Lords Sitting of 2 July 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Air Traffic Distribution: London Area
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 have considered CAP522 Air Traffic Distribution in the London Area—Advice to the Secretary of State, and what action they propose to take in the light of this to increase runway capacity in the London area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, my right honourable friend is currently considering the CAA's advice on air traffic distribution in the London area and will make an announcement in due course.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that moderately encouraging reply. May I ask him whether his right honourable friend is aware of the urgency of the matter in view not only of the expert advice tendered by the Civil Aviation Authority but also of the anxieties expressed by the Heathrow Scheduling Committee? Is he aware, as I am sure he is, that if the situation which is likely to arise in the absence of action by the end of the century is not dealt with very quickly it will be too late?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that my right honourable friend is fully aware of that. It was because we were so concerned about it that we moved an amendment to the Airports Bill at Report stage on 23rd June.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is likely that the announce-ment will be made during the Summer Recess when neither House is sitting? If that is the case, as often occurs, shall we have a chance of discussing the matter when we come back? Lastly, does he realise that those of us who think very highly of the Civil Aviation Authority wonder how much support the Government will give to its views?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot tell the House at the moment when a decision will be taken on the document, because it is long and complicated, but we are considering it urgently. It is, I believe, a matter for the usual channels as to whether it is discussed or debated in any way.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that the letter from the Secretary of State to the CAA which
874
invited this review and which was dated 31st July 1985, said that account had to be taken of the Government's general policy objective, which of course had a national dimension, and that there were complaints that the report confines itself solely to distribution in the London area? Does this not conflict with the amendment to the Airports Bill which the Government accepted that there should be consideration by the CAA in carrying out its functions of sound development of aviation throughout the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. On the last point, I do not believe there is a conflict between government policy and the Bill, which indeed reflects government policy. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is absolutely right: it was at the end of July 1985 that my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State invited the CAA to review the existing rules for traffic distribution between the London airports.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, in view of the enormous importance of tourism to the Highlands, will the Minister be able to assure us that special consideration will be given to the need for the Highlands to maintain a connection with Heathrow, which is the terminus for trans-Atlantic as well as Air France flights?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have received much information about the importance of the Inverness-Heathrow flight, and that will be taken into account by my right honourable friend when he comes to make a decision on this matter.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, speaking as one who had some responsibility for drawing up proposals for a sensible London airport at Gatwick 35 years ago, I agree with the noble Earl that there is a matter of urgency confronting us. In connection with Gatwick, may I ask him whether any progress has been made in providing emergency landing facilities in the event of the one runway being closed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, I believe that to be slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But, if the noble Lord would like to put down a Question on that matter, I shall do my best to answer it.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean to say that it is not in order to consider, in relation to traffic facilities, the provision of emergency facilities when a runway is closed?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I believe that is not what I said.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl's right honourable friend take into consideration the interests of the majority in considering this matter—and by "majority" I mean the people of London who are overflown by the aircraft landing at Heathrow and at other London airports? Will he consider the possibility of a redistribution so that aircraft might conceivably fly direct to Scotland instead of coming via Heathrow?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord knows, but aircraft do fly direct to Scotland at the moment. My right honourable friend will of course take into account any representations.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, in considering air traffic distribution in the London area, will the noble Earl bear in mind that the vast majority of aircraft on the British register are in general aviation? Will he for once try to avoid yet further incursions into uncontrolled air space?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's points.

Road Improvements: Petitioners' Costs
2.42 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: 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 why there are no powers for interest to be paid on overdue accounts by the Ministry of Transport to those who successfully petition against a road improvement; and whether, in order to encourage the ministry to settle their accounts swiftly, they have any plans to alter this.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, payment of awards for costs to successful objectors are made on a discretionary, not a statutory, basis. Successive administrations have concluded that it would be inappropriate to pay interest, and we have no plans to change this.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the House will sympathise with him for having to give such a negative reply? How does he reconcile that reply with the code of practice recently issued by the Department of Employment, which says that private firms should pay interest and should pay their accounts on time? Do I understand my noble friend to say that there is one law for the Government and another for me?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I am afraid that on this occasion my noble friend has got it wrong. I remember, as a surveyor, how difficult it was getting accounts settled by clients. The Department of Employment booklet Payment on Time would do well to remind my noble friend about his payment to his surveyors.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is it the case that this payment is six months overdue? If it were the other way round and someone owed the Government money for six months, would not the noble Earl today be making a lot of noise at the Dispatch Box complaining about it? Since we all nowadays have to pay for any delays in settling our income tax—I was recently asked for a payment while my accountant was
876
arguing about it—is that not an idea that should spread to the rest of the Government, in fairness to us all?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be wrong for me to comment on a case of my noble friend without his approval. But with regard to payment, we pay awards for costs where they are justified as soon as practicable.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether his answer means that once the discretionary payment has been agreed by the department there is no delay?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is absolutely right. It is the time from the receipt of the claim to getting that justified by the department that takes a little longer than we should like, but we are pursuing this matter.
Lord Underhill: Will the noble Earl confirm that there has been this six months' delay? He has not said whether or not that is the position. If it is, does he regard it as inefficient and will something be done about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the normal time for payment of an award of costs is much less than six months. If there is a delay of six months, it probably means that a matter of policy has been at stake and therefore it has taken a little longer to take the appropriate Minister's advice on that point.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, why should not the Government pay interest on money they are withholding on a discretionary grant?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid I missed the first part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what I mean is this. Why, simply because the payment is discretionary, should the Government withhold interest from someone they are keeping waiting for money?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this has been the practice of all governments since the recommen-dations of the Council on Tribunals in 1964.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, how is the discretionary power exercised? Does the successful petitioner occasionally get his costs? Is there any picture of how often he fails and how often he succeeds, even though he wins in the petition?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the qualified objectors, who are the ones who have an interest in the land, will get an award for costs if they can substantiate their claim.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl kindly tell the House what plans his ministry has, in the words of the original Question,
"to encourage the ministry to settle their accounts swiftly"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is always an onus on Government to settle any outstanding accounts quickly. Indeed, the fact that the matter can be raised on the Floor of the House on an occasion such as this encourages us to do so.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, may I finally ask, as this is an administrative matter, whether it is not possible for the Government to pay costs adminis-tratively? If my noble friend does not want to answer this question now, will he take it away and think about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that I have not misunderstood my noble friend. We pay an award for costs—which is the answer to the question he asked me.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry, but I mean the interest as well as the costs.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords; I think I have already answered the question as to why we do not pay interest; previous governments have not done so, either.

The Arts: Business Sponsorship
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 effect the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme has had on the financing of the arts.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme has brought an additional £7.7 million into the arts since it started in October 1984. This is a most encouraging sign of growing business commitment to the arts. Indeed, only last week the Digital Equipment Company announced a major new sponsorship programme, matched under the Government's Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme, which will inject £500,000 new funding into dance. This is one of the largest ever first-time sponsorships, and I understand that the existence of the Government's Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme was a major influence in that company's decision.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that excellent news. May I ask whether there has been a little agitation among some people that the new Budget financial arrangements in regard to charities might have a rather less favourable effect on donors? I should like to be assured that this will not happen under the new Finance Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, certainly there has been concern expressed among charitable bodies about various proposals in the Finance Bill which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has responded to by not proposing to
878
proceed, in this year's Finance Bill, with two particular features of the original proposals which caused nearly all of the concern—the distinction between private, indirect and other charities and the possible restriction of tax relief where the charity accumulates income. However, I should point out to my noble friend that the BSIS, to which the Question refers, is not being affected in the slightest way by the Budget.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I appreciate the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme's aid to the arts. But is it not the case that its very success has meant that in spite of the announcement of £1.76 million for 1986–87 Government money to match business contributions is now running out? Will the Minister give assurances that money will not be taken out of the direct public arts budget and that his right honourable friend will ask the Treasury for additional money for this particular scheme?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in response to that question I can tell the noble Baroness that the Government are committed to matching the money raised by the arts charities themselves from business in one of two ways: either one-to-one for new sponsorship or one-to-three for renewed sponsorship. The Government fully intend to continue this commitment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not true however that, as I said, the success of the scheme has meant that funds are running out and by October the present amount will probably be exhausted? Therefore, will not his right honourable friend then be in a dilemma? He can either boost this scheme by taking money from directs arts funding, about which we should all be very upset, or he can go to the Treasury to ask for a special addition for this scheme. I should like an answer to that question.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness will receive an answer because she is asking me a hypothetical question. What I have said is that up to this moment the Government have fully honoured their commitment and intend so to do.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, may I put it to my noble friend that business sponsorship of the arts is much greater than £7.7 million? If I may cite our own rather small-scale example of the Petworth Festival, for instance, we get £2,000 from Southern Arts but we manage to raise three times that amount, £6,000, from business. None of that is recorded anywhere or has anything to do with ABSA (the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts). If one extrapolates that ratio across the nation, one comes up with the figures of £150 million from the Arts Council and £450 million from business. I should like to ask my noble friend, am I a realist or an optimist?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think I should describe my noble friend as both a realist and an optimist. I do not have the statistics worked out in the form that he has just given to the House, but it is perfectly true that much more money is raised straight from business than under the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme and of course the

879
changes to charitable giving by business which were announced by my right honourable friend in his Budget Statement will increase this sum even beyond the figure given by my noble friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should like to question the noble Lord a little further on the point that was raised by my noble friend Lady Birk. I think that what she is seeking to establish is that this scheme will not be financed at the cost of the Government's general subsidy towards the arts. Can the Minister give us some assurance on this point? Though this is highly desirable, it would be highly undesirable if the consequences of this scheme were to be such that the Government's general support of the arts had to suffer as a result.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I really do not think that I can add anything more to the two answers that I have given to the noble Baroness.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may try to persuade the noble Lord to do so. Does his reply mean—and it seems to me very reassuring, which I am sure will delight your Lordships—that the contributions that the Government make under this scheme are not cash limited?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what it means is that the commitment has been honoured up to now and I have no reason to suppose that it will not be honoured in the future.

Armed Forces and Ethnic Minorities
2.54 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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 are satisfied with the present level of recruitment and promotion of members of ethnic minorities within the armed forces.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne) My Lords, I have nothing to add to my full reply to the noble Lord's amendment on this subject which he moved to the Armed Forces Bill on 19th June.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that it would be sensible to have within our armed forces a representation from the ethnic minorities in the country that is broadly in line with the population? Is he aware that there is merit in trying to achieve these proportions, not least to demonstrate that all those who live in this country enjoy the protection of the armed forces, and minorities are entitled to have their numbers reflected proportionately in the ranks?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the best people to join the armed forces are, first of all, those
880
who want to join the armed forces and, secondly, those who are most suited to do so.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord's reply mean that he will not proceed with the survey of the ethnic composition of the armed forces which he outlined at the Committee stage of the Bill?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I did not use the words which the noble Lord suggests. I said that we were considering the matter, and that remains the position.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, would the Minister agree that when it comes to promotion or recruitment it is standards that count, and not colour?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the tenor of my earlier answers indicated agreement with my noble friend.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister not understand the frustration of many people at the inability of the Minister to give any statistics at all? Surely what we need in order to be satisfied on many counts is for the Minister to be able to tell the House and the country what proportion of our armed forces comes from the ethnic minorities. For instance, his right honourable friend the Home Secretary says that he is very worried at the absence of black faces in the police force, and is doing something about it. Ought we not also to have the basic facts in respect of the armed forces so that we can discover whether there are any problems and do something about them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I really do not think I can add to what I have said already. I do not believe that there is any purpose in dragooning people from one section or another of the community into the armed forces, or in dragooning them out. We want people who want to go into the armed forces and who are best suited to do so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is complacency.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, when he said that we want the best people for the armed forces, the record of the ethnic minorities in the wars that they have fought with us suggests that people of considerable suitability for the armed forces are to be found among members of the ethnic minorities in this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is indeed the case that many people from the ethnic minorities, for example the Gurkhas, have made a signal contribution to our armed forces.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not true that this Government are committed to the notion of affirmative action, and could they not give a very good example to other employers in an area which is under their own direct control?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I explained on an earlier occasion, we are considering this matter further. I am not in a position to make any announcement today, but an announcement will be made in due course.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, surely the noble Lord is begging the question. It is not a question of whether those who wish to join the armed forces can do so. The noble Lord has entirely missed that part of the question put by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton concerning promotion. Are the Government not getting themselves into a catch-22 situation—indeed, creating a catch-22 situation—in which they say that because there is no problem they do not need to give statistics, and because there are no statistics there is therefore no problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord is simply mimicking the words of one of his honourable friends in another place. Those were almost the precise words used by one of his honourable friends yesterday, or perhaps the day before. As I have reminded your Lordships on many occasions, the armed forces are an equal opportunities employer. Entry to the armed forces is open to everyone, and promotion is on merit.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many Englishmen there are in the Scots Guards?
A Noble Lord: Too many, my Lords!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, about as many Welshmen as there are in the Welsh Guards.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, who himself is mimicking the answer given by his honourable friend in another place, whether he can say how many black faces there are in the Guards and how many black faces were visible in the Trooping of the Colour ceremony?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I regret to say I did not count them.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House served during the war in the Scots Guards with a full-blown Chinese officer?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, I shall reflect upon the implications of that question.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I think that we cannot leave it exactly as it is. Everyone is uncomfortable about the position except the noble Lord who is answering, and I wish to make him show a little more interest in the subject; it is a very tricky one. Undoubtedly prejudices exist which should not exist; we all have prejudices. But can he not give some encouragement to the hope that within the next 12 months this House will be informed that a policy of absolute lack of discrimination is being fully carried
882
out in the armed forces from top to bottom? That is what we want.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I said on an earlier occasion that we were considering the possibility of introducing some form of ethnic monitoring in the armed forces and that an announcement would be made in due course. But let me say again that I have no reason to doubt that the position is not exactly as 1 have described it.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Agriculture Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986 will betaken.

Vocational Education and Training
3.1 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about major Government decisions on vocational education and training announced in the White Paper, Working Together: Education and Training published this afternoon. They are about the National Extension of the technical and vocational education initiative and the reform of vocational qualifications.
TVEI was launched on a pilot basis by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in November 1982. In chosen schools the Government have, through the Manpower Services Commission, made additional funds available to local education authorities to develop new ways of increasing the vocational content of the curriculum and offer pupils of all abilities between the ages of 14 and 18 more work-related learning.
By the end of this year there are likely to be almost 100 education authorities in England, Wales and Scotland taking advantage of the initiative, which will be covering over 600 schools and colleges and helping nearly 50,000 pupils.
As the pilots have developed, so too has appreciation of the way in which TVEI has been able to enrich the curriculum. It has opened up new opportunities for more young people of all abilities to see how school can be made more relevant to adult and working life.
We want to keep up the momentum to extend the benefit to many more pupils. We have decided that the MSC should be asked to administer the extension of TVEI from a pilot to a national scheme beginning in the autumn of 1987.
The Government are making a substantial financial commitment to this improvement in our schools. We are setting aside sums which build up from £ 12 million in 1987–88 to £41 million in 1988–89 and to £84 million in 1989–90. The average annual expenditure

883
over the next 10 years or so will be about £90 million. These amounts will be found from the provision we have planned for young people within the MSC's budget.
Each authority's TVEI proposals must be consistent with our overall policy of improving the school curriculum. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is publishing separately today a statement of the curricular criteria which extension proposals must meet.
The extension of the technical and vocational education initiative to be a national scheme is a major advance. But reforming and developing the curricu-lum in schools is not enough. We need to improve the vocational qualifications system to encourage more people, both young and old, to improve their skills when they have left school. For that reason, we are also announcing a new system of qualifications for skilled work at all levels in England and Wales.
Last year we set up a working group under the chairmanship of Mr. Oscar de Ville to review the pattern of vocational qualifications in England and Wales. The group's report was published in May.
It concluded that the present system was complex and incomplete, and recommended that a new system of qualifications should be set up within a framework to be called the National Vocational Qualification. It urged that a national council for vocational qualifications should also be established to work with the existing bodies to set up that framework. The Government accept these recommendations.
The council will be set up in the autumn of this year and will be asked to have the new system of qualifications in England and Wales and Northern Ireland in place by 1991. I am glad to say that Mr. de Ville has accepted our invitation to act as chairman of the council during its all-important formative period.
We will provide pump-priming funding, but the aim will be that after three years the council will become self-sufficient, from income received from bodies whose qualifications it accredits.
The recommendations of the report have been generally welcomed and we believe that they will lead to a much better system of vocational qualifications, which will be widely understood and respected by individuals and by employers. We hope they will be encouraged to invest more time and money in training.
For young people moving from school to adult working life it is vitally important that we have a good system of vocational education and training. All young people must be given the opportunity to leave full-time education or training with relevant qualifications and build on them throughout their working life. The extension of the technical and vocational education initiative and the setting up of the new framework of national vocational qualifications are major advances towards that objective.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the Statement, which we
884
generally welcome. Unemployment is a blight on our society, and that blight will not only continue but will be exacerbated by the lack of opportunities for young people. As he knows, the rate of unemployment among 16-to- 19-year-olds is about 25 per cent. Furthermore, the number of young people in part-time work has increased since 1979 by 250 per cent., and so another 25 per cent. are making do with something less than full-time work; a quarter are unemployed and a quarter are in part-time work. I am sure that he will agree that that is not good enough.
The noble Lord referred to the funds that will be available for TVEI. He said that the money was coming from planned provision for young people. Does that mean that there will be no new money available? If it is coming from planned provision, does that mean that YTS will in any way be adversely affected?
We welcome attempts to integrate education and vocational training as a means to ensure that future generations are well trained and attractive to employers. But is the noble Lord confident that the integration will take place under his new scheme, bearing in mind that the new council will be reporting to the Secretary of State for Employment? Have the Government thought out properly the relationship between education and training? Is he prepared to say a few more words about that at a later stage?
The Minister said that by the end of the year the technical and vocational initiative will have been extended to over 600 schools and colleges. Can he say what that is as a proportion of all schools and colleges and when we can expect the initiative to be available in all schools and colleges? Does he agree that if it is to be available in a few institutions, there is a danger of perpetrating the divide between vocational and academic institutions—a divide recognised and criticised by the review group on vocational qualifications.
We welcome the attempt to improve the quality of the YTS. We all know that it has been subject to much criticism for failing to live up to what is required of it. Can the noble Lord assure the House that the Training Standards Advisory Service will be adequately staffed to fulfil its functions of ensuring quality? I have been led to believe that there are fewer than 20 staff. Will the noble Lord tell us whether that is the case and, if so, whether he considers that number sufficient to provide effective inspection of the training programmes? Will he also tell us what relationship exists between TSAS and the MSC, which is responsible for the YTS? Is it independent of the MSC? If not, how can its independence be protected, as claimed in the White Paper?
The Statement announces a review of the structure of vocational qualifications. That is all to the good, in my view. I was shocked recently to read that according to the 1984 Labour Force Survey, more than 40 per cent. of the workforce has no qualifications. What opportunities have there been for industry to participate in this review? What involvement will it have in the future? Will the noble Lord assure the House that skills such as managerial skills are included within the meaning of the vocational qualifications? That is most important at present because industry is short of managerial skills. The MSC, in conjunction

885
with the British Institute of Management, noted that there was a notable absence of such qualifications in British industry. We must put that right.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to thank the Secretary of State for giving us this report this afternoon. We welcome the content of the report. I am glad that there is to be a further extension of the TVEI scheme. I have had the opportunity to see the scheme in operation. In many ways it is a model for the way in which changes of this sort can be brought about. The essential change is the development of much better collaboration among educationists and industrialists in the bringing together of education and training to make for good education and to make it vocationally relevant.
The scheme has been successful because it was initially voluntary. It was not imposed on educationists in any way. That tends to remove anxieties which undoubtedly exist in the education field, which fears that its expertise is being challenged and its territory unduly invaded. The success of that voluntary approach has been demonstrated by the fact that the scheme started in a small way and is now being extended because there is genuine demand for it.
With regard to the developments which have been taking place in TVEI, will the Secretary of State tell us how many girls are taking part in the programme? I know that the Secretary of State recognises that girls and women are grossly underrepresented in the more technical types of employment. This seems to be one of the best ways of attracting young women into jobs. It will be done through the school programme and will therefore be easier for them to assimilate. It will attract them into those jobs that we badly want them to do. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us something about that.
I am glad that the programme for the rationalisation of qualifications is going ahead. Anybody who has worked in that area well knows that there has been a motley of qualifications. It is extremely difficult for people who are not in the trade, so to speak, to know what qualifications there are or what is the route to acquire those qualifications. It is a long-overdue rationalisation and we very much welcome it. We also welcome the fact that the new council is being set up.
The national qualifications, which are based on courses such as City and Guilds, RSA and so on, are at a level which will not be appropriate for some youngsters going on the YTS. It is vital—and I am sure the Secretary of State will agree—that all youngsters going into the improved YTS with the high standard which I know it is the aim of the MSC to achieve, should feel that there is some recognition of their achievement when they leave at the end of two years. They want something which employers will see as evidence of competence.
They may not be able to reach the level which the new national qualifications will require. When setting national qualifications, there is always a danger of the standard becoming higher and higher. That is fine, but it is not so fine if it leaves behind too high a proportion of people who cannot reach that level. What is being done about the people who will not meet the scheme's requirements?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his comments and for his general welcome for our White Paper. This is a moment when I can stand back with some feeling of satisfaction. That is not a good feeling to have in this job in the present circumstances of employment in the world. I look back over the past four years to 15th April 1982 when I first went to the Manpower Services Commission as chairman. At that time, the only scheme for young people was the Youth Opportunities Programme. On 21st June of that year, my right honourable friend Norman Tebbit, who then held my position, announced the YTS. Today we have a two-year YTS and a new successor scheme—the New Worker Scheme—which is a follow-on from the YTS. We have seen unemployment for the under-20s fall from 26 per cent. to 19 per cent. It will fall considerably as the two-year YTS comes into full force.
I can safely say, without any fear of contradiction, that no government in the industrialised world have done as much and acted as quickly as we have in respect of the severe youth unemployment problem. It is not just that. When I went to the MSC there was nothing in the school system which gave any education or training to young people to prepare them for the world of work. There was great desire within the school system to have such education and training. When we went comprehensive, in local education authority after local education authority we somehow lost all the technical schools and most of the secondary modern schools. Education became less and less relevant to the real world. I am afraid that we saw increased truancy and young people less motivated. Far from causing a divide, this proposal will heal the divide that exists today among those who benefit from the school system and those who do not.
The relationship between education and training can be shown in no more fitting way than in the White Paper published today. Its title is Working Together; Education and Training. On the front inside cover, it has the objectives of the Department of Employment, and on the back inside cover it has the objectives of the Department of Education and Science. Rarely with any government have we seen two departments co-operating in overlapping fields to drive forward something which is of benefit to the nation.
I recall that when I first came to the Manpower Services Commission we had no YTS and no TVEI, which was introduced in November 1982. The Prime Minister made the announcement. We managed to get 14 projects going by the following September. Just over four years later, we have TVEI operating in just over 10 per cent. of our schools. We shall see it going to all the schools on a voluntary basis, a basis which I hope local education authorities will rush to take up.
We are offering money and training and the possibility of making education more relevant. We are putting more resources into education. We are doing all those things, and I hope that the education world will welcome them. I suspect that our principal constraint will be the speed at which we can give teachers the skills that they will need to bring the new technologies into the schools.

887
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the YTS. There has been too much criticism of the YTS. A fact of British public life is that we are long on criticism and short on credit. This is one of those instances where I wish that we would look at our achievements and not our failures. We have introduced a national scheme for hundreds of thousands of young people in a short space of time. The vast majority in the programme are up to or above standard. A few, of course, will be below standard, and that number must be reduced. What does not do our young any good is the constant complaint that somehow society owes them a job and that somehow society must pay them more money. What society owes them is the opportunity of training and the opportunity of standing on their own two feet. And society has a duty to look after the less fortunate. It is that balance that we must get right.
Also, in looking back to 1982 one sees that the whole area of vocational qualifications was a minefield. This is not some obtuse, obscure problem. It goes to the heart of the educational divide in this country. It is one of the fundamental reasons why this nation's economic performance has failed signally over the decades of this century. We are almost alone in having an education system and a training system that rarely meet. We are almost alone in having little progression as we go through life from school into vocational qualifications. We cannot allow this to continue any longer.
I appreciate the welcome given by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The noble Baroness, if I may be allowed to say so, has performed sterling work for the Manpower Services Commission. This shows the collaboration that is coming through between education and business. Those who have welcomed the review of vocational qualifications and the institu-tion of a new council include the Institute of Personnel Management, the British Institute of Management, the Institute of Administrative Management, the Institu-tion of Industrial Managers, the Institute of Marketing, the Institute of Purchasing and Supply, the Institute of Sales Marketing and Management and the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. There is hardly one body in the field of management and administration that has not welcomed the rationalisation that we are carrying out.
It is important to appreciate what we are doing in setting up this council. The memories of all noble Lords, I am sure, go back to kitemarks. Now we are to have a method whereby one can equate one qualification with another. The national vocational qualification will initially operate in four grades. A fifth grade that will go to professional qualifications is one for which I am qualified as a one-time solicitor. The first grade will start with YTS. Young people at school who go into YTS will be able to earn the first credits and the first qualifications in a system that will take them not only through school and through YTS but also through adult life as they progress. This is where we really must make progress.
Within the White Paper we deal with links not only between national vocational qualifications and YTS but also between national vocational qualifications and secondary examinations. For too long we have had a divide. This is the first step back towards getting
888
a unified field theory, if you like—a way in which we can bring together the vocational and the academic so that all can be one nation.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I greatly welcome the noble Lord's council for the accreditation or validation of qualifications. That is excellent. What I do not welcome and what I regard as retrograde and taking us back to the 19th century is the injection of a large amount of vocational training into schools for children under 16. They will be doing the same job or series of jobs from 16 to 65. Surely, up to that age we can allow them to browse more widely in literature and the arts as well as science and mathematics and so on. We do not want our schools full of vocational training. That is how we started off in the middle of the 19th century. This is, I believe, retrograde.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will perhaps remember that education can be vocationally relevant without being vocational. Mathematics, science, literature and languages are all vocationally relevant without being vocational. I hope that the noble Lord will not imagine that all of us welcome that part of his revolution. I should like to repeat, finally, what I told the noble Lord a few weeks ago. The whole edifice that he has erected over the last four years does not add one single job for young people.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it would be as well, I believe, if all in your Lordships' House, on occasion, open their eyes to the world as it exists outside—the world with which I have to deal, as do those who have to deal with young people as they are. It is fine to have concepts of educating for life. It is fine to have concepts of saying to our young people, "We will give you music, we will give you culture, we will give you literature". It is possible to say to them, "Think of higher things. Whatever you do, do not think of work, industry or commerce". The world in which I live is a world where all too many young people emerge illiterate, non-numerate and demotivated. They have majored in truancy. They come out of primary school bright eyed and bushy tailed and then spend the next few years bored out of their minds because they do not see the relevance of the work they are doing. The simple truth is that one in four of our young people is perhaps naturally academic. Most of our young people in order to learn at all have to see the relevance of what they learn in school. If we look at what has happened to education in the last 25 years, we see that it is pursuing a dead end, alone in the Western world.
Lord Glenamara: Absolute rubbish, my Lords.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is a dead end of trying to make education somehow divorced from life. As your Lordships may have noticed, I am wearing a badge. That is out of character for me. I went to a school in Croydon this morning in connection with TVEI, where 15-year-olds, as part of their curriculum, were setting up model businesses. They were taking orders for making badges. These 15-year-olds were learning all aspects of the world of commerce. They were getting a better education than I did. I left school without having the faintest idea of how anything operated outside in the world of

