of the 1976 Act in order to achieve Clause 1 as the main part.
I notice that the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers' survey of the let sector in 1983 was not as pessimistic about letting prospects as some who wished this Bill to be brought before us have claimed.

1065
I think I am right in saying that almost 60 per cent. of the tenanted land in private ownership was not re-let and that there were 5 per cent. more private lettings than during the year before. The House will recognise by the report (which they will have had an opportunity to study in full) that the situation is not as bad as some would wish and that the succession aspects of the 1976 Act have a real contribution to make. Therefore, I believe that the House will be well advised to question whether Clause 2, as it is, should stay in the Bill devoid of some of the improvements which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and other noble Lords on both sides of the House wished to put in before Amendment 2 to Clause 1 was accepted in its raw state.
I believe that this is the opportunity for the House to speak because it may well be too late if we allow the Bill to go on unamended in the way that it has; because this will surely not be what the two main organisations in the industry wanted when they were pressing the Government for reform. I think the time is coming when many outside will be saying that it is a pity that they sought any package deal at all in view of what they are getting as a consequence.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I have found him a little difficult to follow. I could not make out whether he was saying that because Clause 2 was complicated it should be abolished or whether he genuinely wants to put the clock back by saying we must keep succession provisions that came with the 1976 Act for the benefit of the industry, which is the only thing that can be inferred from this amendment.
If that is so, I must say that we discussed very fully in Committee the importance of Clause 2 of this Bill. The noble Lord has referred to the fact that we regard it as a key clause. I do not wish to rehearse again all the arguments as to why it is the centre of this rescue operation which the Government, by this Bill, are launching for the landlord-tenant system. I would merely remind noble Lords opposite that if there is anything which unites the whole industry and all the professional bodies concerned, it is that something ought to be done and done urgently to modify the succession provisions in the 1976 Act. If the Labour Party take the opposite view, then they do so in disregard of this great weight of opinion and of what has happened to the landlord-tenant system since 1976.
If there has been any criticism in this House of Clause 2, it has been that it does not go nearly far enough. Back in 1976 I took the charitable view that the Labour Party of the day just lurched into that unfortunate Bill, animated by very laudable but mistaken motives. But seeing this amendment being moved now, I must say that it raises all sorts of doubts in my mind. Do they really want a thriving letting sector or do they want to see it crippled so that it would appear to be ripe for the kind of treatment envisaged in the Labour Party's 1983 policy document, The New Hope for Britain? Or would it be the solution that was advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when we debated agriculture just about a year ago and this subject was raised? The provision of farms to let depends on confidence and the landlord-tenant system
1066
needs a shot in the arm. It does not require a coup de grâce, which is what you would get if you knocked out Clause 2.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to rise and totally support my noble friends on the Front Bench. I have listened to the noble Lords opposite, who are supposed to agree with Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution, arguing for a hereditary landed caste, and it is something that gives me quite enormous pleasure. It really is the most extraordinary piece of mental gymnastics or skating on a line, like one of those produced by Torvill and Dean on the ice rinks of Nottingham and Belgrade.
The merits of succession, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, said he was not going to discuss. I would suggest to your Lordships that the merits of succession are such that there are none to discuss. My noble friends, in my view, have not gone nearly far enough in releasing land from hereditary tenanted succession. We all agree—I think this is common ground between everybody—that it is very important to have a thriving tenanted sector. If you deprive the landlord, be he institutional, charitable or private, of the motive to let, he will not let. It is as simple as that; and since for a long time we have been depriving the people of the motive to let, consequently, as the Northfield Committee showed, we have been reducing the tenanted sector.
I must repeat again to your Lordships the parallel which there would be with the 1920s if we had said: "You will be forced to inherit a tenancy and you will be forced to pay more than you can afford for that farm". That is an exact parallel to what is being imposed upon the private landlord and the institutional landlord now. Unless we take that very simple lesson on board the system will fail; but if we are going one small step up the road towards abolishing hereditary tenancies on new lettings, that is—what was it Buzz Aldrin said?—"A small step for man but a large step for mankind", or something when he set foot on the moon: a very, very small start towards getting the landlord and tenant system such that we can increase the number of tenants in the countryside, so that we shall broaden and make the social life of the countryside come more to life than it is at the moment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with my two noble friends in what they have said. I, too, support the Government on this. I would only add that I am very surprised indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, whom I have known for many years and for whom I have a high regard, should have fallen into the error of saying that because some of us thought that Clause 1 was defective (for numerous reasons on which he and I agree) therefore Clause 2 should be jettisoned. I simple do not understand the reason for that. There is no reason and no logic. It is what lawyers pompously call a non sequitur.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, my noble friend, who has left his seat, used the word "hysteria" earlier (and he said he was not including me) on an earlier amendment. Quite frankly, I would suggest that a good number of noble Lords opposite are getting almost pathological about succession, and I use the word advisedly. If you take a look at a report which

1067
has just come out from the surveyors which gives some interesting figures, they show that last year 5 per cent. more farms came to be let and in their survey something round about 300 farms came on the market to let. That is 5 per cent. more than in the year before. So landlords are letting farms. You would think that the letting of farms had stopped completely, but that is not the case——
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? He mentioned surveyors—did he say that a report had been introduced by surveyors?
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, it was the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is more accurate.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, it probably is. I am sorry if I used the wrong word. This is the problem that we have of getting accurate figures of what is actually happening. Many noble Lords have just taken it into their heads that this has stopped lettings when the figures prove that it has not stopped the lettings, and farms are being let. As I pointed out in the figures that I gave at Committee stage, the graph shows a steady decline all the way from 1920 to the present day, with scarcely a move upwards or downwards, as the case may be, between 1976 and the present day. The Northfield Report, which has been quoted very freely, said that so far as they could see nothing would stop the graph from continuing. Certainly nothing up till now that has been produced in his Bill will stop it. A number of your Lordships have said that they do not think the Bill will do any good in increasing tenancies—if not in this House, then it has been said privately. I think I could quote the noble Lord, Lord Howard, but he is not in his place, I believe he thinks that as well—I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I see that he is in his place.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: Excuse me, my Lords; I was looking in despair downwards.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should like to go back to what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said during Second Reading when he pointed out what his family had done in the way of estate management and the letting of farms. I think he said that 8.9 was the proportion of land they had in hand and that that was about the correct amount of land. He also said that they had always re-let to sons and even looked for second sons to let to, but when it became mandatory to do that they objected to it. It is like the seat belt legislation. I remember that a noble Lord who is not here was very much against the seat belt legislation. He always wore a seat belt before, but when it became mandatory he objected co it. It seemed an extraordinary thing to do.
I should like to take the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to task. He said that I was anxious to create a dynasty of farmer tenants. I would ask him: Why not? I feel that a dynasty of farmer tenants would make a much better job of looking after the land than a dynasty of hereditary landlords has done. Over the last 50 or 60
1068
years, they have had to sell upwards of 60 per cent. of their estates. I know that I shall be told that that is due to taxation and so on, but that is absolute rubbish. There are any amount of estates under good management which have held on to their land, have managed it well and where people have succeeded in remaining as good landlords. So, for goodness sake, do not let us get emotional about landlords, taxation and everything else! My noble friend's point was simply that he was perfectly certain, as I am, that the NFU have nothing of what they wanted in Clause 1. That was the quid of the matter. The quo was giving up the tenancies, and because of the position in that connection we wish to retain the 1976 Act.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I wonder whether I may just explain to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, the reason for many landowners' fears of the hereditary provisions of the 1976 Act by telling a little story. Let us suppose that I let a farm which has fallen vacant. I go home to lunch with my son—who happens to be sitting on the steps to the Throne, listening to me—and I say "Charles, I have just given away half your birthright." He asks, "What do you mean?" and I reply, "Well, I've just signed a tenancy which reduces by half the value of the land that you are going to inherit." He then says, "I suppose you've let it to some worthy charitable cause", and I have so say, "No, I have let it to that nice guy down the road with a Range Rover and two daughters at Benenden." So he replies, "But I wanted to farm", and I have to say, "The only answer is that you will have to marry the eldest daughter. She will inherit the farm." It is the value of a farm that you give away when you sign a tenancy agreement today.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think I can say very much more than has been said on this point in the last quarter of an hour. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Renton, characteristically, had what should have been the last word when he said that Clause 2 stands by itself and, standing by itself, it does not look too good and it ought to fall. The fact of the matter is that this proposal would have the effect of continuing the three-generation succession, about which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just spoken in a very personal way, and it would have that effect for all tenancies, including new ones.
Noble Lords opposite will forgive me if I say that the amendment would be largely ineffective, because, as my noble friend Lord Onslow explained so clearly, the deletion of Clause 2 would ensure that very few new tenancies would come on to the market. Both the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, spoke about the CAAV's statistics, which show a rosier picture so far as the number of farms being let is concerned. That was entirely characteristic of both noble Lords, because, both having been Ministers in the Ministry, they have these matters at heart and are knowledgable on the subject. So, of course, I accept from both noble Lords that this picture is an accurate one.
But why has the picture been painted rosier in the last few months? It has been so painted, no doubt, because landlords and tenants knew that a splendid new piece of legislation was to go on to the statute book, which my right honourable friend the Minister

1069
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has very wisely put into the hands of your Lordships' House. Also, there is no question that landowners know that there is capital transfer tax relief which, in all equity and justice, has been granted by two successive Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer in 1981 and 1983. It must go to the hearts of both noble Lords because——
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, will the noble Lord let me get to my next full stop? It must go to the hearts of both noble Lords, because their hearts are so much in the right place. But, my goodness me, seven months ago what did the Labour Party do? They said, as part of their election manifesto, that they would remove all those CTT reliefs. I do not think you will find, if that sort of manifesto undertaking were carried through, and certainly if the move to leave out Clause 2 were carried through, that there would be such a rosy picture painted of the number of lettings in this country.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is it not a weakness of the Minister's case that he has called in aid some matters which are quite irrelevant to those that we are discussing? With regard to the report which we have quoted, surely this legislation is not retrospective. The lettings figures concerned are subject to the 1976 legislation on succession, and the provisions of this measure will not come into force until a date to be given later.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, both the points which the noble Lord has raised show that I was being relevant and I will now immediately explain why. Both noble Lords talked about statistics, but I ventured to put to the Committee of your Lordships' House that there had, if one was talking about the total area of the tenanted sector, been an accelerated decline in tenancies following the enactment of the 1976 legislation. That led to a certain amount of debate across the Floor, as to whether those statistics were valid, because one ought to talk not about area but about individual tenancies.
What I could have done, but did not, was to go on to point out that, other things being equal, one would have expected that the 1976 Act would, on any statistics, have slowed down the decline in the tenanted sector. That is because its effect has been forcibly to retain land in the occupation of successor tenants, when it might otherwise have fallen vacant. So I suggest that the effect of the succession provisions in the 1976 legislation, in terms of their disincentive to new lettings, must have been even substantially greater than the figures that I quoted in Committee some weeks ago.
But I return to the absolutely basic point which my noble friend Lord Swinton made when he wound up the Second Reading debate on this Bill in 1983. If we do not do something now about the succession provisions, there will be very few new tenancies. My noble friend Lord Middleton talked about a rescue operation. If noble Lords opposite want to preserve some form of tenanted sector, they will not do it by trying to force landlords to let land subject to three-generation succession. Those who want to obtain a
1070
first rung on the farming ladder realise this more clearly than most and that is why, in 1976, the young farmers came out strongly against that legislation. I put it to your Lordships' House that this clause is needed. As my noble friend Lord Middleton said, it is wanted by a great weight of agricultural opinion. It is therefore one of the fundamental objectives of this Bill, and I ask your Lordships to ensure that Clause 2 remains part of the Bill.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this might be a convenient, if rather late, time to adjourn the Report stage of the Agricultural Holdings Bill. May I suggest that further consideration on Report of the Bill shall not be resumed before ten minutes to nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 1984
7.51 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th December be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 1984. These regulations have been laid in draft under powers contained in the Consumer Safety Act 1978. Over the years, there has been increasing public concern over poorly made bicycles failing in use. In fact, the Department of Transport receives regular and, I regret, too many of these reports. As a result, these regulations have been laid. From discussions about pedal cycle construction standards I find that there are three main areas which give particular concern. These are brakes, conspicuity of cyclists and frame strength. I am pleased to say that the draft regulations which are before us this evening tackle these areas.
The regulations will make it illegal to sell new bicycles unless they comply with British Standard BS6102. This standard lays down safety requirements for all basic bicycle components. For example, brakes must meet tough performance tests in both wet and dry conditions, bicycles must be fitted with extra reflectors to aid conspicuity, including pedal and wheel reflectors, and bicycle frames must meet strength tests.
The bicycle supplier, whether he is the manufacturer, the importer or the retailer, is responsible for ensuring that the bicycle complies with the British Standard and is marked to that effect. The suppliers can carry out the test themselves or have it done at an independent testing station, such as that operated by the British Standards Institution.
The regulations contain various operative dates. These take into account the fastest practical speed with which manufacturers can supply bicycles built to the new standard and give dealers a reasonable period to clear old stocks. Any bicycle manufactured on or after 1st August 1984 must comply with the British Standard. Bicycles obtained by dealers before the regulations come into operation will be exempt from the new requirements until 1st April 1985. Those

1071
obtained after the regulations come into operation will be exempt until 1st November 1984.
It might be helpful if I turned to the regulations. Regulation 1 cites the title of the regulations. Regulation 1(2) deals with the operational date, which we hope will be 1st March of this year. Regulation 2(1) sets out the definitions, which are fairly straight-forward. Regulation 2(2) sets out the definition of the supplying source or supplier. Regulation 2(3) refers to the height of the saddle. If one refers to Regulation 4(2)(b), one finds that this is 635 millimetres, which I am told by noble friends is equal to 25½ inches. In effect, this establishes what might be called a bicycle for ordinary use as distinct from a toy cycle. Noble Lords may remember that in the past bicycle sizes were measured according to wheel size, but wheel sizes have changed dramatically and it is now thought to be more sensible to determine the size of a bicycle by its height.
Regulation 3 sets out the general terms of reference and refers in particular to the field of application of the British Standard. This is contained in British Standard 6102, from which I quote:
"Field of application. This part of the British Standard applies to bicycles intended for use on public roads and on which the saddle can be adjusted to provide a saddle height of 635 millimetres or more. It does not apply to specialised types of bicycles such as tradesmen's delivery bicycles, tandems, touring bicycles and bicycles designed and equipped for use in sanctioned competitive events.".
In particular, Regulation 3(a) refers to:
"including the requirement in paragraph 19 thereof"—
which refers to the British Standard—
"for a marking consisting of the number BS6102: Part I and the manufaturer's name or code".
Turning again to the British Standard, it reads:
"19. Each bicycle shall be visibly and durably marked with (a) the number of this British Standard, BS6012: Part I; (b) the manufacturer's name or code
Regulation 4 provides for what I can best describe as the do-it-yourself assembly of the complete kit of a bicycle which is sold by, perhaps, a store rather than as an already assembled bicycle, which is normally sold by a dealer.
Regulation 5(1) provides for the timings to which I referred earlier. This applies in particular to complete bicycles. Regulation 5(2) gives a list of exemptions from Regulation 3. Regulation 5(3) provides for an exemption for bicycles where the person supplying them has reason to suppose that they are not going to be used in the United Kingdom. This means that a manufacturer in the United Kingdom who receives an order from another part of the world for a specific standard—that is, for a standard different from that which is laid down in the British Standard to which I have referred—can make, store and eventually export that order, but he cannot supply it to the United Kingdom market.
Regulation 6(1) is similar in its provisions to Regulation 5(1) but covers the bicycle in kit form. Regulation 6(2) exempts used parts of bicycles. Regulation 6(2)(b) exempts new parts for those bicycles which are to be found in the exempted list, which is contained in Regulation 5(2), other than Regulation 5(2)(a)—the bicycle which has previously
1072
been supplied and used on a road. Regulation 6(3) is similar to Regulation 5(3). I have rather skipped over these points fairly quickly because they are self-explanatory; I thought it would be helpful if I dealt with them in that way.
We believe that these draft regulations are a very important step forward in improving bicycle safety. They have, quite deservedly, received widespread support after a good deal of consultation with all those who may be expected to have an interest in the matter. I believe that when these regulations are in force, they will stop the sale of poorly designed and poorly constructed bicycles, enabling people to buy with very much greater confidence. I commend the draft regulations to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th December be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the regulations. Although I do not wish to take up undue time, because there is important business to follow, I welcome, as I am sure the whole House welcomes, regulations whose intention is to provide for safety. In this case, I have two particular interests—first, because so many young people use bicycles, and we know of the accident rate among young persons who use bicycles; secondly, for many years I was a cycling club captain. It was almost as many years ago as I care to forget, but I still have those recollections.
When one first looked at the regulations, it was difficult to ascertain which parts of the bicycle were covered. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it clear that those parts are the brakes, conspicuity (as represented by the reflectors), and the cycle frame. The Explanatory Memorandum gave no indication of what was covered by the British Standard. I assume that parts such as pedals, cranks and so on are not embraced by the British Standard—therefore the number of items covered by these regulations is still very limited.
I noted that the Department of Transport's press notice No. 447 dated 8th December included a note to editors stating:
"British Standard BS 6102 lays down safety standards for all basic bicycle components and braking performance requirements".
It would appear from what the Minister has said that that note was incorrect. The standard does not cover "all basic bicycle components" unless the department does not include pedals, cranks and similar parts as being basic requirements—which, of course, I and most other people would do.
While dealing with this question of the British Standard I note that the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which considered the previous draft instrument which was withdrawn, discussed the availability of British Standards to help customers. This matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. He asked whether HMSO should not be more helpful in providing information to customers and perhaps even supply a copy of the British Standard, for payment of course. I will be interested to know whether the department has followed up the statement made to that Select Committee because I note from the Explanatory Memorandum that if one

