§ 3.10 p.m.
§ Lord John-MackieMy 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 advice arbitrators are being given on how to deal with the milk quota when fixing tenant-right for an outgoing tenant.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (as amended) provides a statutory framework within which arbitrators should operate. It is not for the Government to advise arbitrators on how to interpret the legislation. However, under the Community rules, milk quota merely attaches to the holding for the use of the occupier. Milk quota does not belong to tenant or landlord.
§ Lord John-MackieMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which is slightly 777 unsatisfactory—in fact more than slightly unsatisfactory—to outgoing tenants in September because there has been no real decision so far as one knows about exactly who should be qualified to get some help concerning the tenant right when the tenant leaves the farm. The present situation simply qualifies who owns it, as it is attached to a farm; but that does not mean that the tenant should not get something in his tenant right. March is approaching another term, and I think this matter must be settled because arbitrators simply are not doing anything about it without some guidance either from the Government or whoever is concerned from the EEC. I wonder whether the noble Lord would take that on board.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the unsatisfactory nature of this of course derives from the fact that the commission rules are inflexible at the moment on this particular matter. The situation is that it is up to the parties to bring out the effects of quotas in their statements of case when an arbitration takes place. Undoubtedly milk quotas have had an effect on dairy production but there may be alternative farm enterprises open to the tenant to take up the slack capacity on his holding in a particular case. It is up to the tenant and to the landlord to make their statements of case and then to wait for the arbitrator's decision.
§ The Earl of OnslowMy Lords, if a tenant gives up a part of his tenancy, does he therefore give up all his milk quota or can he attach that milk quota to only a very small portion of the land concerned?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, so far as transferring quota is concerned, provided the transfer is not more than 20,000 litres of milk per hectare then the transfer can he allowed without the Ministry of Agriculture asking any further questions about it and registering the transfer. That is the situation.
§ Lord LeatherlandMy Lords, may I ask the Minister a question which I have already put to him some time ago? When he speaks of litres, can he not speak of pints or gallons? This is England, not France.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the figures I have are in litres.
§ Lord John-MackieIf I may return to the point about who owns the quota, if there is an ownership of the quota then there must be a value to it. If the tenant owns the quota then there must be a value attached to it and he should surely be paid something in his tenant right. I do not know who advises the arbiters. Do they simply take advice from the Government or from the EEC? But in the meantime I know of tenants who have left the farms and received nothing at all for the quota. The Government must take this in hand and look into it a little more seriously.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, regarding who owns the quota, perhaps I am guilty of not having made myself clear. The quota is attached to the land. It is not owned by either the landlord or the tenant. With regard to trying to make the milk quota more "mobile"—in other words, being able to move it more easily—the 778 Ministry of Agriculture has just issued a consultative document setting out both the opportunities at the present time and the options for the future and asking for people's views urgently on this very difficult and important matter.