889
business. What we are talking about is broadening the curriculum, enriching education and motivating young people.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is excellent news that the TVEI is being extended. I have seen it on the ground. I believe that it is doing what my noble friend the Secretary of State has described. My noble friend tells us that there are 100 local authorities where TVEI is operating. Can he say how many local authorities who want it have not yet got it, as is the case in my own local authority of Tayside? It is held up by the biggest teaching union, the Educational Institute of Scotland. Does he know how many local authorities have no TVEI because of teachers' union problems? Has he any remedies for that?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, welcomed this as a voluntary scheme. It is a voluntary scheme. The overwhelming majority of local education authorities have now embraced TVEI. Some have not. This is sometimes for political reasons. They suspect that there is no spoon long enough for them still to sup with this Government. Others have difficulties with unions. I regret this. They are depriving young people of education that is sorely needed and also of opportunities and resources that are sorely needed. I hope that we shall see a change of attitude, and that now that this has gone national all local authorities will come in and do more towards preparing young people for life.
There is one serious charge that I did not address in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. It related to the number of jobs. If we look at the under-20s, we find that during the last four years, youth unemployment has been dropping. I venture to prophesy that it will continue to drop. One reason why it continues to drop is that young people are better prepared for the life that they will face and that they come out of school motivated.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord address himself to the position in Scotland? How has the matter been approached in Scotland? I am one of those who believe that the improvement and extension of vocational education is much to be desired. Indeed, we lost an opportunity a long time ago when the party opposite extended the school year without investigating properly how that school year should be used.
What is proposed will require a lot of co-operation. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right. Does the noble Lord have the co-operation of the teachers? The noble Lord should appreciate that we have come through a very sticky time in Scotland as regards education. Apart from the difficulties of strikes, we already have a new examination system which very few people understand. The noble Lord is now adding something else to it in respect of this national vocational qualification. Was I right in thinking that he said it was going to apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland? When are we going to get some statement about what is happening
890
in Scotland? We need the improvements, the money, the co-operation, the teachers, the equipment and all these factors that we do not have. Words arc not enough.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, TVEI will apply to Scotland. It goes through with local education authorities on a voluntary basis. Initially the Scottish education authorities felt, their education system being so much better than those south of the Border—and there I would not venture to disagree too much with that—that they did not require TVEI. They subsequently changed their minds. We welcome them in. TVEI is now progressing except in some authorities where there is some difficulty with the unions because without the agreement of the teachers it is impossible to introduce it.
The review of vocational qualifications starts perhaps only marginally with the school system but applies—if I may mention the Scottish institutions—to SCOTBEC and SCOTVEC and all the others. It is the decision of Scotland alone, and not ours, that they should initially stand back and be observers for the first year or two, although I am happy to say that the Principality of Wales, Northern Ireland and England are joining in. I greatly regret that decision. I look forward to the day when we have vocational qualifications which are sufficient to move people from Land's End to John o' Groats, and we do not have to build new walls or to continue to keep old ones going.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Secretary of State did not reply to my question as to what extent girls were taking part in TVEI. May I say to the noble Lord Lord Glenamara that in my view and the view of a great many people—I remember it was the view of Sir Fred Clarke of the Institute of Education—so-called educational subjects can be vocational and so-called vocational subjects can be educational. It is a question of how they are taught and whether the youngsters can be excited by what one is teaching them.
Lord Young of Graffham: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. TVEI is an equal opportunities educator. It is a specific condition of TVEI that it is open to the full ability range on one aspect and to equal sexes on the other. All the TVEI programmes have had equal recruitment as far as possible.
It is difficult to legislate for parents. One of the great problems we find is that it is the parent who condition the kind of courses that their children take. It has been quite difficult to see young girls, in particular, deviate from the traditional courses. Quite often when we look at the reasons why we find that it is parental influence. I suspect that we shall have to produce some kind of TVEI for parents before we solve that problem.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the Minister a further question on this point which he has just raised. While I welcome his statement and I shall look forward to reading the White Paper, I think he would agree that there have been varying degrees of success in the TVEI schemes both across the range of ability and in the involvement of girls. One of the disappointing aspects has been that

891
those girls who have been involved in TVEI schemes have tended towards the traditional activities and subjects.
Can the noble Lord tell us whether there has been any monitoring of the schemes that have now been operating for two or three years? If so, have any lessons been learned? Are there any ways in which it is hoped to overcome the difficulties of involving both boys and girls across the range? If no monitoring has been undertaken, can we be assured that as the scheme is being extended an element of monitoring will be included?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for her comments. As well as the White Paper, we have a popular version—designed for Ministers, let me hasten to say first—as a way of building a bridge between learning and earning which is here to explain what TVEI is about and also the review of vocational qualifications.
When we first set up TVEI we set up a national steering commission body which looks at and agrees not only the projects which get funded but sets up yearly monitoring. I am happy to put in the Library the report that we have had so far from the monitoring. If the noble Baroness would care to put down a question I am sure that we can deal in more detail with the precise answer.
I would not stand here today and say that TVEI is perfect: it is but in its third year. We have had compulsory education in this country for 110 years and not all of us are totally satisfied with that. However, the state of vocational education and training is transformed compared with where it was half a dozen years ago.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in answering my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the Minister said that certain local authorities, for anti-this-Government reasons, were not taking up the advantages and that it was to the detriment of the pupils. Since he is responsible for the pupils and not for the local authorities, what is he doing to try to get local opinion in those areas to put the matter right in the interests of the children?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have many responsibilities and I am fully aware of them. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has responsibility for the school system. The whole purpose, and the way in which we have proceeded on TVEI, is on a voluntary basis. I regret that there are some authorities that would not accept it. I hope that now it has become a national scheme—and that is why I do not want to say too much about it—they will reconsider their position and will embrace it wholeheartedly for the benefit of all their young.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, wishes to rise but we have spent 35 minutes on this matter. If the noble Lord, Lord Blease, asks his question and my noble friend answers it, the House may feel that we can move on to the next business.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should like to ask two questions. I listened with interest to the Secretary of State's announcement and I particularly welcomed his reference to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland the aims and objects of this Statement will I think be readily accepted. I believe that there is a foundation built there already of co-operation among teachers, management, industry and trade unions.
The Minister in his Statement said that the two departments were working together harmoniously to bring about the aims and objects of the White Paper. The two departments working together is only the beginning of it. What methods are being employed by the department to promote it at the level of the nuts and bolts of industry, and at the blackboard and books level of education? It has to be promoted, and cannot just spring to life or develop unless it is engineered by the two departments.
The second question is on this important aspect. While the ideals and principles—that this will lay the foundation for the development of young people to take a part in the new developments of competition with skills and adaptability—ought be readily accepted by all, in the long run, unless the jobs materialise, I feel that we are still in a Catch-22 situation where we have the training but not the outlook and inspiration to go on to higher things unless the jobs are there.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I would confess that it is no good having any good scheme unless it be promoted properly. I have given a great deal of attention to the difficulties of promoting it. We are responsible for the careers service. I shall ensure that the popular version of the White Paper is circulated as widely as possible. We shall be finding ways in which we shall go into the school system. We shall be working very closely with the Deparment of Education and Science and the territorial departments as well, to ensure that it is brought out as well as we can. That is of crucial importance, as is this whole programme.
With regard to Northern Ireland, the TVEI does not apply as such but the review of vocational qualifications does. I hope that review will be done. I hope very much that we shall see that work together.

Building Societies Bill
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Building Societies Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 5,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 6 to 13,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 14 to 24,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 25 to 27,

893

Schedule 6,

Clauses 28 to 32,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 33 to 34,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 35 to 44,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 45 to 68,

Schedule 9,

Clause 69,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 70 to 77,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 78 to 83,

Schedules 12 and 13,

Clauses 84 and 85,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 86 to 90,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 91 to 93,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 94 to 96,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 97 to 118,

Schedules 18 to 20,

Clauses 119 to 121,

Schedule 21,

Clauses 122 and 123.

—(Lord Brabazon of Tara. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Bill
3.40 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Provision of services and goods connected with agriculture and countryside]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The Minister shall make provision free of charge for the supply of—

(a) advice to persons carrying on agricultural businesses on the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside; and

(b) advice to such persons on diversification into other enterprises of benefit to the rural economy.

(1A) The Minister may make provision for the supply to any person of any services or goods relating to—

(a) the production and marketing of agricultural produce and other food;

(b) the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and amenity of the countryside; or

(c) any other agricultural activity or other enterprise of benefit to the rural economy;

that are not covered by subsection (1) above.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I think that it would be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 6, both of which are consequential.
Amendment No. 1 reinstates into the statute law part of the provision in Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which at present is repealed by the Agriculture Bill. Section 41 was put into the
894
Wildlife and Countryside Act as a result of amendments passed in your Lordships' House, and originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act makes it a requirement on the Minister of Agriculture to make provision for ADAS to give advice free of charge to farmers who carry on agricultural businesses on conservation and on diversification. That is the first part of the amendment, subsection (1)(a) and (b).
I have omitted from the amendment a third part of Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act about giving advice to other government departments. This is one of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, objected particularly when we discussed it in Committee. Therefore in tabling the amendment I narrowed the statutory duty on the Minister of Agriculture that applies in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which was put into that Act by your Lordships' House, accepted by the Government as recently as 1981. This would be a narrower statutory duty, but would nevertheless contain the essential elements that I think people on both sides of the House agree ADAS should continue to have to do; that is, to give advice to farmers free of charge on conservation, on enhancement of the countryside and on diversification of farm businesses.
The second part of the amendment, subsection (1A) (a), (b) and (c), simply repeats the provisions already in the Bill and allows the discretionary power that the Government are keen they should have to give advice or supply goods or services to a wide range of people, farmers and others involved in production, marketing and so on. Some of those things will, of course, be commercial services sold by ADAS.
The only change that the amendment makes to the Bill is to reinstate parts of the provisions of the Government's Wildlife and Countryside Act about free advice on conservation and diversification. It is a narrow statutory duty, but nevertheless one to which a great many interests attach considerable importance, I think for a number of reasons. First, as all of us involved in the agriculture industry are aware, major changes are taking place and will continue to take place. Conservation is increasingly important, as is diversification from a business point of view.
It is generally agreed, I think, that ADAS has a vital role to play in giving farmers advice on diversifying their business opportunities and helping them to conserve the countryside and wildlife and enhance the beauty of the country. The amendment would ensure that ADAS had a statutory remit to give that free advice.
The Government have said in your Lordships' House and in another place that this will happen anyhow and that ADAS will do this. So far they have set their face against this remaining as it is at present in law, passed in 1981, a statutory duty. They have done so, so far as I can see from studying the debates carefully, on the grounds that previous amendments put too wide a statutory duty and would have obliged ADAS to give advice outside agriculture to other government departments or statutory bodies free of charge. The amendment does not do that, but is restricted to advice to farmers.
The final reason that I think it is particularly important to write this into the Bill is that all of us

895
know that in practice what one Government Minister says as an undertaking when a Bill is going through Parliament binds no one else. It does not bind successive Government Ministers in the same administration, and it certainly does not bind successive governments.
We all know that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is committed to this and that he intends to see it happen, and I have no doubt that it will happen while the noble Lord occupies his current position. However a number of us on this side of the House in different parties do not believe that that will continue for very long. In any event, changes in governments will take place during the time that the legislation remains on the statute book.
The fact that this is a discretionary power to give advice is already causing uncertainty. For example, in last week's issue of Farmers Weekly, in discussing the free advice for diversification to which the Government are committed, there is a report of a farmer who is being given initial advice by ADAS free of charge on how to diversify but who will be charged if more detailed advice is sought. Despite the strong commitments that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has given on behalf of the Government and that were given in another place, already doubts are being raised about whether this free service really will be free and will continue to be free for a matter of days after the measure is passed, let alone many years into the future.
I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the Government. I have tried to meet all the objections that the noble Lord had to it in Committee, and I have drawn it very narrowly. It would simply ensure that ADAS had a statutory duty to continue to give free advice, as it does now under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, on these limited topics of conservation and diversification.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. If I had been able to attend the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill when your Lordships debated it on 12th June, I should have argued with others—I noted particularly the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—that it is impracticable and, more important perhaps, undesirable to separate the matter of advice by ADAS on agricultural matters on the one hand and environmental matters on the other. I support the amendment now because I am sure that unless advice on agricultural matters is provided free by ADAS, fewer farmers will seek advice on agricultural matters and consequentially fewer farmers will recieve the all-important advice on environmental matters that the noble Lord, I know, is so keen they should have.
I support the amendment because, if the Government are serious in their intention to attempt to achieve a true balance between the various interests contained in Clause 14, they must surely have a duty to do everything possible commensurate with the voluntary principle to persuade as many farmers as possible by expert advice how best to achieve that balance, and in particular having regard to the environmental interests, for which hitherto MAFF has
896
not had a formal responsibility and which have not been truly weighed in the balance in the past.
I see no justification for making a difference in principle between this amendment and Section 41 of the 1981 Act, in which the duty is laid upon Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, without the amendment the duties contained in the 1981 Act would be cancelled out. I see the retention of those duties as a test of the Government's good faith in respect of Clause 14 of the Bill.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the tremendous help that he has been since Committee in keeping us up to date with his thinking and for the amendments that he has tabled. This has been a great help to us. I do not suggest that we agree with all the amendments, but he has been a great help in every way, for which I thank him.
I do not think I need add to what has already been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I agree very much with the amendment. Subsection (1)(b) says:
"advice to such persons on diversification into other enterprises of benefit to the rural economy".
In my view that is most important in this year and, indeed, in this age, when we are asked to do so much diversification. Therefore, I and my noble friends support the amendment.
However, I want to make it clear that although I have put my name to my noble friend's Amendment No. 1 I did not mean to do so as regards Amendment No. 2. It is not that I disagree with the idea behind Amendment No. 2, but I feel that to refer to "promotion" is rather like saying that we have created a nice countryside for people and we are trying to chivvy them into it and make them enjoy it. I know that my noble friend does not mean that, but I should make it clear that I do not support that amendment although I do support the other three.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)My Lords, I should like to say a few words by way of background before dealing with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, whose words I appreciated about the way in which we have exchanged information since the Committee stage of the Bill.
Up until now all ADAS advice has been placed on the same statutory footing. In other words, the Minister of Agriculture has relied upon the same basic powers to provide advice on agricultural production or on conservation or on rural diversification. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, himself said in his introductory speech, we are certain now that in future the advisory service will need to be able to give its advice on a much wider canvas than it has hitherto. That is the reason why Clause 1 of the Bill provides for ADAS to give its services to the very wide range of people and on the wide range of subjects which are included in the clause. However, because the net of ADAS will now be spread much wider than it has been statutorily before, we have made Clause 1 a power and not a duty.

897
It is fair to say that your Lordships were somewhat suspicious during the Committee stage that this may be a licence to turn the coin on to its face: that ADAS, instead of spreading its net wider, could withdraw from the scene. Therefore, in order to give an undertaking to your Lordships' House on the face of the Bill that our advisory services will continue, the Government have tabled Amendment No. 4, which I hope we shall be discussing shortly. Indeed, if your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 4 we shall have an absolute guarantee in the Bill, which would be put on the face of the Bill by your Lordships' House, of the existence of an advisory service in the future, and also the general powers in Clause 1 would be spread much wider than hitherto. I suggest to your Lordships that that is really the only fair way in which to provide for the much wider role that ADAS is expected to play in the future.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who put forward a very persuasive case, I think that our proposal is a much fairer way of going about the matter than the proposals put forward in the first three amendments. The noble Lord's present amendments (if your Lordships agree to them) would make a very unacceptable distinction. They would provide for conservation advice free of charge and so they would establish sub-categories of ADAS advice on a different statutory footing from the rest of ADAS's advice. That would therefore, by law, require distinguishing lines to be drawn where lines had not been drawn previously. A statutory obligation to provide advice on conservation or rural diversification free of charge would, I suggest, be bound to lead to arguments in the courts about what constituted conservation and what did not.
The noble Lord said in Committee that he thought that such court action could be an advantage to farmers and the countryside as a whole. With respect, I do not agree with that suggestion. I think that it would lead to great pressures on the Ministry's advisers and, indeed, from the industry to segregate off advice on conservtion and rural diversification so clearly and definitely from other advice that there would be a significant reduction in the effectiveness with which ADAS provided the balanced mix of advice that it does at present and that it will be required to provide in future, and upon which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, quite rightly puts such enormous importance.
Incidentally, as a side-effect, these amendments would also prevent ADAS from entering into more detailed environmental planning and development work—in other words, the giving of environmental services—which at present it cannot undertake because of the enormously expensive resource demands that work of that kind would entail. But where customers are able and indeed willing to pay for expensive services, such as the drawing up of major management plans for monitoring, improving or enhancing the wildlife or other environmental interests of particular features of a farm or an estate, I do not see why such a service should not be provided. However, these amendments would forbid that happening.
898
Therefore, I am endeavouring to say to your Lordships that it was thought in Committee that in reality Clause 1 would be some kind of a licence for the Government to begin withdrawing ADAS from the role that it fulfils so well. Nothing could be further from the truth. I very much hope that the tabling of Amendment No. 4, when we come to it, will prove that that is so.
In addition, I assure your Lordships that the Government stand by their undertaking not to charge for the kinds of advice on conservation, animal welfare and rural diversification currently provided free of charge to farmers. I endeavoured to describe in Committee how ADAS and the industry can have practicable, workable arrangements for the future provision of advice on conservation and other issues free of charge. However, the difference between that and these amendments is that that can best be done with common sense and some give and take.
If these amendments were to be made, they would make agricultural advisers so wary of breaking the law that they would simply segregate off their conservation advice and the balanced mixture of advice that we all want to achieve would be lost. That would be an absolute disaster. However, I believe that it would be the inevitable consequence of these amendments. It is on that simple ground that I have to resist these three amendments.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, the debates which we have had on these amendments at this stage and the debates which we had on their predecessors at Committee stage, as well as those which we have had on other similar amendments to the clause, have served a useful purpose because they have dealt conclusively with the suspicions and doubts widely held that the Ministry of Agriculture have been less than wholehearted in their commitment to conservation.
The Ministry disliked Clause 41 to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill when it was introduced, and they have by no means exerted themselves as whole-heartedly as they have always claimed in its execution ever since. However, that is not to say that there are not a considerable number of farmers who understand and practise conservation well; it is not to say that the farming and wildlife advisory groups have not done sterling work in this field; and it is not to say that there are not a considerable number of officials both within the Ministry and within ADAS who have the cause of conservation at their hearts. However, there is a considerable number of hardliners in the Ministry whose will to keep clear of conservation has yet to be broken. Now, at the first opportunity to make an amendment in the field of conservation, the Ministry divest themselves of a statutory duty and leave themselves with a power. If that is not a reduction in their concern for conservation, I do not know what is! Nevertheless, we are now clear about how we stand, and that is a gain.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I may be wrong but 1 did not understand what the Minister meant when he said that his Amendment No. 4 answered the question which we are now discussing.
4 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I reply to my noble friend Lord Craigton? By way of background, I just wanted to set the scene to make it clear to the House that any suggestion that Clause 1 is in some way a licence for ADAS to be withdrawn and to disappear from the scene is not the case. In order to prove that it is not the case, the Government have put down Amendment No. 4. It remains the case with Amendment No. 4, if your Lordships agree to that amendment, that Clause 1 will be a power and not a duty. This is what this amendment is all about.
The reason why the Ministry have put forward a power in Clause 1 and not a duty is, as I think my noble friend Lord Craigton is well aware, that we have drawn Clause 1 infinitely wider than the law stands at the moment; indeed, so wide that Clause l(l)(c) says that the advisory services in the future shall provide their goods and services to,
"any other agricultural activity"—
other than production and marketing, and conservation and enhancement of the countryside—
"or other enterprise of benefit to the rural economy."
It is a complete catch-all.
The difficulty we should be in if your Lordships had insisted that there should be a duty to provide all services at all times is that we would find ourselves overstretched, because otherwise we would be breaking the law in that we would have to meet all the particular bits of Clause 1 at one and the same time. It is for that reason that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is being selective in this amendment and saying that he wants a duty to provide free services for conservation and rural diversification only.
I admire the noble Lord (because he is consistent in this matter) for bringing forward this amendment, but I disagree with his view that it can work. If you lay a statutory duty on agricultural advisers to provide free advice—I honestly say this, my Lords—I think that the ADAS advisers will be so wary of breaking the law that they will not provide integrated advice when they go to visit a farm. What they will say is, "We are going to play safe and make absolutely certain that we either give husbandry advice or we give environmental advice, but we are jolly well not going to give integrated advice, becuse before we know where we are, if we do that we may find that we are up before the courts for having broken the law". It is on that simple ground that I have to resist the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, at the start of our debate.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who was responsible for these provisions appearing in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. But they have a long and honourable pedigree. They were first recommended by Sir Nigel Strutt in the Strutt report many years before that. It has been endorsed by everybody from the agricultural industry who has looked at the future for agriculture and conservation that ADAS should play a major part in giving advice to farmers on conservation matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, the provisions have not been wholeheartedly endorsed by the
900
Ministry, and I find it bitterly disappointing that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, should be as pessimistic as he is (and said he was this afternoon) about the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised the red herring about Clause 1 being a licence for ADAS to disappear. Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 6, with which we are dealing, do not address that point. They are not looking at whether this Bill is a licence for ADAS to disappear but at whether this Bill provides a licence for ADAS free advice on conservation and diversification to disappear.
It provides that licence. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has not suggested otherwise. He has given a personal undertaking that he will not allow it to end. But, as I said in introducing the amendment, that only carries us forward as long as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, holds his present job, and no further. The fact is that Clause 1 provides a licence for ADAS's involvement in conservation and diversification to end. It could end tomorrow if a Minister wished to end it tomorrow. That is what this Bill provides a licence for.
The noble Lord then said, "Even if that is not a good argument, Amendments 1, 3 and 6 would mean ADAS segregating off advice on conservation and diversification from the rest". The Government have already done that. They have said, "We will charge for some advice and give some advice free". That is segregating. ADAS officials, as we discussed at length at Committee stage, again have to know whether they are giving advice which is chargeable or free. The segregation has taken place. All I say is that we want to make sure in the Bill that at least the free advice continues into the future and does not disappear down the plughole. That is what this amendment would ensure.
I was disappointed at how pessimistic the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was about this. He has just cause, because Sir Nigel Strutt's advice many years ago was not acted on; and even when this duty was put in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, accepted by Parliament, it was not forcefully taken up nationally. But I think it is fair to say that locally a great many ADAS officers, regional staff and local advisory officers have eagerly seized on this and have done an effective job, have trained themselves in conservation, made contacts, and given a lot of excellent advice to farmers. That is what I do not want to see ended by this Government or any future government. This amendment will ensure that it continues, and I think the House should insist that it does continue. I want to press the amendment to a Division.
Baroness White: My Lords, before we take a Division on this amendment, can the Minister not deal with the differentiation made in Lord Melchett's amendment between the goods and services which are included both in this amendment and in the Bill as it now stands, and advice? The noble Lord mentioned the difficulty of an ADAS officer being asked to draw up a scheme, or maybe to undertake some kind of survey, or something of that sort. Surely that is caught under "services or goods". Advice is different.
I should have thought that it is necessary that we make certain that advice will remain available,

901
whatever happens to the goods and services. The goods and services may be charged for, and that is provided for both in the Bill and in the amendment. I cannot see why the noble Lord resists the desirability of providing advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said—and as we discussed endlessly at Committee stage—the ADAS officers must be able to decide what it is they are going to charge for, and therefore they ought to be able to differentiate between that and what they are not obliged to charge for.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers again—and to stop him having to speak three times on Report stage—presumably I am right in assuming that when my noble friend gives an undertaking from the Government Front Bench that certain things are going to happen, he is speaking for the Government. He is not speaking, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, implied, solely in his own personal capacity.
The Government have given an undertaking that these services will be provided. I accept that. I do not presume that if, by misfortune, noble Lords on Benches in another part of this House change places with ourselves, those people will then withdraw from that undertaking. Therefore I should have thought that the pledge is perfectly all right, and that it would be a mistake to go to a Division. Even though I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, seeks is a good thing to do, I certainly shall vote for the Government.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know that I have the permission of the House to speak a third time, and it would be unfair if I made debating points and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could not speak again. Therefore may I, in one sentence, simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that of course advice is a service under the Bill. I think that really answers the point she was putting to me.
4.9 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 139.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Diamond, L.

Amherst, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Attlee, E.

Ennals, L.

Banks, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Barnett, L.

Ezra, L.

Birk, B.

Falkender, B.

Blease, L.

Foot, L.

Blyton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brockway, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Glenamara, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

David, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hunt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

902

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rugby. L.

John-Mackie, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sandford, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seear, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shepherd, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Lockwood, B.

Simon, V.

Longford, E.

Stallard, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McNair, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mulley, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Vernon, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Phillips, B.

Walston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Rochester, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gainford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Annan, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Arran, E.

Granville of Eye, L.

Auckland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bauer, L.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Beloff, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Belstead, L.

Marylebone, L.

Bessborough, E.

Halsbury, E.

Blake, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Bolton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hives, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hood, V.

Brentford, V.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Burton, L.

Ingrow, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Caccia, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Caithness, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Cathcart, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cayzer, L.

Lurgan, L.

Chelmer, L.

Lyell, L.

Clitheroe, L.

McFadzean, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Manton, L.

Craigton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Cranbrook, E.

Avon, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cross, V.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denning, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peel, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

L.

Ferrers, E.

Portland, D.

Forbes, L.

Quinton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Radnor, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

903

Reigate, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Teviot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Tranmire, L.

Savile, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trenchard, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Shannon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Slim, V.

Vickers, B.

Somers, L.

Vivian, L.

Somerset, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Westbury, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Wise, L.

L.

Young, B.

Sudeley. L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) the promotion of public enjoyment of the countryside; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this amendment we return again to something we discussed at Committee stage of the Bill; namely the importance, as I see it, of ADAS having a remit to promote the public enjoyment of the countryside. Noble Lords who were present at the Committee stage will remember that this was something which the Government have now given to the Minister of Agriculture as part of his remit. In a later clause in the Bill the Minister has a duty to balance a number of things—agricultural production, conservation and so on; and one of them is enjoyment of the countryside.
When we debated this at the Committee stage it seemed to me—though I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would agree—that the Minister had one major argument against the amendment. It was that the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside was already in the remit of another statutory body, the Countryside Commission, and that the commission would not welcome this remit being given to ADAS. I said at the time that I did not think that that was the Countryside Commission's view. I have now been able to confirm that, because the commission tells me that when it saw the amendment prior to the Committee stage,
"our feeling was that it would be quite reasonable for ADAS to help us [that is, the Countryside Commission] in this way, in the same way that they will be offering advice on conservation. There certainly seems to have been a misconception of our likely attitude on this point, but I believe that this has now been cleared up with the ministry".
I hope that the point has been cleared up and that the noble Lord will be able to accept the amendment.
A number of other noble Lords took part in the debate and some of them seemed to be under the impression that this would in some way be a new remit for ADAS or would be widening its scope or taking it into all sorts of dangerous and unacceptable territory. Again, since the Committee stage debate I have been able to study some of the excellent documents which ADAS has recently produced. I have here one called The Living Farm. It is sub-titled Advice on
904
conservation from ADAS. On the first page there is a list of the kinds of advice which ADAS is currently able to give. It says:
"What kinds of advice?
"ADAS can advise on",
and then it lists a number of things: ponds and wetlands, farm woodlands, hedgerows, appearance of farm buildings, landscape, farm wastes, wildlife, use of pesticides and fertilisers, and finally sporting or recreation.
So ADAS is already giving advice on recreation in the countryside, and it does not seem to me therefore that my amendment does more than recognise, first, that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has now a new remit in this field, a balancing remit, but a remit nevertheless, introduced in this Bill by the Government; and, secondly, that that remit is likely to be carried out first and foremost by ADAS which already sees itself in this field with strong support from the Countryside Commission. My amendment simply recognises what is happening already and I hope therefore that it will be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, there is always a danger in coming in at Report stage when one has missed the actual discussions and debates which took place in Committee; and this is my slightly handicapped position. But I rise to support this amendment on the simple premise, rather on the same lines that we have just been discussing, that it is quite unrealistic and pointless to separate the matter of the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenities of the countryside if you do not at the same time promote public enjoyment of it. That seems to me to be a perfectly good reason for including the words that are not at present on the face of the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I understand the philosophy behind the noble Lord's amendment and I go along with it quite a long way, but there are certain snags as I see it. One is in making it a statutory duty on the poor, unfortunate ADAS officer who comes to see me to advise me on this particular matter.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but this would not make it a statutory duty; it would make it a statutory power. This is now a discretionary clause, as the noble Lord will remember.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: All right, my Lords; I will take that back; but it will make it a duty on him to give advice on this matter.
Lord Melchett: No.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: All right, my Lords, a power. But my objection to it is that he will be put in an invidious position because enjoyment of the countryside is subjective; what is beauty and what is not? You may find the unfortunate ADAS officer saying, "I think that really you ought to make hay rather than silage because it is rather more beautiful". In fact, he may even think that I ought to make it in the way that Constable showed us how to make it 100 years ago. That is the first point.