1073
wants to know further details, one has to contact Milton Keynes, not the HMSO. I do not know whether the department has had any successful reports on that particular matter.
As the noble Lord said, Regulation 3 refers to fully made-up cycles, but Regulation 4 deals with the supply of parts. I should like to know from the noble Lord why Regulation 4 provides only for "two or more parts" outside the British Standard and which will create an offence under that regulation. Why two? Does it mean that if one fits a single defective part to a bicycle, then that is all right because it is not covered by the regulation? It may be that my reading of that regulation is incorrect, but it specifically states:
"Except as provided in Regulation 6 below, no person shall on or after 1st August 1984 supply two or more parts"—
whereas one can build up a bicycle supplied with just one part of something and one part of something else.
Regulation 5 stipulates various types of bicycles which are excluded from the regulations. One can understand why some types of bicycles have been excluded, but as one who rode a tandem for many years I should like to know why tandems are excluded from the provisions of Regulation 3. It may be that with the passage of years there are fewer tandems on the roads than in the days when I used to ride them, but why are tandems excluded? Does this mean that the British Standard does not cover tandems?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made reference to made-up machines. My tandems were always made up to my specifications; one did not just go and buy a tandem from the shop. The shop would offer different options and I would decide what I wanted to make up my own particular tandem. So why are tandems excluded from Regulation 5? I find that they are excluded also from Regulation 6. Even the supply of parts to be assembled in the form of a tandem bicycle are excluded from that regulation because tandems are excluded under Regulation 5(2). I will be very pleased if the noble Lord can deal with those points.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like very briefly to welcome these regulations and congratulate my noble friend on bringing them before the House tonight. I will not go through the regulations again because my noble friend has cogently and expertly presented them to the House, and has provided full details. I welcome these regulations because as a very keen motorist I am well aware of the fact that not only are many more children riding bicycles on the roads of this country today but many more adults also. If bicycles have to conform to a standard in the future, that will be of great benefit not only to cyclists but also to other road users.
My noble friend made reference to extra reflectors and also to brakes. One understands that brakes probably are a part of a bicycle as it is finished and sold; but I should like to know whether the extra reflectors—which I personally consider are very important, because I am very keen on the conspicuity of wearing apparel as well as of bicycles—will be part of the machine when it is sold, or whether they will be optional. If there are likely to be optional extras then parents and children may not go in for that extra cost because the bicycles themselves are expensive.
1074
Therefore, some children may be riding bicycles which are not so well lit as we hope they will be. That apart, I should like to commend this regulation. I hope that it may eventually save many lives, because there are a great number of accidents involving bicycles.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, while fully supporting all the safety regulations for making bicycles, I hope that the noble Lord will consider one or two other points. If a white or phosphorescent rear mudguard can be fitted to bicycles, it will certainly help to show up those bicycles in the dark. I have seen some old bicycles with no mudguard at the back at all. This means almost certainly that there is no rear reflector. If a dynamo lighting system is used and for some reason the bicycle is being pushed, the red tail-light is very often almost invisible—without, perhaps, the person pushing the bike even realising the fact.
As for the cyclists themselves, could they not be persuaded to wear a phosphorescent sash and possibly a phosphorescent stripe down their sleeves, so that when they wish to cross in front of traffic they can be seen from the side? The noble Lord said that reflectors on pedals and wheels will be compulsory. That will be of great help to motorists, especially on country roads. Several people have mentioned these problems to me; and as a driver myself, I welcome any additional safety measures for road users.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, although not so directly connected with those regulations, perhaps I may take 30 seconds to remind my noble friend that the most vital safety factor for pedal cyclists—and here I declare an interest in that I am a regular user of a bicycle and of the House of Lords' bike sheds—is the ever-increasing need for new and more comprehensive cycle routes in our big cities and more careful maintenance of roads. There must be particular emphasis on that vital area for cyclists; the four or five feet out from the pavement or edge of the road. Cycling over many areas of London, I can confirm that there are many sections of many roads where the condition of this vital part of the road makes it virtually unusable, thus causing most cyclists to use a more central and more dangerous route. In view of the increasing use of pedal cycles, I welcome these regulations, but would ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that the Government will have the interests of cyclists as a primary consideration.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lady Macleod, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn for their universal acceptance of these regulations. I will not take too much of your Lordships' time, but I feel that I ought to respond to those points that have been made, although I think perhaps the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn will accept that some of their points were perhaps a little wider than the regulations before us. Nevertheless, I am grateful to them for making those points.
May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on his captaincy of the cycle club. I wonder whether he would not like to take up tandem riding again; perhaps he does so on his holidays?
Lord Underhill: Perhaps with the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords, not with me. The noble Lord asked a number of questions. The British Standard does cover pedals, cranks and most of the major components of a bicycle. The standard is fairly extensive, and that can be obtained from the British Standards Institution at Milton Keynes or in London or Manchester, or from most chambers of commerce, Birmingham, Bristol, Dundee, Glasgow, Liverpool and Norwich. I believe it is a chargeable item, but I cannot tell the noble Lord how much it costs.
The noble Lord referred to the regulation referring to two or more parts, regulation 4. This provision deals with the kit or the partly assembled bicycle. It does not, of course, apply to the sale of individual components, but clearly two or more parts are required to make a bicycle; if you had only one part you could not go very far. That is really the explanation of "two or more"—because you need at least two, if not more. Paragraph (6) of the regulation provides for those parts and for the single component situation.
The noble Lord asked specifically about exemptions. Tandems are exempted, as are tradesmen's bicycles, for two reasons: primarily, we have not had any number of complaints about failure, because they are built to a very different kind of specification requiring different stresses and so on; and, of course, there are so very few of them. However, if we were getting complaints no doubt my right honourable friend the Minister of State in the Department of Transport would be encouraging the British Standards Institution to extend the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, I think—he will correct me if I got it wrong—that he went to the shop and had his tandem made up to his own specification. In that case the shop supplied him with the machine to his specification, and it would be for the shop to satisfy itself that those parts they put into the machine complied with the standard; they would be responsible. If the noble Lord went to the shop today for an ordinary bicycle—because tandems are exempted—and asked them to make it up with this sized wheel and this sized frame and so on, and they supplied the bicycle to him, it would have to be marked appropriately, as set out in the regulation.
Both my noble friend Lady Macleod and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, referred to reflection. I do not think either of them would expect me to read out the entire British Standard. It is No. 16; it covers quite a lot; it goes on through two pages, and sets out essentially that there shall be 10 reflectors on each machine, and that is forwards, backwards and sideways. A new regulation is a requirement for there to be reflectors on the wheels themselves. So we are doing quite a lot there. But nevertheless it does not absolve the user himself or herself from taking those steps quite proper to identifying themselves in inclement weather or in the dark, and by that of course I mean the wearing of diagonal reflective strips or armbands the like which RoSPA and others supply.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, mentioned particularly mudguards, asking whether mudguards would not help; people could hang another reflector on that,
1076
and she suggested that they should be made of a specified material. In fact, rather surprisingly, the British Standard does not require any mudguard at all to be fitted. That may sound surprising. It has not been considered that spray is a safety hazard. I seem to recall stripping the mudguards off my own cycle when I was a young man and found the whole business extraordinarily uncomfortable; it was not long before I put them back. That is the answer there. I do not think we would wish to bring into regulations matters of that kind. The noble Lady was really not so worried about the comfort of the bicyclist but rather about attaching reflective devices, and they can be attached to other parts of the bicycle.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn raised what I might even call a hornet's nest. I think we could have a whole debate on the points he raised. But I am grateful to him. He asked primarily whether I could confirm that the Government were attentive to the needs of the cyclist. I can say to him very specifically, yes, indeed, the safety of cyclists is a prime concern. Each year almost 300 are killed and over 25,000 are injured, and 40 per cent. of these are under 14 years of age. The Government are determined to improve the situation by providing better facilities.
The department continues to consider provisions for cycling facilities on its own trunk roads, and local authorities are encouraged to provide facilities. In the bids for transport supplementary grants for 1984–85 it was quite noticeable that more authorities had included in their transport policy and programmes more applications for support for cyclists. There are a number of large-scale urban cycling schemes. About 300,000 children receive formal training each year under the National Cycling Proficiency Scheme organised by RoSPA. In addition, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory not only research conspicuity garments but also do research into accidents and their prevention. There are indeed very many others, and I can send my noble friend a copy of the document.
My Lords, I think I have answered points raised as shortly as I can, because I know noble Lords have other business to do. I do not think I can add anything further, other than to thank noble Lords for giving support to these regulations, which I commend to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
8.20 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Saving for necessary surgical operations]:
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("(1)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are numeration amendments which pave the way to Amendment No. 3 and, with the leave of the House, I will present all three amendments together.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 2, leave out ("—(a)")
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 5, leave out from ("abnormality") to end of line 18.
I should like to sketch in the background to this amendment. The Bill has had a somewhat unusual history, in that it was introduced for the first time in March 1983 into this House and passed through the House unamended under the last Parliament. During its passage through the House, the Government, then in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the time, said that they had various doubts about the Bill and wanted improvements in it, but they never brought themselves to table any amendments. However, they did tell me roughly what their doubts were. Of course, the Bill fell at the general election because it had not gone into the House of Commons, and I reintroduced it in June after the election in a slightly different form. I made two changes. In the first Bill there was a provision that two general practitioners must certify that an operation was for the physical health of the patient. Operations would only be legal for the physical health of the patient and if there were two general practitioners who would so certify.
In order to help the Government in what I thought were reasonable objections I made two changes when the Bill was presented in June, on Second Reading. They were, first, that the two general practitioners should be reduced to one; and, second, that physical abnormality should become a reason for legal operations.
After Second Reading the present Government asked me to meet them and told me in great detail, and with great courtesy and care, what it was that worried them about the Bill. They wanted to make eight changes and asked whether I would co-operate in those changes and move the amendments. The changes were, first, that the sentencing should be brought more into line with modern practice; second, that the offence should become an extraditable one; third, that the visiting forces Acts should apply to this offence; fourth, that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland; fifth, that it should not be an offence if a demented woman attempted to carry out an operation on herself. I readily agreed with those five points. They were all clearly improvements and I have moved amendments on all of them which have been accepted.
Two more points gave me some cause to wonder. The sixth point was that the certification by even one GP should be removed: no certification should be required and only an opinion must be held and expressed by one GP. With those certifications the Government wanted the removal of the rather cumbrous provision for regulations to prescribe the circumstances in which certificates had to be preserved. The seventh request by the Government was that the limitation of legal operations to National Health Service hospitals or approved nursing homes should be removed from the Bill. After a good deal of thought and consultation, my noble friends who were interested in the Bill and I agreed that points six and seven should also be met in order to enable the Government to give its wholehearted backing to the Bill. Accordingly, I moved amendments and point six has already been accepted.
The eighth request from the Government was to ask me to co-operate with them in making mental health a ground for legal operations. After much consultation and thought, I declined to do that, and the
1078
Government therefore moved their own amendment —the only one of the points on which they moved their own amendment—and that amendment was rejected in Committee two weeks ago.
The amendments I have now tabled are the last in the series which I undertook to the Government I would move, and they have the effect of withdrawing the limitation on the places where legal operations may be carried out to National Health Service hospitals and registered nursing homes. That explanation, has been a little longer than I should have liked but the Bill is now getting a little complicated, I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Government are quite happy to see these amendments made. Indeed, we regard them as an improvement in so far as they remove the doubt that Clause 2 would otherwise have left about the legitimacy of minor surgery being performed by doctors in their consulting rooms.
I must make it clear to the House that the Government do not consider that this clause, even with the noble Lord's amendment, provides an adequate exemption for legitimate surgical operations. In the first place I am advised that it is at least arguable that the procedure of episiotomy which, as noble Lords will recall from our earlier debates, may be performed by midwives as a normal part of their practice, would fall within the definition of acts prohibited by Clause 1. The amendment does not cover this because it leaves the requirement for a registered medical practitioner to decide that the operation is necessary. Midwives do not as a rule work under the supervision of a doctor, and, when a midwife is practising independently, it is her decision whether or not an episiotomy should he performed.
The reason we have not proposed an amendment of our own to cover this point is that we do not consider that the grounds for surgery provided by Clause 2—namely, physical health or the rectification of abnormality—are sufficient to cover all the cases where it may properly be performed. Thus the clause would still be defective in our view even if it were put right on the question of midwives.
I am certainly not going to weary the House by reiterating all the arguments I put forward in Committee. I will simply say that the trouble with the phrase "rectification of abnormality" is that it presupposes an exact definition of "normality" against which individual cases could be assessed. The truth is that "normality", and its obverse, are not exact terms and their effect could only be to cause confusion and doubt for doctors and their patients in what is already a very sensitive field. Any noble Lord who rereads the report of our proceedings in Committee will see that this is the key issue and that we have not been trying to cater for what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested were "delusions of abnormality".
If, therefore, the Bill is now passed by your Lordships—as no doubt it will be—I think that the Government's position will have to turn in part on what the possibilities are of introducing further amendments in another place.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, these amendments are very complicated and I am sure that all of us want to see this Bill go through with its original intention carried out; namely, the prohibition of female circumcision. I feel that we are being sidetracked by a great deal of talk about midwifery procedures which are not strictly relevant but which may be incidental. It is not very helpful that some of these considerations have been brought in. In my view they are not strictly relevant. We all know what we are trying to do. We are trying to stop this terrible mutilation being carried out in this country. We are not concerned with the accepted procedures carried out by professional people in the course of normal health care and midwifery.
I very much hope that the difficulties which arise over Clause 2 will not encourage the Government to throw cold water on this Bill. It is a Bill which the House has shown that it wants. If there are defects in a particular clause, I think that it is the duty of the Government to try to put things right so that in another place some of these anomalies and contradictions may be cleared up.
This is a Private Member's Bill, so I can speak only for myself, but I personally feel that there are some difficulties about the amendment. In the first place, Clause 2(1)(a) makes the registered medical practitioner responsible for having an opinion that the operation needs to be carried out; but by deleting paragraph (b) we do not say that the registered medical practitioner should carry out the operation. If he is of the opinion that the procedure is necessary, it would be preferable for the registered medical practitioner to do the work that he considers necessary.
We all know how often midwives are working without a registered medical practitioner. I am wondering whether at a later stage we could bring in a specific amendment to include registered midwives along with registered medical practitioners, so that the question of emergency procedures in childbirth is clearly spelt out. However, I must repeat that it was not the original purpose of the Bill to deal with these midwifery procedures.
I appreciate what has been said about the legality of minor surgery being carried out in surgeries or at home. It may well be that we could lose the requirement that these procedures had to be carried out in a registered hospital or nursing home. But that is as far as I should want to go in liberalising the situation, if liberalising is the right word. I am very worried that under Clause 2 some of the practices which we wish to avoid and to prohibit could be slipped in. If we make it possible for the operation to be carried out by someone who is not a registered medical practitioner or a registered midwife, surely we are back to the unskilled mutilation which is the very thing we are trying to prevent.
I know that we are very much behind schedule. I hope that nothing I have said suggests that I do not wish the Bill well, because I certainly do. But I very much hope that some of our anxieties will be taken into account to make the Bill even better in sending it on its way.
I should mention one small point. I think that we are taking all three amendments together. Amendment No. 2 states:
"Page 2, line 2, leave out ('— (a)')".
1080
It should be "line 3". I cannot find a paragraph (a) in "line 2". That is just to show that I really have read the Bill.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I shall be very brief and I shall not mince my words. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, by this Bill, has shown himself to be one of the greatest benefactors to women in this age. We should be ashamed that we allow black women and other women from various countries to have the operation here. I believe that this operation should be made completely illegal here and not be allowed at all. It is just a continuation and prolongation of a completely ignorant attitude about female circumcision. All female circumcision should be made illegal, whether by doctors, specialists in hospitals, ignorant grandmothers, and so on. It should not be done under any circumstance whatever. I do not know why today we are contemplating it at all.
I have very little else to say. I think that I have made myself plain. Also I do not like doctors or hospitals interfering over the question of female circumcision and talking about cancer. It is irrelevant. Circumcision has nothing to do with cancer unless they start acting upon it. I repeat that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is a great benefactor in this age. We should all praise him. Circumcision is an abominable operation and we should not have it in this country for any reason whatever.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, of course the situation is complicated. During the passage of the Bill through the House the Government have had eight ideas about how to improve it; seven of them have passed into the Bill amid general agreement and one has been rejected by the House. I do not think that is too bad a score for a Government on a Private Member's Bill. I hope that they will not regard the one out of eight which has been rejected as such a stumbling block that they will do anything to moderate their approval for the Bill in such a way as to make its passage through the House of Commons more difficult.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed earlier.]
Lord Monson: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out, this amendment appears to contain a printing error. Is there any way that we can rectify that at this point, or do we have to let the amendment go through as it stands and put it right on Third Reading?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, may I intervene briefly to say that I am advised that it is a matter of printing and nothing more complicated than that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will accept that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I just add a word to say that I hope we can get this Bill perfect before it leaves this House and goes to another place. I think that the Minister is not quite happy about it. I have great sympathy for what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said. We have yet another stage,

1081
Third Reading. As we have spent so much time on this Bill, and it is not your Lordships' practice to send something that is not really right to another place, I am sure that with all the brains in this House, and if the Government really want the Bill to become law, they could make a big effort and get it right. I have this evening been to a party at the Speaker's House and have just heard that the operation is being performed at the London Clinic. I have also heard that it is carried out in Tower Hamlets and in Cardiff. It is important that we speed up the legislation and the Government take it under their wing.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government have made so many constructive recommendations which have improved the wording, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, agrees, and that they have given the Bill such strong support. I take the point that has just been made that it would be a pity if the final points raised and reservations made this evening could not be considered a little further at a later stage.
I should like briefly to express two concerns which have already been mentioned. The professional concern which I must express on behalf of midwifery is that the Bill, as it now stands, could leave midwives vulnerable if they were to undertake a procedure and were not covered by the wording as it now reads in the Bill. I would just ask that perhaps consideration to tidy up that point might be given at a later stage.
The other point which I think concerns many people in regard to the rewording arising from the amendments is the danger that the loss of the reference limiting the places where the operation would be acceptable might open the way for back street procedures. I wonder whether some consideration or further specification of appropriate places might meet that point. But in general I think that we very much welcome the Government's support for the Bill, and we hope that the tidying up processes will make it acceptable to everybody.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, first perhaps I may say to those noble Lords who have so far taken part in the debate that the Government of course entirely share the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. We——
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I am terribly sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I wonder whether he will speak up a little; I cannot hear him.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself audible to the noble Baroness. I should like to make it perfectly plain to all noble Lords who have taken part that of course the Government share the noble Baroness's distaste for female circumcision. What we are trying to do is not to allow female circumcision, but not to disallow one or two simple procedures which are nowadays carried out, or have been carried out for a number of years, by doctors, quite openly, quite legitimately, and quite sensibly. That is the purpose of many of the discussions that we have had not just tonight but also during the Committee stage of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said that it was not perhaps usual that we should pass on to another
1082
place a Bill which is imperfect. Indeed, we are not yet at the stage when the Bill goes to another place, and of course there will be room for further discussion upon it in due course. Nevertheless, I do not detract from what I said earlier when I spoke to Amendment No. 1.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for her general welcome of the Bill. Yes, it is a technical matter. There are one or two points which I explained that we were not ourselves amending for the reasons which I previously gave, and which I shall not now repeat. But, yes, there will be a chance to discuss the issues generally later, at Third Reading, or when the Bill passes. I hope that there will then be a further opportunity. But as I said when I spoke to the original amendment, the Bill is in imperfect state. I cannot go back on what I said at the Committee stage, and I do not propose to go back now on what I have said this evening.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the House is fortunate in that we are able to amend Bills at Third Reading. If there is a feeling in the House, shared by the Government that the Bill is imperfect in some way which has not yet been discussed at the Committee or Report stages—and that would of course apply to the midwife episiotomy question—then we have an opportunity to amend it at Third Reading. Naturally, I should favour an attempt which would seem to improve the Bill in this respect. If the present proposed timing in relation to the Bill—which is that we should have Third Reading within only a few days—is too fast, I should be perfectly happy to put it off, if the Government would be willing to prepare an amendment to achieve the desired effect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes to nine, when the House will resume for discussion of other matters.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.44 until 8.50 p.m.]

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
Report stage resumed.
Clause 3 [Amendment of provisions relating to statutory succession in cases not excluded by section 2]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amenment No. 26:
Page 7, line 23, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: With the agreement of your Lordships I should like to move Amendment No. 26 but to speak also to Nos. 27, 28 and 29 my Lords.
Amendment No. 27: Page 7, line 25, leave out ("unit" means a unit") and insert ("unit of agricultural land" means a unit of agricultural land").
Amendment No. 28: Page 7, line 29, at end insert ("; and, in so far as any units of production for the time being prescribed by an order under subsection (3B) below are relevant to the assessment of the productive capacity of a unit of agricultural land when farmed as aforesaid, the net annual income which that unit is capable of producing for the purposes of this subsection shall be ascertained by reference to the provisions of that order.
(3B) The Minister shall by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament—

(a) prescribe such units of production relating to agricultural land as he considers appropriate, being units framed by reference to any circumstances whatever and designed for the assessment of the productive capacity of such land; and

(b) for any period of twelve months specified in the order, determine in relation to any unit of production so prescribed the amount which is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (3A) above as the net annual income from that unit in that period.

(3C) Where a survivor of the deceased is, by virtue of a direction of the Tribunal under section 20 of this Act, for the time being entitled (whether or not with any, other person) to a tenancy of the whole or part of any agricultural holding held by the deceased at the date of death other than the holding, he shall for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of "eligible person" in subsection (2) above, be deemed to be in occupation of the land comprised in that holdng or (as the case may be) in that part of that holding.")
Amendment No. 29: Page 7, line 38, leave out from ("landlord") to ("and") in line 7 on page 8 and insert ("and in relation to any agricultural land which is—

(a) occupied by any such person; or

(b) the subject of an application made under section 20 of this Act by any such person;

(in each case whether that person is the person making the request or not) determine by reference to the provisions of any order for the time being in force under subsection (3B) above the net annual income which, in his view, the land is capable of producing for the purposes of subsection (3A) above, and shall issue a written statement of his view and the grounds for it to the person making the request.
The reference above to any agricultural land which is occupied by a person includes a reference to any agricultural land which is deemed to be occupied by him by virtue of subsection (3C) above.
(6A) Where—

(a) for the purposes of any proceedings under this Part of this Act the Minister has issued a statement to any person containing a determination under subsection (6) above made by reference to the provisions of an order under subsection (3B) above; and

(b) before any hearing by the Tribunal in those proceedings is due to begin it appears to him that any subsequent order under that subsection has affected any matter on which that determination was based;

he shall make a revised determination under subsection (6) above and shall issue a written statement of his view and the grounds for it to the person in question.
(6B) Any statement issued by the Minister in pursuance of subsection (6) or (6A) above shall be evidence of any facts stated in it as facts on which his view is based; and any document purporting to be such a statement").
The purpose of this group of amendments is to revise the machinery for the assessment of income of a commercial unit for the purposes of determining eligibility for succession. Perhaps I could just say, before going further, that we have tried in these amendments to deal with the assessment of income for the commercial unit test and that is all really that we have done here, as I will explain. So far as the question of eligibility is concerned—a matter in which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has, I know, taken a close interest and on which many noble Lords spoke—I wish that we could have brought forward the eligibility amendments that we have been working upon. But we have simply not been able to do so in the time
1084
available. All I can say is that I have written to the noble Lord. No doubt, he will say a word or two about that.
So far as the amendments before the House are concerned, the Bill as presently drafted changes the definition of a commercial unit from that contained in Part II of the Agriculture Act 1967 which was a unit capable of providing full-time employment for two people. The new definition in the new subsection (3A), lines 24 to 29 of this page of the Bill, depends upon the assessment of income from the unit which we believe is a fairer and more sensible basis. Your Lordships will recall that in response to Amendment No. 42 of my noble friend Lord Sandys, in Committee, I undertook to consider the possibility of describing the method of income assessment in a statutory instrument. That is substantially what these amendments do.
The income will be assessed in terms of units of production which we intend would be set out in a statutory instrument. I am speaking to Amendment No. 28 at the moment. These units reflect the average income that can be expected to be obtained from a comprehensive range of agricultural and horticultural enterprises. They are, in fact, the enterprise earned income figures produced annually by the Ministry of Agriculture presently used for the purposes of determining eligibility for the agricultural and horticultural development schemes. Consultations with both sides of the industry and the professions has established that this is the most appropriate method of assessing the earned income of the unit. That is all contained in subsection (3B) of Amendment No. 28.
In Amendment No. 29, it is further provided that the Minister shall give on request an assessment of the income which, in his opinion, the unit is capable of producing using the units of production set out in the statutory instrument extant at the time when the assessment is made. If there is a change in the statutory instrument before the tribunal hearing, the Minister will provide a revised determination. Finally, the assessment of income is to be evidence only and may be questioned by the parties to the tribunal hearing. However, it is only the choice of which units are in the Minister's opinion appropriate to the particular holding that may be treated as evidence in this way, for instance, if the Minister said that what ought to be used are the units relating to beef farming instead of to cereal growing and this is at issue. Once that has been decided, the units themselves will not be open to question.
There is one further important factor that I should explain. This concerns the new subsection (3C) to be inserted in Section 18(3) of the 1976 Act. This is the second part of Amendment No. 28. As I shall try to explain when we come to Amendment No. 65, a limitation that we propose is going to be placed on the number of tenancies to which a successor may succeed.
I am now moving closer to the matters raised so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in committee. The intention will be—I am back on Amendment No. 28—that having had the benefit of a direction of the agricultural land tribunal in his favour in relation to one or more tenancies, which, singly or together, make up a commercial unit, the applicant will not be entitled to a further direction under Section

1085
20 of the 1976 Act. The new subsection (3C) provides that where a direction is granted in this way, the applicant will be deemed to be in occupation of the holding to which the direction relates for the purposes of determining his eligibility to succeed to any further holdings. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Belstead for his strenuous efforts to improve Clause 3. As he has already advised your Lordships, these alterations relate to a chain of amendments. My noble friend has referred particularly to Amendment No. 28. I should like to say how much we appreciate the alterations, which go a very long way towards meeting the points raised in Committee. I listened closely to what my noble friend said in regard to (3C) and, as I understand him, the arrangement is that the proposals would be arranged towards the stopping of multiple successions. If this is the case, may I ask him one further point of elucidation—whether the applications for succession will be heard one at a time as suggested in the schedule to which he referred in Amendment No. 65? Perhaps it would be preferable to refer to it later when we reach Amendment No. 65, in which case I would be more than happy.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, may I say that I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for writing to me to explain that he had not yet been able to sort out the mass of problems—I agree that they are horrific—that surround the problem of eligibility to succession and that he would be trying to complete his discussions in time for an amendment on Third Reading. I accept very much what the noble Lord has said. I am grateful to him. I am glad that what he proposes is an important step along that road and that more will follow at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I express warm thanks to the noble Lord.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Northfield. The matters that the Minister has put before the House in these amendments are indeed welcome. We appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the amendments that we are now considering.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords. If I may reply to my noble friend Lord Sandys about applications when we get to Amendment No. 65, I would prefer to do that if I may, and I shall not say any more about these amendments. I wish that we could have brought forward the full battery of eligibility amendments. I think, however, that when we come, as we shall soon, to Amendment No. 31, which is linked to Amendment No. 82, on retirement—an amendment that extends to nine pages of the Marshalled List—it will be clear that that is the reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, saw and so generously said, why those who have been involved on the Bill have been up to their eyes in work. We shall continue to press ahead on this difficult area of eligibility. We believe that we can find our way through it. If we do, then, as I understand the sense of your Lordships' replies this evening, we shall have a new commercial unit test which is acceptable, which I
1086
have moved now. We shall have a new deeming arrangement to make sure that, at a particular given moment, a candidate for a commercial unit either may or may not be allowed to benefit from another Section 20 direction. Then we shall just need the eligibility amendments. Those we still await.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 27:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 28:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also goes with Amendment No. 26, to which I have spoken. I beg No move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 29:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also goes with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 10, leave out ("Part I of Schedule 1") and insert ("Schedule (Minor amendments with respect to statutory succession) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to bring the reference to Part I of Schedule 1 into line with the division of Schedule 1 into two schedules which will be proposed in Amendment No. 81. So Amendment No. 30 is linked with Amendment No. 81 and also with Amendment No. 57.
Amendment No. 57: Page 11, line 27, leave out ("Part II of Schedule 1") and insert ("Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments)")
Amendment No. 81: Divide Schedule 1 into two Schedules, the first (Minor amendments with respect to statutory succession) to consist of paragraphs 1 to 5 and the second (Minor and consequential amendments) to consist of paragraphs 6 to 46.
All these amendments deal with the same aspect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Nomination of successor by retiring tenant.
. Schedule (Statutory succession by person nominated by retiring tenant) to this Act (under which a person nominated by the tenant of an agricultural holding may apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for a direction entitling him to a tenancy of the holding on the retirement of the tenant) shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 31, but if I may, I shall speak to Amendment No. 82, which is the very long amendment which inserts a new schedule dealing with the question of retirement.

1087
Amendment No. 82: Insert the following new Schedule—

STATUTORY SUCCESSION BY PERSON NOMINATED BY RETIRING TENANT
Application of Schedule
1.—(1) Where—

(a) an agricultural holding is held under a tenancy from year to year, being a tenancy granted before the date on which this Act is passed or on or after that date in circumstances within section 2(2) of this Act; and

(b) a notice is given to the landlord by the tenant, or (in the case of a joint tenancy) by all the tenants, of the holding indicating (in whatever terms) that he or they wish a single eligible person named in the notice to succeed him or them as tenant of the holding as from a date specified in the notice, being a date on which the tenancy of the holding could have been determined by notice to quit given at the date of the notice and which falls not less than sixteen months after the date of the notice;

paragraphs 3 to 9 of this Schedule (except paragraphs 4(8) and 5(6), which are of general application) shall apply unless excluded by paragraph 2 below.
In this sub-paragraph "tenant" does not include an executor, administrator, committee of the estate, trustee in bankruptcy or other person deriving title from a tenant by operation of law.
(2) In this Schedule—
"agricultural land" has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the 1948 Act;
"close relative" means—

(a) the wife or husband of the retiring tenant;

(b) a brother or sister of the retirig tenant;

(c) a child of the retiring tenant;

(d) any person (not within (b) or (c) above) who, in the case of any marriage to which the retiring tenant has been at any time a party, has been treated by the latter as a child of the family in relation to that marriage;

"eligible person" means (subject to sub-paragraph (3) below) a close relative in whose case the following conditions are satisfied—

(a) in the last seven years his only or principal source of livelihood throughout a continuous period of not less than five years, or two or more discontinuous periods together amounting to not less than five years, derived from his agricultural work on the holding or on an agricultural unit of which the holding forms part; and

(b) he is not the occupier of a commercial unit of agricultural land or, if he is, he occupies it as a licensee only;

But in the case of the wife of the retiring tenant the reference in paragraph (a) above to the relative's agricultural work shall be read as a reference to agricultural work carried out by either the wife or the retiring tenant (or both of them);
"the holding" means the holding in respect of which the retirement notice is given;
"the nominated successor" means the eligible person named in the retirement notice;
"the relevant period" means the period of one month beginning with the day after the date of the giving of the retirement notice;
"the retirement notice" means the notice mentioned in subparagraph (1) above;
"the retiring tenant" means the tenant by whom the retirement notice was given or, where it was given by joint tenants (and the context so permits), any one of those tenants, and "the retiring tenants" accordingly means those tenants;
"the tenancy" means the tenancy of the holding;
"the Tribunal" means the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of "eligible person" in sub-paragraph (2) above any period during which a close relative was, in the period of seven years mentioned in that paragraph, attending a full-time course at a university, college or other establishment of further education shall be treated as a period throughout which his only or principal source of livelihood derived from his agricultural work on the holding; but not more than three years in all shall be so treated by virtue of this sub-paragraph.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of that definition—

(a) "commercial unit of agricultural land" means a commercial unit of agricultural land as defined by subsection (3A) of section 18 of the 1976 Act (taken with subsection (3B) of that section); and

1088

(b) where the nominated successor is, by virtue of a direction of the Tribunal under paragraph 4(5) below, for the time being entitled to a tenancy of any agricultural holding held by the retiring tenant other than the holding he shall be deemed to be in occupation of that holding.

(5) For the purposes of any proceedings under this Schedule in relation to the holding the Minister shall, at the request of the nominated successor or the landlord and in relation to any agricultural land which is occupied by the nominated successor, determine by reference to the provisions of any order for the time being in force under subsection (3B) of the said section 18 the net annual income which, in his view, the land is capable of producing for the purposes of subsection (3A) of that section (as applied by sub-paragraph (4)(a) above), and shall issue a written statement of his view and the grounds for it to the person making the request.
The reference above to any agricultural land which is occupied by the nominated successor includes a reference to any agricultural land which is deemed to be occupied by him by virtue of sub-paragraph (4)(b) above.
(6) Subsection (6A) of the said section 18 (revision of determinations) shall, with any necessary modifications, apply to a statement issued by the Minister in pursuance of sub-paragraph(5) above as it applies to one issued by him under subsection (6) of that section, and subsection (6B) of that section (evidential matters) shall apply also to any statement issued by him in pursuance of that or this sub-paragraph.
(7) Section 92 of the 1948 Act (service of notices) shall apply to a notice under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above as it applies to a notice under that Act.
Excluded cases
2.—(1) The following paragraphs of this Schedule shall not apply—

(a) if on the date of the giving of the retirement notice the tenancy is the subject of a valid notice to quit to which subsection (1) of section 2 of the 1977 Act applies, being a notice given before that date in the case of which either—

(i) the month allowed by that subsection for serving a counter-notice thereunder expired before that date without such a counter-notice having been served; or

(ii) the Tribunal consented before that date to its operation;

(b) if on the date of the giving of the retirement notice the tenancy is the subject of a valid notice to quit given before that date and falling within Case C or F in subsection (3) of that section;

(c) if on the date of the giving of the retirement notice the tenancy is the subject of a valid notice to quit given before that date and falling within Case B, D or E in subsection (3) of that section, and either—

(i) the time within which the tenant could have required any question arising in connection with the notice to quit to be determined by arbitration under the 1948 Act expired before that date without such a requirement having been made by the tenant, and the month allowed for serving any counter-notice in respect of the notice to quit expired before that date without any such counter-notice having been served; or

(ii) questions arising in connection with the notice to quit were referred to arbitration under the 1948 Act before that date and were determined before that date in such a way as to uphold the operation of the notice to quit, and (where applicable) the month allowed for serving any counter-notice in respect of the notice to quit expired before that date without a counter-notice having been served; or

(iii) the Tribunal consented before that date to the operation of the notice to quit;

(d) if the retiring tenant has at any time given any other notice under paragraph 1(1)(b) above in respect of the holding and an application to become the tenant of the holding has been duly made by any person under paragraph 4 below in respect of that notice;

(e) if on the date specified in the retirement notice as the date as from which the proposed succession is to take place the retiring tenant will be under sixty-five;

(f) if the holding consists of land held by a smallholdings authority or the Minister for the purposes of smallholdings within the meaning of Part III of the Agriculture Act 1970

1089
(whether the tenancy was granted before or after the commencement of the said Part III);

(g) if the tenancy was granted by trustees in whom the land is vested in charitable trusts the sole or principal object of which is the settlement or employment in agriculture of persons who have served in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces.

(2) The following paragraphs of this Schedule shall not apply if, had a sole tenant of the holding died at the date of the giving of the retirement notice in circumstances falling within subsection (1) of section 18 of the 1976 Act, the application of the provisions of Part II of that Act referred to in that subsection would have been excluded in relation to the holding by paragraph (e) of subsection (4) of that section; and the reference to that paragraph includes a reference to it as extended by subsection (5) of that section or by paragraph 9(1)(b) below in relation to a direction of the Tribunal under this Schedule.
Restriction on operation of certain notices to quit
3.—(1) This paragraph applies to—

(a) any notice to quit the holding given to the tenant thereof before the date of the giving of the retirement notice, not being a notice falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph 2(1) above; and

(b) any notice to quit the holding so given on or after that date.

(2) A notice to quit to which this paragraph applies shall not, if it would otherwise be capable of so having effect, have effect—

(a) at any time during the relevant period; or

(b) where an application to become the tenant of the holding is made by the nominated successor under paragraph 4 below within that period, at any time before the application has been finally disposed of by the Tribunal or withdrawn or abandoned;

and shall in any event not have effect if any such application is disposed of by the Tribunal by the giving of a direction under sub-paragraph (5) of that paragraph.
Application for tenancy of the holding
4.—(1) The nominated successor may (subject to paragraph 7(2) below) apply to the Tribunal within the relevant period for a direction entitling him to a tenancy of the holding.
(2) Any such application—

(a) must be accompanied by a copy of the retirement notice; and

(b) must be signed by both the nominated successor and the retiring tenant or, where the notice was given by joint tenants, by each of the retiring tenants.

(3) If the Tribunal are satisfied—

(a) that the nominated successor was an eligible person at the date of the giving of the retirement notice; and

(b) that he has not subsequently ceased to be such a person; the Tribunal shall determine whether he is in their opinion a suitable person to become the tenant of the holding.

(4) Before making a determination under sub-paragraph (3) above the Tribunal shall afford the landlord an opportunity of stating his views on the suitability of the nominated successor; and in making any such determination the Tribunal shall have regard to all relevant matters, including—

(a) the extent to which the nominated successor has been trained in, or has had practical experience of, agriculture;

(b) his age, physical health and financial standing;

(c) the views (if any) stated by the landlord on his suitability.