905
The second point concerns access. I am surprised at what the noble Lord said about the Countryside Commission, for what he said about the commission did not mean that it supported his amendment. It just saw it, as it said. Perhaps he will comment on that later.
I turn to another pont about access. I really do not think the Minister is the right person to advise on this matter. I have had some experience in that my son had the privilege of winning the South-East Midland Area access competition, which was run by the Countryside Commission. The people who were of help to us were the Countryside Commission and the local authority. ADAS really was not of great help.
My final objection is that I think we are making the unfortunate ADAS officer, who is going to enter a very competitive world in the future, a jack of all trades, and I do not feel that that is right. So I do not like this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, may I just say that when you give someone a power it is not long before he thinks that it is his duty.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I do not think the amendment is necessary. We live in the country. We all want people to enjoy it. We do not want them to spoil it in any way. I cannot see the need to put this into the Bill, for it seems to be quite unnecessary. Also, in the area where I live the Forestry Commission has picnic places to which people go and which are very agreeable. The local authority also has areas where people may park cars and have picnics by the side of the river. Nobody told the local authority to do it. There is no need to put this in the Bill. The authorities want to do it; they want people to enjoy the countryside. Why not? I think it is unnecessary to put it into the Bill because in fact it is being done now and, as far as I know, is being done rather well.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I think that the suspicious thing about this amendment is what is meant by "enjoyment of the countryside". Those of us who enjoy it in the way that many of us do enjoy it for what it is and we want to keep it as it is. I have a strong suspicion that there are a great many people who should like to enjoy it entirely for the kind of amusement which they consider gives them pleasure—dropping litter all over the place, having "pop" camps or caravan sites and that sort of thing. I cannot think it is quite fair on a fanner to ask him to put up with all that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this brief discussion, and not least to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, speaking from the Benches on this side, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, speaking from the Cross-Benches, for saying, in their slightly different ways, that they are concerned about this amendment. I must say that I too am concerned because I think it will put the agriculture advisory services into a very difficult position if they are put into the Bill in this particular way.
906
As I think all noble Lords have said, for many observers a well-ordered, well-tilled landscape is enjoyable and is something that we all look for. But do not let us forget that there are other people who do not want to see that. They want moorland and heath land and would prefer not to see the landscape looked after too minutely. Some naturalists delight in the spectacle of a field returning to nature with a succession of wild flowers, trees and shrubs and all sorts of other things abounding, while other people say that that is a bit like rural dereliction.
I think that we put ADAS into a difficult position if we start to try to interpret what is an individual's "enjoyment of the countryside". What we are doing is putting into Clause 14 of the Bill a promise that we in the Ministry of Agriculture will endeavour to balance the interests of agricultural production, conservation and rural economy. I am absolutely sure that Clause 14 is right. But if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that we are now discussing is agreed, I think that the worries of my noble friend Lord Stanley will be justified and we will find a bewildering variety of conflicting views about what "enjoyment of the countryside" means, with it being claimed that the ministery's advisory services either are or are not promoting enjoyment of the countryside.
Having said that, I have to meet head on the point put to me by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, and Lord Melchett, which in essence is this. If "public enjoyment of the countryside" is to be found in Clause 14, why is it not to be found in Clause 1? I think that probably this House is wise enough to know that there are dangers in harmonising for harmonisation's sake.
Clause 1(1), which is where this amendment would go if it were passed, has been drafted in response to the specific needs of ADAS for the future. But Clause 14 has been drafted for a different purpose altogether, which is to ensure that the whole range of the Ministry of Agriculture's policies relating to land, including ADAS advice, should take account of wider social and economic objectives relevant to present-day concerns.
Those two things are not entirely the same. Clause 14 contains an umbrella power, and I am very glad that we are proposing to put it in, but if you put this direct power into Clause 1 I really would feel sorry for the advisory service and I think all noble Lords who have spoken, except for the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Melchett, would feel there was a danger that the advisory service would be drawn into interminable wrangles about what does or does not constitute enjoyment of the countryside.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I assume that this glossy and attractive booklet entitled The Living Farm from ADAS is going to have to be amended in the light of what the noble Lord has said—and withdrawn and re-issued—because so far as ADAS are concerned they are currently giving advice on sporting and recreational matters. If recreation does not enable people to enjoy the countryside, goodness knows what it does. As the noble Lord said, these words appear in Clause 14 because the Government have put them there. If they are difficult to interpret when the Minister balances interests, they are going to be difficult for ADAS, but no more difficult. I know the

907
Minister is very wise and wonderful, but I do not think he is that much wiser or that much more wonderful than the ADAS staff who are giving advice on the ground. If the Minister can manage to interpret what these words mean—and presumably he must, because he put them into the Bill—surely in his great wisdom he can pass on his interpretation to the staff in the field.
The fact of the matter is, if I may say so to the noble Lord and others who have taken part in this debate, that they are quite happy for meaningless words to go into a general clause applied to the Minister so long as nothing happens in practice. That is the real objection to this amendment: they are afraid that it might encourage more of the population of this country to enjoy the countryside; and they do not want to see that happen. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was not listening when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, described moorland as the sort of countryside, or one of the sorts, which people want to see in (as it were) the waste or the not-properly-managed category by comparison with well-tilled fields, because there are many more people than the general public who want to see moorland in the countryside. The game conservancy and grouse shooting interests, conservationists and many others want to see moorland in the countryside, and I do not think it was very wise of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if I may say so, to suggest that that was one of the nonsensical things wanted to be seen in the countryside by people who do not really know what is going on there.
I bitterly regret the fact that the Government, while giving a general clause to apply to the Minister in Clause 14, are not prepared for it to apply to ADAS when they are on a farm giving advice to farmers on enjoyment of the countryside and on recreation. It seems to me that that makes Clause 14 largely meaningless. It clearly demonstrates, as did the reaction of the Government and the noble Lord to the first amendment, that their real commitment to conservation and to changes in the countryside is skin-deep and meaningless. I am afraid that is the message people outside this House will have gained from our debates, not just on this amendment but on many others. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, may I just reply to what the noble Lord has said about open moorland? I take his point, but I think it is fair to say that, as things stand at the moment with regard to moor-owners and the general public, the relationship is extremely good. What concerns me and many other moorland owners is that if the pressure is to increase—and, of course, we have at the moment the common land forum which many noble Lords will know about—and if we were to get access to common land, I think the problems would intensify greatly. Of course that is a different matter, but as things stand at the moment they work well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) The provision which may be made under this section includes provision for the supply of such services and goods as are
908
mentioned in subsection (1) above through any organisation; and the Minister shall establish an organisation through which such a supply may be made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the debate at Committee stage concern was expressed by your Lordships that if the powers in Clause 1 are permissive rather than mandatory it will somehow weaken the status of ADAS. That is emphatically not true. This may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships, but the present law does not in fact impose any obligation on the Government of the day to maintain an advisory organisation. Indeed, that has been the position since 1970, when the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 was amended by the Agriculture Act, and yet ADAS is still here and flourishing.
Nevertheless, I considered carefully the concerns that were expressed by your Lordships in Committee, and we have looked very carefully to see what could be done to meet those concerns. As I explaind at the Committee stage, we simply could not accept a duty to provide advice across the whole range of matters covered by Clause 1. I have been over that ground already this afternoon. What this amendment does is to impose a duty on the Government to maintain an advisory organisation while leaving the Government the discretion that is essential, I believe, about precisely what services or goods the organisation will supply. The amendment would also permit goods and services to be supplied in other ways as well, if that seemed more sensible in particular circumstances. But that would be in addition to, and not instead of, an advisory service, which is the concern of this amendment. I hope your Lordships will feel that this really is a step forward inasmuch as it puts what is in fact a guarantee into the Bill for the continuation of the Ministry's advisory service, which I believe does such good work. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for at least giving some thought in putting down this amendment. In speaking to it, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 5, if I may, because the two are complementary in some ways.
First, I should like to say that what is worrying me about ADAS is the morale in the service—a service which we all know has served the industry and the farmers so extraordinarily well for many years. There is no question about it: it seems to me that if in the last few years one-sixth of the staff has gone, that is not something that raises morale. During our debate at the Committee stage the Minister said that he had visited some demonstration which ADAS were running and had found that morale was very high. I visited the ADAS stand at the Royal Show on Monday and I was not surprised but, again, was delighted by the quality of the displays they had there. I liked particularly the way they had laid out what they had done and what they were doing in respect of all the different sections of agriculture, the advice they were giving and everything else.
I thought I should talk to some of them, and I did so; but I am certain that they did not know who I was. I talked to three members and found that the one thing they are not happy about are the cuts in staff. They are not happy either about the cuts in research and development, because that is where they get their

909
knowledge and experience so that they can give advice to farmers. They are very unhappy also about charges, and particularly about the complexity of the charges and the problems that will arise—the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned this earlier—in connection with exactly what they will have to charge and how the amount will be decided.
There is also the difficulty in approaching a farmer about staying longer if more time is needed. I forget the figure, but I believe the noble Lord gave us a figure of around £35 an hour. One can quite see how difficulty could arise when a farmer might be in doubt about asking them to stay for another hour and look at another field, and so on.
I explained that so far as I could see the Government were determined to raise some money in this way. The ADAS people were quite adamant that they should have preferred the levy system that I proposed at the Committee stage, which would have given them a free hand and the farmers a free hand on advice. I was quite struck by the fact that they were quite worried about all these items, and certainly in my opinion their morale is not as high as it should be.
When I look at the Minister's amendment it strikes me as a model of ambiguity. I am not lawyer; nor is my grammar very good; but am I right in thinking that the "may" in,
"the provision which may be made"
governs whether the Minister "shall establish"? I should like the Minister to make that quite clear because I think it is ambiguous in that respect. Then there is another question. Why not use the term "ADAS"? Why use the word "organisation"? It seems to me that the Government are trying to avoid something in the amendment to give them a loophole. I hope I am wrong; and if I am not wrong, why not take a look at our Amendment No. 5?
This amendment is straightforward. If the Minister says that ADAS is going to continue, why not just say so, as we say in our amendment? It would give tremendous assurance to the staff of ADAS if they would come straight out and accept the amendment, or, if they like, amend the amendment if it is not as well worded as they would like. But I think it is; I checked it fairly carefully. That would be of tremendous assurance to the staff.
I do not want to see the relationship with ADAS go, or ADAS itself go. It has been a tremendous help to me. We should not forget that nearly 75 per cent. of ADAS members are members of the Institute of Professional Civil Servants. I do not think we should forget that the union has collected a good deal of information from its members. It is quite adamant that there is considerable worry and that an amendment such as mine would be of assurance to its members.
The agricultural press was mentioned earlier. We all know the press in many ways. Nevertheless, nearly every agricultural paper has had articles about the difficulties in ADAS over the past few weeks which cannot be ignored. One should think very carefully about giving this assurance which we want to give in our amendment. I appeal to the Government to
910
amend their amendment to make it an absolute assurance, and not what I consider to be a very ambiguous one.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has said about ADAS and about both its value and its morale. There can be no doubt at all among those who are close to it or are involved in any way in farming that the morale in ADAS at present is low and is in danger of going still lower. That does not in any way mean that the work it is doing is not just as valuable as ever. In some ways it is even more valuable. All the more credit is due to a group for carrying on in this way, although numbers, as the noble Lord will know, have declined severely.
The provisions in the Bill for payment, into which I shall not go again, undoubtedly put an even greater strain on ADAS and make things harder for it. All these things have been thrashed out both at Second Reading and in Committee, and I shall not elaborate any more. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has tried his best to produce an amendment which will overcome those difficulties. Quite frankly, I do not think he has succeeded. It is no fault of his. I am not blaming him in any way. It may be a mercy, but it is a very small mercy indeed. I suppose we should accept it for what it is worth, but there can be no confidence in our minds that it will go in any significant way towards overcoming those difficulties which have been mentioned on many occasions.
My noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie will be talking about Amendment No. 5. If I were given a straight choice between the two amendments, I should go every time for Amendment No. 5 rather than Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 5 does something; Amendment No. 4 does no more than provide rather emollient words.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I think we are in danger of being a little ungracious to my noble friend. To expect governments to write clear legislation is surely asking for the moon. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has written an amendment which to most of us makes complete sense. The letter which my noble friend Lord Belstead has sent to my noble friend Lord Buxton—several of us have had a copy—basically says that that is exactly what he is going to do, but he has to write it in gobbledegook. For heaven's sake, let us accept the gobbledegook and know that we can never get anything better.
Baroness White: My Lords, we should be able to get something better. I ask noble Lords in all parts of the House to consider what their feelings would be if they were ADAS officers, who have been proud to belong to an existing organisation which receives warm praise from all quarters, and had to read, if they have had the pleasure of seeing this list of amendments,
"and the Minister shall establish an organisation".
If it said "should maintain an organisation", that might be a little less insulting; but if you belong to a proud organisation which is there and if you are assured that it is the intention at least of the present Government that that organisation shall be maintained, how would you feel about an amendment in this form—that they shall establish an

911
organisation—when they already have an organisation? Why cannot they refer to it straight-forwardly and indicate that they propose to maintain this organisation?
The statute would not oblige them to maintain it at any particular strength—that is true—so their main concern about the large cuts which are still apparently in prospect will not be removed. But at least they could feel that they were being treated with the kind of respect which they deserve instead of being told that they are not really an organisation in being because an organisation has to be established. It seems to me that it is utterly lacking in sensitivity, whatever the good intentions may be.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, for once I agree with my noble friend rather than my noble kinsman Lord Onslow, for a change. I think we are being ungrateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken in bringing forward this amendment. I have no reason to know but I suspect he had quite a job getting this past his colleagues.
I should like to ask him two questions. Can he expand at all on what sort of jobs and services are going to be provided by ADAS? The other question concerns the difficult matter of the services with regard to statutory duties. Noble Lords will remember that we discussed statutory duties last time, when my noble friend said that the Government were determined to charge for them. As I understand it—and perhaps the Minister will let me know—the charges will be in the regulations. When he comes down to making the regulations will he look kindly on the amount that farmers will have to pay when the Ministry performs its statutory duty?
Perhaps I may bring up a point that is sensitive for me personally. I should feel very aggrieved if at the moment I had to pay for the services which are being given by the Ministry with regard to my radioactive lamb. I may say that the Ministry has done a superb job in North Wales—it is its usual polite, long-suffering self. I am sure it has brought in a large number of people. However, it would be rubbing salt into my wound if I had to pay for that sort of service. I hope that my noble friend will say that in the circumstances where a statutory duty is being carried out he will perhaps charge the minimum rather than the maximum amount. Otherwise, I thank my noble friend for his amendment.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I rise to make the same apology that I made earlier about not having followed the discussion that took place in Committee leading to the noble Lord's amendment, although I have read Hansard. I rise only to seek clarification. It is not clear to me what relationship this new organisation which the noble Lord would establish through his amendment, which I understand to be separate and different from ADAS, will have with ADAS. Is there confusion in any other noble Lord's mind about this? If I am correct that a separate organisation for the supply of goods, following the advice of ADAS on whatever matters, is to be set up to handle the business of supply, then we should be informed what relationship that new organisation will have with ADAS.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as we are speaking to both amendments I rise to support Amendment No. 5, but that is no disrespect to the Minister and his amendment. We are speaking about ADAS in England, but the position is illustrated by the Scottish colleges. I should like to say with all the seriousness I can muster that any assurance is probably too late.
In my area the local college staff who are quite excellent, are slipping away very fast. There were six of them. The senior man has gone to a commercial job. The second man, also a good man, is going to a commercial job. The third is negotiating to do so. My understanding is that this organisation, in an important agricultural and scenic area of Scotland, will be absolutely decimated long before this Bill becomes law. I should have thought that in the interests of morale in the service, in both Scotland and England, the strongest possible expression of intention to maintain the service is necessary.
For many people it will be too late. The senior man to whom I refer has gone to a commercial firm, where he is of immense use to me because I am a good customer of the firm. These good men who understand agriculture and the countryside are needed for the broad picture of keeping the countryside together and giving all the advice we have been speaking about today. They are slipping away like snow off a dyke.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I sympathise very much with my noble friend in this. Like the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, I should like to give assurances to members of ADAS who I know from my own experience are feeling most insecure. I am about to make a great deal more use of ADAS than I have in the past, knowing that it is going to cost me money. I have a large number of cows and I know exactly what I want ADAS to do for me, and it is bound to be worth my while.
However, the fact is that there must be uncertainty as to whether a large number of farmers who use ADAS now will go on doing so. One may have uncertainty about the whole philosophy of the Government that ADAS is required to charge, but it must follow from what the Government are doing that if ADAS cannot get farmers to pay for the work, the business will, in part, fold up. Under those circumstances I do not see how I can expect my noble friend to give the firm undertaking which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is expecting.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend Lord De La Warr is kindly endeavouring to assist me. If your Lordships want a cast-iron undertaking that an advisory service of the Ministry is to continue, covering England and Wales—this clause does not extend to Scotland—please support Amendment No. 4. I shall come to Amendment No. 5 in a moment. Amendment No. 4 provides an absolutely cast-iron undertaking that whatever goods and services—in other words, advice and so on—may be provided, the Minister "shall establish an organisation." That is an absolutely cast-iron undertaking.
Perhaps I may reveal to your Lordships that when I read the way in which the amendment had been

913
drafted by parliamentary counsel I and my advisers went back to them to get this absolutely underlined. It is a cast-iron assurance that whatever goods and services are being provided, the organisation is to be there for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, quite under-standably asked why we refer to "an organisation". Why not, she asked, refer to ADAS? The reason is that we are putting an obligation into legislation, if your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 4, which has not been in legislation since 1970. We therefore feel that it is logical to refer to "an organisation" because statutorily ADAS does not exist and has not existed for the past 16 years. It is extraordinary, but it was taken out of the law in 1970. If your Lordships agree, we shall be putting it back in, and I shall find that very cheering.
May I now say to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, why I feel it is not possible for the Government to support Amendment No. 5. It is true that as regards Amendment No. 5 one could say that great minds think alike—in other words, the Government and the noble Lord are trying to reach exactly the same objective. However, we have not referred to a named organisation because, in addition to the reason 1 gave to the noble Baroness, names can change. If in, say, 25 years' time someone thought of a different name, they would find that ADAS has been cast in stone. That was another reason. Incidentally, to refer to an advisory service without naming it has a respectable precedent. In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944, under which ADAS was established, there was not specific mention by name of the advisory service.
The other difficulty with Amendment No. 5, if I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is that it refers to economy and efficiency. I admit that we do not do so in our amendment; first, because these concepts are central to the ability of ADAS to provide chargeable advisory services on a competitive basis and, secondly, because there could be considerable legal problems, I am advised, arising from concepts such as these which cannot clearly be defined.
May I therefore lead your Lordships back to Amendment No. 4. It is an absolutely cast-iron guarantee that an advisory service—ADAS—will continue for the future. It is a service which has well over 4,000 officers in England and Wales and which continues to run 19 experimental husbandry farms and horticultural stations. My noble friend Lord Stanley, who obviously takes the closest of interest in this, almost prompted the Government to bring forward their amendment, perhaps more than any other of your Lordships. He tabled an amendment in Committee about consultation if one changes ADAS. I felt that the way to do this was to make a clean breast of it and to come back to your Lordships, not going on about consultation but saying, "Come on, let us put into the Bill that there shall be an advisory service for the future".
The sort of jobs and services that ADAS will provide for the future were detailed in leaflets which I believe the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, saw at the Royal Show on Monday. Those leaflets have been deposited in the Library of your Lordships' House.
914
My noble friend Lord Stanley said to me, "When ADAS moves to charging be careful and be sensitive if you find that there is a difficulty—for instance, such as the problem of radioactivity at the moment when maybe farmers are needing special advice". Well, we are not into a charging situation at the moment. However, as an earnest of our good intentions in the Ministry of Agriculture perhaps I may remind my noble friend that last winter, when things were very difficult, we went out of our way to provide ADAS advice to farmers in the hills to do special tests on hay and silage in order to find out the quality of the forage. We made it quite clear that those particular services for farmers who were facing a very bleak winter would be absolutely free and would be provided as quickly as possible.
So, yes, we shall try to be as careful as we can in the future, even though—and we must not go over this ground again—we are going to introduce a charging regime. If the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will forgive me, from the Government's point of view we have great difficulty in supporting Amendment No. 5. I think that it has aspects that do not make it an amendment that we could put on the face of the Bill. In view of the fact that I am saying that in Amendment No. 4 there is a cast-iron assurance that an advisory service will continue for the future perhaps the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will feel that we are substan-tially meeting the point that he is making in his own amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 4. at end insert—
(" ( ) In furtherance of the provisions of this section the Minister shall ensure that the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is maintained as an efficent and effective organisation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. I should just like to say that I put it down in good faith, believing that it was legally possible. However, the noble Lord says that there are difficulties. He mentioned the word "economy" I did not use the word "economy", but I used the words "efficient and effective", which of course may not be easy to define. However, I think that the assurance that the Minister has given will allow me with a fairly clear conscience to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 7 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause—
("Food Consumers Committee.

.— (1) The Ministers shall appoint a Food Consumers' Committee consisting of nine members each of whom will serve for a period not exceeding four years and renewable thereafter at the discretion of the Ministers. A chairman will be appointed by the Ministers to serve for such period as the Ministers may decide.

(2) The Food Consumers' Committee shall replace the existing Consumers' Committee and shall discharge the current functions of the Consumers' Committee and in addition shall give views to the Ministers on food policy matters either on request by the Ministers or on the Committee's own initiative.

915

(3) Secretarial and information services to the Food Consumers' Committee will be provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that Ministry shall also reimburse the cost of travel to meetings incurred by members of the Food Consumers' Committee as well as paying claims for subsistence by members attending meetings of the Committee on a scale approved by the Ministers and the Treasury.

(4) The Food Consumers' Committee will meet at least quarterly and will report bi-annually to the Ministers who will publish their reports.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, no one who has read the Bill that is before your Lordships' House or who heard the Second Reading debate or sat through the Committee stage can be in any doubt that the interests of primary producers and those whose major concern is the environment are fully catered for in this measure; and if there are any lingering doubts, then our postbag in recent days will have fully dispelled any notion that farmers and environmentalists are slow on the draw so far as concerns their legitimate interests.
The purpose of the amendment that is before your Lordships today is to try on the face of this Bill to do something modest for consumers by way of appointing a Food Consumers' Committee to report periodically to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on matters of common concern to consumers. I think it is legitimate to say that there are in existence bodies funded by the taxpayer which do a very useful job on behalf of consumers in general. I refer specifically to the National Consumer Council, which was establisshed in 1975, and to a more modest organisation called Consumers in the European Community Group, with which the Members of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Community will be very familiar.
The National Consumer Council is a fully funded body, but of course it comes under the wing of the Department of Trade and Industry, which is specifically a non-food ministry. Consequently, in recent years, the activities of the National Consumer Council have been concerned with interests other than food, and the assignments that it has been asked to undertake by the Department of Trade and Industry have naturally had no food connection whatsoever. The smaller organisation is only modestly funded by the taxpayer, to the extent that its secretariat receives an annual grant to cover its outgoings. Specifically it looks at legislation promoted by Brussels which could have an impact on the consumer, whether that legislation relates to food or non-food matters. The members of the Consumers in the European Community Group are not ministry-appointed as are members of the National Consumer Council. They are in fact volunteers from representative national bodies which have an interest in consumer affairs.
Finally, in this connection I should perhaps mention the body which is specifically charged by the Ministry of Agriculture to look after the affairs of consumers under the Agricultural Marketing Act. I refer to the Consumers' Committee for Great Britain to which reference is made in the amendment. That, too, is a very modest committee whose existence is perhaps not particularly well known in your Lordships' House. In fact it performs a useful job in looking at the activities of the marketing boards, and in recent years it has said
916
some useful things on behalf of consumers about potatoes and about the milk scheme which has been in existence for so many years.
The Consumers' Committee for Great Britain recently undertook a review of its activities and naturally found that to some extent the way in which Community law impinges on the marketing boards has had the effect of reducing their volume of activity and the scope which they have for giving opinions to the Ministry of Agriculture on food matters affecting consumers. In a report to the Minister it suggested that the Consumers' Committee in its present form might be wound up and its activities subsumed in a new committee entitled the Food Consumers' Committee. I saw that proposal and thought that peaceful persuasion might be the answer, and so I put down a Question for Written Answer, asking the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the request which the Consumers' Committee for Great Britain had made. Unfortunately, the Minister decided otherwise and said that although its recommendation had been given full consideration, his right honourable friend the Minister was not convinced that the existing extensive arrangements for consulting consumers would be materially improved by the addition of a body of the sort proposed.
I think it is common ground—and indeed much of the discussion surrounding the Bill that we have presently before us acknowledges that it is common ground—that farming and the environment are major questions, and that as a result of changes in the common agricultural policy—changes which are more easily talked about then legislated for—we shall see major changes in the farming structure of Great Britain which will perhaps involve new methods whereby farmers may farm less intensively. In my view the impact of these changes on the consumer is perhaps the one area which has not adequately been discussed, nor looks like being adequately discussed. Yet at the end of the day it is the consumer who will have to pay the price for it all, regardless of the form that farming and conservation of the environment may take in the future.
So, modestly we ask in Amendment No. 8 for the Government to agree in effect to what the Consumers' Committee for Great Britain asked for and to transform that committee into a Food Consumers' Committee consisting of nine members to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture for a term not exceeding four years—it may be less—renewable at the Ministers' discretion, with a chairman separately appointed. We envisage the secretariat of the committee being provided by the Ministry of Agriculture and such information as the committee may need to discharge its functions similarly being provided by MAFF. We are suggesting that in addition to the work that it does presently under the Agricul-tural Marketing Act, the Food Consumers' Committee should also from time to time undertake assignments given to it by the Minister and at the same time it should have the power of own initiative so that it can look at problems which it considers are necessarily of importance to consumers and worthy of investigation.
We are not proposing a paid committee but simply a committee whose members will serve in an honorary

917
capacity and simply have their travel and subsistence expenses reimbursed by the Minister. We suggest that in order to ensure continuity the committee should meet at least quarterly. We suggest that its reports to Ministers should be published—the amendment says "bi-annually", though I had rather hoped that this would come out in draft as "biennially". I have had a handwriting problem since my childhood which does not get any better with the passage of time. I envisaged not six-monthly but rather two-yearly reports.
This is a most modest proposition. It represents a matter which is not sufficiently discussed at present. The Minister's response to the consumers' committee suggestion was somewhat disappointing. This is an attempt to get him to reconsider his response and to put on the face of the Bill a proposition which would be of importance to the person who is after all predominant in all our deliberations, the food consumer. I beg to move.
Lord Walston: My Lords, it is many years since the Ministry of Agriculture enlarged its sphere to become the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Despite the passage of time, we must admit that most of us—not just those of us who are farmers—look at it as the Ministry of Agriculture. We may occasionally call it MAFF, but usually we call it the Ministry of Agriculture. Whatever it is called, it is regarded by the public as the department of state which looks after food production and farmers' interests. Some farmers may disagree with that, but that is the general opinion.
This amendment, which is a modest one, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, will not make any significant difference to the representations made to the Government by the consumer. It is a valuable and useful amendment. It would establish in the public's eyes that this is the Ministry of Food as well as Agriculture. The expense and time involved would be minimal. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment favourably.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I find this an interesting amendment. I am sorry that more noble Lords are not present in the House at the moment. As a farmer, I am desperately interested in the consumer. Without him or her I should not be in business. It is important to know what he or she wants, as opposed to what I think he or she wants or the conservationists or the animal welfarists think he or she wants. I want to know what the consumer wants, and then I may be able to produce what he or she wants.
I am not sure whether the amendment would achieve that. Some years in the future I may well take some sort of bait in some sort of way. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley that this is an interesting amendment. It casts a new angle upon the Bill. The effect of the amendment is to oblige the Government to set up a Food Consumers' Committee to replace the consumers' committees established under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 and to advise on food policy matters generally.
918
The amendment is interesting for three reasons. The first is that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has great expertise on this matter. It was right that he moved the amendment. I am grateful to him for doing so. Secondly, I am most interested to hear that my noble friend Lord Stanley, as a primary producer, is a farmer whose mind dwells on marketing. That is something which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood never allows us to forget for long when we are talking about agriculture. These days we must always think about where our produce is going.
The third reason I find the amendment interesting is that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, reminded us that the ministry in which I work is the Ministry of Agricul-ture, Fisheries and Food. My mind goes back to the war when I was at school. We ate what was called the Lord Woolton surprise. Your Lordships may remember that that was a baked potato in the middle of which was minced meat. As the war went on, one had to dig that bit deeper into the potato to find the surprise in the middle. I think that I am right in saying that it was from those great days of Lord Woolton that the food part of the ministry was taken on. I see the noble Lord, Lord Walston, nodding. As he reminded us, food is very much part of the ministry's responsibilities.
In that context, what is the Government's response to the amendment? It is that we rightly, I think, receive a great deal of advice at present. For instance, there are the annual price fixing negotiations which now largely determine the level of support given to most agricul-tural commodities. They are always preceded by the ministry consulting the consumer interests. Another area of considerable interest to consumers is the composition and safety of food. Parliament has already recognised the need for Ministers to have expert and independent advice on such matters and has established the food advisory committee, whose membership includes consumers, for this purpose.
The consumer's view is also safeguarded through the statutory requirement for Ministers to consult a wide range of interests, including consumer representatives, before making regulations under the Food Act. There are also the consumers' committees set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act to report on the effect upon consumers of agricultural marketing schemes.
I am worried that if we accede to the amendment, we should be duplicating a great deal of the good work which is done through those consultative arrange-ments. I believe that the way of making progress would be via increased co-operation among consumer organisations, possibly on an European basis. I also agree with what I think is the thinking behind the amendment—that the consumer interest should always be taken fully into account, not least in Government appointments to marketing boards and advisory committees. Although I resist the amendment because I feel that there would be duplication with valuable existing organisations and our present consultative arrangements, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will feel as I do that it was well worthwhile moving it.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I thank other noble Lords who have

919
either spoken in support of the amendment or expressed interest in it. Nevertheless, I feel that on balance the Minister has not been helpful to us. In particular, I think that the suggestion that a new committee is being created in addition to those which currently exist is not strictly correct, as we envisage the new committee taking over the functions of the existing Consumers' Committee of Great Britain established under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958. It would be the same committee with a rather wider remit. To that extent it would not duplicate but merely replicate an existing committee.
I am aware of course of the consultation with consumers that takes place in a variety of ways. I am also aware that from time to time consumers' representatives are appointed as independent members of marketing boards. In my youth I once believed that if one could get enough people of one's persuasion on to marketing boards and the like, they stood a good chance of capturing the boards. Salutary experience has led me to think that the reverse happens, and in fact the board captures those good people because they assume responsibility for the policies of the board as such. To that extent, they are inhibited in the discharge of their initial loyalty to the concept of the supremacy of the consumer.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that such consultation that exists will continue. In the wider context this is a problem which will not go away. Ironically, there is reference in the Treaty of Rome in the articles establishing the common agricultural policy to fair prices for the consumer. Whether the consumer thinks that the Treaty of Rome gives him or her fair prices is a moot point. What is not in doubt is that the Treaty of Rome gives the consumer substantial surpluses. The great argument as to how we shall farm, grow food and distribute will go on and on. The voice of the consumer must be heard in that argument to an increasing extent.
I am grateful, as I said, for the support I received and the words of encouragement that the Minister gave me. Although we shall not see the amendment in the Bill at this time, it is reasonable to assume that from time to time we may legitimately return to the matter to press the Minister for further consideration of this vital issue by what he admits is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
(" Validation of Apple and Pear Development Council Orders. S.I. 1980/623 S.I. 1980/2001.
. The Apple and Pear Development Council Order 1980 and the Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order 1980 shall be deemed to have been validly made notwithstanding that they were made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting alone rather than by that Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the Apple and Pear Development Council, which many of your Lordships will know to be a body which does an excellent job in promoting British top fruit. The council is funded entirely by a levy which it
920
raises from apple and pear growers, and it then uses the money to fund a number of advertising and promotional activities aimed at increasing the consumption of our excellent native varieties of these fruit. But a problem has arisen.
The council was first set up in 1966 under a statutory instrument which covered both England and Wales, and it was continued in being by a new instrument in 1980 which consolidated the 1966 order with a number of amendments. However, there had been an order passed in 1978 which transferred a number of functions to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Prior to that order all powers relating to the council in England and Wales—it does not cover Scotland or Northern Ireland—lay with the Minister of Agriculture. Moreover, the Transfer of Functions Order, which transferred a number of responsibilities to the Secretary of State for Wales, specifically excluded,
"any function exercisable in relation to the Apple and Pear Development Council by virtue of any Order made under the Act of 1947"."
That is, these powers were to stay with the Minister of Agriculture.
But while the Minister retained his functions under the order, the power under the parent Act to make a new order, such as the one intended to continue the council in being, had in fact been transferred to the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly. Unfortunately, this was overlooked in preparing the Apple and Pear Development Council Order of 1980 and the amendment order later in the year, and these orders purported to be made by the Minister of Agriculture alone. My right honourable friend has been advised that this defect renders these orders invalid not just in Wales, where, in fact, the number of apple and pear growers is extremely small, but in the whole of England and Wales. If this defect were not corrected, it would mean that many of the council's actions between 1980 and 1986, including its levies from growers, could be open to legal challenge.
I apologise for going into this at a little length, but if your Lordships agree to this and an associated amendment, it will, in fact, be retrospective legislation. It is, however, in a good cause. I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and speak at the same time to Amendment No. 63.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I do not believe that any of us could disagree with the Minister in taking this opportunity to put a wrong right. He has done so very well. I recognise that retrospective legislation is frowned upon by most people, but, as the noble Lord says, in this case it is in a good cause. We shall therefore allow it to slip through.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause:
("Entry to food premises of trainees.

.— (1) The Minister may make regulations empowering an authorised officer entering premises under the right of entry conferred by section 87 (1) of the Food Act 1984 to take with him a person who is receiving instruction in the performance of enforcement functions under that Act.

921

(2) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(3) Regulations under this section may relate to a particular class or particular classes of premises.

(4) "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 noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. In doing so I shift the scene from the problems of pears to the problems of poultry. This amendment, like the previous amendment I moved on this subject at Committee stage, is not so much to change the statute book but to secure a debate on a rather intractable problem. Since the Committee stage my noble friend on the Front Bench and I have met and discussed how we might move forward. As a result I issued an invitation to the British Poultry Federation to send me a letter from which I could set out the background of the problem to your Lordships. The federation has provided that letter. I shall read it out in a moment. It is necessary, I believe, to read it at length as, on the previous occasion, we were dealing with the last amendment on a late-night sitting and I thought it more prudent at the time to spare the Committee the detail that is really necessary.
I also invited the British Poultry Federation, the Association of District Councils whose job it is to provide poultry meat inspectors, and a representative from my noble friend's ministry to meet. This they did today. I shall be relaying the outcome of that meeting to the House as well. First of all, however, I should deal with the background. I shall now read from the letter of the British Poultry Federation. It states:
"Dear Lord Sandford,
"With reference to your proposed amendment to the Agriculture Bill, which would allow rights of entry inter alia by trainee poultry meat inspectors into poultry meat processing plants, you might find it helpful to have the views of the British Poultry Federation on this vexed issue.
"The crux of the matter is the failure of the EEC Commission, over many years, to prescribe realistic standards of poultry meat inspection which would apply uniformly throughout the Community. The same European hygiene directive can legitimately be interpreted to require higher numbers of inspectors (a 'policing' system) or a lower number of inspectors (a 'sample' system). British poultry meat processors have been at a cost disadvantage in comparison with many of their EEC competitors because our numbers of inspectors (and the number of birds rejected in consequence), have been higher; further, other EEC governments have subsidised their poultry meat processors to a greater or lesser extent.
"Our objective has always been, therefore, to press the British Government and the EEC to grasp this discriminatory nettle, by agreeing and enforcing uniform standards, to be applied equally in the Common Market. It is consequently difficult for us actively to promote (as we did in the past) an inspection regime which is flawed and discriminatory as is currently the case. However, we have always recognised the difficulties in which this might place local authorities where numbers of inspectors fall below realistic levels. In such cases, with the agreement of the processing plants concerned, we have co-operated to ensure that the poultry meat inspectors are recruited and trained.
"This is an open-door policy to the local authorities, but as a matter of record we have received no such request for a considerable time. If a request is received it will be sympathetically and speedily progressed. You may also wish to know that the British Poultry Federation is trying to launch a new initiative to bring the local authorities, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the industry together to
922
resolve outstanding problems once and for all. At the moment this initiative is informal but, if successful, we hope it will lead to formal agreement and co-operation for the future between all concerned".
That needs to be understood in conjunction with what I had to say on behalf of the Association of District Councils at Committee stage. My noble friend, who has a copy of the letter, will no doubt comment if he wishes to add to or subtract in any way from what is written there by the federation's director-general.
Against that background, a meeting took place this morning between the Association of District Councils who train the inspectors, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the British Poultry Federation. They have agreed the following addition to the letter:
"This morning representatives of the ADC, MAFF and BPF have met. As a result we have all agreed to an early meeting to deal with the short-term difficulties facing the local authorities. As to the longer term, the BPF and ADC will get together shortly to review current poultry meat inspection practices, to try to identify problem areas and to prepare possible solutions for discussion with MAFF thereafter".
In view of that, and subject to anything that my noble friend might care to say in addition or subtraction, or by way of comment, I propose to withdraw my amendment because of the degree of progress that has been made. I propose to ask a parliamentary Question during the overspill period some time in October to ascertain how matters are going. However, before I withdraw the amendment my noble friend on the Front Bench may care to comment. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for explaining the problem to your Lordships. I am also exceedingly grateful to my noble friend for suggesting that this amendment should be used as a vehicle for getting agreement for further meetings and not for a Division.
I would add only two points, if I may. The first is that we cannot get away from the fact that the European Community legislation which created the poultry meat inspection system is not being equivalently enforced in all member states of the European Community. It is not surprising that poultry producers are aggrieved at this unsatisfactory situation. The Government have made strenuous efforts to achieve an even standard of enforcement across the Community and it is a matter of regret that success has so far eluded us. However, it has eluded us, and therefore my noble friend, in his capacity as president of the Association of District Councils, and I, working for the Ministry of Agriculture, are drawn into this matter.
As I said, in responding to my noble friend. I am exceedingly glad that the tabling of the amendment at Committee stage and again at Report stage has now led to correspondence which shows that there will be discussions, that the first steps have been taken, and that all concerned have agreed that further meetings should be arranged. I hope these contacts have helped to reassure my noble friend that there are prospects for constructive progress to resolving the difficulties that there are. I am sure that this is the best way to proceed.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. For the record, perhaps I may say that I was president of the ADC until last Friday, and am now vice-president; but I am ready to see this matter through. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, if Amendment No. 11 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
Clause 12 [Compensation to outgoing tenants for milk quota]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. I should like to take with it Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 43 and 64, if noble Lords will agree with that grouping.
If I may speak to the government amendments—and indeed to the group—I think it would be helpful to take with Amendment No. 11 the other amendments I have mentioned. This stems from efforts which have been made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull who, together with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, came to see me in order to try to ensure fairness to tenants on a particular point. The first of these amendments deletes subsection (2) of Clause 12, but I can assure your Lordships that the effect of that subsection is not lost. It is covered, albeit in a different way, in the Government's new clause which is Amendment No. 43.
The existing provisions in Clause 12(2) were intended to ensure that the prospect of compensation for a tenant in respect of milk quota should not affect the rent of the holding. Without this provision it is possible that, at a rent review, an arbitrator might take the view that if part of the value of the quota has been attributed to the tenant, then that element should be treated in a similar way to a tenant's improvement. This would reduce the rent payable by the tenant.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—who I understand are supported by the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers—have suggested in conjunction with my noble friend that whereas this provision is right so far as quota allocated by the Minister is concerned it is inequitable to apply it to quota which the tenant has effectively acquired through a land transaction and transferred on to the holding covered by the tenancy. This is what is called "transferred quota" in the Bill's terminology.
The Government recognise that this is a point for which we should legislate. If a tenant has literally paid for a quota to get it transferred on to his holding, it is surely reasonable that it should be treated similarly to a tenant's improvement and, in the terminology, disregarded in assessing the rent.
Amendment No. 43 is much longer than the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, by my noble friend Lord Stanley, and by other noble Lords. I feel embarrassed that the government amendments are so long and your Lordships' amendments are so short. But this is a complex issue and I am advised that the
924
drafting of appropriate provisions is full of pitfalls. This is why, in Amendment No. 43, we feel that we have had to draw up fairly detailed provisions to cover a basically very simple point. The heart of the matter is contained in subsection (1) of the new clause, Amendment No. 43. This makes it clear that transferred quota acquired by the tenant is to be disregarded at a rent review; that is to say, it is to be treated in a similar way to a tenant's improvement. The tenant will not be charged rent on it.
Subsection (1) achieves what the old Clause 12(2) was designed to do, though in a different way. By saying that transferred quota is to be disregarded, subsection (1) makes it clear that allocated quota— that is, quota allocated by the Minister—is not to be disregarded. Thus the fact that a tenant may be eligible for compensation in respect of allocated quota when eventually he gives up the holding will not affect the rent payable in the meantime. This preserves the original intention of Clause 12(2).
Subsection (2) of the new clause in Amendment No. 43 makes it clear in paragraph (a) that if an incoming tenant has made a payment to the landlord on taking over a holding to which quota is attached, this does not count as the acquisition of transferred quota. This is a quite different type of transaction which the two parties enter into freely. We must assume that they cover themselves adequately in the agreement they reach. I am advised that it would not be appropriate for this legislation to intervene in these private agreements.
Subsection (2) of the new clause, Amendment No. 43, also makes it clear that the statutory successor or assignee of the original tenant—the tenant who was there when quotas were brought in—and the head tenant of an original subtenant are to be treated in the same way as the original tenant. If the original tenant paid for quota in connection with a land transfer then, just as his entitlement to compensation passes to his successor, so his entitlement not to be rented on the transferred quota will also pass to his successor.
I apologise for that rather lengthy explanation of Amendment No. 43. I should be very grateful if noble Lords who have amendments down on the same point would care to speak to them at the same time in this discussion. I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think that I am being asked to comment on the series of amendments that I have on this point. I am glad to say to my noble friend that I am happy with his arrange-ment, albeit it is a little more lengthy than mine.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is unable to be in his place because he is in some remote outpost of the world; I am not sure where. He has therefore asked me to do my best to speak to this amendment. Having looked at the amendment tabled by the Government, I feel that it very amply covers the point that we were trying to make and I should therefore be very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, quotas having been introduced in the early days, they have not been followed through. Some difficulties may appear when

925
they begin to be examined a little more closely. We may hear a little more about this later in the debate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 relates to Schedule 1 and has been put in the wrong order.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 16:
Leave out Clause 12 and insert the following new clause:
("Compensation to outgoing tenants for milk quota.

.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the tenant shall be entitled on the termination of the tenancy, on quitting the holding, to obtain from his landlord compensation for that portion of the value of the quota on the holding which:—

(a) the parties agree is attributable to the tenant; or

(b) in the absence of agreement between the parties is determined by an arbitrator under subsection (4) below to be attributable to the tenant.

(2) In determining what compensation the tenant is entitled to under subsection (1) above on the termination of the tenancy the landlord or tenant of an agricultural holding may by notice in writing served on his tenant or landlord at any time during the continuance of the tenancy or before the expiration of two months from the termination of the tenancy demand a reference to arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 of the question of what proportion of the value of the quota on the holding is attributable to the landlord and tenant respectively.

(3) No such reference as is referred to in subsection (2) above shall be possible unless the landlord or the tenant of the holding has requested his tenant or landlord to enter into an agreement as to their respective proportions of the value of the quota on the holding but no such agreement has been concluded.

(4) On a reference under subsection (2) above the arbitrator shall determine what proportion of the value of the quota available on the holding at the date of arbitration is attributable to each party according to his respective contribution to the establishment of quota allocated by the Minister.

(5) In making his determination under sub-paragraph (4) above the arbitrator shall have regard only to the period prior to the allocation of quota by the Minister.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (4) above the value of any quota brought on to the holding by whatever means other than quota allocated by the Minister shall be attributed to the party who acquired it and shall not be apportioned by the arbitrator.

(7) (a) For the purposes of subsection (4) above and subject to paragraph (b) below, in determining the respective contributions of the landlord and tenant to the establishment of quota on the holding the arbitrator shall take into account the quality of land used for dairying, if relevant, and the contributions of each party to any land improvements specific to dairying, the dairy buildings, their appurtenances and plant, the dairying equipment and machinery, and the provision of the dairy herd, feed, labour and management.

(b) In any case where the landlord has provided all the dairy buildings and their appurtenances and plant, land and land improvements specific to dairying, and the tenant has provided all the dairying equipment and machinery, the dairy herd and management of it, the quota value shall be apportioned equally between the landlord and the tenant and the arbitrator shall have regard to this principle in making his determination under sub-section (4) above.

(8) The value of quota to be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (1) above is the value of the quota at the time of the termination of the tenancy in question and in determining that value there shall be taken into account such evidence as is available, including evidence as to sums being paid for freehold and leasehold interests in land and in respect of grazing licences for periods of less than one year:—

(a) in cases where quota is registered in relation to the land; and

(b) in cases where no quota is so registered.

926

(9) Where the parties fail to agree the value of the quota to be taken into account under subsection (8) above such value shall be determined by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

(10) In this section "dairy buildings, their appurtenances and plant" shall include any buildings used for cow housing and other dairying purposes and includes parlours, dairies, silage pits, feed stores, slurry stores, collecting yards and any associated yards, and other relevant constructions of whatsoever nature; "dairying equipment and machinery" shall include the milking equipment and parlour fittings, bulk milk tanks and associated equipment, cubicle divisions, equipment used in connection with the dairy herd for forage harvesting, feeding and the disposal of slurry, and other relevant equipment of whatsoever nature; "Minister" means—

(a) in the case of land in England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and

(b)in the case of land in Wales, The Secretary of State; "quota means direct sales quota or wholesale quota as defined in the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986; and "Quota allocated by the Minister" means any quota allocated by the Minister under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984, the Dairy Produce Quotas (Amendment) Regulations 1985 and the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986".

(11) For the purposes of subsection (7)(b) above "management" means the level of management which a competent tenant would be expected to achieve.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. It is typical of our dealings with this Bill that, because it is so complex, we do not quite know where we are between the schedules one way and the clauses the other. Amendment No. 16 is one of the attempts by myself and my co-signatories from all parties to solve the problem which is the main one bedevilling the imposition of quotas by the EC and the troubles that arise continually one after the other when an artificial state is forced upon any section of an industry.
There have been so many negotiations which have failed that it is time we put all the facts to the House as we see them. No doubt many people have different facts to put. However, we must look at the quota system as it has affected the industry, and we must look at who it has affected most.
There is little doubt that the person who has been most affected is the milk producer, whether he be an owner-occupier or whether he be a tenant. He is the fellow who has been hit. In some cases he has been hit enormously hard if he has laid out a great deal of money on expanding his production and has done so at the wrong time as regards the assessment of quota. However, the landlords of milk-producing tenants have not been hit in the same way at all because, although the quota is tied to the land, the rent has not suffered. The position is that, in view of the state of the industry, where land values are falling very fast, those which have held up best or even appreciated a little—but certainly those which have held up best—have been milk-producing farms with a substantial quota.
Therefore, whatever we may think of the perversion of the economic system, the fact is that a value has been created. People have agreed that it should be split between the landlord and the tenant. What we are fighting about is the self-interest of the landlords and tenants. We should try to deal with that not on the basis purely of self-interest but on the basis of what we consider to be a fair and reasonable split, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
Everyone has been involved in the negotiations— the CLA, the NFU, the Government, the Tenant Farmers' Association—and they have been extremely complex. Therefore, although my amendment is much longer than the other one, it takes in everything and the simplicity is the same. We say that we should start from the simple basis of a 50–50 split where there is a traditional split between landlord and tenant as regards the work involved in producing the quota. That means that where a landlord has provided the land, the buildings and their appurtenances— whatever that may mean—and the tenant has provided the equipment, such as the milking machine and so on, and his management has been competent (in other words, the quota is the quota which one might expect for a district which we are leaving to the valuator) it should be split 50–50. That seems to us to be a reasonable start.
However, we have not left it there. It is up to the valuator—the arbiter—then to say how it must be varied. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, told us about a friend of his in the Isle of Wight, a personal case, where the tenant had put up all the buildings on a green field site, and obviously great injustice would be done to him. In that case the arbiter has a perfectly clear run to arbitrate in favour of the tenant.
We have many cases in Scotland—and although the Bill will apply to Scotland the amendment which I am moving does not apply to Scotland—in traditional dairying areas where landlords have erected excellent buildings and where there may be a tenant who is not very competent and the quota is below what it should be. In such a case the arbiter would have the right and the duty to award a bigger share of the value to the landlord. What we are doing is giving the arbiter a fair basis from which to start, and to that end we have defined "management" in the amendment.
As far as I can see, the main cause of the objection of the Scottish Landlords' Federation and the CLA is that landlords will have to pay out large amounts of money amounting to tens of thousands of pounds if a tenant goes out. That money must be found from somewhere, and it is obviously a cause of great worry to those people who let land and another nail in the coffin of the landlord-tenant system that we all want to perpetuate. It is a snag. However, I think I can show that it will not apply.
The arbiter will set the value. If he sets the value, he will only set the value that someone is willing to pay. If there is a value, there is no question at all that the incoming tenant must be able to pay the money, or, if the landlord is rich—which traditionally they are supposed to be—he may want to take on the capital sum and receive interest on it. I understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that he would consider (and that is as far as he went) whether the purchase of the tenant's portion (and the tenant's portion only) of a quota value would be an allowable expense to set against tax.
Therefore, the point which I am making is that if the arbiter puts a value on the quota, it must be borne in mind that he knows the district, he knows what the size of the quota should be and he also must know whether there are people willing, as incoming tenants,
928
to come in and take it over; otherwise, he obviously cannot put that value on it. There is only a value if you can get the money. Therefore, the landlord can properly feel that he will not be pinned down, that his resources will not be stretched, and it will be the old business of taking over the asset when you come in.
People say that it would be very hard on a young tenant. Of course it will be hard on a young tenant. It is very hard on a young tenant to get into farming anyway. If the quota has a particular value, we simply cannot interfere any more with the economic system by doing anything special about it. He may be able to borrow the money at a reasonable rate; it is up to him to make an economic assessment.
This amendment is an attempt to solve the quarrel—and quarrel it is— that has broken out in the industry. We have tried to be as fair as we can. We make the point that the milk producer is the person who has been hit. We appreciate the position of the landlord and we think that, starting from the basis of power to the arbitrator to ensure that justice is done, we have a solution. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I should like very strongly to support the amendment. Those of your Lordships who have allowed your eyes to wander ahead will see that there is another amendment—Amendment No. 25—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie and myself. The two amendments are in their effect identical and in their intention identical. It is purely a question of which one is the more effective, but the principle is the same; and it is to the principle that I shall confine myself.
I am a very strong supporter of the landlord-tenant system. I think that it is one of the greatest assets of farming and it is to me always a cause of unhappiness that over the years it has been eroded and continues to be eroded. I hope that that trend may be reversed. Nothing that I say is in any way antagonistic either to the landlord or to the tenant.
As my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has said in rather politer terms, what this is all about in effect is a confrontation between the landlords and their organisation on the one hand and the tenants on the other. Both, quite naturally and understandably, wish, to get the largest amount of this rather unexpected bonus for their own members. There is a bonus; there is no point denying it. It is rather peculiar, perhaps paradoxical, that a method that restricts the amount of milk that can be produced in fact adds a special value to dairy farms depending on the quota, but that is a fact. It is one of the main arguments against the individual quota system, but we have it with us. It is quite understandable, therefore, that landlords and tenants wish to get the largest amount of this unexpected bonus that they can.
As my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has said—I do not want to repeat it at too great length, but it is of vital importance to both amendments and the intention of those who support them—in default of any evidence to the contrary, that bonus should be

929
divided equally between the landlord and tenant since neither of them has done anything to justify or earn it. It is, as was said in Committee, manna from heaven.
There are many occasions when one side or the other, landlord or tenant, will be able to bring forward evidence to show that they have in fact done quite a lot to increase the quota beyond what it would otherwise have been. In such cases it is manifestly fair that they should receive a larger amount. No Act of Parliament can possibly lay down how much that amount should be. It depends on an almost infinite variety of circumstances, ranging from my noble friend Lord Mottistone on the one hand to the type of tenant who neglects his farm and has not made full use of the great amount of money and expertise that the landlord may put into it.
This amendment deals with that in a very simple manner, as does the other amendment. In default of any evidence to the contrary, the manna should be divided 50/50. The valuers of each side should consult to see whether they can reach agreement for some different form of allocation and, failing that, it should go in the usual—the well-tried—way to arbitration.
There is one matter that my noble friend raised concerning the capital sum that the landlord might have to find. If the incoming tenant did not have the capital himself but the landlord agreed, because he was a good young man, to take him on and recoup it over the years by rent, it seems to me that it is reasonable—I believe that it is already enshrined in practice—that the amount that the outgoing tenant receives need not be paid by the landlord in a capital sum if he had not received a capital sum but could be spread over four or five years to ease the burden that undoubtedly might be a very real one on the landlord.
We are discussing solely milk quotas, but there is much talk in the air about quotas being extended to other commodities. I have no idea whether they will be. I have my own ideas on the desirability, but I will not go into that at this stage. I think that we must bear in mind that whatever system we evolve in the Agriculture Bill for the allocation of the value of the quota will undoubtedly be taken as a precedent if further quotas are imposed for the allocation of those quotas. Therefore, the simpler we can have it the more applicable it will be to other commodities and the more effective it will be for the future. I support the amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, my noble kinsman made the remark that this was a complex Bill in every way. The amendments are an attempt to do something to simplify that. I think that it was summed up in a letter that I received from the National Farmers' Union, Scotland, which said that, to be acceptable and practicable, the procedure adopted must be fair, simple and easy to understand and operate. Whatever one can say about the Government's plan, it certainly does not stand up to those criteria by any manner of means; hence the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has spoken on Amendment No. 25, which was an effort to comply with this aim. It is straightforward in every way and is short, but, as he pointed out and as I understand, it will
930
not stand up legally. Of course, that is the trouble with simplicity—it never does. Therefore, we have to take a look at Amendment No. 16, proposed by my noble kinsmen, which I think may get over some of the difficulties that Amendment No. 25 might run into.
Amendment No. 16 has the virtue of cutting out the old clause and the 10-page schedule, and I understand that it stands up legally. I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has an amendment later which is an effort to alter the formula to give a better share of the quota to the tenants, especially in the case of small producers. I shall be discussing that later. On some calculations it seemed to me that it went a bit too far. We look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say about the amendment.
The Minister cannot simply ignore the amendments, especially as they are backed up by many figures and calculations, particularly those of the Milk Marketing Board. I think that the noble Lord would agree that the Milk Marketing Board probably has more knowledge of the situation than many of the other interested bodies that my noble kinsman mentioned. One major point that it makes is that much of this is based on the rental value of tenants' improvements. The Milk Marketing Board is convinced from surveys that this is likely to average about 16 per cent. to 17 per cent., rather than the figure of 33 per cent. that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, used in his example. That is 50 per cent. less, and it makes a very big difference indeed.
We had a letter from the noble Lord pointing out that the valuation of improvements by a tenant, which might have been carried out quite a time ago, would not be at the written down value but at market value. It is difficult to decide the market value of a tenant's improvement. It might be a building which is 20 or 30 years old. The tenant cannot sell it; the landlord can only take it over. There are advertisements galore in the press for milking parlours which say "Buyer to remove" and other things like that. The market value of a tenant's improvements would be very low indeed and they might be much less than the Milk Marketing Board's figure of 17 per cent.
The MMB also made the point that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, took a farm with a quota of 800,000 litres. It points out that only about 8 per cent. of milk producers in the country achieve that figure and the average is much less. In fact the average size of a herd in the country is just under 60, I understand.
I do not want to go into all the points that the MMB makes. Various calculations have been made, not only by the MMB but by other bodies, which show that the Government's plan will create a series of variations in the percentage figure for very small variations in circumstances. We have to watch that carefully.
In a communication that came about a fortnight ago the RICS also makes two important points. It says:
"Until the basis of the calculation of the production levels is known in detail it is impossible to comment fully on the proposals".
On the next page it makes the point that I have just made:
"In particular we believe that the definitions should be expanded to eliminate variations in interpretations".