(5) If the nominated successor is determined under that subparagraph to be in their opinion a suitable person to become the tenant of the holding, the Tribunal shall give a direction entitling him to a tenancy of the holding.
(6) If the Tribunal dispose of the nominated successor's application otherwise than by the giving of a direction under sub-paragraph (5) above the retirement notice shall be of no effect (but without prejudice to paragraph 2(1)(d) above).
(7) For the purposes of this Schedule an application under this paragraph which is withdrawn or abandoned shall be treated as if it had never been made.
(8) Provision shall be made by order under section 73(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947 (procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals) for requiring any person making an application to such a tribunal under this paragraph to give notice of the application to the landlord of the agricultural holding to which the application relates.
Effect of a direction under paragraph 4
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this and the following paragraph, a direction by the Tribunal under paragraph 4(5) above entitling the nominated successor to a tenancy of the holding shall entitle him to a tenancy of the holding as from the relevant time on the same terms as those on which the holding was let immediately before it ceased to be let under the contract of tenancy under which it was let at the date of the giving of the retirement notice; and accordingly, subject as aforesaid, such a tenancy shall be deemed to be at that time granted by the landlord to, and accepted by, the nominated successor.
(2) Where the tenancy of the retiring tenant or (as the case may be) of the retiring tenants was not derived from the interest held by the landlord at the relevant time, the tenancy deemed by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above to be granted to, and accepted by, the nominated successor shall be deemed to be granted by the person for the time being entitled to the interest from which the tenancy of the retiring tenant or tenants was derived, instead of by the landlord, with like effect as if the landlord's interest and any other supervening interest were not subsisting at the relevant time: but this provision shall not be read as affecting the rights and liabilities of the landlord under this Schedule.
The reference above to a supervening interest is a reference to any interest in the land comprised in the tenancy of the retiring tenant or tenants, being an interest created subsequently to that tenancy out of the reversionary estate immediately expectant on the term granted by that tenancy and still subsisting at the relevant time.
(3) If the terms of the tenancy to which the nominated successor is entitled by virtue of a direction such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above would not, apart from this subparagraph, include a covenant by the tenant not to assign, sub-let or part with possession of the holding or any part thereof without the landlord's consent in writing, sub-paragraph (1) above shall have effect as if those terms included that covenant.
(4) Any tenancy of the holding inconsistent with the tenancy to which the nominated successor is entitled by virtue of such a direction shall, if it would not cease at the relevant time apart from this sub-paragraph, cease at that time as if terminated at that time by a valid notice to quit given by the tenant.
(5) The rights conferred on any person by such a direction (as distinct from his rights under his tenancy of the holding after he has become the tenant thereof) shall not be capable of assignment.
(6) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament provide for all or any of the provisions of this Schedule (except this sub-paragraph) to apply, with such exceptions, additions or other modifications as may be specified in the regulations, in cases where the nominated successor, being entitled to a tenancy of the holding by virtue of such a direction, dies before the relevant time.
(7) In this paragraph "the relevant time" means the date specified in the retirement notice as the date as from which the proposed succession is to take place or such later date as the Tribunal may, on the application of the tenant, specify in such a direction.
Arbitration on terms of new tenancy
6.—(1) Where the Tribunal give a direction such as is mentioned in paragraph 5(1) above, subsections (3) to (8) of section 24 of the 1976 Act (provisions as to arbitration on terms of new tenancy) shall have effect in relation to the tenancy which the nominated successor is entitled to or has obtained by virtue of the direction, but with the substitution—

(a) in subsection (4) of a reference to paragraph 5(1) for the reference to section 23(1) of that Act;

(b) in subsection (5)(a) of a reference to the tenancy of the retiring tenant or (as the case may be) tenants for the reference to the deceased's tenancy.

(2) In those provisions, as extended by sub-paragraph (1) above—
"the landlord" means the landlord of the holding;
"the tenant" means the nominated successor;
"the relevant time" has the meaning given by paragraph 5(7) above;
"the prescribed period" means the period between the giving of the direction and the end of three months immediately following the relevant time.
(3) Section 77 of the 1948 Act (arbitration under that Act) shall have effect as if in subsection (1) the first reference to that Act included a reference to this Schedule.
Effect of death of retiring tenant on succession to the holding
7.—(1) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) below apply where the retiring tenant, being the sole (or sole surviving) tenant of the holding, dies after the date of the giving of the retirement notice but before the relevant time (within the meaning of paragraph 5 above).
(2) If the tenant's death occurs at a time when no application by the nominated successor has been made under paragraph 4 above or such an application has not been finally disposed of by the Tribunal, the retirement notice shall be of no effect and no further proceedings shall be taken under this Schedule in respect of it; and accordingly, subject to section 2 of this Act, section 18(1) of the 1976 Act shall apply on the tenant's death in relation to the holding.
(3) If the tenant's death occurs at a time when any such application has been so disposed of by the giving of a direction such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 above, that paragraph, paragraph 6 above and paragraphs 8 and 9 below shall continue to have effect in relation to the holding; and accordingly section 18(1) of the 1976 Act shall not apply on the tenant's death in relation to the holding.
(4) If the tenant's death occurs at a time when any such application has been so disposed of otherwise than by the giving of any such direction, section 18(1) of the 1976 Act shall, subject to section 2 of this Act, apply on the tenant's death in relation to the holding, but no application may be made on that occasion by the nominated successor under section 20 (or 21) of that Act in relation to the holding.
(5) Where the retirement notice was given by joint tenants and one of those tenants, not being the sole surviving tenant of the holding, dies, his death shall not affect any rights of the nominated successor under this Schedule.
Effect of direction on succession to other holdings under the 1976 Act
8. Where—

(a) the retiring tenant, being the sole (or sole surviving) tenant of the holding, dies; and

(b) the nominated successor is for the time being entitled to a tenancy of the holding by virtue of a direction under paragraph 4(5) above,

then for the purpose of determining whether, in relation to any other agricultural holding held by the retiring tenant at the date of his death, the nominated successor is a person in whose case the condition specified in paragraph (c) of the definition of "eligible person" in subsection (2) of section 18 of the 1976 Act is satisfied, the nominated successor shall be deemed to be in occupation of the holding, and subsection (6) of that section shall have effect as if the reference to subsection (3C) of that section included a reference to this paragraph.
Effect of succession of nominated successor on succession under the 1976 Act
9.—(1) Where the nominated successor obtains a tenancy of the holding by virtue of a direction under paragraph 4(5) above—

(a) subsection (2) of section 2 of this act shall apply to the tenancy as it applies to a tenancy obtained as mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, and the reference in paragraph 1(1) above to that subsection accordingly includes a reference to it as applied by this paragraph; and

(b) that occasion shall for the purposes of subsection (4)(e) of section 18 of the 1976 Act (exclusion of Part II of that Act where two successions have already occurred), in its application on the death of a tenant of the holding or a related holding, be deemed to be an occasion on which there died a sole tenant (within the meaning of subsection (1) of that section) of the holding and a tenancy of the holding was obtained by virtue of a direction of the Tribunal under section 20 of that Act.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) above "related holding" means, in relation to the holding, any agricultural holding comprising land the whole or a substantial part of which is comprised in the holding.")
If the House agrees them, these amendments would implement part of proposals put forward by the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association seeking to facilitate succession when a tenant who is over 65 years of age wishes to retire. At present a tenant can pass on his tenancy during his lifetime only if the landlord agrees.
1092
These amendments provide that when an existing tenant over the age of 65 who enjoys rights of succession under the 1976 Act wishes to retire and nominates a successor, the Agricultural Land Tribunal will have discretion to allow succession, provided that the applicant satisfies the requirements as to eligibility and suitability. The procedure to be followed is set out in detail in the new schedule, Amendment No. 82. Under paragraph 1 of the new schedule a tenant wishing to retire is required to give notice to the landlord at least 16 months before the proposed retiring date, which must be a term date, naming the person he wishes to succeed him. Provisions as to eligibility, including the commercial unit test, which the would-be successor must satisfy, are set out. These follow those in the 1976 Act, as amended by this Bill, including the new provisions in Amendment No. 65, which we have not yet reached, restricting the number of holdings to which a successor may succeed.
Paragraph 2 of the schedule excludes for the provision a tenancy which is subject to an effective notice to quit and cases where a previous application has been made under these arrangements; it prescribes a minimum age of 65 years for the retiring tenant; it excludes statutory smallholdings and applies only where tenants enjoy rights of succession under the 1976 Act.
Under paragraph 3 a notice to quit which has not been determined at the date of the retirement notice or which is served after the retirement notice will lapse if an application for succession is approved by the tribunal. Under paragraph 4 the nominated persons must, within one month of the retirement notice, apply to the tribunal for succession, attaching a copy of the retirement notice. The tribunal must satisfy itself as to the applicant's eligibility and suitability. The landlord is afforded the same opportunity to contest suitability as in the 1976 Act.
Rules of procedure for tribunals will be made under Section 73(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947 which will enable landlords to contest the eligibility of applicants. Paragraphs 5 and 6 incorporate procedural provisions relating to the tribunal's direction and to arbitration on the terms of the new tenancy, comparable to Sections 23 and 24 of the 1976 Act as amended by this Bill.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 set out the effect of death of the retiring tenant on succession to the holding. Paragraph 7(4) would prevent an unsuccessful applicant for succession on retirement being able to reapply for succession on the death of the tenant. Paragraph 9 provides that a succession on retirement under these provisions will count as one of the two successions allowed under the terms of the 1976 Act.
That is the effect of the different paragraphs of this very long schedule, but it attempts to put a very simple principle into effect—the principle that somehow we must make it easier for tenants to be able to retire and nominate successors if we are to try to encourage the turn around of successions more frequently than has happened in the past. I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, there is one thing that I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Belstead to consider in this particular amendment. This amend-

1093
ment allows a tenant to serve a notice. The tenant is given an option to set in motion a succession procedure. This is a one-way option. If there is an elderly tenant who ought to retire, the landlord still has to wait until his death.
It would seem to be a fairer provision if this provision allowed the options to be mutual, exercised by both parties, so that the son, who is anyway going to succeed, could succeed prior to the death of the tenant, and enable the farm to continue probably to be looked after better. It is only a provision that I am suggesting that my noble friend should consider in order to accelerate something where the landlord has no power to accelerate it and the actual tenant has passed the age where he should still be, so to speak, in the saddle.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think we would all welcome this clause and the schedule. I read it through. It seemed to take an awful lot on paper to carry out what one would think would be a simple amendment. However, we must accept that the draftsman has gone into it carefully and that it requires this long schedule. The point that the noble Viscount mentioned, that the landlord should have the right to insist on the retirement of a tenant who he thinks is not farming well, or is just aged, is a difficult point. We had the argument about whether we should fix an age when we discussed this at Committee stage.
If the tenant has a successor working on the farm it is slightly different. With all the new eligible people who are being controlled now, the man should be working on the farm, so I think that the noble Viscount's point is met if the person who is going to succeed is managing the farm. I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says on this point.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I think that this is a good amendment, and I support it. I cannot go along with the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. It perhaps sounds logical, but let us look at the situation as it might well arise. If the father, let us call him, or the tenant, does not wish voluntarily to surrender the tenancy to his son or next relative, for the landlord to impose it upon him against his will would lead to an unhappy family situation which cannot be in the interests of the farm itself. I do not think it is in any way practical for that reason.
My only query about this amendment which, as I say, I support, is why it is not going to be open to a tenant to apply before he is 65 for this to be done. There can be cases—and there are cases I personally have come across—where an extremely good tenant meets with a serious accident, or becomes incapacitated through disease, and is anxious to hand his tenancy on to his son, who may be 30 by then—he himself being perhaps 50 or 55—and whom he would like to succeed him. Most good landlords would agree to take the son into partnership, but if there are going to be proposals as set out in this amendment whereby the tenancy can be surrendered at the age of 65 in favour of a son, or a suitable successor, I think it should be possible for it to be done at an earlier date where the tenant himself is incapacitated through
1094
accident or disease., I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider that, or give us cogent reasons why it is not a starter.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, this series of amendments meets all the points we raised at Committee stage, and covers the recommendation that my committee made in paragraph 634. Those of us who tried amateur drafting at Committee stage to cover this point were devastated to find that when it is done properly it needs nine pages. It shows how far astray we can be when as amateurs we try to do the job of the parliamentary draftsmen.
On the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, raised, may I say that some members of my committee saw the point about the reluctant tenant. There is some force to the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that it could lead to bad family situations. In fact, it might heal a bad family situation when the landlord is able to say to some recalcitrant old man who will not retire, "Your son should take over", and that would bring to an end what might have been a continuous running fight in that family about the need for the elderly tenant to make room for the next one. That can cut both ways. There is something to be said for a landlord power to trigger this mechanism.
I will say no more than that, but I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will confirm that the Government have considered this and rejected it. It is important for us to know whether the door is still open on this issue or whether they have considered it and rejected it.
On the point about retiring earlier than 65, I guess that the amendment provides for that, but again I am a little lost and should be interested to know whether I am right.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the suggestion which came from my noble friend Lord Dilhorne worried the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I think it would also worry the Government, because it would come very near to compulsory retirement. That is also what the noble Lord Lord Walston, was saying.
But, if the tenant is unsatisfactory, in the sense that he is not keeping up to the requirements of good husbandry, the landlord can apply for a certificate. I know we have been over this ground before, but the suggestion from my noble friend which we feel would come very close to compulsory retirement is not something we would want to consider, because, ever since the Bill was introduced we have always said that we would consider what in effect would be voluntary retirement which is what the NFU and the CLA considered.
That leads me to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Walston: what about the age of 65 being a lower retirement age? The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, answered part of that for me by directing my attention to paragraph 634 of his report, where the noble Lord's committee recommended that transfer should be at the age of 65. In addition the negotiations within the industry have been on this basis.
I am not entirely sure that all the factors have been in the minds of those who have been considering this.

1095
I should like to look again at the noble Lord's report. But, speaking off the cuff, there would be a danger if we lowered the 65 year-old age because, imperceptibly, pressure would begin to be brought on tenant farmers to retire. This would not be desirable.
I have been asked a direct question by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. That is, would the Government consider this point or are our minds closed to it? Obviously our minds cannot possibly be closed on an enormously long schedule which we were only able to get down last Thursday. It would be wholly unreasonable for me to suggest that to your Lordships. I have staked out the ground as best I can about what the considerations are in our minds if we are to return to this point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4—[Amendments with respect to length of notices to quit]:
9.18 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, line 33, after ("months") insert ("which may terminate on a date other than the end of a year of the tenancy")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should explain that Clause 4 deals with the giving of short notice for the termination of an agricultural tenancy and details the circumstances in which such notices should be given. It is especially subsection (3) which this amendment would amend.
Presumably it is the intention of the Government that subsection (3) affecting short notices should enable a notice to terminate on a date which is not necessarily the end of the year of the tenancy. Indeed, as the holding may be deteriorating seriously and rapidly, it is sensible that that should be so. But I suggest that the wording is not quite clear on this point.
The Agricultural Law Association has pointed out that there is a good precedent for wording which puts the matter at rest, removes any doubt and it is to be found in the Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit) Act 1977 in Section 5(1)(h). These words to be found in Amendment No. 32; the words to be inserted after "months" in line 33, are:
"which may terminate on a date other than the end of the year of the tenancy".
This is very technical but it seems to me that that would set the matter at rest and remove doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton and, once again, I welcome the search for clarity in this legislation. But, with respect to my noble friend and those who advised him on this, I think that this is unnnecessary for these reasons. Where bad husbandry is established, the new subsection (6) specifically provides for a period of notice of not less than two months to terminate the tenancy. This means any period of two months; and, if I may say so, it entirely displaces the provisions previously applicable in Section 1(1) of the 1970 Act, which talks about 12 months from the end of the then current year of tenancy. It is not just the case of substituting "two months" for "12 months" in the words just quoted.
1096
The wording which we have chosen here and which is troubling my noble friend has been put in quite specifically to provide for a period of notice of not less than two months to terminate the tenancy. I hope that that explanation may satisfy my noble friend that there is nothing between us so far as my noble friend's intention is concerned, only as to whether the drafting of the Bill achieves that intention.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I say that, speaking for myself, I am convinced by my noble friend's explanation. It is a very narrow, rather subtle point. I say, with respect, that I think he has got it right. I must apologise that I referred to a new subsection (3). It should have been subsection (6) as my noble friend has said. With that explanation, and in the hope that those who inspired me to move the amendment are satisfied also, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Amendments with respect to cases excepted from restriction or operation of notices to quit]:
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("omitted") and insert ("replaced by the following words—
"Case A—the landlord is a smallholdings authority for the purposes of smallholdings within the meaning of Part III of the Agriculture Act 1970, and—

(a) the holding was let to the tenant in pursuance of the said Part III as a tenancy terminable between the seventh and tenth year of the tenancy;

(b) the notice to quit takes effect not earlier than the beginning nor later than the end of that period;

(c) the instrument under which the tenancy was granted contains an acknowledgement signed by the tenant that the tenancy is subject to the provisions of this Case; and

(d) before the notice to quit takes effect the tenant has been offered the tenancy of another smallholding suitable to his needs and resources in terms of size and type of enterprise to be carried on or which otherwise satisfies criteria agreed between the landlord and the tenant.".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. He is not here and he has asked me to move this amendment, and I gladly do so. In the Committee stage the noble Viscount moved an amendment about starter holdings among smallholdings. It was essentially to allow, on the lines of the recommendations of the Northfield Committee, for fixed-term tenancies in the smallholdings system terminable between the 7th and 10th years—and I quote:
"for young people starting out to prove themselves and giving them that period to do so and build up capital".
That was essentially the form in which the noble Viscount moved the amendment in Committee. I intervened to point out that his amendment did not contain some safeguards which my committee had recommended; namely, that the tenancy should not terminate unless the county authority had a holding further up the ladder, a larger holding, suitable for him to move on to, and, secondly, that if they did not have such a holding to offer to him then the notice to terminate at the 10th year would lapse and the county would fail to get possession.
This was to prevent hardship among smallholding tenants if the county authority could not offer them something to move on to when they had proved