931
Almost every body is worried. One can be adamant that the government proposals will not be fair. They say that the NFU, the CLA and for that matter the MMB could not come to an agreement, and so what could they do? I do not think that that is an excuse for producing a system that will not be fair to everybody.
The amendment works on a 50/50 basis. I thought that we might get agreement on the basis of 60 per cent. to the landlord and 40 per cent. to the tenant as a starting point, but we could not. The case for dropping the Government's plan and accepting the amendment is a strong one. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, the argument is about whether one adopts the methods in Amendments No. 16 or 25 or goes along with the Government's schedule. Undoubtedly Amendment No. 25 suffers from the sheer simplicity with which it was drafted. On the other hand, there may be certain significance in the fact that those who produced the Marshalled List must think extremely well of it. They have printed it twice—once at the bottom of page 8 and again at the top of page 9.
With all respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, the schedule has been criticised from the moment anybody set eyes upon it. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Walston, described it as enormously complicated. My noble friend Lord Middleton said that it had unbelievable complexity. My noble friend Lord Radnor said that it horrified him to read it.
Everyone must be agreed that, with all the flak that has been flying around about it, the patience that my noble friend on the Front Bench has shown throughout has won the highest appreciation of everybody. From the start I think that he has had misgivings about attaching milk quotas to the agricultural holdings legislation and, as he rightly said on Second Reading, the legislation was never intended for that.
But the irony of the situation now is that the bodies which are most concerned—namely, both the NFUs in England and Scotland and the CLA—believe that that is the way we should go. At least the amendment of my noble friend Lord Middleton in Committee pointed that way. One hardly meets anyone in the agricultural world who does not say "Surely this is a job for an umpire".
I think that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Middleton was immensely attractive. It fulfilled two of the three conditions which I consider are required for a successful outcome for what I believe is developing into an unhappy wrangle. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, quoted the three points made by the NFU of Scotland. The amendment was easy to understand and it would have been easy to operate. But it fell down on the third test, and that was of fairness, equity or justice—call it what you will—through too narrowly restricting the activities of the arbitrators. I believe that this amendment fulfils all three of those objectives and therefore I support it.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, this amendment is getting a great deal of encouragement. As I read
932
through the new clause I found myself in sympathy with it. It seemed to me to be consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was asking for during earlier stages of the Bill. It has brevity and it gives arbiters more responsibility and more flexibility than is provided in Schedule 1 of the Bill.
I was in agreement until I reached subsection (7)(b), which tells the arbiter how to do his job. As the noble Lord explained, in what is probably the most usual situation regarding the respective contributions of landlord and tenant, the value of the quota shall be apportioned on a 50/50 basis. That is what the subsection says. It seems odd to me to tell an arbiter to use his expertise and valuation skill and then in that subsection tell him what the answer is.
If I remember correctly, a 50 per cent. tenant share of the value of a quota would be an extreme case under the proposals in the Bill. The arbitrary split seems to be starting at the wrong place to begin with. Such a solution, whatever the split—whether it be 50/50 or 60/40 or whatever else—would not get my support. I understand that it would be objectionable to the Tenant Farmers' Association, which says, as I understand it, that it is against any arbitrary apportionment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would give way? I spoke last night to the chairman of the Tenant Farmers' Association. They are very much in favour of this amendment, and they do not say what the noble Lord thinks that they have said. I am sorry to have to say that, but I can say it categorically—unless they have said something different to the noble Lord, of course.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, it obviously depends to whom in the Tenant Farmers' Association you speak.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I quite agree, my Lords.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, as I understand it they would be against any arbitrary apportionment because it would be wrong in nearly every case. It would take no account of the reality of the contribution of the parties. If a milk quota must be carved up, the method prescribed by the Government, though hideously complicated, provides for more flexibility in the assessment of compensation than does an arbitrary apportionment such as lurks in subsection (l)(b), even with the encouragement to arbiters, contained in the other subsections, to use their skills.
Furthermore, the thought behind the Government proposal is that the greater the amount of the quota on the holding, the greater the compensation for the tenant. However, under this proposal the thinking is that the tenant would usually get 50 per cent., whatever the size of the quota. The Government approach is a more sensible one.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, and my noble friend Lord Stodart have referred to Amendment No. 25. I am not clear whether it is going to be moved. Of course it also sets out a 50/50 share as the norm, and you have to prove under that amendment that such an

933
allocation between landlord and tenant is wrong. Of course I have to say that I would object to that one for all the reasons I have just given for disliking an arbitrary apportionment in principle and a 50/50 split in detail.
The main objection to Amendment No. 25 is that it refers landlord and tenant to arbitration under Section 12 of the 1966 Act, which is the section dealing with rents, and that would not seem an appropriate section to deal with compensation. I believe that noble Lords would be misled if they were to be seduced by the simplicity of this amendment, and by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. Although I believe—and I said so in Committee—that the Government are doing the wrong thing, the way they are going about it in the Bill is preferable. When my noble friend Lord Belstead opposes this amendment, as I hope he will, I shall be on his side.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I perhaps have the advantage that I have not taken part in any conversations or negotiations, although I am grateful for a note from my noble friend Lord Belstead. I also was interested in this amendment, if only because it would get rid of what is there at the moment, which is bad legislation. But I must admit that I still feel that a mistake is being made.
The movers of this amendment, as politicians, are trying to tell individuals, in what must be always a highly individual situation, what they should do and are endlessly trying to establish baselines from which they should kick off. To me this must mean that there is bound to be a quarrel; which indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, there has been. It has been quite evident that the disagreement between the landowners and the farmers has been a considerable one.
Therefore, we reach a position where rules have to be laid down, and immediately things become more and more complicated, more and more based upon guesswork and supposition, and so more and more unsatisfactory. I cannot see why, if it were brought forward again, this amendment should not be perfectly effective—if one trusts individuals to work out their own destiny with the help of arbitration—as far as subsection (7)(a), leaving out subsections (7)(b), (8), (10) and (11).
It is shorter, which in itself is a merit, and it gets over all the difficulties of deciding what is a dairy appurtenance. It leaves out all the difficulties that there must inevitably be in varying tenancy agreements in regard to the financial arrangements which are made over buildings and the question of whether they have been put up by the tenant or the landlord. It avoids all those things which will cause so much trouble when tenancies come to an end and which will also cause trouble if these sort of arrangements are ever used as a pattern in the event of other quotas coming along. Therefore, if the noble Lords who brought forward this amendment feel that it is possible to bring it forward again at Third Reading in the way that I suggest, I shall be in favour of it. At present, I cannot say that I am.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend on the Front Bench help me on the question of quotas? Under either this scheme or the Government schedule quotas would be bought and sold on the open market. It is no use pretending that this is not happening; It was reported in the press the other day that quotas are being sold at 20p a litre in Cumberland, and they are all done on artificial grass rents. In effect, the system is detaching the quotas from the land, and making a muddle which could possibly result in extra legal transactions and large sums of money changing hands.
The whole situation of quotas under this sort of arrangement—with the Ministry of Agriculture possibly adopting a Nelsonian pose to what is going on—is building up nothing but trouble for the future. Can my noble friend give us some information and help on this point?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as I put my name to this amendment perhaps I may intervene. The first point raised by my noble friend Lord Radnor and others concerns subsection (7)(b). The trouble is that the arbitrator needs a starting point. We all agree on that. My noble friend Lord Middleton and I can disagree where that starting point is. He had a starting point in his amendment. It was not what I liked, but it was a starting point. I have a starting point in my amendment which we shall deal with later. Incidentally, I may say to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that mine is a good deal lower than this one. I did not have the courage to put my name to this to start with, but we shall come to that later.
The Government have a starting point in their amendment. I would ask my noble friend Lord Belstead whether he knows where his starting point is for the average tenant. I think he misled himself last week—when perhaps I caught him on the hop—in giving an example; he gave an extreme example. I think I know where his starting point is. His starting point is around 30 per cent. In my later amendment it is between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent., but I should like to know what he thinks his starting point is to an average tenant.
The second point about this amendment which 1 do not think your Lordships always see is that it involves only a starting point. In all our amendments—well, at least in my amendment and the one we are speaking to now—the arbitrator can vary it 100 per cent. one way or the other, but he must have a starting point, and that is the trouble with taking out subsection (7)(b); he would not have a starting point.
The final point I should like to make is on the question of the incoming tenant. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, dealt with it extremely well, but may I add one other point on it. When you come in as a tenant, as I have said before, it really does not make any difference, whether you pay me, the outgoing tenant, or the landlord. You have to pay one or the other. If you pay one a bit and the other a bit, it does not make any difference; it is the same notes coming out of your pocket. Also at the end of the day all this quota will come into the landlord's hand. It will be an asset for him forever, provided that quotas

935
continue. It is an asset today, as my noble kinsman has said. It is an asset that one cannot get away from. I wish it was not, I wish the things were not there, but it is there and we have to deal with it. Whatever happens at the end of the day the landlord will get this unexpected benefit. I am saying that he did not earn it in 1983 or 1984 when this suddenly came from heaven (or I should say hell?) any more than the tenant did. What your Lordships have to decide is where does the arbitrator start from? The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, says with good British compromise, "Down the middle". I support him and I hope your Lordships will.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, simplicity has very great attractions. This amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—the noble Lord is not such a simple soul as some might think but a highly skilful farmer and a highly knowledgeable man in the industry—this schedule, with the greatest respect, gets simplicity but desperately at the expense of accuracy. The truth of the matter is that the great attraction of this amendment in leaving out the Government's Schedule 1 with all its length and complexity is that that is achieved by leaving out so much that there is considerable uncertainty about the operation of Amendment No. 16.
I put to your Lordships some of the main difficulties, as the Government see them, if Amendment No. 16 were to be agreed to. First, the noble Lord's amendment is based on the idea of a typical holding. But a holding may not be typical at all. Secondly, it provides for an arbitrary 50/50 split of the quota as the norm, rather than looking at the facts of each farm separately. Thirdly, it would mean that a tenant who had run down his holding and had a low quota would still have compensation even though he had arguably damaged his landlord's interest in the land. I do not say that pejoratively. I say it as something that is sometimes a matter of fact. Alterna-tively, the tenant who, through his great efforts, had earned allocated quota above what could reasonably be expected (very often that happens) might, as I understand this amendment, get relatively little recognition under this method because there are no criteria written in.
Finally, one of the things which worries the Government most of all is, if the noble Lord will forgive me, the vagueness of the wording. It could lead to arbitrations which would be lengthier and more costly than under the provisions of the Bill. There are also a number of omissions. No provision is made for tenants of Crown land, statutory successions, assignments or sub-tenancies. Indeed the absence of any indication as to which tenants are to be eligible means that the effect could be that each successive tenant on a particular holding would be eligible for compensation, not just the original tenant to whom quota was allocated or his statutory successor or assignee. Thus, landlords could in effect find themselves having to pay several times for the same quota.
As I see it, those are the problems with Amendment No. 16. Let us not forget, we could in many cases be
936
talking about very large sums of money. Indeed, in the interests of many tenants I hope that in some cases there will be considerable sums of money being talked about, although we should not forget that at the end of the day it is the incoming tenant who, finally, will have to pay. That is something we need to keep very much in mind.
We have also been talking about Amendment No. 25. My noble friend Lord Middleton put his finger on the essential difficulties with Amendment No. 25. This is familiar because my noble friend mentioned it so clearly and it has already come up on Amendment No. 16. But I mention it again. There is not really a starting point. The individual circumstances that may exist on a particular holding cannot be taken into account because the idea is a 50/50 split. I think that is unfair. There are no criteria to say how one goes away from a 50/50 split.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked me a direct question about where our starting point was. As I sought to make clear at the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government's starting point in the interests of the tenant is linked to a standard quota which is well below—in fact it is about 11 per cent. below—the average yield for the country with the right for the arbitrator to vary the arrangements if, when he looks at a particular farm, either the quality of the land or the climate conditions lead him to believe that he ought to start from a different basis.
Before any of your Lordships say to me that that will lead to a lot of different decisions, I should say that I know it will. But it is fair, precisely for the reason that, starting off from at least a standard that is understandable in national terms, it allows the arbitrator to take account of the circumstances of the farm in question. It takes into account the situation where a tenant took over a non-dairying holding and turned it into a flourishing milk-producing unit, but it will also safeguard the landlord in the case where perhaps bad farming practice has resulted in a very much reduced quota being allocated.
A specific 50/50 split as the starting point would not, I suggest to my noble friend Lord Stanley, take account of such situations. I think it could be highly unpredictable in its operation. I have to say this straight out: I think these Amendments Nos. 16 and 25 will shift the balance substantially towards the tenant. I say that bearing in mind that the Government brought forward amendments, to which your Lordships agreed at Commitee stage, whereby we shifted towards the tenant in Committee. Let us remember that although that creates problems for the landlord, who has to make arrangements, at the end of the day it is the incoming tenant who finally pays the bill. For the good of young farmers in this country and the landlord-tenant system generally, surely we ought to remember that.
Of course I understood when my noble friend Lord Stodart said that he wished he could do away with all the complexities of Schedule 1—something which my noble friend has said to me inside and outside the House on more than one occasion. Of course I understand that, but may I gently say that it was the

937
industry itself which came to us in the Ministry of Agriculture originally and said that it wanted a basic framework from which to start. The absence of guidelines for arbitrators will, I believe, mean that producers in similar circumstances could receive very different treatment under these amendments which are being put forward. Again, I was very interested to hear my noble friend Lord Middleton put his finger on that point. If my noble friend is right, then at the end of the day these amendments, put forward in good faith, of course, are not in fact going to be fair either to landlord or to tenant. On those grounds, with regret, I must oppose them.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, may I put forward one suggestion which might meet the wishes of a number of your Lordships? Our Scottish legislation is not at all as satisfactory as the English legislation, but it does have one saving provision in it which might be acceptable to England and Wales. It is that the landlord and tenant can agree between themselves and can contract out of the Government proposals. Therefore, the tenant and the landlord could make an agreement; and I should think that in a great many cases they would do so rather than accept what we have in the Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the debate has been interesting and objections have been put forward to our scheme. The Minister, who is always fair and very thorough, has pointed out that there will be difficulties arising from this amendment. I accept that that may well be so. But let us not beat about the bush. What we are doing here is looking at a principle, which has been accepted as a principle by the Government, that we split this uncalled-for bonus between the landlord and the tenant. That is accepted. We are looking for a starting point.
It has been said that the 50/50 split would apply in all cases and would be very unfair to the landlord with a bad tenant and to the tenant who had a high quota through his own efforts and skill as a dairyman. We do not think so. We think that it is so cast that with 50/50 as a starting point the arbiter will be perfectly capable of assessing whether the split should be in favour of the landlord or of the tenant. The arbiters are accustomed to doing this. They know the district better than the Government can assess the district. I think that on this basis they can make a fair job of the assessment.
If there are flaws, then I think the House should express its opinion on how the split should be made. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that we are talking about a lot of money and that money is being paid over right now. It is not coming out of any landlord's pocket; it is being dealt with in the business. The example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was that the tenant would get £34,600 and the landlord would get £69,000. This was considered to be much fairer to the tenant.
When the Milk Marketing Board took a different set of figures, a more average set of figures, we got figures
938
of £17,000 for this 800,000-litre quota to the tenant and £86,700 for the landlord. For an average quota of 340,000 litres, the figures were £7,400 to the tenant and £36,800 to the landlord.
Is it going to be considered fair in the country that this unexpected bonus, which has already hit the tenant, the milk producer, extremely hard, this artificial value, should be split in that way? That is the point that this House has to decide. Is the 50/50 starting point much fairer than the one at present, which is heavily biased in favour of the landlord? Are they going to say—and this is a slightly dishonest argument—that this is "a landlords' House"? But it is not so. There is none fairer than the Members of your Lordships' House.
But it does look to be an unfair basis for starting on the figures that we see. Imperfect though our amendment may be, I know that the Government are efficient and kind, and have excellent draftsmen, and that if we get the principle right then they will be able to correct the actual mechanics. So I am afraid I must press the amendment.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Amherst, E.

Lockwood, B.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Barnett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blyton, L.

Melchett, L.

Brockway, L.

Milverton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Morris, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

[Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rhodes, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Greenway, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grey, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hampton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Walston, L.

Hylton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kagan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wise, L

Kirkhill, L.

939

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lawrence, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bolton, L.

Lurgan, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McFadzean, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burton, L.

Manton, L.

Caithness, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Campbell of Croy, L.

Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelmer, L.

Middleton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northbourne, L.

Craigton, L.

Onslow, E.

Crathorne, L.

Orkney, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Peel, E.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Richardson, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Forbes, L.

Savile, L.

Forester, L.

Seebohm, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Somers, L.

Gridley, L.

Somerset, D.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Marylebone, L.

L.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hooper, B.

Trenchard, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Ingrow, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Vernon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 12.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 17, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 42, because Amendment No. 42 asks for the same fate for the schedule as Amendment No. 17 does for Clause 12. Since this clause came into the Bill at Report stage in another place, the conflict of interest between landlord and tenant has been the only subject we have debated. Indeed after this we are going to go on debating it. I rather wish I was going to speak at the end because I should like to lift your Lordships' minds to the wider and longer-term issues that I think are concerned here.
In the debate on Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 6th May, my noble friend Lord Belstead said, "In the last two years quota has acquired a value". That was at col. 623. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I believe that this proposition was a little bare and perhaps a little bland: certainly it requires further analysis. He went on to say—and we shall return to the point later—that because quotas are tied to the land a tenant cannot sell or take his quota with him.
Let us remember what a quota is and what it does. A quota specifies for each farm how much milk by volume can be sold without incurring a levy on the excess production: normally known as a super-levy. If it is relevant to the question of whether quotas do create an asset, then the answer, as I see it, is that the capital or rental value of a farm that is equipped for dairying will depend on whether it has a milk quota and, if it has, how much it is.
Every farm that is thus equipped and that was producing milk in 1982–83 was given a quota and, with its output thus restricted, it suffered then a loss of earning power—a loss which it carries today and a loss which will get greater if demand falls further. Therefore I maintain very strongly that while quota remains linked to the land it does not have a value: it has a negative value. I very much doubt whether a tenant, however wealthy he is, would wish to take on a share of that. I hope I have made it clear at this stage (and I shall have more to say later) that I reject the basic logic the Government have used and which has apparently been adopted by most sides of the industry that we are starting with an asset which we have to share out.
I believe, as I said on Second Reading, that is the logic of the looking-glass and I will not have it. In any case I do not relish the idea of seeing the Government go into Looking-glass Land, because, like Alice, once they get there they may tend to do some very strange things. So much, then, for the nature of quotas while they remain attached to the land.
This brings us to the next question. "Are there any circumstances in which quota can have a value?" Yes, indeed there are, but only when it is allowed by the Government to leave the farm and so become mobile. For at this point, for the first time, the purchaser acquires the right to sell more levy-free milk to rectify the loss of earning power that he has suffered since 1983. So quotas do not become assets unless or until they leave the farm.
If any of your Lordships were to go to, for instance, Denmark you would find no trade in quotas. There quotas are linked to the land and unused quota is withdrawn, though not necessarily cancelled. National regulation or legislation exists and has existed from the first—because the Danes thought about this—to enforce this linkage to the land. That does not seem to be the way the Government are going about things in this country. Apparently they are encouraging or at least allowing a trade in quotas to develop. It has not got very far but it has started. I use the words "encouraging" and "allowing" because it does not appear to me that the Government are clear exactly where they stand in this matter, as the Danes were

941
clear when they addressed the subject right at the start. It appears that they are content at least for farmers to use the flimsy legal loophole of temporary land transfer for the purpose. I wish they had addressed themselves to these fundamental points right at the beginning of the quota era.
I believe that mobility of quotas—and here I know I am on contentious ground—is in the long run very damaging to the industry for two main reasons. First, the demand for dairy produce continues to drop and stocks continue to rise. Whereas not long ago we were talking about 1 million tonnes of butter, we are now talking about 1¼ million tonnes. If quotas are allowed to circulate freely without any withdrawal, total production will stay at its present level. Take-up from the Community scheme will be nil because the free market terms will be very much better—up to 20 per cent., we have heard this evening—and paid at once as against something like 17p over seven years.
If total production does not drop by fall-out the only solution as demand goes down—and I am certain that it will—will be more and yet more across the board cuts in quota. So every dairy farmer will continue to live under the Damoclean sword of uncertainty, unable to plan ahead and probably unwilling to invest—a well-trodden downward path in any industry, whether it be milk, motor cars of microchips.
My second objection is just as serious. As total quota drops so will the traded price per litre go up. There will be more and more money chasing fewer and fewer goods—the classic inflationary road. This industry is chronically and at times acutely short of liquidity. I use the word "liquidity" in its financial sense. It cannot afford any new increases in its costs; it cannot afford new premiums; it cannot afford compensation.
In little over two years' time, quotas and their method of operation will be up for review. The Government will want to make substantial changes. But what are they doing now in this Bill? It may be unintentional, but they are using primary legislation to solve what they perceive as a problem. Here is the crux of the matter. In doing so, they are enshrining the principle that quotas belong to people and not to the land, in spite of what my noble friend said at Second Reading. If they do that, then automatically quotas become tradeable and mobile; and as I have said, I do not believe that this is in the long-term interests of the industry.
And so I interpose this suggestion among the debates that have taken place on the sectional interests. I say to the Government that it would be far better to avoid primary legislation. The only way they can do that is to leave this clause and its schedule right out of the Bill; and that is what I am proposing. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, there is one thing about the noble Earl's amendment—it would certainly solve all our problems straight away if we accepted it. Quite frankly, I agree with his amendment in one way, except that he has come with it too late. If we had
942
looked at the matter in the very early days of quotas and realised what the situation was going to be, we could have been clever and given the whole of the quota to the Milk Marketing Board and not allowed it to have any value at all. That would have solved the situation.
I claim a little credit for having said early on that we had not looked at this matter clearly enough and had not seen it through. Nevertheless, it is with a little hindsight that one sees the situation today, a situation with which we are saddled. In spite of my agreement with the noble Earl, I cannot see that we can go back now, much as he would like it and much as I would perhaps like it. With that, although I support the noble Earl in one way, I cannot see that we can support the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down. I remember the days of the hop market quota. Quotas were not tied to the land. The quota was a certain figure and all the hop farmers together could not exceed that. This prevented overproduction. It would have been a good thing if we could have done the same with milk. It is too late. I just wanted to make that point, and I agree with what the noble Lord said about it. It is too late.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord De La Warr pointed out, both at Second Reading and again today, one would think that a milk quota, where it remains firmly attached to the land, is a restriction on production and in itself a thing of no value. But the fact is that milk quotas are being traded. There are devices by which this is being done. They have acquired a value, and we have heard this several times this evening.
It seems to me that our own Government have departed from what I believe was the intention of the Council of Ministers and have departed, as my noble friend has reminded us, from the way milk quotas were treated in other member countries by countenancing what my noble friend calls the mobility of milk quotas by means of the temporary transfer of land. The argument runs like this. If a milk quota can be traded for value, why should not a tenant farmer who leaves his dairy farm with a quota attached to it get something for what he leaves behind? The Government were persuaded, wrongly in my view, that a milk quota should somehow be treated as a tenant's asset irrespective of whether or not it enhanced the landlord's reversion. My noble friend Lord Belstead will remember that I expressed my misgivings about that when the proposal was first floated.
I believe that a case can be made for compensating a tenant for the milk quota provided he can show that he has left something behind which improves the landlord's asset. I suggested in Committee how the long-established principles of compensation in the Agricultural Holdings Act could be adopted in order to provide for that, but the Committee did not accept my proposal and so we are thrown back to the Government's proposals in the Bill.