1097
themselves in a starter holding for which they had a tenancy for from seven to 10 years. When I made my objection at Committee stage the noble Viscount took it away and consulted with the Association of County Councils who are behind this amendment and fully support the principle. They have now come up with the revised wording which is on the Marshalled List. This provides the sort of safeguards which my recommended. In subparagraph (c) the tenant has to sign at the beginning that he fully understands what he is taking on—that it is a seven-year tenancy. In subparagraph (d) the tenant must have been offered a smallholding suitable to move on to before the county can claim possession at the end of the short lease.
There may be some doubt as to whether subparagraph (d) is sufficient, because it says that we have to be assured that he has been offered the tenancy of another smallholding "suitable to his needs". An immediate query might be: what if they do not agree about whether the holding is suitable? That is covered in fact, because this amendment is to a part of the original Act where these matters of dispute are referred to the agricultural lands tribunal. There is no doubt at all that there is sufficient arbitration on the issue of suitability if a conflict arises.
I am glad to say that this amendment is fully in line with what my committee recommended, and I am happy to recommend it to the House. I understand that in some discussions with the Ministry of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, there has been some hint that it might be preferable, instead of having this specific provision for starter holdings, for the matter to be left to the use of what are called Section 2 licences by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said on Second Reading, and has since repeated, that the Government propose to use Section 2, under which the Government can give short tenancies and provide for certain kinds of starter tenancies. I understand that the point has been put to the Association of County Councils that that might be the way to operate starter holdings in the smallholding system as well.
I am afraid that just will not do at all, and I want to be quite clear in saying that. I say it for three very important reasons. First, if we relied on the Minister's use of discretionary powers under Section 2 to give short-term tenancies, this poor tenant of a starter smallholding would be denied the benefits of a proper agricultural tenancy for a period of as long as 10 years; and the benefits of a proper tenancy are very important indeed. For example, they include provision for compensation on termination and all sorts of things like that, which represent very important protection indeed for the tenant. None of these would be available if we relied simply on Section 2 powers.
The second reason why use of these powers would not lead to a satisfactory conclusion is that it would take away the vital recommendation of my committee about the right of the tenant to remain on the starter holding or to move on to a larger one. That is a very important part of the amendment. So Section 2 powers would not give him the right to remain if there was not a suitable tenancy to move on to, and we would find that a very great drawback to the use of Section 2 powers.
The third reason is an equally cogent one, as to why Section 2 would not be good enough, because this has nothing to do with the Ministry; it is a matter for the county council. They manage smallholdings. They have to decide the length of tenancies and similar matters in line with their general management policy. It would be quite wrong to leave decisions on this matter to the Ministry of Agriculture, who really have no role at all in managing smallholdings in the national system.
For all those reasons, I hope that we shall not be asked by the Government to make do with the proposed extension of the use of Section 2 powers. It is much better to legislate separately for the smallholdings system, as is proposed in this amendment, and to put in the very important safeguards which are in paragraphs (c) and (d), and which were an essential—and, indeed, a crucial—part of my own committee's recommendations. So I beg to move this amendment and hope that it will be accepted.
Lord Pry's-Davies: My Lords, we on these Benches are pleased to support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. In Committee, we were concerned that there would be this difficulty if the tenancy had been terminated between the seventh and tenth years and there was no alternative accommodation. Paragraph (d) meets the edge of our criticism, because it provides for suitable accommodation to be made available and, in the event of a dispute as to whether or not the alternative tenancy is suitable, the matter can be referred to the agricultural land tribunal. So we support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment, probably for reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will not accept. I happen to think that if we are to increase the tenanted sector of the agricultural community there must be a small element—not a large element—of fixed-term tenancies and this is a small step in that direction. I would have a small guess that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will not support fixed-term tenancies in the case of private landlords, but he will happily support them for county council landlords. That seems to me to be slightly illogical thinking. If we are to have fixed-term tenancies because they will increase the supply of tenanted land—which large numbers of your Lordships think is right—then it does not matter from where that supply of tenanted land comes. It does not matter who the landlord is or what size the holding is. Having said that, I support the principle of short-term tenancies and will pray it in aid when we come to my Amendment No. 51, when I expect that the noble Lord will be speaking against it and when I shall have no hesitation in reminding him of his inconsistency on that point. But as a start this is very worthwhile and I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, while I recognise from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that my noble friend Lord Ridley, in whose name this amendment is down, has moved nearer to the recommendations in the Northfield Report, I remain to be convinced that the amendment will achieve my

1099
noble friend's aim of improving mobility in smallholdings estates.
The difficulty is that the fact which faces us is that in the 10 years leading up to 1982–83 only 14 tenants, on average, every year out of 7,000 smallholdings estates moved to another rung on the farming ladder. I think that we would all share the disappointment at this lack of mobility. But it drives one to the conclusion that one must look very carefully at what we think we are gaining from enabling smallholdings authorities to grant fixed-term tenancies. I accept that my noble friend Lord Onslow will be gaining a very useful paving amendment for his Amendment No. 51, to which we shall come a little later. Having said that, I realise that all the way round the House there has been support for this amendment, so may I add one or two quick words as well? Yes, I was going to say that I thought Section 2 would be another way of going about it. The new arrangements to be introduced with the coming into force of this legislation will give scope for trial tenancies. However, I take on board the three criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has levelled against them, and I need to think about it.
May I, though, ask your Lordships to consider this point? The amendment would achieve a large number of smallholdings tenants on fixed term tenancies which might have to be renewed every seven to 10 years, because the tenants have nowhere else to go. While the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, was good enough to say that my noble friend Lord Ridley's amendment was more or less in line with the recommendations in his report, it is fair for me to make the point that the amendment is not in line with the Northfield Report on one crucial point: that the report said that such tenants ought to move on to a larger holding.
When one looks at paragraph (d) at the top of page 7 of the Marshalled List, it is a little difficult to see what would be achieved. Almost all that would happen would be that tenants on short-term tenancies would be shuffled around from one similarly sized holding to another. I realise that there is a little more to it than that, because it might mean that a holding could be vacated which an incoming tenant could
1100
occupy, whereas the vacating tenant might find it perfectly easy to move to a different geographical location or to another holding on the same location. Therefore I wonder whether we could take this away and think about it again.
I do not want your Lordships to think that the Government's mind is closed. We shall come to two amendments on the Marshalled List which I very much hope to be able to accept. They are amendments relating to smallholdings which have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Ridley. I am rather worried about writing into legislation a provision which could be of almost no effect, yet we could be writing into legislation the very important principle of shorthold tenancies about which we always need to think carefully before embarking upon that course.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. If I may make one brief comment, my impression—it is no more than that because I have not followed the matter so closely as I ought to have done in the years since the report was published—is that county councils have been spending some years upon reorganising their system of smallholdings and, with amalgamations, have been trying to produce larger, more viable holdings. I feel that, if the county councils were in a position to give people a start on a small smallholding of, perhaps, 20 or 30 acres, they would be encouraged by the amendment to say that they must continue the reorganisation of their holdings in order to provide holdings of particular sizes so that there is a ladder up which people can move. Although the noble Lord is quite right in saying that very few people do move at the moment, I believe that that movement could be encouraged by allowing the county councils to pursue further reorganisations and provide a ladder whereby they could make use of the provision if it becomes law. Therefore I beg the noble Lord to think about this point, which would be in line with what the County Councils Association have in mind. Nevertheless, after the kind undertaking which the noble Lord has given to consider the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.40 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.34:
Page 9, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For Case C there shall be substituted—
"Case C—on an application under subsection (4) the Tribunal—

(a) were satisfied in relation to the holding that the tenant was not—

(i) managing it to the standard which would be required by a responsible landlord; or

(ii) farming it in accordance with the rules of good husbandry; or

(iii) managing or farming it to the standard which would be practised by a responsible tenant on a comparable holding; and

(b) certified that they were so satisfied not more than six months before the giving of the notice to quit, and that fact is stated in the notice".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I moved an amendment very similar to this at Committee stage. The reason I put down this amendment again is that at Committee stage the amendment was rather badly drafted. Therefore, I should like to draw the attention of the House to this amendment and to the consequential amendment on the next page of the Marshalled List, Amendment No 36.
Amendment No. 36: Page 9, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4) of section 2 of that Act for the words "his responsibilities to farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry" there shall be substituted "the responsibilities set out in paragraph (a) of Case C above".").
These amendments clarify the difficulties that we encountered at Committee stage. During that stage, I received the support of the noble Lords, Lord Northfield and Lord Mackie of Benshie. My noble friend the Minister kindly said that he would look at this matter again if we could provide further evidence. I wrote to my noble friend on this matter but I must admit that I have not been as diligent as I ought to have been in following up this matter due to the fact that other aspects of the Bill have taken more time than I anticipated.
The point that brought it all home was that, in respect of Amendment No. 31, my noble friend said that if a tenant was not farming up to standard there could be the service of a notice to quit on the ground of bad husbandry. At that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, raised his eyebrows and said we had been through all that before. The fact is that I do not wish to go through all the arguments again, but it is very difficult to secure a notice to quit on the ground of bad husbandry. I am therefore asking my noble friend Lord Belstead whether he could keep the door open, as he kindly offered to do at Committee stage, so that we may return to this aspect to see whether we can improve matters. As my noble friend acknowledged at Committee stage, some of the onus is on him as well. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I feel that I am being obtuse, and if I am, I know that my noble friend Lord Caithness will tell me so. My memory of what he said at Committee stage is not what it should be, but how does he distinguish between bad management and bad husbandry? The two would seem to be very close and the distinction between them must be very narrow. If under Clause 5(3)(a)(i) the tenant is not managing well although he may be a good farmer, surely his financial
1102
situation will eventually lead him to giving up the tenancy, in which case Case C may not be necessary.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if I may reply, with the leave of the House, the person who can differentiate best between farming and management will be my noble friend sitting in front of me, Lord Sandford. The point I made at Committee stage was that I wanted to look at this matter from a broader aspect than just farming. Bearing in mind the tremendous pressures of conservation, recreation and the other uses to which farm buildings can he put, I wanted the whole matter to be brought under an agricultural tenancy and thus broaden the scope. That requires management as opposed to just farming.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl is persevering with this matter. It is a very difficult point. Getting certificates of bad husbandry is like getting a camel through the eye of a needle, as I understand it. Landlords now have almost given up trying. Such case law surrounds this aspect, and there is such difficulty in proving deterioration of the land—which is essentially the important point in obtaining a certificate of bad husbandry—that the likelihood of getting a refusal has deterred landlords from even trying, even when they know that tenants are well below standard.
When the noble Earl moved his amendment at Committee stage, the Government replied that all the tests he put in his amendment are already in the law as it stands. I believe they were probably right about that. They challenged the noble Earl to add to the law in some way that would strengthen the powers of landlords. I think he has probably done so in this draft. It does meet two particular points which were spelt out in exactly these words in my own committee's report. We suggested, in heavy black type, that people should be meeting the standards of a responsible landlord. We suggested also in heavy black type that the procedure ought to be reviewed to strengthen the powers of the landlord to obtain possession. I only hope that, after reflecting on the matter between Committee stage and Report, the Government are going to be helpful and say, "All right. It may not be quite right as drafted, but there is a very strong point here".
Everybody in the industry knows about this. If there is a very unhappy situation in this matter, somebody—namely, the Government—ought to take the initiative in finding out whether the law can be improved. I do not think it is right for them to keep on saying to the noble Earl, "You must provide the redraft of the law". The Government know the law is being disregarded or is defective; I do not know which it is. I think there is an onus on the Government, if they do not agree to the drafting, to take this away and say, "We know there is a great deal of disquiet and it is part of our responsibility to see whether we can legislate to improve the matter". I therefore support the noble Earl, and I am glad he is still pressing this matter.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am very interested in this point. I do know that the question of giving someone notice to quit on the ground of bad

1103
husbandry is a very difficult one indeed. I am intrigued at the noble Earl's point about the difference between management and farming; I think he has a very real point there which he explained to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. You could quite easily say that a farm was not being managed well if the system was wrong. You could say it was bad husbandry if the land was dirty and so on. I think there is a major difference, which I am glad the noble Earl has brought out, between management and actual farming.
I remember an occurrence on these lines where the farmer had a field of strawberries which were filthy with weeds and he was told that this really was bad husbandry. He said, "Really it is not because I do not have to straw them in the summer; the weeds take the place of the straw, and this is a good crop". It was definitely bad husbandry, but he could make a case that it was not. I know the difficulties there. I think you might have a very much stronger case on the question of bad management. So I think we could support the noble Earl.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot support the noble Earl. I have sympathy with what he is trying to do but I think one uses common sense, which should be used perhaps rather more than is the case in matters of bad husbandry. Husbandry and management so far as the tenant farmer is concerned go hand in hand and cannot be distinguished. If you manage badly, in my submission, you are practising bad husbandry, and if you farm badly, even though you may technically appear to be managing well, you are still practising bad husbandry. The law is there; it is not being implemented properly; I do not know why. It may be because landlords do not like to bring cases against tenants; it may be because tribunals before whom such cases come have been unduly lenient.
I do suggest to your Lordships that there are sufficient laws of the land at the moment to enable anybody who farms badly, however it is defined, to be, first warned, and, secondly, turned out by his landlord. I do not think there is need for any further legislation or any amendment of this kind.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should like to be more helpful to my noble kinsman, but I really do feel that the ball is still very much in his court. When considering his Amendment No. 48A during Committee stage it was suggested that if my noble kinsman could indicate what additional factors the tribunal should be expected to take into account the point would be considered further. I understand that he wrote a letter to my noble friend Lord Belstead but he did not produce any more evidence or suggest what additional factors could be taken into account.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has a very good point. I do not know where farming stops and management begins. I am looking at the section of the 1947 Agriculture Act which is the law on bad husbandry, and, although it is turned the other way round and says what good husbandry is, I quote from it:
1104
"(a) permanent pasture is being properly mown or grazed and maintained in a good state of cultivation and fertility and in good condition;
(b) the manner in which arable land is being cropped is such as to maintain that land clean and in a good state of cultivation and fertility and in good condition;"—
I should have thought that that would cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, about the weeds—
"(c) the unit is properly stocked where the system of farming practised requires the keeping of livestock, and an efficient standard of management of livestock is maintained where livestock are kept and of breeding where the breeding of livestock is carried out;
(d) the necessary steps are being taken to secure and maintain crops and livestock free from disease and from infestation by insects and other pests;
(e) the necessary steps are being taken for the protection and preservation of crops harvested or lifted, or in course of being harvested or lifted;
(f) the necessary' work of maintenance and repair is being carried out."
I should have thought that that covered management as much as anything else. It seems to me that day-to-day management on every farm is covered by what is there. I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate that the Government cannot accept my amendment, but I asked whether the door was open to further negotiation. When I wrote to my noble friend Lord Belstead on 5th December, I had no idea until receiving my noble kinsman's reply that the evidence I had produced was not what he wanted. If I had been told, I should have followed it up much faster than I have done. Can my noble kinsman say that the door is open and that we can discuss this, because obviously there is much feeling about the matter.
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, the door is always open so far as my noble kinsman is concerned, and I am sure we can discuss this further. However, we should like to have some evidence and hard facts on where it is going wrong.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful. If the House will bear with me, I will quote from column 529 of Hansard of 28th November. My noble friend Lord Belstead commented that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, had made a good point in saying that the present law was a dead letter and that,
"we shall need to consult the industry with some care"—[Official Report, 28/11/83; col. 529.]
Therefore, I hope that my noble kinsman will also consult at his end. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert—
("(5A) The following subsections shall be inserted after section 2(4) of that Act
"(4A) In determining whether to grant a certificate under subsection (4) above the Tribunal shall disregard any practice adopted by the tenant in pursuance of any provision of the contract of tenancy, or of any other agreement with the landlord, which indicates (in whatever terms) that its object is

1105
the furtherance of one or more of the following purposes, namely—

(a) the conservation of flora or fauna or of geological or physiographical features of special interest;

(b) the protection of buildings or other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest:

(c) The conservation or enhancement of the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside or the promotion of its enjoyment by the public.

(4B) For the purposes of Case D and Case E any provision such as is mentioned in subsection (4A) above shall (if it would not otherwise be so regarded) be regarded as a term or condition of the tenancy which is not inconsistent with the tenant's responsibilities to farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley and the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. In doing so, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86, which are amendments to Schedule 3 and are consequential.
Amendment No. 84: Schedule 3, page 31, line 11, leave out ("Subsection (3) of section 5 of this Act does") and insert ("In section 5 of this Act—
(a) subsection (3) and subsection (5A), so far as relating to section 2(4A) of the 1977 Act, do")
Amendment No. 85: Page 31, line 12, leave out ("and subsection (5) of that section") and insert—
("(b) subsection (5)")
Amendment No. 86: Page 31, line 15, at end insert—
("(c) subsection (5A), so far as relating to section 2(4B) of that Act, does not apply in relation to any act or omission by the tenant occurring before the commencement of this Act.")
My noble friends have asked me to apologise on their behalf for their absence as they are both, alas, abroad.
With Amendment No. 35 we return to the topic of conservation, which was raised more than once in Committee, notably on Amendment Nos. 47, 48 and my own Amendment No. 61C. Although those amendments all started from different points and covered slightly different aspects, and were not acceptable to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I think the House will agree that there was at the end of the day, agreement that there is a need for legislation of this kind—namely, agricultural holdings legislation—to be seen to encourage and to support management agreements whose purpose it is to conserve the beauty and the amenity of the countryside and the public's enjoyment of it. It is necessary to support those management agreements rather than hamper them or discourage either the landlord or the tenant from entering into them. There was also the feeling—and this perhaps is the point which was not fully covered, at least by my own amendment—that such amendments needed to be designed in order to give even-handed protection to the landlord over against the tenant or to the tenant over against the landlord.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Belstead, as are many others who are concerned about this matter, for having taken the matter away, for having considered it, for having convened several meetings with the Association of County Councils, the Countryside Commission, the National Trust, the Nature Conservancy Council, the CLA and the NFU, and for having produced the amendments which it is now my honour to speak to. I am sure that it was not an easy agreement to achieve. All the organisations that I have just mentioned are most grateful to my noble friend for what he has managed to bring forth.
I am not exactly sure why, having succeeded in producing the amendments, my noble friend has asked the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and myself to move them. Being of a suspicious mind—and as I know that this has happened before—I hope that it is not to leave the Government the freedom to knock them out when the Bill gets to the Commons. We should be grateful for an assurance on that point. Subject to that, we are all extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for having been able to produce these amendments.
I should like to go on to take up the point which my noble friend makes to me in his letter commending these amendments. He said that he would like to pursue further a point which a number of us have made before. My noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, have just stressed it again. Nowadays, even if there was not always, there is more to managing an agricultural holding than just farming it. And there is more to management agreements than the pursuit of conservation. This was a point that a number of us made at Committee stage. But I do not think that our minds were quite meeting on that point. It is not something that has been fully covered in these amendments, although they go a good deal further than many of us had expected when we were discussing the matter at the earlier stage.
Since the Committee stage I have had the benefit of visiting Devon; I visited Dartmoor and the estates of the Duchy of Cornwall for which a comprehensive and integrated management plan has just been devised. I shall not mention the particular holdings concerned. I was shown them by the Ministry's own surveyor for the region and by the national park officer himself. On the first of them there were considerable restraints on what the tenant was going to be able to do—things which he would have been able to do had his holding not been in a national park but which he was constrained from doing because it was important to conserve the landscape.
In order, as it were, to compensate him and bring the tenant's income up to a viable figure, he was advised and encouraged to go into—and has in fact started—farm tourism. In the process of going into farm tourism, some of the buildings of that agricultural holding are used differently. They are not being used for agriculture, whereas they might have been in other circumstances. There is a modification to the management of the holding in order to go into farm tourism which this kind of legislation does not seem to support in a way similar to that in which the Minister and everyone else agrees it should do in the case of conservation.
The next-door holding was one which was similarly constrained. (Both these holdings are in less favoured areas and are very difficult to farm.) The possibility of improving the agricultural productivity of the holding was again barred by the need to conserve the landscape. In that particular case some of the farm buildings had been converted with advice from CoSIRA into small industrial workshops—not agricultural workshops. There again is a modification of the management of the holding. I remain to be convinced that this legislation has yet been adequately amended

1107
to deal with circumstances such as those two that I have just described.
However, I shall not weary the House any longer now. My noble friend has made very considerable progress in meeting the desires expressed in Committee in respect of amenity and conservation, and we are all extremely grateful for that. We should like to pursue with him the further matter of other modifications to the management of an agricultural holding for reasons other than conservation. The bodies concerned about this matter are the Countryside Commission, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the National Trust, the Development Commission, and the RICS, and we all very much look forward to meeting my noble friend to discuss it. I beg to move.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has not yet sat down because I should like to ask him whether he can explain to me—I am sure that I am far more ignorant than other Members of your Lordships' House—the precise meaning of the word "physiographical" in his amendment.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I think that in the circumstances that is a question which my noble friend on the Front Bench might be able to answer a little better than I can.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, in view of the business still outstanding, I shall be brief, but I want to endorse some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, though of course I speak for the Opposition. The amendments are apparently the result of the consultations which have taken place with a number of bodies, including the National Trust, and I again declare an interest as a member of the council. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, I should like to say that the Government have gone some way towards meeting the pressures which were obvious during the Committee stage. Indeed, some of us were rather concerned that the Minister showed less than what should have been enthusiasm for some of the points which had been made. I feel that again we need to stress that conservation is not one-sided, that it should be a partnership between the landlord and the tenant and all those concerned, and that in many ways it is really good husbandry in itself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said, we need to look at management agreements. Bearing in mind that the law requires that conservation should be observed and that there are natural restraints which may affect the viability of the holding, I feel that even greater consideration should be given to some of these necessary restraints and to the acceptance of the fact that conservation is good husbandry, is in the interests of all of us, and is not necessarily detrimental to the working of the holding. With those few comments, I commend the amendments.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this matter was raised in Committee by my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and it is because it was proposed and spoken to by those noble Lords, that I very much welcomed the
1108
opportunity to be able to make arrangements so that my noble friend Lord Sandford could move this amendment this evening. If I may say so, the credit goes to him and to his noble friends for moving the amendment. That is the reason why the amendment has not been moved as a Government amendment. Having said that, woe betide me if I try to forecast what will happen in another place, and I fear that even to my noble friend I shall not do so. But I make it unreservedly clear that the Government welcome these amendments and are exceedingly glad that my noble friend is moving them this evening. That is the first point.
The second point is that my noble friend suggested that the amendments could be improved, and he gave examples in particular arising from the time when he saw developments outside the normal farming operations undertaken in the Duchy. All I would say to that is, yes, I should welcome a talk about it and I think that it should be an official talk, properly conducted. Perhaps we can get on with it, and I shall undertake to convene a meeting if that is acceptable to my noble friend.
Thirdly, the National Trust wrote to my noble friend and sent a copy of the letter to me. Although my noble friend did not I think, move on to the point, it would perhaps be for everyone's benefit if I dealt with the National Trust's point. The National Trust was concerned whether this amendment covered manmade structures designed to improve the landscape. My advice is that it is the Government's belief that the word "enhancement" must apply to the work of man and that it is capable of covering man-made features that enhance the natural beauty of the countryside. This would include buildings that have been designed or adapted to blend into the countryside as well as hedges and trees. So far as the word "physiographical" is concerned, it is, in very simple terms, a description of nature.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I had received the same letter from the National Trust, but I did not raise the point just now because I was entirely satisfied that the amendment that my noble friend on the Front Bench had so helpfully drafted for us fully met the point. I was going to tell them so tomorrow, but now they will be able to read it themselves. My own view, in responding to what my noble friend has just said, is that it would be well, following any discussions that we have, even if we find an amendment that we could put down, to leave these amendments dealing with conservation alone. They have been agreed and settled after long and difficult discussions and I would be loth to be instrumental in messing them about. If we can find another amendment that deals with management agreements to do with issues other than conservation, I would greatly prefer to try and get them into the Bill as a separate exercise on another occasion. But that is only a matter of tactics.
As to what may happen in another place, I hardly liked to mention my suspicions just now. When I did mention them a week or so back to one of my noble friend's officials, he said, "Oh, that would be very uncharacteristic of my Minister". Indeed, we know that it would be. With the assurance that he has given

1109
us in addition to that, I think that we can rest content that this constructive piece of work will remain in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
10.8 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) A new Case shall be added as follows—
"Case I—at the date of the giving of the Notice to Quit the tenant, under a tenancy agreement which had been entered into after enactment of this Act, had passed the age of 65." ")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new amendment, which concerns new tenancies only, is to enable landlords, at their discretion, to serve notice of retirement on tenants from the age of 65. In other words, it means that new tenancies would run to retirement age. Obviously, this would produce more farms to let. Some say that it would double the number of farms to let. I do not want to labour that point. I want to use it as a starting point. The Tenant Farmers' Association, whose amendment this is, considers that it would keep farms in younger hands, give more people the chance to farm and create more mobility. The association says that lifetime tenancy often discourages the making of proper retirement plans but that under these proposals a son should be able to find out earlier what his future is.
There have been certain changes in this amendment since Committee stage which I should mention. The amendment no longer stipulates use of the statutory repair rules, which meets a criticism made by my noble friend the Minister. Nevertheless, may I still register disapproval of agricultural leases being fully repairing and insuring, and of the value added tax rules which prompt this kind of tenancy. There are now no other qualifications restricting the operation of the notice to quit, such as insistence upon reletting the holding or a bar on amalgamating the holding. I want to see that enough owners are encouraged to let. What is wanted is a reasonable legal and tax climate so that that comes about—a legal and tax climate in which owners are no longer forced into wishing to take more and more land in hand. I know that the Tenant Farmers' Association believes that that is the way in which to solve our difficulties. It believes that if tenants thought it through sufficiently, they would react to these ideas in the same way as it does.
My amendment makes no reference to pension provisions, which are the subject of an amendment to my amendment. I should like to take this opportunity to say that lack of a retirement provision is believed to be a principal objection to tenure to retirement age from the West Country and Wales. I do not know the extent to which this has been researched, and I wish I did. If it is true, if one was trying to do something about it, one would know that one was working on the right lines.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, certainly has my moral support and I should like to take this opportunity to say that, although I appreciate there may have been less helpful amendments that he could have tabled (whatever
1110
happened to Clause 2?), I am grateful for what he has done over this one. I should have liked to say that I agreed with it straight away before it was tabled, but I foresee certain difficulties which should he mentioned.
First, I think that larger tenants can perfectly well manage to provide for retirement on their own. That is a point that should be made. Secondly, bearing in mind that these are new lettings of holdings, we should try very hard to avoid letting farms that are so unviable that they will not enable the tenant to provide for his retirement. Thirdly—and this is well worth pondering on further—when the landlord gives notice to quit I think that my amendment results in him becoming liable for compensation of a year's rent. This compensation would be a capital sum. Section 34(1) of the 1948 Act comes into play here. It is a pity that this money, if it has to be paid, should not be more effectively deployed into a self-employed pension annuity for a tenant, because I believe that that type of policy is by far the best and most cost-effective way of making a retirement provision.
There could be tax difficulties here for the landlord, and that is why I am hesitant about this amendment. If help over these pension arrangements could achieve agricultural leases to retirement age, in my view there could be a great deal to be gained. I know that my noble friend the Minister will say that this is no good without broad support from the industry. I want to say a few words about that because there are a few straws in the wind. I have known for a long time that there is some sympathy for these proposals in NFU circles. It has come to my ears that several county branches of the NFU have in fact sent resolutions to their headquarters broadly supporting an amendment of this kind. I believe that these were grass roots movements promoted by local branches, and this is significant.
One wonders how clearly the degree of support for lifetime tenancies, or for tenancies at retirement age, is really known and particularly what are the main objections to tenancy to retirement age. We are unlikely to legislate again over this for a long time, and I wonder whether the subject of my amendment has been adequately canvassed. I believe that 70 per cent. of the membership of the National Farmers' Union are owner-occupiers. It may be because of this that they have suffered the emergence of the Tenant Farmers' Association, which is a small organisation but comprises 100 per cent. tenants.
It was obviously started by larger, substantial tenant farmers, but I believe now has a much more representative membership, of which 5 per cent. are county council smallholders. Their meetings are singularly well attended when open to the farming public, and I think it is true to say that their influence is evidently greater than their membership size. It is a safe bet to say that the Young Farmers' Clubs would prefer this amendment to not having it.
I think that the Country Landowners' Association would have no objections, beyond loyalty to the package with the National Farmers' Union. But I wonder whether they pressed the NFU adequately about this particular proposition. I hope that the Minister will not be too sanguine that these matters have been adequately researched. I hope he will

1111
consider taking them away for further thought and consultation.
I am worried about landlords who sometimes say, à propos return to lifetime tenancy, "We have been here before." The experience was that lifetime tenancy led to the demand for succession, which then dried up the market. Will there be a repetition of this, virtually a vicious circle? I believe that there is a strong case for achieving, if we can, a different approach to this, and this amendment provides it. I beg to move.
10.19 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37. Amendment No. 38:
At end insert—
("provided a suitable pension scheme funded by both landlord and tenant had been agreed.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I should like to say something about Lord Monk Bretton's amendment which I discussed with him earlier in the week. We certainly would be against this amendment without our amendment attached to it. It is easy when you are 30 to take a farm and agree to retire at 65. But time passes more quickly than one thinks, and times could be bad.
You reach 65, and often the type of farm we are thinking about, the 100-acre or 150-acre farm, is in an area which is not so good—a less favoured area is the expression nowadays. The capital on a farm like that is not large, and one knows what it takes today to buy a house and have something on which to retire over and above one's pension. I feel that compulsory retirement like that would not work, but we would give it our blessing,
"provided a suitable pension scheme funded by both landlord and tenant had been agreed."
The point the noble Lord made to me was that we should take a cut-off point. Since I spoke to him, I have tried to think of a cut-off point, whether by size or anything else, but I cannot think of one. I take his idea that he would like to have the funding of a pension scheme somewhere in the 100 or 200 acre area. I do not think we could possibly do that. I see no reason why larger farmers should not take part in a pension scheme. They are just as happy with a pension as anyone else, funded by the landlord from the rent and by the tenant himself. I am sure that this would be good, although I do not think it will necessarily bring any more farms on to the market.
However, it might bring them on to the market earlier. But then we have no guarantee that the landlord will let the farms. That is another point that we have to look to. In moving the amendment, I must say that we will not support the noble Lord's amendment, but, if he agrees to our amendment being attached to it, we should be prepared to support it.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, for the first time this evening I find myself entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, about Amendment No. 37. I never did believe that one should push someone out just because he was 65, but the nearer I get to that age the more strongly I feel about it. I do not think one should. It is logical to suggest that if people are to be pushed out because they are 65 there should
1112
be some pension arrangement. This is an entirely new concept that the landlord should contribute to the pension arranged for the tenant. The danger is that, while the Bill is trying to encourage new tenancies, we are immediately introducing an element which may be a disincentive to landlords. So I do not like either of these amendments.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I may be able to be helpful with a few figures which I found on this subject. I am pleased to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. My figures are based on a tenant aged 35 going into a new tenancy and planning to retire at 65. I took a slightly larger farm of 300 acres with a net rent of £12,000 after repairs and insurance. I considered reviews every three years, a 15 per cent. increase in rent. If the landlord and the tenant each contributed 5 per cent. of the rent during the period of the tenancy, 30 years, at age 65 the tenant would have a cash sum of £178,000, equivalent to £42,000 at today's value. In addition, he would have a life pension of £55,000 per annum, equivalent at today's values to £12,750.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Monk-Bretton because it goes a little further towards my pet hobby-horse of fixed-term tenancies. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that a man has to have a pension at the end of his days, though I wonder whether the wording of the amendment is correct.
"A suitable pension scheme funded by both landlord and tenant",
is open to too much value judgment. It seems to be reasonable to go a little way along the path presented by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, towards a fixed percentage of the rent being paid into a pension fund. I do not think it matters how it is done, except that the amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has to be tightened up.
I moved an amendment on this point during the proceedings on the 1976 Act regarding pensions at retiring age, or pensions on short-term fixed tenancies. That would be a major advance. Anything that increases the numbers of tenancies increases the life and variety of the countryside, and that is what I think is so important. One must get away from the concept of these enormous grain prairies in East Anglia, most of which are owned by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, so far as I can gather. When one goes to parts of the country and sees them deserted, then one realises that anything that can increase the value and variety of that land is a good thing. That is best done by increasing the tenanted agricultural sector. Anything that does that would be a good thing, and I therefore support my noble friend's amendment, together with the amendment to that amendment.
Lord Walston: My Lords, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I am not whole-heartedly in favour of fixed-term tenancies but I do agree with the general principle that, after a farmer has reached the age of 65, (although there are some exceptions to this) in general it is good that he should consider retiring. It is good for agriculture, it is probably good for him and good for those who come after him. I looked with considerable favour on the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord

1113
Monk-Bretton. But if they were accepted as they stand, with no amendment, I think that they would open the door wide to fixed-term tenancies. There would be very few landlords who would be prepared to grant a tenancy of longer than terminating at 65.
That is one of the reasons, and only one of the reasons, why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and his friends, and the principle that lies behind it that, in exchange for giving up a lifetime security and agreeing to retire at the age of 65—which is of very great advantage to the landlord—the landlord himself should give some quid pro quo in the shape of a proportion of the rent which would be devoted to a retirement pension for the tenant. That is the principle that I support. I do not think that it need be compulsory upon the tenant to contribute a like sum; although I think it would be prudent of him to do so. But I would prefer not to see that written into any Act of Parliament. I would also prefer to see some minimum sum specified which should be the landlord's contribution. Whether it should be 5 per cent.—and I must say the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, gave us are extremely valuable and interesting; and surprisingly encouraging—or whether it should be 2½per cent., I do not know. All I would say is that, in principle, I support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Monk-Bretton, provided the amendment of Lord John-Mackie is agreed to; and I would very much prefer to see more thought given to the workings of this particular scheme and the actual figures, if possible, incorporated in any Act of Parliament.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton has moved an amendment, the effect of which would be to provide for compulsory retirement at 65. We discussed about an hour ago Amendment No. 82 (which was moved because it was a paving amendment for Amendment No. 31) which is the new schedule which runs to nine pages on the Marshalled List and provides for voluntary retirement in the case of existing tenancies by making it easier for an eligible and suitable successor to take over earlier than on death. I believe, particularly because it has got the voluntary agreement of the organisations concerned, the NFU and the CLA, for this to be done, this may prove to be a really effective provision.
Having said that, the Government are reluctant to go as far as to introduce an element of compulsion because immediately you then come near to the difficulty of creating fixed tenancies. So far as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is concerned, while the concept of a pension is fine, I really think that this is a matter for private arrangement between landlord and tenant and not appropriate to agricultural holdings legislation. Before any of your Lordships jump down my throat and say that is not the case, I would just put the simple point that, although the concept may be fine, I wonder whether the provision, if it were written into legislation, would in fact have the effect that we are aiming for in this Bill; namely, to encourage landowners to let more land.
Having said that, what it comes to is that we do have agreement on voluntary retirement: that is in the new schedule, Amendment No. 82. We do not have
1114
agreement on compulsory retirement. Of course, I will read this debate very carefully, but I would ask my noble friend to look at the Hansard record, if he would be so good, of the short debate we had about an hour ago on Amendment No. 82. Then perhaps my noble friend and I could have a word about his amendment. There are some things I would like to look at which he has put forward, but there are also points that I should like to underline to my noble friend outside the House. The Government want to go as far as people want to go down this road, in a voluntary way. Looking at Amendment No. 82, we have gone quite a long way, but we have not gone as far as compulsory retirement, and that is the difficult point.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate and I shall be extremely brief. May I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, that he might care to look at the section of the Northfield Report which deals with smallholdings. He will find that we had some good figures (like those given by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne) about the effects of small sums put aside for pension. But we made one other vital point which has not been mentioned: that provision for retirement should he included—and regarding not only money but a house. That, of course, is very important for many small farmers who on compulsory retirement would find themselves out of a home. That is a very important extra issue that should be taken into account as well as the issue of pension.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, may I intervene at this moment to remark that one of the reasons put forward by the Tenant Farmers' Association as to why this amendment might commend itself to your Lordships' House is that the tenant's successor knows the maximum length of time of the farm tenancy and therefore has to plan his future rather than gamble that his father will reach the age of 90. I suggest that perhaps some of your Lordships have sons who will have to gamble whether they will reach the age of 90; and if we are going to insist on a fixed-term tenancy up to the age of 65 for tenants, perhaps other people may think that there should be a fixed-term tenancy of your Lordships' House. I do not think that would be very desirable. Let us do this voluntarily rather than in any other way.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, may I, before the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, speaks again, say that of course I should be willing to talk about it. I hope indeed that we might be able to come to some better conclusions. I know the Tenant Farmers' Association do not think it is necessary that all tenants should be provided with pensions by the landlord. However, I am not ruling out discussion in any way at all. I believe it would be much better to find a solution over pensions if that would produce the result that I wanted. I also wanted to say that I wish to be cautious and not rush into this, in order that we should get it right.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I have nothing to add. If the noble Lord is going to withdraw his amendment, my amendment falls anyway.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, we have had a valuable discussion. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.35 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) There shall be added the following new Case—
"Case J—the notice to quit relates to a holding where—

(i) at the date of the granting of the tenancy, the holding was not a "commercial unit "as defined in the 1976 Act,

(ii) at the date of the granting of the tenancy the tenant was already in possession of a "commercial unit ", and

(iii) the written contract of tenancy records that the tenant acknowledges the fact that the landlord or his successors in title may require vacant possession of the holding upon the giving of 12 months notice to quit under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 to terminate the tenancy on a date not less than 5 years from the beginning of the tenancy

and it is stated in the notice to quit that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid.
For the purposes of this Case, no valid notice to quit shall be served under this Case where, for a period of 7 years before the granting of the tenancy, the holding formed part of an agricultural unit comprising a commercial unit (disregarding any part acquired by a Public or Local Authoriy in exercise of its compulsory powers).".")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment to this one at Committee stage. It was clear then, and confirmed later, that many people, including some at the Ministry, completely failed to grasp the point of the amendment. However, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the time that he has taken between then and now in trying to understand my concern, and I believe that he now appreciates the reasons for this amendment.
The principle is simple. There are many uncommercial—and I stress uncommercial—units that are being farmed all round the country on a plethora of different agreements, varying from a gentleman's agreement to a partnership. The type of land in question can vary from off-lying land which cannot be farmed commercially with other land held in hand, to glebe land, to land adjoining one's house which one does not want to farm in hand. In each case, it is the owner's wish to remain in a position to obtain vacant possession should he so desire it, and some sort of agreement has to be entered into so that the land is farmed.
It would be so much simpler and provide for better farming if the landowner could let his uncommercial unit on a tenancy from year to year, but with his interest safeguarded by being allowed to serve an incontestable notice to quit when he wanted to, the parties to the agreement having agreed this in writing before commencement. My amendment at Committee stage was structured to allow existing farmers and new entrants to farming a chance to obtain these new tenancies. However, following discussion with the NFU and others, it has been decided to include paragraph (ii) to protect the tenant in the event of a notice to quit.
This I have done by making sure he is in possession, either as a tenant or as an owner-occupier, of a commercial holding before entering into the agreement. This means that he will not be deprived of his livelihood when the notice to quit has been served. I think this is tough on the new entrant; but the mood clearly is to protect the existing farmer rather than provide an opportunity for a new one. I have also built in the necessary safeguards to prevent the possibility of a commercial holding being deliberately split into uncommercial units to get round the Bill.
In summary, therefore, my aim is to simplify the position relating to existing agreements on uncommercial units, in order to provide for more continuity and better farming of the land. If this amendment is acceptable, then I would seek to amend the definition of a "commercial unit" in this Bill, rather than in the 1976 Act as in my amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend has worked extremely hard on not only this amendment, but a great many other aspects of the Bill, and I am sorry that I am not helpful more frequently, although I have had the pleasure on the Government Front Bench of accepting some of my noble friend's amendments. I say this because, in this case again, there is a sticking point and the problem is this.
If my noble friend's intention is, as I know it is, that land in small parcels should be let for periods of longer than five years, to which Section 2 of the 1948 Act could extend at the Minister's discretion, then we run into fixed-term tenancy problems. We shall come to this in more detail on Amendment No. 51. But this is the difficulty, and, although my noble friend hedges his amendment round with safeguards, and has taken the very greatest care to do so, I have to say that we feel that they ought to be either Section 2 lettings or some other sort of lettings for less than 365 days. If my noble friend is thinking of more than five years, then we are at a sticking point where the Government feel that we are in danger of talking about fixed-term tenancies.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. The present situation is a farce. You let a field for 364 days and you make certain that the tenant gets out the sheep. Then you go along on 2nd January and say, "You can put them in again." He knows, and you know, that you are going to do it, and it goes on year after year. But one mistake about even a week has been held to be good enough to create a tenancy. As this situation goes on now, it would be sensible to make it possible for land to be let on the understanding that notice can be given at any time.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I understand fully the comments of my noble friend Lord Belstead: that we shall run into problems about Section 2. Since I last spoke to my noble friend I have received a letter from an estate near Peterborough which, out of a total of 57 holdings, has 28 uncommercial units upon it. Goodness knows under what kind of arrangements those units are held. The present law could be simplified. However, I take