943
I have to say that I believe these proposals are based on a wrong concept. My noble friend has explained why it is wrong. He is right to point out the difficulties that may follow. Because the Government did not read, or misread, the signpost they went down the wrong track at the outset; and I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said about that. I agree with him.
Months of dispute followed because of the difficulties inherent in applying this concept to our own landlord and tenant system, and those difficulties were amply demonstrated by the debates on this issue in Committee, and again at length tonight. My noble friend is right to raise this fundamental issue, but I fear that he may be only illuminating that signpost which the Government missed many months ago. Nevertheless, I support him just in case—and it is a great deal to ask, as I recognise—the Government can see their way not just to alter the Bill in the way that my noble friend proposes but to make a radical reappraisal of their milk quota policy.
7 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this matter. I hasten to explain, to backtrack for a moment, that in fact I preferred Schedule 1 to the Bill to Amendment No. 16, but I also have the strongest sympathy for the amendment of my noble friend Lord De La Warr. It is a matter that we should consider very seriously.
I do not believe that it is altogether too late. I think that affairs in Europe may well compel some most draconian measures in this country if we do not pay heed to what is happening elsewhere within the EC. I think it was the original intention of the Commission as far as possible to avoid a value being put on quotas. It seems that we have not really made up our minds about this matter. We have had a hankering, and have never been quite sure whether to opt entirely, for what I describe as the North American option—the option of allowing quotas to acquire value. If we did that and followed the North American option, we should have to ask ourselves a number of questions.
First, we must ask the extent to which it is in the interests of the consumer. I gather that the price of liquid milk in Canada is 28p a litre and that here it is only 16p. It may well be that that has had something to do with the North American option. But let us suppose that one does not get 28p instead of 16p here. I wonder whether it is going to be in the long-term interests of British agriculture to embark wholeheartedly on that course.
I emphasise that it is particularly unsatisfactory in our circumstances that premiums should be taken out of the industry—that is, unless cash can come in from somewhere else. It may be that it will have to come from the consumer in the end. Therefore, I have the gravest fears about the future under the course we are now following because, as has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, these quotas will increase in value. Moreover, one must look at the value of quota in relation to the actual cost of a cow today. It is a substantial item. We must also remember
944
that there may be quotas coming for other commodities and that we are now setting a precedent as to how they are to be handled.
It may be that to seek an alternative to the North American solution is more bureaucratic, but I am concerned about our present posture. In fact, I am reminded of the grand old Duke of York and his 10,000 men. As your Lordships will know, he marched them up and he marched them down, and when they were only half-way up they were neither up nor down. I feel that if we are not careful that is where we will end.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has raised an important point in relation to the nature of the value of quotas. To speak briefly on this subject, it seems to me that the nature of the value of quotas is associated with the value of land. The creation of quotas has, in fact, creamed off some of the value of the land and made it transferable. Quotas have made land a negotiable asset. Land which has less quota will be less valuable, and land which acquires more quota will become more valuable. The nature of quota is intimately associated with the value of land.
It is for that reason I am not happy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I believe he is wrong in saying that value has been created. Value has not been created but has been transferred from the farms which have a low quota or no quota to the farms which have a high or good quota. For that reason it would seem logical that if the tenant is to participate in the benefit of having a large or high quota he should also contribute, and other tenants should contribute, in the same measure in respect of the farms where the quota is low because of inadequate performance, or for whatever reason. It has been the essential nature of quotas that they run with the land and that their value is part of the value of the land, whether or not they are transferable.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord De La Warr for bringing forward this point because, as I said earlier, the fact that quotas are changing hands at between 14p and 20p a litre, depending on the part of the country, and the fact that people have received large sums of money, has partially liberated them. It has also created a problem because we are not quite sure whether or not these are extra-legal transactions. People have paid money for something which, in all honesty, is dubious.
I arrive at a totally different conclusion from that of my noble friend Lord De La Warr. I should much prefer the quotas to be totally divorced from the land. I should like to see a system where you buy the licence, or there is a licence to sell X litres of milk. I could then buy that licence and I could let it to someone else. A landlord could buy it and even let it to someone else's tenant. Above all, when the Community wants to reduce the amount of milk that is produced the Commission itself could buy in quotas. That is exactly what is done by central banks when they want to control the exchange rate. That would seem to be a

945
sensible way of proceeding. If it can be Community-wide, so much the better. It would be a fully tradeable asset.
We know of some of the difficulties that have occurred recently. For example, I know of one landlord who has two almost identical holdings with two identical milk parlours on them. On one, there was a good tenant with 120 cows, milking away like mad and producing a considerable amount of milk, and so on. The other tenant was idle, or was doing what many of us think is a good idea—he had low input, low yield, careful grass management of his farm and consequently was producing much less milk from the same amount of land.
That seems to me to have produced some form of inequality. I do not quite know how to get round it, but I am absolutely certain that once the quotas become fully marketable these problems will vanish. It is only what is done with the first change of ownership of the windfall—and let us be honest, it is a windfall. People known to me have sold quotas from Hampshire to farmers in Wales on grass lets and they have received a lot of money for them. I must raise the point of who will pay and whether it is to be the consumer. Surely, if it is a quota to produce milk at a certain price, the consumer does not come into it. He will only buy milk at price X, and as there is a licence to produce it at that price, that is the price at which it is traded. The consumer is not affected.
I could not be more pleased that my noble friend Lord De La Warr has brought up this matter because I think it is vitally important; and the development of selling quotas with slightly dicey grass lets is something which will end in a lot of—I nearly said spilt milk— tears, certainly.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I also should like to support my noble friend Lord De La Warr. I am very interested to note that it seems that he has unanimous support from all sides of the House. Since our deliber-ations on the previous stages of this Bill, during which endless criticisms were levelled at the Government's proposals on quotas, it has become clear that very few people, if any, are in favour of the current intentions. It was to be hoped that the Government would come forward with such an amendment. I wonder whether these proposals would ever have come to us had this clause been debated in Committee in another place.
There was bound to be friction over any split of a value of quotas. British agriculture does not want to be split in this way. Surely the Government do not wish to destroy the landlord and tenant system, but it is hard to think of any other legislation which would do more to destroy this liaison in agriculture. What is equally serious is the amount of money which these proposals will take out of agriculture. The retiring farmer will take with him the money that he receives and that money will be lost.
What is the answer? I think that we are the only country in Europe that has got itself into this muddle. The answer is to accept this amendment, drop these
946
quota proposals, look at what has happened on the other side of the Channel or, indeed, the North Sea, and then ensure that quotas are allowed to have no value, which I believe to be in the spirit of the EC regulations.
If a quota is not required, it should be called back into a pool, as one of your Lordships said—though I cannot remember who it was. This would give flexibility. If there was a need for further reduction in milk supply (which is a not improbable situation), individual farmers would not have to adjust, they would not have to cut by a further 1, 2, 5 or 10 per cent., or whatever it may be, at great inconvenience to themselves. There would be a quota pool which need not be issued. If there were need for further milk, the Government could produce quota from the pool and any spare quota would be available for any farmer starting up dairy farming. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that we were too late, but surely it is better late than never. As we are, we are getting into an awful muddle, and we had better try to put it right now, even though we are a little late.
If the Government's intentions are allowed to pass—and in view of the Government's amendments today it can be seen that they have already run into some unexpected difficulties—we are in for a problem. What happens when a farmer is an owner-occupier and the tenant of the neighbouring farm? There would be enormous scope for abuse. What happens if a tenant rents some extra grazing from a nearby farm? We are to compensate the tenant • "for his expenditure". Is it to be net expenditure after grant or his gross expenditure that is taken into account? I do not think that this is made clear.
The tenant is to be compensated for dairy improvements and fixed improvements,
"which are relevant to the keeping of dairy cows on the tenancy".
Surely what is important is that the improvements and fixed equipment are specifically adapted for dairy cows. There are improvements such as cattle courts which could equally well be used to store cattle or even sheep.
Since the Committee stage I have been doing some homework and I have found two dairy farmers who are giving up dairying. One is on a large Scottish estate which is giving up the dairy farm in hand and proposing to let it to a limited partnership. I asked the factor whether this was wise in view of the current legislation in the offing, and he said that in no way would he be handing over the quota, but he would be charging the incoming tenant extra rent for it. I asked him what might be the value of the quota and, calculating it on the Government's recommendation, it appears that it will be about £180,000. So after we had finished our telephone call, I decided that I had better try to work out what the tenant might have to pay, and I thought that perhaps 10 per cent. would be a not unreasonable amount to put on £180,000. So before starting to pay his ordinary rent the tenant will have to pay £18,000 a year rent for his quota. That is not on.
Then there is another case of a large estate that has rented a dairy farm from a small neighbour. The quota

947
value in this case is reputed to be £110,000 and presumably this would have to be split between the landlord and the tenant. However, as the tenant has provided nearly all of the equipment, the compensation would be largely payable to him and the small, poor landlord would have to provide a very large sum of money in way of compensation to his neighbour. I do not think that this is very sound legislation.
At Committee stage my noble friend, in referring to Scotland, intimated that it was his intention to give tenant farmers in Scotland a different standard quota on which to calculate the compensation due other than the one used in England. What he appears entirely to have forgotten is that average Scottish rents are well below English rents. So on the basis of the calculation worked out by the Government for England and Wales the Scottish landowner would already have had to pay more; and now, with a different standard quota, the poorer the ground, the more he will pay, and the more money will be taken out of circulation and out of the areas where it is most needed. I think that these are very bad and very unjust proposals.
I cannot put down an amendment because of course this matter will appear in an order at some future date. However, if it appears, as I gather it may do, it looks very much as though someone will have to pray against the order.
It is fair to say that it is said there would be very few cases in Scotland; but it does not matter if there is only one case; it is one case too many. I really cannot understand why my noble friends on the Front Bench, who I feel are probably not too happy about it themselves, should continue to push this legislation forward. Surely my noble friend's amendment is the answer. Any tenant, whether in England or Scotland, who is giving up dairying must have made his decision before this legislation appeared, whether the term day was in March or May. This legislation came into force only in June and so he had already given his notice to leave. It will be no hardship to put this measure back so that we would have nine months up to next March in which to produce a proper reasoned amendment and pass a proper Bill.
I hope that this might remove any value on quotas, as my noble friend suggested. I am sure that if his amendment is accepted, we could take this measure back and I am certain that all sides of the industry could tell the Government what would be satisfactory and how they should deal with milk quotas.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I think that in this case the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, whom I admire greatly, is missing the point just a little. It is all very well, but if Clause 12 is abolished, the people who have the quotas now are left with them. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, of course the quotas have a value, and it is a positive value which has been proven. The noble Earl has quoted case after case, and of that I have no doubt whatsoever.
If one is simply going to leave the situation as it is, how will quotas be reduced and how will the industry
948
be brought back onto a proper basis? Most people produce too little milk in relation to their capital equipment and so one hopes that farmers will leave dairying. And who is going to allocate the quota? My goodness, landlords will be keeping their tenants alive in order to maintain the value of the farm, passing the lease on in order to maintain the quota. Without any doubt, it gives the farm extra value. That is the flaw in that highly simplistic argument. It has a value. I do not like it. I do not think that we should have had quotas, but they are here and they have a value. The only real answer is to trade them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am indebted to my noble friend Lord De La Warr, provided he does not successfully press the amendment. He has raised an interesting debate in which I have learnt things and to which I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention. Like the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, 1 feel that perhaps he was referring to the quota system as he wished that it should have been. Although he made many valid points, as my noble friend Lord Massereene said, it is now a little late for that.
Let me briefly put the Government's view by saying a word about the quota system as we have it. The first point to bear in mind—which, with great respect, I think my noble friend Lord Burton wished to sweep aside—is that this was not a bright idea of the British Government but was something to try to solve a desperate problem of overproduction of milk in Europe, which was and still is costing individual taxpayers enormous sums. The council passed a regulation, amending Regulation No. 804/68, which says that it is all about curbing the increase in milk production while at the same time permitting the structural developments and adjustments which are required. The Ministers in Europe had two things in mind. The first was to try to curb the rapid expansion in the milk sector. The council also recognised the danger of any quota system—ossification of the industry at an arbitrary point in time—and so it specifically recognised the need for development.
The regulation that it produced makes it clear that the quota is allocated to the producer. But at the same time the regulation also made it clear that the quota is tied to the land. That summarises the essential tension in a difficult situation. The quota is tied to the land, thus giving the landlord a definite interest in its future, but it is assigned to the producer; and in that context it may be helpful to regard the quota in a similar light to a licence. It allows a producer to sell a certain amount of milk without attracting the levy while he retains occupancy of the land. In those circumstances it is difficult to say that the quota belongs to anybody at all. That is why the Government find it difficult to agree with anyone who may suggest that the clause and the schedule in the Bill have the effect of giving ownership of quota to the producers, so breaking the link with the land.
Were there no link with the land there would be no need for compensation to the tenant. The tenant would be able to take the quota away with him or sell it, in which case there would be an argument for the

949
tenant compensating the landlord. But as it is our aim has been to try to provide some form of recompense to tenants who have worked, sometimes for a whole lifetime, to build up milk production on the holding and who cannot at present realise any value from the asset which they have helped to create. I was so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who I have also agreed with earlier today, brought that point out with absolute clarity.
I realise that my noble friend Lord De La Warr is highly suspicious and critical of the whole idea of the thing being an asset. I understand when your Lordships deprecate the fact that it is an asset which is inevitably being created. But we have to face the fact that there is now a Community precedent for the compensation of tenants, and indeed landlords, for the loss of quota. The Community milk outgoers scheme clearly provides that it is for the tenant to determine whether he wishes to enter the scheme. It also recognises that both landlord and tenant have an interest in the quota and provides that both may share in the compensation in the event of the surrender of the quota scheme.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow, who twice this evening has said what a great pity it is that we cannot have a sensibly tradeable asset if we have to have quotas. All I can say is that the Government, more or less urged on by the entire industry, have sought consistently to achieve greater mobility of quota. Without such mobility, the dairy industry cannot develop efficiently within the constraints of the quota system. We have managed to introduce leasing. We shall keep up the pressure on the Commission to see whether we can get a better system.
The impression from listening to my noble friends Lord Burton and Lord De La Warr was that if only we had a system where at least we could take quota out, put it in a pool and reallocate it, things might be pretty good. That is what the Danes are said to be doing. I understand that they have been making a habit of confiscating unused quota. But the European Commission has made it absolutely clear that that is not in accordance with Community rules. Quota, once granted, cannot be withdrawn exept where Community rules make explicit provision. Denmark is the only member state operating in that way, and Denmark will have to answer if the Commission takes action.
My noble friend Lord Burton said that we were storing up trouble which no other country had. I wish that I could agree with him but, with respect, I understand that the problems over which we have been agonising in the past half hour have been occupying the minds of those involved in the industry in France, in Ireland and in Germany.
I repeat that the Government are genuinely indebted to my noble friend. It is not the first time that I have been involved in debates with him on matters which are absolutely fundamental. He initiates such debates, which is exactly what the House is about. But, seriously, I beg him not to press this amendment. If he did, I think it would be looked upon with deep
950
resentment by the tenants of this country, who feel that at least the Government, with the help of your Lordships, reluctant though I know it has been, have tried in a difficult situation to feel their way through to a fair solution which will recognise that the tenant, just once—it is a once-and-for-all payment—is able, when he either moves or retires, to take some value of the quota which in many cases he may have spent the whole of his lifetime working up for the good of the holding. That is all that I can say on behalf of the Government, except once again quite genuinely to thank my noble friend for moving this difficult amendment.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. In the past few minutes he has tempted me very much. I am a tenant. I am the tenant of my six year-old grandson. I spend a lot of my time resenting every penny that I pay to the little blighter. That is the first point.
Perhaps I may just refer to three points that have been made, two by my noble friend. He talked about the precedent created on compensation. There are two very different types of compensation, and one is compensation to an outgoing tenant where there is no removal of milk from the system. We all know that we are still producing too much milk. The other compensation is used to induce milk to leave the system. I want to draw my noble friend's attention to that. Allied to that is what he said about the encouragement of mobility. That is the one matter that alarms me. To avoid ossification we have gone for mobility and thus done what we can to keep up the level when we know that demand is going down. That was central to my argument.
The third point is that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that we are too late. He may be right. Maybe we are in many ways too late, but at least this has served notice, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie has assisted in this, on the Government that we may be on a dangerous path. During the next two years when we come up to the review we should be looking at whether we should change the system to bring supply and demand more in line with each other.
I hope that what has been said not only by me but by other noble Lords will be taken on board by the Government and that they will watch carefully to see that they do not become too entrenched. That is why I sought to link what I had to say with this clause, because it seemed to me that by using primary legislation the Government were becoming too entrenched.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, thinks that my arguments were simplistic. I shall try to do better next time. I shall not cease, and I hope that other noble Lords will follow me, to watch what is happening to the demand and supply of milk and the quota system. I am much more interested in that than in the squabble between landlord and tenant. That is not fundamental. I hope that my noble friend will not think that I am lecturing him and, having said that, I think that I can safely take the view that I have

951
served my purpose by bringing these matters to your Lordships' attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have reached a suitable break point in the consideration of milk. I suggest therefore that we do not return to this matter before 8.35 p.m. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986
7.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved. [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion to continue the powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 I shall, as I usually do, be reviewing the security situation in Northern Ireland. At the same time I shall attempt to describe in general terms some further legislative proposals which the Government intend to pursue when proposing amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.
Before I go into the detail of the security situation I shall forestall one question which I know will be asked by everyone who speaks in the debate; namely, when will my right honourable friend introduce a Bill to amend this Act? As your Lordships are aware, we are committed to bringing forward a Bill during the lifetime of this Parliament. I give your Lordships the undertaking that we shall fulfil that commitment.
I shall review the security situation briefly. So far in 1986 14 members of the security forces and 14 civilians have died as a result of the security situation in the Province. Each and every death is of course a matter of the deepest regret and concern. Your Lordships will know that over the past few months the homes of off-duty members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been subjected to contemptible and disgraceful attacks, associated with so-called loyalist protests against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I am sure that all your Lordships will permit me to ask you to join me in condemning those Loyalist politicians who condone those attacks. Above all, I ask your Lordships to join those Loyalist politicians, of whom there were quite a few, who condemned those attacks. It was a matter of the deepest regret to learn of the disgraceful remarks made by the honourable Member for North Antrim after the Northern Ireland Assembly was dissolved on 23rd June this year. For those of your Lordships who may not have heard or
952
seen those remarks I would point out that he said to the policemen present:
"Don't come crying to me when your homes are attacked".
Coming from someone with influence in Northern Ireland, such a remark can only be classified as an incitement to attacks on the Royal Ulster Constabulary to whom each and every one of us, let alone everyone in Northern Ireland, owes a profound debt of gratitude. I am sure that your Lordships would agree with me that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has steadfastly and, above all, impartially upheld the law in Northern Ireland for everyone. For it to be attacked and denigrated in that way saddens me. I believe that it saddens all friends of Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House and throughout the world. Such remarks do not and can not help the fight against terrorism which is the object of this order.
I pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in particular for the way in which it has conducted itself in recent months. I shall also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the armed forces for their tremendous support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Your Lordships know that significant extra military resources have been deployed in the Province to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary to protect police stations and to mount additional patrols, while the men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment continue to bear the brunt of front-line support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary over much of the Province.
I also wish to pay tribute to the dedication with which members of the prison service approach their duties. I am glad to have your Lordships' unstinting support in this. Those duties are made much more difficult by the nature of the prison population in Northern Ireland. Those prison officers have also been subjected to attacks from so-called Loyalists.
The threat from terrorism, particularly Republican terrorism, regrettably remains high. That threat takes different forms, including shooting attacks on the security forces, the use of home-made explosives, and of course mortar attacks against security force bases. The security forces are countering that threat by maintaining the most intensive rate of operations since 1981. May I make it crystal clear that we are committed to fight and defeat the evil of terrorism. That is done on the basis that our security policy pays strict observance to the law and makes the minimum possible derogation from it to ensure that terrorists are brought to face justice for their crimes. The brave and impartial way in which the judiciary go about their duties must be recognised. I am sure that I have the support of your Lordships in paying tribute to the judiciary.
It is against this background that we consider the emergency provisions Act. All of us will agree that it is the duty of your Lordships' House and of another place to ensure that any derogation from the ordinary law as we know it is fully justified. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, his predecessors, and, indeed, all my colleagues, have carefully considered the review of the late Sir George Baker of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. We have also given careful consideration to

953
the views of individuals and organisations, including the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, who have commented on Sir George's recommendations. We have accepted that there is scope for amending the Act. As I said earlier, we shall be introducing legislation for this purpose as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits, and certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament.
I should like to take your Lordships once again over the proposals that I have put before the House during the last two debates on orders to continue powers in this Act. I can perhaps elaborate a little more on the proposals this evening. The proposals included an increase in the Attorney-General's discretion to certify cases out of the scheduled mode of trial, the repeal of the police power of arrest in Section 11 of the Act which duplicates that of Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the recasting of Section 2(2) so that the onus in bail applications will be on the prosecution, the widening of Section 2(5) to include members of the RUC and RUC reserve, and making the temporary provisions of the Act renewable annually by Parliament and subject to a maximum life of five years without re-enactment. The first of these proposals has already been achieved—that is, the Attorney-General's discretion to certify cases out of the scheduled mode of trial.
In my past reviews of the Act I have said that my right honourable friend was considering the recommendation of Sir George Baker that magistrates should be able to remand persons accused of scheduled offences in custody for up to 28 days without consent so as to avoid what your Lordships will, I think, agree are wasteful and meaningless remand hearings. I can now tell your Lordships that my right honourable friend proposes to implement this recommendation. He also proposes that certain powers in the Act—the powers of entry and search in Section 11(2), the power of arrest without warrant in Sections 13 and 14, and the powers of entry and search in Section 15(2) and (3)—should be exercised only on the basis of reasonable suspicion.
In addition, we intend to propose provisions effectively replicating for Northern Ireland the provisions of Sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 governing the rights while in custody of suspects arrested under the emergency legislation to have someone informed of their arrest and to have access to a solicitor. We also intend to take the opportunity to introduce measures designed to inhibit the exploitation by para-military organisations of the private security industry in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of deep concern to us and I am sure to your Lordships and naturally to many in Northern Ireland that members of para-military organisations on both sides should be able to engage in what are often little more than glorified extortion rackets while they masquerade as private security companies. We propose what we see to be a relatively simple scheme in which private security companies would be required to seek a certificate from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State which could be denied if the Secretary of State were satisfied that its granting would further the aims of a para-military
954
organisation whether directly or indirectly. That is how our minds are turning. I would be glad to take on board any points that your Lordships may care to raise during the debate.
There is one other matter which I am sure concerns your Lordships, particularly at this time of the year. I refer to the controversial issue of marches and parades. As your Lordships are aware, over the last year or so there have been some who have chosen to abuse the tremendous tradition in Northern Ireland for parades and marches. Some parades have been triumphalist and sectarian and, in many cases, parade organisers have shown no consideration for the rights and feelings of the residents of the areas in which they propose to march. As a result the chief constable of the RUC has had to reroute some parades. I shall have a little more to say about this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, on the advice of the chief constable, has banned others. Having said that, the extreme step of rerouting or even banning parades has been taken on very few occasions. The chief constable of the RUC, in his annual report for 1985, reported that of 1,897 Loyalist parades in the past year, only 15 were rerouted by the police and two were banned. I hope therefore that your Lordships will understand the scale of these measures that have had sadly to be taken either by my right honourable friend or by the chief constable requesting rerouting. I am sure that all of your Lordships will join me in asking everyone in Northern Ireland not to undertake any marches that are likely to increase tensions in the community and, above all, to be guided by the advice of the RUC.
This has been a brief review and, I hope, not repeti-tive. I should like finally to mention the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Your Lordships will appreciate the importance of the Border with the Republic and how its importance is emphasised in Republican terrorist activities. The Border aspect is what makes the work being done under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on cross-Border security so crucially important. It would be foolish and, I think, unrealistic to expect overnight results. There may be cynics and there may be others who say that there have been no improvements in cross-Border security. Your Lordships will, I believe, agree that major moves of this nature take time. I believe that we have made a start on this very important process.
At the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference on 17th June the joint chairmen received a report from the chief constable of the RUC and the deputy commissioner of the Garda on measures agreed to improve arrangements for the exchange of information and to develop liaison structures. I am able to say that a significant amount of work has been done, and more will be done shortly. I would not want to inform your Lordships of what these measures are. All that I am able to say is that they offer the best prospect that there has ever been for improving co-operation between the two forces.
I would be happy—I mean this—if I could come before your Lordships to say that we do not need the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I am afraid, however, that in the face of the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland this is simply

955
unrealistic, and I cannot do so. Against that background it would be irresponsible not to retain the important powers in the Act which make it possible for the security forces and the judicial system to deal effectively with terrorism in Northern Ireland. With that in mind I commend the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1979 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee. ] —(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his short but comprehensive review of the security situation in Northern Ireland. Of course we join with the Minister in expressing our debt of gratitude to members of the RUC and the security forces, members of their families, members of the prison service and the judiciary.
The Minister has reminded us of the background against which the Government ask the House for the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The essence of his case is that these provisions—abnormal though they are—are still necessary in order to maintain law and order in the Province. We know that the assassinations and the bombings continue. We know that members of the police force have been attacked and their homes petrol-bombed, and that they have been cold-shouldered by members of their own community. That is obviously very sad. The Minister also referred to the provocative parades. They are still on the streets of Northern Ireland, but relatively few have been rerouted.
In the debate on Monday night on the appropriation order, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the Minister said that since 21st May no attacks had been recorded on policemen's homes. Will the Minister tell the House whether his use of the word "recorded" had a special significance? Is there a policy of not reporting each and every attack on policemen's homes which takes place? I noticed the reference to recorded number of attacks.
The task of upholding law and order during the months ahead is likely to be very difficult for the police and the security forces. The Minister has already referred to the utterances of the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. We have all read or listened to his appalling words. He warms to the theme of,
"hand-to-hand fighting in every street in Northern Ireland".
Indeed, he has been moved to proclaim that,
"we are on the verge of civil war".
His deputy reinforces this sinister message when he shouts,
"the hour of politics has passed".
In this House we see how those words bear within them the seeds of conflict, violence and disaster. On top of those threats from the so-called Unionists there is some evidence—though I do not know how conclusive that evidence is—that Libya intends to
956
resume financial aid to the Provisional IRA. In our view, given those internal and external threats the Government would be wrong to assume that the disgraceful speeches and the threats are meaningless rantings and ravings of bogus leaders. One fears that they may be more than that. Therefore the Government are right to ask the House for the renewal of the Act to ensure the continuance of civilised life in the Province.
That is not to say that we have no reservations about some of the provisions of the 1978 Act, or that we have no reservations about the administration of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has already complained of,
"the apparent lack of urgency and piecemeal approach to the development of emergency legislation".
It is referring to the non-implementation of the Baker recommendations which were delivered to the department in 1984. But this evening the Minister has anticipated a great part of that criticism and we welcome the message that he has brought to the House.
I was particularly pleased that the powers of entry and search under some of the sections of the Act will henceforth be exercised on the basis of reasonable suspicion. But I am sure we would require more time before we would dare to comment on the detailed amendments which the Minister has outlined to the House. However, when we see the Act I am sure that it will in general be given support. It may well be that we shall also come up with our own amendments. I am particularly pleased that the Minister has given a commitment—I do not think that is too strong a word—that the amendments to the 1978 Act will be introduced within the lifetime of this Parliament.
Since we last debated the renewal of the 1978 Act there have been growing pressures in Northern Ireland to abolish supergrass trials. We know that a Private Bill has been introduced in the House of Commons to do away with such trials. I think that a number of Members of your Lordships' House have been approached over the past nine months by various people in Northern Ireland seeking our support for a similar Bill in your Lordships' House. Some of us adopted a cautious attitude to that approach. But there may be a new factor in the situation. As I understand it, there is growing cross-community support for the principles of the Bill which has been introduced in the other place. If that be so—that is my caveat—then I should have thought that the Government ought to have another look at the principle embodied in the Bill.
There is one other matter to which I want to refer; that is, the serious anxiety about the position in which Mr. Stalker finds himself. I am sure we would not be doing our duty in this House if we were not to draw the attention of the Government to the rumours about Mr. Stalker's position. There is anxiety about the manner of his suspension and the alleged grounds for his suspension, and about his removal from the leadership of the RUC inquiry. Indeed, whose decision was it that Mr. Stalker should be suspended and that

957
Mr. Sampson should be invited to take over the RUC inquiry?
We urge the Government to produce the answers to the many questions which are being asked about this worrying affair. The rumours are circulating in the press. It is now high time that the Government got to the heart of those rumours. With those few comments, we give our support to the order.
8 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, if I may agree with the last remarks of my noble friend, of course the Government must clear up this Stalker business quickly. But to say anything about it before it is cleared up seems to me entirely wrong and I shall not follow that course.
We sometimes complain about certain business being taken in the dinner hour. I do not mind being put in the dinner hour if it is the dinner hour. But we have been put in the after-dinner hour this time, and as a result of that the noble Lord will have to forgive me if I do not wait until 8.35 because I have other, absolutely unbreakable duties.
This is not an occasion to say very much. This is the most dangerous time of the year in Northern Ireland, as we all know. If one adds Dr. Paisley's threats—empty though I think they may be and certainly hope they are; but we cannot so assume—to the persistent terrorism of the IRA, this is hardly a time to begin questioning the continuance of the emergency provisions. We on these Benches will happily support their continuance. I hope that in a year's time one may be able to say something different. I must confess that I doubt it. However, until things change, it is no good talking about it at all.
As the Minister told us, some changes have been made. I am particularly interested in one of them. I have always favoured the de-scheduling of offences as much the most likely thing to do any good to the overcrowding of terrorist prisons with offenders some of whom ought not to be there at all. As the noble Lord will remember, the Cobden Trust produced a report suggesting that over 40 per cent. of scheduled trials in the Diplock courts were wholly unconnected with terrorism. I do not know that 40 per cent. is true, but certainly a large number were. If such a step as was recommended by Baker—and by most people who have had anything to do with this—has been taken I should like to hear more about it. Perhaps not tonight, but the next time that we discuss these matters, the noble Lord might give us some estimate of what the de-scheduling has saved in the way of Diplock trials. That will be very helpful.
Equally I think that the temporary suspension of the seven-day production of the criminal before the court is a very wise thing. I have been pressing for this for years in England, where there are not even terrorists. In the case of terrorist crime, which is so much more serious, this is a way of easing the pressure on the prisons and reducing the dangerous risk of moving terrorists about, because on a number of occasions rescues have been made on these moves.
958
As to the introduction of the two clauses in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, I have not been able to look up which they are, but I think that they are entirely concerned with the treatment of men under arrest and before charge and they are on the whole very liberalising and decent measures. I am very glad that the noble Lord feels that these can be introduced. I will not go into detail because I may be talking about the wrong ones, but I think it is a very good thing.
I must, I think, join my noble friend and the Minister in condemning not only the words of Dr. Paisley but his suggestion that attacking the police was the sort of thing that his followers might reasonably do. I think that this is something that we must not stop talking about. If the leaders of round about half the Unionist population are going to take that sort of line, we really are in the most serious trouble. With regard to the change in Northern Ireland this year, making the police face both ways, and the fact that the worst of the Unionists despise the police for one reason only—that is, for their impartiality—I believe that this is such a terrible accusation that one really wonders whether the people who speak on behalf of those who hold these views really know what they are saying at all. It is fair to say that half the Unionists, the Molyneaux group, have never supported this sort of thing. The only way forward, of course, is through those people, and they will probably be shot in the back like everybody else who is moderate in Northern Ireland.
One could continue on these lines for some time. The only thing we are here to discuss is the necessity to renew the emergency provisions, and I have not the slightest difficulty in saying that from these Benches we think that it is absolutely essential to do so.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to begin by express-ing my gratitude to the noble Lord the Minister for explaining in considerable detail the Government's legislative intentions arising out of Sir George Baker's report. That, I am happy to say, enables me to shorten my remarks quite a lot.
The noble Lord went on to mention the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Here I should like to express the strong hope that there will be a major input from the British side into the conference of Ministers concerning the administration of justice and police matters. We cannot just leave it for the Irish Government to make all the points that need to be considered by the conference. I should like to emphasise here that there are many improvements that can be made in present procedures that will not require legislation. Obviously there are others that will require changes in the law, but surely we can make a start with those that can be done administratively.
I come now to the letter from the Secretary of State dated 6th June and addressed to the chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which again the noble Lord mentioned in passing. Paragraph 19 of the letter acknowledges that there has been a delay in producing legislation to amend the Act

959
that we are considering tonight, but it ends with a rather cryptic sentence:
"We are very conscious of the need to articulate changes in emergency legislation with developments in the normal law of Northern Ireland."
That may be good Civil Service prose, but I wonder what it means. Can the noble Lord throw any light on it? In particular, to what parts of the normal law does it refer?
I have several other questions arising out of the Secretary of State's letter. The first concerns paragraph 21. What does "considerable progress" mean in relation to improved police-public consultation in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in England and Wales? Surely this is something that can be improved without legislation.
Secondly, on paragraph 23, what does "considerable progress" mean in relation to tape recording of police interviews and a code of practice for the treament of persons in custody? Surely this is another place where there is no need for legislation.
Thirdly, there is the police complaints and disciplinary procedure. I should like to ask whether things are moving faster here, because paragraph 24 of the letter says that there will be a draft order in council later this year, and I welcome that.
Having put those questions to the Minister about some admittedly ultra-sensitive areas of law enforcement and policing, I trust that the whole of your Lordships' House will congratulate the Wiltshire police on its discovery of weapons, and the arrest of two men at Trowbridge yesterday. Equally successful was the discovery of the hotel bombs in Glasgow last summer and the arrest of those recently found guilty of the Brighton bombing and the hotel attempts. In Northern Ireland this year numerous large bombs have been found and successfully defused.
I should like to pay tribute to others who now bear some of the heat and burden of these difficult issues. I mention first the committee on the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. This multidisciplinary voluntary body, which arose out of the fragments of the 1970s movement of the peace people, has held a number of conferences and has published no fewer than eight reports on such subjects as the administration of justice, emergency law, police complaints, police and public consultation, minority rights in Northern Ireland and plastic bullets. Had it not been for that body there would not now be in Northern Ireland so large a pool of informed, responsible, non-violent opinion on these difficult questions.
Secondly, I should like to pay tribute to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. It is a government-appointed body. Its members include a Queen's counsel, a leading trade unionist, senior academics and others with good local community contacts under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. James O'Hara. It is most regrettable, and it must be very frustrating to the members and staff of the commission, that so many of their recommendations remain not yet implemented. They include the recommendations of December 1984, February 1985
960
and February 1986. The present situation is not, I am afraid, a very good omen for the study now being carried out by the commission on discrimination in Northern Ireland and the promotion of equal opportunities.
Police accountability is the last and most important subject that I wish to mention tonight. It has been highlighted by the miners' strike in England and the case of Mr. John Stalker both in Northern Ireland and in England. Indeed, that case was mentioned quite rightly and properly by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. The Minister will be aware that I have tabled a question about this matter and I shall expect a reply in due course. Meanwhile, I commend to your Lordships The Times leader on this matter of 27th June. I hope that it will be widely studied both in this House and by the Government.
I come back to the wider matters of police account-ability. It is a fact that responsibility for the police under both the principal Acts—that of 1970 as well as that of 1964—is divided between police authorities and chief constables and the Secretaries of State. The position is further complicated by the automony of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the autonomy of the inspectors of constabulary.
Northern Ireland differs from England in that its police authority is not composed of two-thirds elected representatives and one-third justices of the peace, but is wholly appointed by the Secretary of State. It is notoriously difficult to get cases brought against police personnel. When cases are brought it is equally difficult to get courts to convict. I suggest that the position will be improved by having independent police complaints commissions with investigating capacity of their own, but I do not believe that that is likely to provide a complete solution.
Another improvement in Northern Ireland may be to have a judicial component in the membership of the police authority. However, I submit that a full examination should be made of how police account-ability is organised in other countries, and in particular those which one could call "plural democracies", and in other divided societies.
The basic legislation both in England and in Northern Ireland should also be amended so as to define much more clearly and precisely the meaning of such words as "police efficiency", "police policies", and "operational control". We place exceptional trust in our police forces, and that demands exceptional responsibility and accountability. I do not want the police to become scapegoats for the ills and sins of our society. The position therefore cannot be allowed simply to drift on either in Britain or in Northern Ireland.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Moyola: My Lords, it was not my intention to say anything on this measure this evening, but as I am perhaps the only person present who actually lives in Northern Ireland I should like to express and add my appreciation of the efforts of the RUC over the past

961
few months. I should also like—and I have done so on at least two occasions—to add my voice of condemnation absolutely wholeheartedly against attacks on the police and on their homes. Above all, I should like to add my condemnation of people who deliberately incite such attacks.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement has been touched upon. I thought that my noble friend in his opening remarks sounded a little complacent on this matter. I am bound to say to him that to those of us in Northern Ireland the good which that agreement has done is, at present, absolutely unapparent. No one to whom I have spoken can see what it is achieving. I need hardly say that the harm which it has done seems to me to be absolutely immense. Resentment is still present. If action against the agreement has perhaps been less over the past few weeks, we must not underestimate in any way that the resentment against the agreement and the way in which it was made is still very much present. With those few words, I most certainly add my support to the Motion.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that I have not pre-empted any of your Lordships who may wish to add anything. We are very grateful for the close attention that has been paid to this rather complicated Act and Order. We are also grateful for the detailed points that have been raised by your Lordships in such a good-humoured, reasonable and kind way. However, at the outset I have one confession to make.
It has been drawn to my attention that in some of the remarks that I made about the events that took place outside the Assembly on 23rd June this year, I referred to a gentleman who is a Member of another place. It says in your Lordships' Standing Orders that it is something in the region of undesirable that any Member of another place should be mentioned by name "or otherwise identified" for the purpose of criticism of a personal nature. What any of us might have said tonight is milk and water compared to what has been said in the Assembly about myself, let alone my right honourable and honourable friends in another place. However, we have rules of conduct in your Lordships' House. I have unwittingly breached some of those rules and I wish to apologise to your Lordships. I, above all, should have known better. I think that our feelings on this particular matter are known.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to a comment which I made in my opening speech about attacks and intimidation in respect of members of the RUC and their homes. If I understand him correctly he referred to "recorded" or was it "reported" attacks on the homes of members of the RUC?
Lord Prys-Davies: It was "recorded".
Lord Lyell: I have glanced through my brief and I see that there is nothing there and so I must have added an obiter dictum. I shall check the implications of what was said and write to the noble Lord on that particular point. So far as the intimidation of members
962
of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, members of the prison service and others is concerned, of course the RUC have already adopted a wide range of security measures to counter the risk of attack on police officers and their families by Republican terrorists. But, following the more recent spate of the so-called Loyalist attacks, the chief constable has established a special committee to review whatever additional measures are required to meet this renewed threat. In addition, special arrangements have been made to assist ex-members, and what we call "police families", who are subject to intimidation.
I assure my noble friend Lord Moyola and your Lordships that extra patrols are being mounted in vulnerable areas, and alternative accommodation is being provided for those who have to move from their homes. A wide range of measures has been introduced following the events in Portadown on 31st March this year. These seem to have proved effective, and there has been a gratifying decline in the number of attacks on the RUC and their families, but they have not ceased altogether.
I am not able to add anything of substance as regards any Libyan connection for the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. May I study the implications of his remarks, and if I find anything of value communicate with him in writing? The noble Lord raised another point which was also raised by the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. This was the question of the inquiry by Mr. Stalker, the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester.
Mr. Stalker was appointed by the chief constable of the RUC on 24th May 1984 to head a team of detectives drawn from the Greater Manchester police force to carry out an inquiry in Northern Ireland. I understand that Mr. Stalker's interim report was received by the chief constable of the RUC on 18th September 1985, and that it was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland on 13th February this year. I am advised that on 4th March this year the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland asked the chief constable for further information. On 6th June this year it was announced that Mr. Sampson had been invited to replace Mr. Stalker as the leader of the inquiry.
Following allegations against Mr. Stalker, he was taken off the inquiry. After Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Attorney-General had been consulted, the chief constable of the RUC invited Mr. Sampson to take Mr. Stalker's place as head of the inquiry into the Northern Ireland allegations, and to bring it to an early conclusion. One further point I wish to stress is that the team remains as it had been under Mr. Stalker's leadership, and the investigation will be completed as soon as possible.
The allegations against Mr. Stalker are a matter for the Greater Manchester Police Authority. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me this evening, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will bear with me on the position this evening. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has a further question, and I hope that I shall be able to bring some light to this matter in

963
due course, but I could not—and indeed I would not want to—go any further on this particular matter this evening. I hope that your Lordships understand.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also raised the question of supergrass trials. The use of the evidence of former accomplices has been instrumental in combating terrorism. We believe that it has saved many lives. The criteria for the use of such evidence in Northern Ireland are the same as in England and Wales. Therefore, I could not hold out any prospect that the Government would support the principles of a Bill introduced in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised three points concerning a letter that had been sent by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. So far as tape recording and the codes of practice are concerned, we await with considerable interest the outcome of field trials in Great Britain of the tape recording of police interviews. We are also considering the extent to which codes of practice would bite (if I may put that term before your Lordships this evening) on the exercise of powers under the emergency provisions Act and the implications of how these powers would work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also raised what he called the "cryptic sentence" in the letter from my right honourable friend. We believe that the law of Northern Ireland should, so far as is possible, reflect the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. Secondly, we believe that the emergency legislation should detract as little as is necessary from the normal legal rights of the individual. Because of the unique constitutional position of Northern Ireland it is not possible to include special provisions connected with terrorism in the normal law which is enacted by Order in Council. I think your Lordships would admit that such provisions require legislation by Act of Parliament, and therefore we propose, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, to make special provisions governing the rights of suspects arrested under the emergency legislation which will have the same effect as Sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as they apply to persons arrested under the provisions for terrorism in Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a third question on paragraph 24 of the letter. I hope I can give the noble Lord the assurance that arrangements are in hand for the publication of a proposal for a draft Order in Council. We hope that this will be published before your Lordships' House rises for the summer Recess. Certainly I would not speak for another place, but I think we may be here, and I hope that we shall be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, some indication of what he is seeking.
We were particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, as we put it, "at this season". As we all know, the warm weather brings out the traditional marching parades, with all the emotions that are engendered. We are also grateful for his support of the 28 days' remand, and his wise words on that matter. I am particularly impressed by, and
964
grateful for, his close attention to the two sections, Sections 56 and 58, of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I think I expanded a little on that in my earlier remarks when trying to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. We are particularly grateful for the attendance and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Moyola, and for his tributes to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
None of your Lordships would be surprised if I mentioned the agreement. I note the points raised by my noble friend about the agreement. I hope that he will allow me to retain my position in what I said—that it is my belief that it is a first step. However, I understand the feelings of my noble friend.
I hope that I have covered all the points. I shall study everything that has been said and will write to your Lordships if there has been any gap. We have had a worthwhile debate. I have taken on board the suggestions made about any review of the emergency provisions Act.
So often we concentrate on the issues which divide people in Northern Ireland, but I hope I may ask all your Lordships, all our colleagues in another place and, above all, all politicians even in Northern Ireland to concentrate on the common goals. Surely one goal which unites everybody in Northern Ireland is the eradication of terrorism, and that is the one goal before us tonight. I stressed that I hoped that I should not have to come forward another year, but our goal is to eradicate terrorism and, until we do that, emergency powers are necessary. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Sitting was suspended from 8.30 to 8.35 p.m. ]

Agriculture Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 17, line 19, leave out from ("by") to end of line 21 and insert ("whatever means").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Bill is written those tenants who have purchased quota will be entitled to the value of that purchase when they quit. This has never been in dispute and is obviously very fair. This amendment corrects an omission in that, as the Bill is written, if the tenant was given (rather than purchased) any extra quota he would, in effect, have to leave it on the farm. I hope your Lordships and my noble friend Lord Belstead will agree that this is a technical amendment and that the Government can accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Stanley is seeking in this amendment to cover the situation when somebody, other than the tenant himself, bore the cost of acquiring quota through a land transfer. My noble friend feels that if a third party bore the cost on behalf of the tenant, the tenant should receive compensation as if he had borne the cost himself. I agree that this amendment in a sense is technical. I am not sure, however, that it is equitable. We are talking here about money which the landlord will have to pay out. It is fair to ask whether the landlord should make a payment where the tenant has himself incurred a cost as a result of which the landlord will benefit through the presence of quota on the holding. My answer to that is, yes. But if the tenant did not himself bear the cost. why should we require the landlord then to compensate him?
I feel that my noble friend's amendment is directed at a small number of very unusual cases. I do not say that because they are few we need not bother about them, but I suspect that they are so unusual and, indeed, so various in their circumstances that it could be a mistake to change the general rules to apply to them. There is a very real danger that we shall cause inequities rather than remove inequities if we act in this way.
For the basic reason which I tried to put in the middle of what I said—which is that it really does not seem to me to be right to require compensation when somebody has not himself borne the cost—I think that this amendment ought not to be made.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am not sure which land this quota is attached to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it is attached to the land that I am talking about, the tenant's land. Perhaps I may address myself to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Belstead. I was interested in the point he made. I had a slightly different picture in mind in so far as it was possible that the tenant had been given the quota by his father, his aunt or his grandmother, and I should have thought—this could be quite common—that this would fall into the category of the amendment moved earlier by my noble friend, as though the tenant had purchased the quota from outside. I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to think about that and reply to it now, or whether perhaps I should write to him between now and Third Reading so that he can consider the matter. I think that we are all on level keel about this, except that he sees it in a different light to the way I see it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if my noble friend feels that he would like either to write or to have a word with me, I should be very ready to consult him on this. As I say, at the moment I think that there is a difficulty of principle which I have enunciated. But if my noble friend cares to contact me in whatever way he thinks best, perhaps we can look at the point again.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 17, line 30 at end insert—
(" "tenant" includes those occupiers of land under agreements approved by the Minister within the meaning of section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and who produce milk on the land so held;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. I understand that it is to be taken with amendments Nos. 38,39 and 40. The purpose and object of this amendment is to ensure that an occupier whose occupation of land under an agreement other than a tenancy is not protected by the Acts because of the agreement of the Minister under Section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 shall be included in the provisions. Since the Government's Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 seem very satisfactorily to cover the same ground, I should be happy to withdraw this amendment if the Minister is intending to move those amendments.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, as my noble friend has not withdrawn the amendment, I should like to support the principle behind it and to say that the actual case that it arose out of was a letter from a Mr. Kala who had been a licensee since 1974 of the Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation. He saw, very wisely, that his case would have been excluded from the provisions of compensation and so he wrote not, as one would have thought, to the NFU or to the CLA, because he knew there were still squabbles among them, and not to the Government, because he knew that they were still battling over the main framework of the quotas; he wrote to the professional bodies with whom he had dealt and in whom he had confidence. I think that they should take credit for drawing the attention of the Government to this amendment. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for accepting the principle and bringing in very swiftly his own Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It would be my intention when we get to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 to move the Government's amendments. It is not being done as a matter of habit. I should be delighted to accept this amendment or the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley, which is No. 38 on the Marshalled List; but on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull (which is being moved now) although it covers Section 2 lettings I do not think, with respect, that it covers Section 5 lettings; that is, the lettings from two years to five years. I think that we would wish those lettings to be covered. I like to think that the Government's amendments covers those.
In the case of my noble friend Lord Stanley and his Amendment No. 38 I am advised that in his amendment the reference to agricultural holdings is

967
legally faulty because it implies that a holding may be partly an agricultural holding and partly not, and also there is some ambiguity in the meaning of the word "agreement" in the amendment.
I accept the principle following a discussion which I had with my noble friend Lord Kinnoull which persuaded the Government of the lightness of this particular cause, and it is the Government's intention to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 on the Marshalled List when we get to them.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for those assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 18, line 17, after ("treated") insert ("for the purposes of any claim in respect of that quota—
(i) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 20 to 24. Your Lordships may recall that the provisions in Schedule 1 to the Bill provide for the value of "transferred quota" (that is, quota that a tenant has required through a land transfer) to be credited to the tenant. This entitlement exists provided the tenant was either allocated some quota by the Minister or was in occupation of the land as a tenant on 2nd April 1984. Where the original tenant met both these tests, as the great majority have done, there is no problem—the full right to compensation will pass to his successor or assignee.
I have, however, been advised that in those few cases where the original tenant received no allocated quota and his only quota that he acquired through a land transfer there could be a lacuna in the drafting. To put this right we need to state that the successor or assignee is to be treated as if he had been in occupation on 2nd April. This will ensure that he gets the full compensation. A similar point arises with sub-tenancies. To ensure that the head tenant (or sub-landlord) can recover from the landlord the compensation he has to pay the sub-tenant for transfer quota we have to make a similar amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:
Page 18, line 20, at end insert ("; and
(ii) in a case where the former tenant was in occupation of the land on 2nd April 1984 (or is treated as having been in occupation of the land on that date), as if he had been in occupation of it on that date.").
Page 18, line 37, after ("treated") insert ("for the purposes of any claim in respect of that quota—
(i)").
Page 18, line 40, at end insert ("; and
(ii) in a case where the assignor was in occupation of the land on 2nd April 1984 (or is treated as having been in occupation of the land on that date), as if he had been in occupation of it on that date.").
Page 19, line 11, after ("treated") insert ("for the purposes of any claim in respect of that quota—
(i)").
Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
(ii) in a case where the sub-tenant was in occupation of the land on 2nd April 1984 (or is treated as having been in occupation of the land on that date), as if he had been in occupation of it on that date;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 20, line 23, after ("area") insert— ("and the extent and nature of the fixed equipment provided by the landlord and available for the feeding, accommodation and milking of dairy cows on the land").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in my noble friend's absence I should like to move this amendment and to say that it deals with the principle of valuation on the standard quota. My noble friend the Minister will know that the professional bodies are anxious that there should be an additional flexibility when assessing the standard quota, particularly where the circumstances of the holding differ from the norm. What this amendment does is to introduce the element into the valuer's mind not only of considering the quality of the land and the climatic conditions of the area, but also the very important and very relevant circumstances of the actual accommodation and buildings on the farm which are vital to the production of the dairy unit.
As the House will know, the accommodation is an essential part in appraising the basic practical productivity of a farm, and I hope that my noble friend if he does not like the form of words (which of course I would accept) likes the principle which, as I say, is to add flexibility to this quite difficult and possibly slightly inflexible form of standard quota valuation. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I think it is important that proper account should be taken of the fixed equipment when considering the average number of hectares which could be expected to have been used for the feeding of dairy cows. I believe that this amendment would improve Schedule 1; and I support it. But that support is slightly qualified by my saying that perhaps I would have preferred to have seen these words placed in paragraph 2 on page 20.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I regard this amendment with the deepest suspicion. I really cannot understand what it has to do with hectares of land. I note the amendment refers to,
"the extent and nature of the fixed equipment provided by the landlord".

969
It says nothing about any fixed equipment provided by the actual milk producer. So it has nothing to do with fixed equipment of that kind and I wonder whether it is intended to apply in a case where the land contains, for example, skyscrapers in which 50 cows can be accommodated on a hundred storeys and fed on in-bought stuff. I wonder whether that should be considered. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think there must be a certain amount of radioactivity between the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and myself on this matter. I also considered this amendment with suspicion. I believe that in fact it would restrict the arbitrator's latitude and I would put it to my noble friend Lord Belstead that if it is a dairy farm and that is written into the tenancy, there is no need for this amendment. However, if it is not a dairy farm so far as the tenancy is concerned, then it is unfair in assuming, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed out, that the tenant should have farmed it in an intensive dairy manner, whereas he might have used it partly to farm sheep or corn or beef.
In such a case, his dairy buildings might have been half-filled with sheep or beef and he might have been running a mixed farm. That would have been taken care of in the tenancy agreement, as I understand it. All he has to do under the tenancy agreement is to farm in accordance with good husbandry, which he was doing before this wretched quota came in upon us. I shall not continue with that subject. I ask my noble friend to treat this amendment with suspicion.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can understand the logic of this proposal. I can see that buildings and equipment, especially accommodation (whether in the form of skyscrapers or not) can affect the productive capacity of a holding; and there is of course a serious point here. I would again say to my noble friend Lord Stanley that I listened to eloquently-moved amendments at the last stage of the Bill about looking only at the productive capacity of the land with no concentrates added. Indeed, I believe we have on the Marshalled List another amendment which we shall deal with later.
This is very much the same kind of amendment but it moves in the opposite direction; and in just the same way as I ventured to part company with my noble friend on his amendment and may possibly find myself wishing to do so again, so I think that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, have a point when they say that this would move in what could be an unfair way in the opposite direction. After all, compensation to the tenant under the schedule has already taken this into account in calculating the tenant's fraction.
Compensation to the tenant is thus already reduced where the landlord has provided valuable buildings and equipment which enhance the productive
970
capacity. It would seem to me to be double counting to say that those facilities should also be taken into account in calculating the standard quota. The effect would certainly be to increase the standard quota in many cases and thereby to reduce the excess quota—and of course the tenant is allowed to claim 100 per cent. of the excess quota. So I think we need to look with care at this.
Also, there is an anomaly here, and I am advised that its effect would be to increase the standard quota where valuable fixed equipment had been provided, regardless of who had provided it. So even if the tenant had himself borne the cost, the effect would be to boost the standard quota, reduce the excess quota and once again penalise the tenant by reducing his compensation. I do not think that can be right, and it is for those two reasons that I join with the noble Lords who have opposed this amendment in saying that I do not think that would be fair.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I should be the first to admit that there are a few holes in this amendment. First of all, I think that it is in the wrong section, but to use the word "suspicion" is slightly strong because really all this humble amendment tries to achieve is to ascertain the basis of valuation. When looking at a farm you do not just look at the land: you also look at the buildings.
My noble friend talked about double counting. If that were so, I should not wish to pursue the matter, but I should like to take advice on that before the next stage of the Bill to see whether there is a serious point here and a point which would help both the tenant and the landlord; because we are seeking very much to help tenants as well as landlords. We are looking to try to improve what is a very complicated issue in valuation terms and one which I do not think should be left without giving guidance to the valuers. We are seeking to sharpen up some of the Bill's proposals. However, I do not wish to detain your Lordships at this late hour. If necessary, I shall seek to have a discussion with my noble friend before the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 20, line 19, leave out from ("means") to end of line 21 and insert—

"(i) in the case of severely disadvantaged land 4,500 litres per hectare,

(ii) in the case of disadvantaged land 5,250 litres per hectare,

(iii) in all other cases 6,000 litres per hectare,

(c) the prescribed average yield per hectare means—

(i) in the case of severely disadvantaged land 5,000 litres per hectare,

(ii) in the case of disadvantaged land 5,834 litres per hectare,

(iii) in all other cases 6,300 litres per hectare.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 27,28,29 and 32, but not to No. 30