1117
my noble friend's point and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 39A:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Additional consent to operation of notice to quit.
. The following paragraph shall be inserted in section 3 of the 19/7 Act (Tribunal's consent under s. 2 to operation of notice to quit) after subsection (3)(b)—
"(bb) that the tenant is holding by statutory succession a tenancy, joint tenancy or tenancies which form a commercial unit as defined by subsection (3A) of section 18 of the 1976 Act (taken with subsection (3B) of that section) and that the landlord is willing to create and let a new agricultural holding that includes the lease to which the notice relates;".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should say first that there is a misprint in the amendment. The word "lease" in the penultimate line should be "land". I hope that the amendment will be read with the word "land" in mind instead of the word "lease".
I see that at 10.27 p.m. on 28th November I moved an amendment similar to this. It is now 10.41 p.m. I do not seem to have much luck with this amendment, although it is rather important. I see that, when I spoke about that amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in his reply:
"At this hour I do not want to go through a lot of reasons as to why we do not like the amendment. However, I am advised that there are certain technical defects. If the noble Lord would not mind my leaving the matter in that way at this hour of the evening, I should like to have a close look at what he has said".
In other words, the noble Lord was then in the position, at 10.27 p.m. on the 29th November, that we are in now: that we have had enough for today, that we are slightly punch drunk and this is not a very good time at which to deal with an issue of this kind.
Nevertheless, let me suggest with what the amendment attempts to deal. It is a defective amendment which I could not possibly press to a Division, but I want to assert the principle that underlies it: that when we look at the supply of farms to rent there are two ways in which we could obviously, as the Northfield Committee recommended, make more farms available. First, if an eligible successor is already farming on his own account a perfectly good farm, he should not have the right to inherit a tenancy from his parents or from somebody else. If he already has a good farm of his own, he should not have the right to inherit further tenancies which allow him to build up much more land than he requires. This matter is not covered by the amendment but we shall be discussing it—the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, alluded to it—when we reach the issue of the eligibility of successors.
There is a second way in which we could make more farms available to let. If a son is not farming on his own account and does not have another farm, should he nevertheless be able to inherit a whole patchwork of holdings that his father has built up, or should his right to succession be limited to one viable holding? Should a limitation of some kind be put on what a son can inherit in terms of size? This would make many more farms available for letting. However, it should be accompanied by the proviso contained in the amendment: that if a restriction is imposed about the amount of land which can be inherited by way of tenancy, the landlord should have the right to prevent inheritance
1118
only if he agrees that he will either re-let the land and form a new holding or add it to other land, thus putting an extra viable holding on the market. That is the principle I want to put before the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I should like to know whether it has been considered. It is a cardinal recommendation of the Northfield Committee that if we really mean business about making more farms available to let we should begin to restrict the amount of land which somebody can inherit by way of tenancies.
There are all sorts of situations in which people have built up not just a patchwork of tenancies but a good deal more than that: a whole labyrinthine connection of tenancies which somebody inherits. When the person who has built all that up dies, we have to ask whether or not we should then intervene and say that there is a limit to the amount of land which can be inherited under the 1976 Act; the land ought to be made available for other people so as to build up extra opportunities for renting farms.
My amendment suffers from the defect that I have made the limit much too small. I have suggested the kind of limitation used for a commercial holding set out in the Bill—and that is very small. I inserted that limit simply to indicate that something of that kind could be drafted if there was a will on the part of the Government to begin giving thought to limiting the amount of land which someone can inherit by way of tenancy.
I shall be glad to know what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has been doing about this issue since I last raised this matter in Committee. He replied to me at that late hour on 28th November:
"I should like to have a close look at what he has said because there is no question about it that the objective of the noble Lord is to try to deal with an intractable problem. I accept that. I am not absolutely certain, to be perfectly honest, whether this particular amendment, No. 52, would achieve it, quite apart from the need to find the right definition".—[Official Report, 28/11/83; col. 538.]
That was a nod in my direction that there was an issue here worth consideration. The noble Lord the Minister did not take the matter any further at that time; can he now tell the House whether this principle is open to negotiation? I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I have discussed this amendment with my noble friend Lord Northfield and I can certainly see his point. I happen to know that a friend of mine has built up a series of tenancies in a particular county, milking somewhere between 600 to 700 cows scattered over quite a wide area. It would seem unfair that he could leave all that to one son. It would certainly create far more tenancies if he were limited to some size of unit. But as my noble friend Lord Northfield has said, deciding the size of unit is a very difficult question indeed. Supposing that a farmer had the tenancy of a 300-acre farm and of a 200-acre farm. If he dies or wants to pass on the succession, who does the choosing as to which farm the successor gets—the landowner or the successor?
Lord Northfield: The tribunal, my Lords.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I can see that enormous difficulties could arise in such situations. But we agree with the principle, and we would like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has to say as

1119
to whether it is possible to incorporate that principle in legislation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do have sympathy, genuinely, with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in his moving of this amendment; not only with the noble Lord having to do so at this hour again, two months after he did so before, but also with the objective. This amendment is in line with the basic objective of the Government in bringing this Bill before Parliament, which is to try to create more tenancies.
However, this amendment seems to be largely unnecessary, because since the noble Lord last spoke about this matter we have put down Amendment No. 65—which we have yet to reach—which seeks to restrict succession to not more than one holding of commercial unit size and sets out the procedure by which that will be decided.
Amendment No. 39A could only bite in respect of holdings which were less than commercial units in size. Given its very limited advantages and the difficulties of enforcing the re-letting condition—and I freely admit that re-letting is not involved in Amendment No. 65—I feel we would not be justified in supporting this amendment as it stands. But the noble Lord is not asking me to do that; he said that he feels the amendment is defective and that he would not want to press it.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will not feel I am being evasive, but I believe we ought to take Amendment No. 65. If the noble Lord feels that he cannot press his amendment, I do not consider that I am by any sleight of hand trying to do him out of anything. We still have the final stage of the Bill, when we could see whether the noble Lord wanted to press an amendment along these lines, or whether he was satisfied with Amendment No. 65, or whether he felt that Amendment No. 65 in turn ought to be improved. I say this because there is very little between what the noble Lord is trying to do, and what the Government wish on this particular matter.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am very grateful. I did not read Amendment No. 65 in that way. It is my mistake, I freely admit. If the noble Lord thinks Amendment 65 meets the point, I will be absolutely delighted. I have read it several times but I do not understand it in that way. Let us proceed and see whether the noble Lord can explain when we reach it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Circumstances to be taken into account by Tribunal in cases of non-compliance with notice to do work]:
10.51 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 40:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to set your minds at rest, this is only a probing amendment on a narrow point but an important one. Your Lordships will see that Clause 6 deals with the circumstances to be taken into account by a tribunal in cases of non-compliance.
1120
With a notice to do work. Under the present law, when this arises, the tribunal
"shall consent to the operation of the notice to quit unless in all the circumstances"
it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. But, in the Bill as it stands, under Clause 6, they shall have regard only to the three sets of circumstances set out there instead of all the circumstances. I should be grateful if my noble friend would explain why that is so. Why is it necessary to change the law? Would it not be better for the tribunal to have regard to all the circumstances? I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The answer to my noble friend's final question, and indeed the general thrust of his argument, is that, as presently worded, Section 4 of the 1977 Act does not specifically prohibit the tenant, during the proceedings before the tribunal, ranging over the whole matter of the work he has been required to do, even though he will already have had the opportunity to raise questions as to the justification for the notice to do work at the earlier stage of arbitration on the notice to do work itself. It was not the intention of the original provision that the tenant should have a second chance to raise matters of this kind. I really do not think it reasonable that it should be possible to go over the ground all over again. Clause 6 therefore makes it clear that for the purposes of Section 4 the tribunal is only concerned with the tenant's failure to comply with the notice to do work and whether in the light of such a failure a fair and reasonable landlord would insist on possession.
My noble friend said this was a probing amendment to discover why the tribunal should not be able to consider general hardship to the tenant. It is not intended that Section 4 should provide for issues of general hardship except to the extent that a fair and reasonable landlord would not displace a tenant for failure in his repairing obligations which were not of a serious nature or which were attributable to the adverse circumstances surrounding his failure. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel that we are not unjustified. If I may go back to the original point, it is to try to prevent the tenant ranging on two separate occasions over the whole matter of why he is being required to do work that Clause 6 is included in the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful for that explanation. I think those advising me and the Agriculture Law Association on this amendment will wish to consider very carefully what my noble friend has said. Speaking for myself, I am grateful and I do not wish to carry it further at this moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): Amendment No. 41. I should point out to your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 42.
Clause 7 [Transfer of certain functions of Minister to President of R.I.C.S.]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 41:

1121
Page 10, line 23, leave out from ("by") to end of line 25 and insert ("such person (referred to in this section as "the Appointing Authority") as the Minister may, after consultation with such bodies of persons as appear to him to represent the interests of landlords and tenants of agricultural holdings, appoint by order made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 41 to 49 inclusive as they seek to tackle the same problem and it will give the Government and your Lordships the chance to decide which amendment they like best.
Amendment No. 42:
Page 10, line 23, leave out ("Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors") and insert ("Chartered Institute of Arbitrators")
Amendment No. 43:
Page 10, line 31, leave out ("President") and insert ("Appointing Authority")
Amendment No. 44:
Page 10, line 32, leave out ("President") and insert ("Appointing Authority")
Amendment No. 45:
Page 10, line 41, leave out ("President") and insert ("Appointing Authority")
Amendment No. 46:
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("President") and insert ("Appointing Authority")
Amendment No. 47:
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("President") and insert ("Appointing Authority")
Amendment No. 48:
Page 11, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The Minister may, after consultation with the Appointing Authority, vary by order made by statutory instrument the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the 1948 Act; but no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.")
Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The Minister may, after consultation with the President, vary by order made by statutory instrument the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the 1948 Act; but no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
We discussed Clause 7 late at night on 28th November and I fear that the matter did not receive the attention that it should have done. Certainly I was off-hand with my noble friend Lord Belstead and even if he listened to me I certainly did not listen to him. I hope for better things tonight.
The problem is perfectly simple. The Government want to get rid of the responsibility for appointing arbitrators. In fact, they want to privatise them. I cannot object too strongly to that although the cost in saving according to the Government will be only £63,000. What I do object to is the responsibility being given to the RICS for, rightly or wrongly, the RICS is seen by tenants to be landlords' men. It will be seen as judge and jury in its own case. Moreover, there will be no appeal to the Minister as there is at present under the 1948 Act should the tenant feel that the arbitrator is fixing too high a charge. The only appeal will be to the RICS itself. That has led to incriminations in the past because, as my noble friend Lord Belstead reminded the Committee, and as is my opinion, such is the unsatisfactory situation existing today with Crown lands.
During debates on this Bill the Government, I believe very unfairly, have been accused of consulting too much with, particularly, dare I say, the National Farmers' Union and the CLA. On this clause the Government did not consult anyone at all until 12th September. I therefore suggest that they should do just that. Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 to 48 inclusive provide for that. My noble friend Lord Belstead cannot complain about this causing delay because, as the Government said in Committee, they do not intend to bring Clause 7 into operation for at least another year.
Having consulted fully, the Government can decide on whom it wants to devolve the responsibility for appointing arbitrators. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that in an Answer on 5th December the Government stated that neither the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers nor the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers were in favour of transferring responsibility to the RICS. I remind your Lordships that neither do the National Farmers' Union, the Tenant Farmers' Association, the Farmers' Union in Wales nor, I believe, the CLA favour such a move. Neither does my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I cannot, therefore, understand how my noble friend Lord Belstead could state in Committee that the RICS would "admirably discharge the work". I suppose he must have some friends somewhere—and if my memory serves me aright I believe it was my noble kinsman Lord Howard.
If your Lordships do not like our Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 to 48 inclusive, you may prefer our Amendments Nos. 42 and 49 which put the responsibility for appointing arbitrators on to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. This body would be seen as impartial. It is usually headed by a distinguished lawyer, the president at the moment being Lord Justice Kerr.
Sadly, this Bill has seen a conflict of opinion between the farmer and the RICS surveyor in the sticks, and certain sections of the RICS, particularly that section commonly nicknamed, dare I say it, the "Mayfair Mafia".
I believe that for the good of our industry such a conflict should be buried for good and all, and as soon as possible. The least that the Government can do to help me and to help the industry is to make sure that an impartial body is given the job of appointing arbitrators. I am sorry to tell the House that the RICS cannot do that after what has happened on Clause 1, and in this case it cannot be considered to be impartial. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in the amendment which he has just moved. The appointments made under Section 16(2) and paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the 1948 Act in particular will be concerned with the exercise of a judicial function. The farming community has confidence in the present system where the appointments are made by the Minister. This has proved a reliable system in years gone by. It has been impartial and inexpensive and both sides of the industry have confidence in the system. Therefore not merely to delegate but to transfer the power to the president of RICS will

1123
undermine the confidence of the community in the proposed regime.
We are particularly attracted by the amendment, with its emphasis on an appointing authority,
"to represent the interests of landlords and tenants of agricultural holdings".
We approve of the amendment and hope that it will win the confidence of the House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Belstead knows, I do not like Clause 7. I think that the power should remain with the Ministry. But if it is to be moved I think the right body to whom it should be moved is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The RICS is impartial and in the past has carried out its functions very well.
Looking at the amendments put forward, I do not think that the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators is the right body, as it lacks the requisite agricultural knowledge. I think that Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 to 49 are woolly. We have to decide who will carry out the function while the Bill is going through rather than waiting for further consultations.
It might ease the mind of my noble friend Lord Stanley a little if he realises that the arbitrators are appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If he wishes to criticise the Lord Chancellor, that is up to him. Of the panel in England, on which there are 175 arbitrators, 173 are members of the RICS; 138 are both members of the RICS and of the CAAV. I should think that number could be increased. I was a member of the CAAV and also a member of the RICS. It was not known to a lot of people that I was a member of the CAAV, and a lot of surveyors do not put that forward. It has already been discovered on the Lord Chancellor's panel that there are surveyors who are also members of the CAAV. In Wales, which is dear to the heart of my noble friend Lord Stanley, there are 30 arbitrators, 29 of whom are members of the RICS; the other one is a member of the CAAV. Sixteen are both members of the RICS and of the CAAV.
I stress this point because it is the CAAV which said that the NFU/CLA agreement was workable. It said that it was workable; the CAAV is considered to be more in favour of the tenant than of the landlord, although that is ridiculous. In the same way, surveyors are supposed to be landlords' men rather than tenants' men. Both act in equal proportions for landlords and tenants.
I cannot see the validity of the criticism that my noble friend Lord Stanley has levied against the RICS and its constructive attitude on Clause 1 of the Bill. I find that very difficult to follow. I am even more confused when I look to Amendment No. 52, and see that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, who is a sponsor of the amendment, is quite happy for the president of the RICS to continue with arbitrations on Crown estates.
Lord Walston: My Lords, as one of the members of the holy alliance of Conservative, Labour, Liberal and SDP Peers who have put their names to the amendment, I wish, very briefly, to give vocal support
1124
to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He has put the problem extremely well, in his usual forceful manner, and I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept at least one of the two alternatives which have been put before them.
11.6 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I really think that the appointment of arbitrators is a matter which ought to fall to the agricultural and land-owning industry to carry out itself. I feel that even more strongly after listening to the very telling points put by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I immediately concede that there is a function for Government here, and that is to ensure that those who are appointed to such very important work are entirely suitable as arbitrators. As my noble friend said, this safeguard is provided by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who maintains the standing panel of arbitrators from which individual appointments are made. I give the assurance that the Lord Chancellor's standing panel will continue to be maintained in the future.
But, if I may say so, I really am at a loss to know why the clause is being criticised for a second time. It can scarcely be because the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors could be said to favour some panel members and not others, because out of 206 members of the Lord Chancellor's panel, 202 are members of the RICS, though, as I understand it, many of the panel members are members of other important organisations as well. Nor surely can the lack of experience be a charge levelled at the RICS, which makes appointments in excess of 2,000 a year for commercial arbitration cases; and indeed at a previous stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, said that that was a considerable underestimate. Further, the RICS is designated by statute to appoint arbitrators in agricultural cases whenever the Crown is a party.
There is one misunderstanding which I think I just must clear up. It has been said, and it was said again this evening by my noble friend Lord Stanley, that money is a problem here. The priority of all this is to save manpower in the Civil Service, and those who would otherwise be doing this work could be deployed for other work in agriculture. That is not just a form of words. My noble friend, whose heart is in his farm—indeed, his feet were in his farm at five o'clock this morning when I think he was delivering lambs—would be the very first to say to me, why are there not more members of the veterinary service, the land and water service, the agricultural service, and the science service in Anglesey and in his part of the world? If only we could agree to the clause, there would be a little more elbow room, in a very hard-pressed department, to be able to try to redeploy people.
The House has every right to be extremely careful about this matter, and so your Lordships will ask, what are the safeguards? The first is that the Lord Chancellor will continue to maintain the panel from which the selection of arbitrators is made. The president of the RICS has given an assurance that the procedure currently allowed will remain substantially the same, with the most suitable appointments being made in all cases. Further, I have previously given your Lordships

1125
an assurance that at least a year will be allowed after the Bill passes to ensure that the new arrangements operate well from the start. I have to say that the Government believe most firmly that the RICS is a body admirably qualified for this function. I therefore have no hesitation in expressing the hope that Clause 7 may be enabled to continue to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I did not get a great deal of change from my noble friend, but I should like to thank noble Lords from both sides of the House who have supported me. My noble friend Lord Caithness did not do so. He pointed out, as did my noble friend Lord Belstead, that the appointments were made by the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps they are in theory, but in fact it has always been the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Wales who has made the final appointments.
My noble friend Lord Belstead asked me why I want to continue along this track. Perhaps the most important reason is that every single member of the RICS whom I have met would like someone from outside the organisation to be responsible for their appointments. I accept fully that the same people will probably do it. It really does matter, however, that appointments are seen to be made by an independent person.
I am certainly not quarrelling—I said so in my speech—with the Ministry cutting down on its staff. Of course, I want to see as many veterinary scientists as possible. It has to cut down where this is possible. My amendment would not do this. It would merely achieve transfers outside to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators or to some other body. I have to withdraw the amendment as I have no intention of dividing the House at this time. I am not happy. Whether I shall come back on Third Reading I do not know. But the matter may well rear its ugly head in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 42 to 49 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 59, 72 and 73.
Amendment No. 59:
Page 12, line 8, leave out ("(within the meaning of section 7)")
Amendment No. 72:
Page 23, line 41, after ("(interpretation)") insert— ("(a)")
Amendment No. 73:
Page 24, line 5, at end insert ("and
(b) the following definition shall be substituted for the definition of "the Minister"—
""the Minister" means—

(a) in relation to England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and

(b) in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State.".")

The effect of these amendments is to replace the old definition of Minister in Section 94 of the 1948 Act, when the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries had jurisdiction over Wales, with definitions for Minister in relation to England and Wales separately. The definition at present in Clause 7 of the Bill becomes
1126
superfluous and can then be omitted together with the reference to that definition in Clause 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Fixed term tenancies
(" . After section 3 of the 1948 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"3A.—(1) The Minister may approve for the purposes of this section a proposed tenancy of agricultural land for a fixed term not exceeding 20 years if satisfied—

(a) that the land will be or may be required on the expiry of the tenancy in order that it may be farmed either—

(i) where the owner is a beneficial owner, by himself or by a member of his family; or

(ii) where the owner is a trustee, by a person for whom he holds the land on trust; and

(b) that the owner and the proposed tenant have agreed that the provisions of this section shall apply to the tenancy.

(2) The following provisions shall apply to a tenancy approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section—

(a) the tenant may at any time terminate the tenancy by giving twelve months' notice to quit expiring on an anniversary of the date of commencement of the tenancy;

(b) section 8 of this Act (arbitration as to rent) shall apply to the tenancy as if it were terminable by the landlord by such a notice;

(c) if the landlord serves notice under section 3(1) of this Act of his intention to terminate the tenancy on the expiration of the term and the tenant serves a counter-notice under section 2(1) of the Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit) Act 1977, the Agricultural Land Tribunal shall consent to the operation of the notice if they are satisfied that the land is required in order that it may be farmed by the landlord or by a person who, at the commencement of the tenancy, was such a person as is referred to in subsection (1)(a) of this section:

Provided that this paragraph shall not apply in the case of a landlord who became landlord by purchase after the commencement of the tenancy.
(3) For the purpose of this section "member of his family" means—

(a) the wife or husband of the owner;

(b) a brother or sister of the owner;

(c) a child of the owner; or

(d) any person (not within (b) or (c) above) who in the case of any marriage to which the owner is or was at any time a party was treated by the owner as a child of the family in relation to that marriage.".")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is very late. We have heard an awful lot of speeches, quite a few too many for me, this evening. I hear the Chief Whip agreeing with me loud and clear. That is probably because all Chief Whips do not want anyone to say anything at all because then their business is hastened rapidly. The amendment takes us back to fixed-term tenancies. It is really concerned with one specific case. In the not too distant past a landowner was approached by his neighbouring farmer who said to him, "Please may I rent your land for 10 years until your son becomes of age". The landlord said, "Yes, you may". They entered into a signed agreement that the land should be let to the neighbouring farmer until the son became of age.
After 10 years, when the son—I think he was at Cirencester—was due to leave, the tenancy came up for falling through. But the farmer said, "No. I am sorry, I have changed my mind. I do not agree with what I signed 10 years ago. I am not going to give you

1127
back your land. I am going to claim protection of the 1948 Act". This he duly did, and the case went the whole way to the House of Lords. I am suggesting to your Lordships that that sort of behaviour is morally wrong, but what is worse is this.
We are all trying to increase the amount of land supplied for tenancies. This is a very small sector of land (and it is very closely defined) which could possibly be released because, if there is a minor who is the beneficiary of some land from trustees, the trustees themselves may not want to farm that land. If there is a man who is incapacitated or, for instance, has died but who left the property to his wife, she may not want to farm that land herself, and it may not be appropriate that she should do so. But it may be appropriate that this land should be farmed by somebody else properly and efficiently; and, in turn, it then goes to the younger generation.
We have heard much about hereditary landed castes from the Benches opposite because they seem to think that they are a good idea. I am suggesting that this does not in any way breach the general principles of the 1948 Act. It does not produce a standard norm of a fixed-term tenancy. It allows for fixed-term tenancies under very closely defined circumstances. It will without a doubt increase—admittedly by a very small amount—the amount of tenanted land available. Therefore, I suggest that this is something which we ought to consider and which we ought to accept as a good idea. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Earl has advanced an attractive argument; however, as he anticipated, I very much regret that we cannot support the concept of a fixed-term tenancy of up to 20 years. I appreciate that this amendment is addressed to a particular circumstance, but, unless we are careful, the particular can also lead to the norm.
I do not think that our view is inconsistent with the view that we took to the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to Clause 5. The distinction was that new subsection (2)(d) of that amendment ensures that the tenant will be offered a suitable alternative tenancy when his tenancy is terminated. When the fixed-term tenancy is terminated, then there will be no suitable alternative tenancy. In our submission,and to answer the noble Earl, we can support Amendment No. 33 because it provided that the landlord would have to offer a holding suitable to the tenant's needs. A holding which did not ensure the enjoyment of paragraph (d) of the subsection would not be a suitable holding. Therefore, our position on both amendments can be reconciled.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, I have a good deal of sympathy for this principle. I intervene very briefly to say that I think the Minister will say that he will do something about this kind of case under Section 2—that he will start making provision for this kind of case with three- to five-year tenancies. If the Minister says that, as we strongly suspect he will, please will be reconsider the three to five years? It is unduly restrictive, given the needs of cases like this. It ought to be wider than three to five years. If he would make it wider than three to five
1128
years, it would go a long way to meet the case which the noble Earl has in mind.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is right to consider with the very greatest care the implications of this proposal and how in practice it would work out. I realise that my noble friend did just that before bringing the amendment before your Lordships' House. I therefore hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that a practical objection is that the new clause would require the Minister to satisfy himself, possibly for 20 years ahead, that the land which is to be let under this sort of fixed-term tenancy will, or may, be required by the owner to farm on his own account or by a member of his family.
I know that my noble friend Lord Onslow is always enormously polite to the Government Front Bench, but even his courtesy would not extend to crediting the Government with being able to foretell the future quite so far ahead. The serious point is that in practice Ministers of Agriculture in the future would find it virtually impossible to refuse any request for a fixed-term tenancy. The result would inevitably be a general availability of term tenancies, which would mean that they would tend to become the norm.
Despite the great care which my noble friend has taken to hedge this amendment round with safeguards—and he has taken great care—we should find that we were not considering a proposal which would have just a limited effect; this amendment would have a far more unrestricted effect that at first appears. This would have consequences for the years to come. I find myself asking the same sort of questions as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked. Do we really want to see the lifetime tenancy, which I think everyone regards as the ideal, replaced by fixed-term tenancies of varying duration?
There would be great pressure on potential tenants to take these on, since they would initially be the only forms of tenancy generally being offered, but, when their term expired, what would happen to the tenants, by then possibly in late middle age? Would it be easy for them to find alternative holdings? The report of the Northfield Committee drew attention to the problems which would be caused by a system of unrestricted fixed-term tenancies, which is what I am suggesting that, despite my noble friend's care, these proposals would eventually come to. It was for this reason that, in paragraph 641, the Northfield Committee unanimously rejected unrestricted fixed-term tenancies and made it clear that any restricted system would need to be subject to a whole range of detailed conditions. Not one of those conditions is to be found in this amendment.
I am sorry to appear so obstructive to my noble friend, because I know he has taken this great care and I know also that he will not take very kindly to it when I say that the Minister's discretion under Section 2 of the 1948 Act for trial tenancies, and where the landlord's son or daughter expects to take over the holding at a later date, is being extended by us by administrative action at the same time as this Bill, and I hope that that will help. But that is as far as we can go. To go much further, as my noble friend has proposed, would open the door very wide indeed, and there would be unpredictable consequences.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I had had it intimated to me that that was the line that my noble friend was going to take, and I am not over-surprised by it. I am disappointed simply because I happen to believe that the element of fixed-term tenancy increases the supply of tenanted land. I should certainly have been prepared to accept, or would have welcomed, in this amendment the naming of a successor. In other words, it would be son X, or son Y. If that successor did not want to take up farming, then the tenancy automatically became a lifetime tenancy.
But as it was intimated by my noble friend that he was not going to accept it anyway, I was really too idle, if the truth be known, to go to the effort of redrafting it and putting down another amendment, which I think would have wasted everybody's time. It would have been better if we could have taken the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield; in other words, that the three- to five-year tenancy could possibly be extended. If that could be done, then we might have got quite a lot, and I should be happy with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 52A:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Crown Estates.
(" . After subsection (3) of section 1 of the Crown Estates Act 1961, there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) The Commissioners shall manage in accordance with the general provisions of this Act any land added to the Crown Estate by order of the Treasury or the Secretary of State.
(3B) With the consent of the Secretary of State, and with monies provided by the Treasury, the Commissioners may acquire by agreement and manage in accordance with the general provisions of this Act any land which they consider suitable for letting as small farms."")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a discussion on the principle of this matter at the Committee stage and therefore I shall try to be brief. We are here referring to an important recommendation of my committee of inquiry in paragraphs 668, 669 and 670. I readily recognise that it was a majority recommendation of the committee and not a unanimous one.
Why was it in the report of my committee that members of the committee, who would not normally think of any conceivable extension of publicly-owned land, came down in favour of some measure of action of this kind to improve the supply of let land? Bluntly, it was simply because by the time we had spent a couple of years on this issue we were desperate to find some way of preventing the inexorable, inevitable, continuing decline in the tenanted sector, which will reach very low proportions very quickly unless we are extremely lucky in ways we cannot foresee at present. It was the sheer measure of a dozen people who had worked desperately hard to find a way of holding the let sector, that some of them, who would never think of agreeing to this sort of thing, came to the conclusions in paragraphs 668, 669 and 670. There is no other way of really being sure that we will have a continuing surviving let sector of any size than to take anything that looks possible in the way of reasonable extension of the small area of publicly-owned land that we have.
When we discussed this matter in Committee on an amendment moved from this side of the House, I suggested that one way to do this was to improvise on, to improve on, and use a mechanism we already have; namely, the Crown Estates Commissioners. My amendment is in three parts. It does not necessitate starting up new bodies, buying vast amounts of land or anything like that. The amendment seeks to accomplish three aims. We pointed out in paragraph 670 that there are probably 15,000 acres of land that the Ministry already has in the hands of the agriculture Ministers, which could be made suitable for letting as small farms. We said that that ought to be identified and it ought to form the basis of a small farm let sector.
The first part of the amendment, in subsection (3A), is to add to the work of the Crown Estates Commissioners any land that the Treasury or the Secretary of State—that means the Minister of Agriculture in particular—makes over to them, and says, "Make good use of this. We think it could help to retain a better let sector than looks likely at the moment, if you use it." The Crown Estates Commissioners would be able to add this to their stock and manage it in with the whole, providing perhaps a ladder as well within the general system that they run so that people could move up from any small farms on it.
The second suggestion made in the report was that the Chancellor might, from time to time, be given limited discretion to accept suitable land in payment of taxation, particularly capital transfer tax. If he did that—and it is entirely discretional in the draft that I place before the House—the subsection (3A) amendment on the Marshalled List would allow that land to be transferred for management purposes to the Crown Estate. This seems a sensible way steadily to build up, quietly, a little further, the letting sector which the Crown Estates provide. The third possibility, which we put in the report, and it is now in subsection (3B), I read from the report in paragraph 670. It is this:
"The Chancellor could also be given power to put aside limited sums for purchase in the open market. The initial return, compared with the interest on money borrowed or invested elsewhere, would be small. Accumulation by this method would be slow but some community investment, such as that in New Towns, is for the future and gives no 'profit' for a substantial period. There will be limited opportunity for Chancellors to forego revenue, add to the Borrowing Requirement and invest in land which may give an economic return only in twenty or so years hence and as a result we foresee the growth of this development as modest."
There are the three ways; to transfer some land already owned by the department, possibly accept some land occasionally in payment of death duties; give it to the commissioners, manage it and make it into small farms. Thirdly, make a little money available from time to time so that the commissioners, by agreement—with no compulsion—in the open market can manage land which they have bought because they believe it suitable for adding to the sector of small farms to let. There it is in a nutshell. I have been very brief about it. It is a modest amendment. It tries to meet a very important need: namely, that there should be some way of trying more vigorously than we have seen so far in parts of this Bill to maintain the let sector.
I will say a final word about the Crown Estates Commission. I have every admiration for what they do but it is really a fiction now that they are managing the Crown estates. This land was handed over to the

1131
country in return for the Civil List, originally. The thing has gone on. It is very happy fiction. It is a very contented set of farms, very well managed, and so on. But really it is time for the fiction to come to an end. It really has no relationship now to the Civil List at all. It is just a sector of publicly-owned land, managed by some volunteer commissioners who do it extremely well. All that the Northfield Committee (or the majority of them) said was, "We have got a good working example of what could be done. Why do we not occasionally add to it? It is all discretionary land; it is all when and if Chancellors and Secretaries of State can find some money and some land to add to their holding. Why stick at the original, rather artificial lumps of land that they were given? Why not give them some to make it slightly larger and more useful in preserving the let sector?" I beg to move.
Lord Bishopston: This is the kind of amendment which deserves the support of every noble Lord tonight. As my noble friend has said, it provides more opportunity for entry into the industry, something which this Bill is all about; it is invoking the aid of a body which is already established with a very good record of service to the country, with over a quarter million acres of agricultural land. It is accountable to the public for what it does and there is no compulsion. It is land given quite voluntarily to the Treasury in death duties, and so on.
There can hardly be any other way in which we could have an amendment which could commend itself to the House. The public sector, apart from the Crown Estates, are well known: the landowners, as I have said, the National Trust, the Church Commission, the colleges, the Crown, and so on. So we have the voluntary giving of land to a publicly-accountable body of proven record. I am very pleased to commend my noble friend's amendment because my noble friends and I who tabled Amendment No. 52, very much on the same subject, much prefer this amendment for the reasons which my noble friend has given the House so clearly tonight. He has quoted from the Northfield Report which went into a lot more detail than is in this particular amendment. He is not really invoking all the justifications which he and his distinguished colleagues thought were worthy of public attention when they brought the report before the public. I believe that the amendment should commend itself to the Minister because it does ensure more entry into the industry in ways which surely should cause no objection and which justify your Lordships' support.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is nationalisation, taxation, which has nothing to do with us and, furthermore, hypothecation of revenue—all of which are abhorrent to the constitution. Therefore I think we ought to resist this amendment as strongly as possible.
Lord Walston: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is perfectly right. This is a modest proposal: for me, it is far too modest. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may recall, at Committee stage I put down an amendment which went considerably further and which unfortunately was rejected out of hand. Therefore I am
1132
very happy to support the proposal that represents a half-loaf rather than the whole loaf which I think would have made more succulent eating, and which was rejected by the Government.
I will not rehearse the arguments or go into details. As a former Crown Commissioner, I am happy to hear the kind things which have been said about those who do it now, and I think they deserve a great deal of credit. I would not entirely go along with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, concerning the anachronism—that was not the word he used: I think he said "fiction"—of the Crown Estates. They are in fact a very real entity; but that is not the issue at the present time.
My only criticism of his amendment refers to the last line, where he talks about,
"land which they consider suitable for letting as small farms".
I see no reason why their hands should be tied in this way. Some land would be suitable for letting as small farms, some for medium-sized farms and some for large farms. I think the commissioners should be free, as they are at present, to decide in accordance with the best interests of agriculture as to how the land should be let. With that relatively minor proviso, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will at least be able to say that this is worthy of serious consideration.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I have listened with interest, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, but he will not be surprised to learn that I cannot accept his amendment. If the proposal is to have any significant effect, it would involve substantial Government expenditure in the form of purchasing land at vacant possession value for the purpose of letting. The Government's policy in relation to land held by government departments is to dispose of it where it is not required for departmental purposes, very often by sale to the existing tenants. Therefore, there would be little purpose in handing land over to the Crown Estates. It conflicts with the Government's policy of disposing of land assets and of not increasing public ownership of land. While I realise that the objective is the laudable one of making more land available for letting, the noble Lord's method is, I would say, almost one of desperation. I think the noble Lord used the word "desperation" more than once in introducing the amendment. It is very near to land nationalisation and I do not think that at this late hour of the night I need detain your Lordships with the Government's views on why that is totally unacceptable to the Government.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the reply was not unexpected, of course. May I say two things very briefly: first, I am astonished to hear the noble Earl say that the Government are now disposing of their let land to make it all into owner-occupier land. That really is a bit much to hear at this time. Here we have a Bill, the prime aim of which is to preserve the let sector, and the Government now announce that they are going to ruin their own let sector by selling it off to owner-occupiers—something they are hoping that all the other landlords will not do. Here they are, telling the private landlord: "Look, we want to encourage you to let: stop selling it off to owner-occupiers." Yet tonight, the Government are saying, "We are not

1133
going to set any example. We are going to show you how to do exactly the opposite." That is scandalous. I am astonished to hear it and extremely disappointed. It was a recommendation of the whole of my committee that the Government should not sell any of this land to owner-occupiers, but should retain it to try to keep a let sector. It is undoing the very purposes of the Bill.
Secondly, I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that I did not say that the Crown Estate Commissioners were a fiction. I said that the link of this land with the Civil List, as providing money for the Civil List, is now a fiction. This is a sector of publicly owned land on a modest scale and we should accept it for the real thing it is. This is extremely disappointing; but this is not the time of night to press an issue like this. It is very sad to hear a totally doctrinaire reply, when we know that this is the only sort of thing that will help us get a decently preserved sector of small farms. This would have been a reason for having in the Bill the words "small farms".
What is missing from our system is the ladder, and the idea of my committee was to say that we have smallholdings; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said earlier, very few people progress upwards out of them. This would have given a very interesting part of the ladder, providing small farms that smallholders could move onto, filling a very big gap in the ladder—if there are gaps in ladders. That is the reason why the words "small farms" are in the amendment. This is extremely disappointing and I am rather scandalised by the announcement tonight that the Government are giving their own Bill a kick in the teeth by selling off their own land for owner-occupation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we have probably reached a stage where we do not need to proceed any further tonight. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before midnight.