971
at the moment. The question I pose to the House is once again perfectly simple: what do your Lordships consider is a fair starting point for the division of quota value between tenant and landlord? Your Lordships have, by a narrow majority, aided and abetted by my noble kinsman the Chief Whip, voted (I think incorrectly) not to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that it should be 50/50; though it is quite apparent to all who listened to the argument that the Government's formula is not liked by your Lordships.
So in the spirit of British compromise I ask your Lordships to accept this compromise of mine, which would raise the average tenant's share from approxi-mately 30 per cent., as proposed by the Government, to approximately 40 per cent. as in this amendment. Any of your Lordships who received the Milk Marketing Board's recent brief will see my figures and the Government's figures roughly in that line.
The method I am using is similar to that which I explained in Committee, so I shall not weary the House by repeating the details except to say that this amendment lays down a set of figures that an efficient tenant might be expected to obtain from grass on the various types of land in the United Kingdom. In fact, it follows the philosophy of my noble friend Lord Belstead and takes into account the difficulties, particularly of those in less favoured areas.
I have to repeat the point that this quota value is a once and for all windfall. I think I called it a windfall from hell. I do not know where it came from but it is a windfall (and it is once and for all) which will revert to the landlord completely in his future tenancies. What he does with it is up to him. Indeed, if today's conditions continue it will be worth a great deal of unexpected money to him and his successors. Therefore, it is only just that those who contributed to its original value should participate in its value. Who can honestly say that the tenant who buys the cows and milks them and stays, day in and day out, week in and week out, without a morning or evening off, is not entitled to something? Indeed, all your Lordships agree that he should get something. It is a question of how much.
In effect, my amendments would give the average tenant a starting point of between 30 and 40 per cent.—a meagre contribution, I would say, and many tenants would say, but I ask your Lordships to consider it sympathetically. I would ask my noble friend Lord Belstead, when he replies, not to concentrate on the details of my amendment. They can be corrected at Third Reading, and that does not worry me. I want his remarks, when he replies, to concentrate on whether he considers that my 40 per cent. starting point is more just and fair than his 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. If he would say that, I am sure we can make some headway. I am not asking for 50 per cent.; I am asking for 40 per cent. If he can persuade your Lordships that the tenant deserves only 30 per cent., I have to say to your Lordships, with the greatest respect, that I do not think you have any idea how hard-working and dedicated the farming community and the tenants in particular are. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and the idea behind it. We are now at the stage when the Government have won the day with regard to the appalling complexity of this appalling Bill, and the appalling circumstances of having to accept quotas. We are now at a stage where they have rejected the noble Lord, Lord Middleton; they have rejected the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr; and they have rejected me—much more naturally, I may say. We are now stuck with this appalling Bill. What we must do now is to look at the fairness of it. All right; we had a great deal of self-interest displayed on all sides, and we have rejected 50/50. We must look at this in the light of the figures I produced in an earlier amendment and see what it is going to do to the harmony of our industry. It is for this reason that we must look at the detail—and that is what we are doing—of this complex and awful Bill. But we are stuck with it, we have to improve it, and I think this would be an improvement.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should like to say a few words. I said at earlier stages of our debates today that I liked the noble Lord's amendment and that it helped the smaller man. I think the noble Lord agrees there. At the same time I think that that help runs right through it, which is the kind of thing you cannot help. That is what I meant when I said I thought it went too far. But as my noble kinsman has said, it is our last chance to do something about the results of the Government's schedule, and I would give the amendment unstinted support.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, this amendment takes away the Minister's duty to prescribe the amount of milk to be taken as the average yield per hectare. It seeks to prescribe in statute in 1986 how much the average yield per hectare should be for evermore. That seems to be the basic objection to this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that we need not look too closely at the figures, but one has to look closely at the figures in this amendment. The amendment adjusts the prescribed quota and the prescribed average yield per hectare downwards in the case of disadvantaged land, but it lays down a standard which is two-thirds below that which has been set by the Government. The effect of this, I need hardly say, is to raise the amount of compensation payable to a tenant.
The Government's standard, which my noble friend Lord Belstead has announced, seems to be very much more realistic, and indeed is already very generous to tenants. When my noble friend Lord Stanley proposed and then later withdrew an amendment at the Committee stage which had a similar effect, he drew the mild criticism from my noble friend Lord Belstead that he was opening his mouth a little wide on behalf of outgoing tenants. With this amendment, if they will forgive my saying so, he and the noble Lords who put their names down with his are opening the gape very much wider. I cannot support the amendment, and I hope that the Government will not do so either.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have to say that I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Middleton has just said. It would not be acceptable to the Government, persuasive though my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is, to accept altered standard quotas of some two-thirds downwards when the standard quota which has been put forward by the Government is based on an assessment of national yields which have been calculated downwards, because of the imposition of quotas, by some 11 per cent. with of course the interests of tenants in mind, and when I made no secret on the last day of the Committee stage that we had also made our calculations by constantly rounding down in the interests of tenants. In those circumstances, I could not voluntarily agree to accepting my noble friend's amendment.
Perhaps I may add two points. One other effect of Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 32 would be that the figures for the calculation of standard quota would be enshrined in primary legislation rather than in subordinate legislation as we would intend. This would have serious practical difficulties. First of all, it would not enable the Minister to make separate provision for Channel Island herds, which of course have lower yields and which again can be looked after in the subordinate legislation provided we are not forced to have the figures on the face of the Bill.
Secondly, we need to bear in mind the possibility of across the board cuts in quotas at some point in the future, when again there would need to be a recalculation in the interests of general fairness. The Government would intend, should this situation arise, to adjust the prescribed quota standard figures to take account of any such cuts so that tenants would not be placed at a disadvantage when it came to calculating the standard quota. I am sure that that will strike a chord in the heart of my noble friend Lord Stanley. As I am sure your Lordships will recognise, it is far easier to make such adjustments if the figures are prescribed in subordinate rather than primary legislation.
It is for those reasons that I am extremely concerned about these amendments. Moreover, I have to say that I do not like them for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Middleton very fairly put forward.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend has given that reply. I make just four points. First, anybody who has milk cows and can obtain 4,500 litres from each is not doing too badly, and I doubt whether there is a single person in this Chamber who would be capable of doing it. Secondly, my noble friend is saying, in effect, that the average tenant who can produce this 4,500 litres per cow—which, as I said, I consider to be high—is only deserving of 30 per cent. of the quota value. I do not think that is just. I know that every tenant in this country, and in Scotland, would think that is too low.
Thirdly, I am not in dispute with my noble friend Lord Middleton when he says that I am trying to get more by lowering the standard quota. I make no bones about that. My whole argument is that I do not think it is fair to get only 30 per cent. I might think it fair—I
974
would think it fair—to get 40 per cent. and I would be happy with that. However, my noble friend thinks the tenant is worth only 30 per cent. I am sorry to say to him that I do not think that will go down very happily in the shires. Fourthly, my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lord Middleton do not like my lack of flexibility. All I can say is that they will have to wait for one minute when I shall come to Amendment No. 30 and will deal with that problem.
I would divide the House if it were not so late, because I honestly believe that I am right and if I did not know that at this time of the night I shall not win what I ought to win. Therefore, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I must tell my noble friend that he will see me again on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved. ]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 20, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) In prescribing the quota per hectare under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above and the average yield per hectare under sub-paragraph (2) above the Minister shall have regard only to the number of litres of cows' milk which might reasonably be expected to have been produced by cows kept for milk production grazed and fed from crops (other than loose grain) harvested from the land in question.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel like Father Christmas, in that I keep producing another amendment as fast as the child does not like the one he is given; but I do not mean to refer to my noble friend on the Front Bench as a child.
This amendment is similar to Amendment No. 27 except that it allows the Minister to decide where the quota level should be—which I think totally destroys the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Middleton and my noble friend Lord Belstead that my earlier proposal blocked-in the arbitrator. I ask my noble friend to think seriously about the amendment. It is on the same lines and gives great scope for the arbitrator. It is nothing like so rigid as my previous amendment. I suppose my noble friend will say that it is too vague and that the arbitrator will not know which way to go; so I shall have to come back at Third Reading to put in some figures. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says.
There is one point that I must put to my noble friend but he may accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder. I notice with the greatest of interest that under the Scottish formula those in Less Favoured Areas have a quota of 5,500 litres. For reasons that I totally fail to understand, and which I am sure my Welsh neighbours certainly will not understand, those who live in just as inhospitable a climate have a quota of 6,000 litres. When my noble friend replies will he please tell me why the Scots are so favoured? I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I feel that I am going to be disloyal to my noble friend. I did not know

975
Wales until I had the great joy of visiting it once a year when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture. One aspect that was revealed to me was that there is no comparison between the severity of conditions in Wales and those that exist on some of the uplands of Scotland. I was amazed at the difference. It may be that the Welsh are cleverer and more enterprising with the re-seeding that was done and which I believe cannot be done on the uplands of Scotland, but I am afraid that I part company with my noble friend when he says that the conditions in Wales are equivalent in severity to those in Scotland.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin will take particular note of what my noble friend Lord Belstead is obviously just about to say, because some of us object very strongly to this special quota for Scotland.
I think it has been forgotten that the poorer the ground the lower the rent; and therefore one starts at a lower base level, anyway. It is therefore not necessary to reduce the amount of milk on the standard. It is based on the rent. There is therefore a differential already: the worse the ground, the lower the rent.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is an amendment which I have called in shorthand for the past few weeks the "no concentrates amendment". It is Amendment No. 30, I believe. We seem to have travelled across a couple of borders and I have slightly lost track of where we are. This is the "no concentrates amendment", which in essence provides that if the matter goes to arbitration, or indeed if the landlord and tenant are deciding between themselves, the land must not be looked at in a way in which it would be reasonable to suppose it should produce a yield of milk but should be looked at in terms of what the land alone could have produced if no concentrates had been put on it at all.
I think that there are two very difficult problems here. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if very briefly I repeat them because I must return to this point. First, is it reasonable to operate on the basis that the land could have produced a particular amount of milk if no concentrates had been used? We all know that virtually all dairy farmers use concentrates. Landlords are entitled to expect that their tenants will have used a certain amount of concentrates and they will have earned a quota which reflects this practice. By ignoring this, I think that the amendment reflects a significant shift in the balance between landlord and tenant which we have spent so many months discussing with the industry.
I do not think that the new balance would be equitable. For those tenants who are on average yields and have a corresponding allocated quota, it would reduce the standard quota per hectare by some 25 per cent. and that would give such tenants 25 per cent. excess quota even though their managerial input, which the excess quota is intended to reflect, had been nothing out of the ordinary. Indeed, many tenants
976
whose performance had been well below par and who were therefore leaving their landlords with less quota than they could reasonably expect, could be considerably rewarded by this amendment. I do not think that is fair. I want to be fair to the tenant and I think that the Government have shown that they wish to move towards the tenant, as we have done, but I do not think that that situation is fair.
The other difficulty is that we do not think it will work. The point here is much more simple. If one looks back, I believe the best example of what I am trying to say was in 1984–85 when all dairy farmers faced with quotas considerably relaxed the amount of concentrates that they were putting on the land and it was not found that yields went down in a ratio. My advice is that this amendment would present to professional valuers an almost impossible task. How could they assess how much milk a holding would have yielded in the absence of concentrates? I suggest that they can only do that by applying very arbitrary rules which would inevitably fail to take into account all the relevant factors and would produce substantial inequalities.
In providing compensation for tenants at the end of their tenancies we have to bear in mind that not only landlords but also incoming tenants are affected by the imposition of quotas. So it is not only the interests of the outgoing tenant that we need to bear in mind. I am convinced that to depart substantially, as this amendment would do, from the balance which we are trying to achieve in Schedule 1, is something which the House needs to consider very seriously.
Perhaps I may finally answer the direct question which my noble friend Lord Stanley put to me about a figure which is set lower for Scottish less favoured areas than in Wales and indeed in England. I know that my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston attempted to explain—and after all my noble friend is a Scot and farms north of the Border—how there are very particular factors to take into account so far as Scotland is concerned. I would only add that I think it is important, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Stanley, to remember that the prescribed quota per hectare is only a starting point in the calculation of the standard quota.
If one imagines two farms of very similar land quality, one in a Scottish LFA and one in Wales or in England, the standard quota will be approximately the same for both. That will be achieved by comparing each with the appropriate average yield for the area in question and then making a proportionate adjustment to the prescribed quota per hectare. The effect of the adjustment is to give similar treatment to similar cases. Although one may be starting from slightly different bases, which is what my noble friend is complaining about, because we have gone to great pains to allow flexibility for arbitrators in the schedule I do not think that there will be inequities at the end of the day when the arbitrator comes out with his final figures.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, let me deal with my noble friend Lord Stodart regarding Wales

977
and Scotland to start with. I should like to know where he went to and when he went there. I expect that he went to the Vale of Clwyd in July. I say to him and to my noble friend Lord Belstead that Less Favoured Areas are Less Favoured Areas, whether they be in Scotland, Cumbria or anywhere else. I cannot see that they would be Less Favoured Areas unless they were made Less Favoured Areas. I am sorry to repeat that. One cannot say that a Less Favoured Area in Cumbria, the Scilly Isles or Scotland is any better or worse than a Less Favoured Area elsewhere. If my noble friend does that, there is every case for saying that there will be different sheep premiums in each Less Favoured Area. That does not hold water.
Both noble Lords are treading on dangerous ground. I cannot accept that in any form whatever. I do not think that my noble friend on the Front Bench would want to accept that either for future debates. I thank my noble friend Lord Burton for his support, even though it was slightly twisted from my line of thought. Anyhow, it was support.
What in effect my noble friend on the Front Bench is saying when he opposes the amendment is that he is not prepared to give even 40 per cent. to the tenant as a starting point. He is prepared to give only 35 per cent. Yet at the same time he says that it does not matter terribly where we start when he talks about Scotland—trying, if I may say so, to get himself off the hook over the Scottish figure being 500 litres below mine. He says that it is only a guide. If it is only a guide and if it is so unimportant, let us start a little lower.
I shall not make progress with my noble friend at this stage. I leave it with him, but I shall be back. I do not think that your Lordships have it quite right yet. My goodness, I have moved a long way from where I started in favour of my noble friend Lord Middleton, even though he may say that I have not come far enough.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, with due respect, my noble friend behind me is rather
978
ignorant about the climate of the Western Highlands. Regarding concentrates on shallow, gravelly land, on my estate the rainfall is heavy, but it varies from area to area on the estate. One part has 20 inches more than the other. How can that be compared with Wales? It cannot be. It is an absurd comparison. It is a far more difficult climate. From the point of view of dairy farming, that is not on. People have cows, but only a few. I was really talking about the extraordinary climate in certain parts of Scotland which they do not have in Wales or in any other part of the British Isles.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, would it not settle the argument if we had the average figures for milk production per cow in Scotland and in England?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not only the climate of the Western Highlands of which my noble friend Lord Stanley seems to be ignorant: with the greatest of respect to him, it is also the practices and procedures of your Lordships' House. He keeps on saying that he will have to come back to the matter on Third Reading. Third Reading is not another Committee or Report stage. It is supposed to be an occasion when the Government can put forward amendments on points to which they have agreed and on areas in which they look forward to making improvements in the Bill. I respectfully suggest that it is not an occasion to re-run the arguments which we have all heard all over again simply because he may happen to have a fuller House then.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have already spoken. I have no right to reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 21, line 6, at end insert ("(other than uncalved heifers)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33:
Page 21, line 19, leave out ("the sum of that value and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, I should like to think about this amendment. It appears to me that both the climate and the soil are unfavourable at present. I shall think about bringing forward the amendment on Third Reading. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 21, line 20, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 21 and insert—
("annual rental value at the end of the relevant period of).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment concerns the calculation of the tenant's fraction. We believe that the clause as drafted does not compare like with like. That view has been expressed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Association of Agricultural Valuers, which question the validity of the proposed wording. If the basis of the numerator is the annual rental value as in paragraph 7(1)(a), surely the basis of calculating the denominator in paragraph 7(1)(b) should also be the annual rental value and not the rent payable.
Rent payable may vary significantly from the annual value. If it does vary, it is likely to be less than the annual value for various reasons. Many landlords do not press their older tenants for a full rent. A lower rent may have been agreed for some special reason. It may relate to something that the tenant has done for the landlord. There is also the problem of the triennial rent review. If we talk about the rent at April 1984, some of those rents will have been set at April 1981.I am told that rents increased on average 10 per cent. per annum during that period. There is a significant injustice. I believe that the present drafting is unfair. I therefore beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I think that it is an unfair basis for the calculation. I do not know how many Members of the House understand the equation. As I understand it, we put the numerator on the top line and the numerator plus the denominator equals the fraction. As my noble friend said, there are two calculations at different times. That can throw up an injustice either to the tenant or to the landlord. If the tenant is currently paying too high a rent, which is possible with the rents coming down, he will suffer. If the landlord is receiving too low a rent, he will suffer.
The agricultural valuers association, which carries out the valuations, considers that the system is unjust.
980
What is more, it is unnecessarily complicated. I hope that my noble friend will accept the spirit of the amendment, even if he does not accept its words.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I accept that there is something in the spirit of this amendment. I appreciate that there may be instances where a landlord may have agreed to accept a rent lower than he could have claimed under the Agricultural Holdings Act. I also know that as rent reviews normally take place at three year intervals, the rents which were being charged in 1983 were in many cases lower than they would have been if they had been fixed during the year. But while I can understand the reason for the amendment, I have to say that I think there is some difficulty in ascertaining what rent would have actually been paid in 1983. In essence, we will be talking about a sort of retrospective rent review.
It is true that, in looking at the tenant's contribution, we take the annual rental value. But there is no alternative in that case. The task of assessing that value is considerably lighter than assessing the rental value of the whole holding. By adopting this amendment, we would effectively be resorting to retrospective rent reviews for 1983 in most cases. This would add greatly to the complexity of the compensation process. For that reason, I am very reluctant indeed to go down this path. I should be happy to have a further word with noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment, possibly after this proceeding. At present, I am sorry but I cannot voluntarily accept the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I find it hard to accept the objection raised by the Minister that it would be difficult to value the rent retrospectively. This kind of thing is being done quite frequently by valuers. This proposal has been put forward by the very organisation that would have to do the valuation. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that it conceived of it as being reasonable and not too difficult. In the circumstances and having heard the Minister's assurance, it would be wrong at this time of the night to press the matter further. I would ask him, however, to consider seriously the points that have been made. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 21, line 32, at end insert ("and there shall be disregarded any agreement made with the tenant as to the compensation to be payable by the landlord for such improvements and fixed equipment on the termination of the tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I move it to clarify an apparent misunderstanding that occurred in Committee between my noble friend Lord Gray, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and myself, on how the tenant's improvements would be assessed in Schedule 1. This amendment makes clear that the tenant's improvements will be assessed at their current rather than their written-down value. If my noble friend tells me that my amendment is unnecessary—I suspect that he will do so, because he has kindly

981
written to me about it—I hope that he will be able to spell out where this is done in the Bill. It has given my advisers and myself some concern. I would suggest that, if necessary, it might be better to spell it out rather more clearly in the Bill by including a further amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that I have the right point here. My understanding, before my noble friend moved the amendment, was that his worry was to ensure that if the landlord and tenant have agreed that a particular tenant's improvement should be written down to £1 by a certain date for the purposes of calculating compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act, that agreement should not spill over into the calculation of the tenant's fraction for quota compensation. It would clearly be wrong if there was any such spillover effect.
I hope that that is my noble friend's point. I was not quite sure from the way in which my noble friend moved the amendment that I had it right. If indeed I am on the right point, I am advised that it is not necessary to make a specific provision to prevent it as the legal position is clear already. An agreement between the landlord and tenant for valuation for compensation under the holdings Act would not be relevant to the valuation for calculating the tenant's fraction under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1.
When a valuer is asked to assess the rental value of an improvement for the purposes of paragraph 7, the question to which he will have to address himself is what value did that improvement actually have at the end of the relevant period, normally 1983? There is no statutory provision that would justify the valuer taking account of any arbitrary written-down value that might have been agreed for other purposes. I hope that I have got the point right and that, in the light of the assurance that I have given, my noble friend Lord Stanley will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. He has understood the point correctly. I tried to nod to him but he was looking the other way. I accept the point that he is making. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 22, line 32, leave out ("freehold and leasehold").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is simply being tabled with the aim of improving the clarity of our intention. Our intention has always been that the arbitrator should be able to look at the value of the quota taken into account in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1. We referred to freehold and leasehold interests, since they are the most obvious type of transactions which are undertaken. However, on reflection we felt that the reference to freehold and leasehold may be too restrictive. For this reason this amendment would delete the reference to freehold and leasehold. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 38 I have to say that if this were agreed to, I could not call Amendments Nos. 39 or 40.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40;
Page 28, line 6, after second ("year") insert ("(including any arrangement which would have effect as if it were such a tenancy by virtue of section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 if it had not been approved by the Minister).")
Page 28, line 7, leave out ("the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applies") and insert ("that Act applies (or would apply apart from section 5 of that Act);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 19.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 42A:
Page 10, line 32, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that these amendments have been put down inadvertently in the name of my noble friend Lord Astor, which may have surprised some of your Lordships. I am not quite sure of his involvement in crofting.
In moving Amendment No. 42A may I also speak to Amendments Nos. 42B and 42C and Amendments Nos. 43A to 43G. Your Lordships have shown your general displeasure over the whole of these quota proposals, but there is no bigger unfairness in them than the references to crofters. Your Lordships may remember that I raised this matter in Committee, but we had no time to consider it before an amendment was lodged by the Minister. The Minister would not have known the answers and I therefore gave him warning that I would be raising the matter now.
First, I discovered that there appears to be a handful of crofters with milk quotas. I think there are possibly 16, but the exact number is a little uncertain. If this proposed legislation was implemented, there would be a disgraceful injustice placed on the landlords. With regard to the landlord, let me say it is doubtful whether the legislation would stand up in the Court of Human Rights as there is such an injustice here. It is possible that our own courts might not agree to it. I should think that the first case that came up would certainly be taken to law. The situation is that the landlord is not in a position to use the quotas in any way. They are attached to the land and the landlord would almost certainly not be allowed to take the land in hand. He is allowed to do so for specific purposes, but not for the purpose of farming it. Indeed, he is not allowed to choose his tenant.
The Crofters Commission dictates within small bounds who may and who may not be a tenant of the croft. It hardly ever permits the landlord to take the croft in hand. Indeed, according to the legislation, the landlord might well have to produce perhaps £20,000

983
or even £30,000 for something that he could not use and could not dispose of. A crofter or somebody wanting to be a crofter with £20,000 to £30,000 plus the capital cost of the croft compensation would not be a person that the Crofters Commission considered to be of crofting status. He would, therefore, not be considered eligible to be a tenant of the croft.
Furthermore, crofting rents are about one-seventh or one-eighth only of the open market rent. As a result the compensation that will have to be paid to a crofter under the legislation will be very substantially greater than that paid to normal dairy farm tenants. To apply the same regulations to ordinary farms and crofts would be entirely inequitable. Why has the Crofters Commission failed to draw attention to this, I wonder?
If one looks at this from the position of the crofter, if he wishes to buy his croft—which, of course, he is allowed to do, whether or not the landlord likes it—he will presumably have to pay a share of the value of the quota to the landlord, who will have done nothing to earn it. One can imagine how popular that will be with the crofting tenant. If the crofter wishes to assign his croft, he is liable to have his estate increased in value by the value of the quota, and there seems some doubt about the resulting tax position.
The Crofters Commission is virtually the landlord, except that it does not receive the rent, although it does decide who shall be the tenant. It therefore seems only reasonable that if any compensation is to be paid it should be done by the Crofters Commission, not by the landlord. However, I feel that it would be much better to adopt my proposals and remove anything to do with crofting from the Bill. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who tabled the amendments, and my noble friend Lord Burton, who spoke to them, will realise, I am sure, that the effect of the amendments would be to disqualify crofters from receiving compensation for milk quota. I am aware that there are at least 16 crofting tenants who have been allocated milk quotas. To deny them the right to milk compensation which will be available to all other tenant dairy farmers would be wholly wrong and quite unjustifiable. In terms of dairy fanning and milk quotas, they are no different from their colleagues who hold their land under different tenure codes.
The nature of crofting tenure is such that it is fair to say that crofters will be among those who derive greatest benefit from the compensation arrangements. This is only right and proper since all the dairy development and any quota level achieved beyond what might be expected for crofting land will all have been at the tenant's expense and effort. The landlord's contribution in most crofting cases will have been the provision of bare land. If crofting rents are lower than the average, it is merely a reflection of that situation. It is also important to realise that the crofting landlord will be left with a greatly enhanced asset.
Similar considerations, of course, apply in the case of small landholders. I must repeat that to exclude crofters from these provisions would in my view and
984
(I am sorry to use the expression to my noble friend Lord Burton) be monstrously unfair and wholly discriminating. Clearly, quota compensation creates a new situation. This is a matter which we shall have to discuss with the Crofters Commission. The Crofters Commission would not unreasonably withhold consent.
My noble friend Lord Burton also raised the matter of tax. I must tell him that the value of a lease which is being passed on in succession is, of course, not subject to inheritance tax. My noble friend Lord Burton had a fairly reasonable discussion this afternoon with some of my officials and raised a great many queries with them. I have a note of the queries and of the answers which he received. However, as this is a matter which has a rather restricted area of interest, and as my noble friend Lord Burton has already been given the answers, it would perhaps be unnecessary for me to weary the House at this late hour by going through them all. However, I trust that the information which my noble friend was given will be satisfactory to him.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendments for reasons which I believe are wholly justified. In those circumstances, I wonder whether my noble friend would consider withdrawing the amendments which have been tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the only crumb of comfort that I have received from that answer is that my noble friend on the Front Bench will discuss the matter with the Crofters Commission. The commission no doubt knows the position.
My noble friend has tried to compare crofting rents which are on a so-called fair rent basis. If my noble friend looks back to when the crofting legislation went through your Lordships' House he will recollect a very clear discussion on what was or was not a fair rent. "Fair rent" is not a fair term for the rent which crofters pay. It is a very different matter from open market rents. The whole system is very different indeed. My noble friend must look at the situation. It is not being unfair to crofters.
If the crofter wishes to buy his croft he will have to pay the landlord for something for which he has not received any cash. He has been given his quota, but part of that quota will be paid to the landlord. This legislation will be no more attractive to the crofter than to the landlord.
If there is to be any compensation paid, the people who ought to be paying it are the Crofters Commission. They are the people who say who is and who is not to be the tenant of a croft. On many occasions they have refused to allow us to have on our property the tenants that we wanted, and on a number of occasions they have given us tenants that we particularly did not want. Therefore, to pay the whole of this sum—perhaps £20,000 or £30,000—of compensation to a crofter, when the croft itself may not be worth anything like that, is unreasonable. I know that there is no point in dividing the House

985
tonight. However, I feel very strongly about the matter. It is with the greatest reluctance that I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may make two points to him. First, as regards buying the croft, no compensation would be payable. If the croft were being bought it would rule out the question of compensation. The crofter and his landlord are free to agree between themselves as to what the rent for a croft should be and the period for which it should stand. The figure set will be the rent for so long as the agreement lasts and thereafter until a new agreement is entered into, or alternatively the Scottish Land Court on application by either landlord or tenant fixes a different rent.
Once the court has fixed a fair rent it cannot normally be altered for a period of seven years except by agreement between the crofter and the landlord. When a croft falls vacant and is relet again, the court will not normally alter the rent fixed for a period of seven years or such longer period as may have been agreed between the parties. The basic principle behind fair rents is that the crofter shall not pay rent on buildings or other improvements which have been provided or paid for by himself or by anyone who preceded him in tenancy.
Lord BurtonMy Lords, I do not think that I am entitled to speak again on this matter. However, my noble friend must take great care about investigating some of these matters. I am certain that he is wrong, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42B and 42C not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:—
("Rent arbitrations: milk quotas.

.—(1) Where there is a reference under section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (arbitration of rent) in respect of land which comprises or is part of a holding in relation to which quota is registered under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986 which was transferred to the tenant by virtue of a transaction the cost of which was borne wholly or partly by him, the arbitrator shall (subject to any agreement between the landlord and tenant to the contrary) disregard—

(a) in a case where the land comprises the holding, any increase in the rental value of the land which is due to that quota (or, as the case may be, the corresponding part of that quota); or

(b)in a case where the land is part of the holding, any increase in that value which is due to so much of that quota (or part) as would fall to be apportioned to the land under those Regulations on a change of occupation of the land.

(2) In determining for the purposes of this section whether quota was transferred to a tenant by virtue of a transaction the cost of which was borne wholly or partly by him—

(a) any payment made by the tenant in consideration for the grant or assignment to him of the tenancy or any previous tenancy of any land comprised in the holding, shall be disregarded;

(b) any person who would be treated under paragraph 2? 3 or 4 of Schedule 1 to this Act as having had quota transferred to him or having paid the whole or part of the cost of any transaction for the purposes of a claim under that Schedule shall be so treated for the purposes of this section; and

(c) any person who would be so treated under paragraph 4 of that Schedule if a sub-tenancy to which his tenancy is subject had terminated, shall be so treated for the purposes of this section.

986

(3) In this section—

"quota" and "holding" have the same meanings as in the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986;
"tenant" and "tenancy" have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to earlier with Amendment No. 11.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Scotland: tenants' compensation for milk quota]:
[Amendments Nos. 43A to 43H not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 33, line 6, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps for the convenience of the House I may speak to Amendments 44 and 45. These amendments are merely clarifying amendments. In the absence of a definition of the term "Minister" of general applica-tion throughout the Bill, it is necessary to refer specifically to the "Secretary of State" in the Scottish schedule, Schedule 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 33, line 30, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 34, line 24, leave out. ("keeping of dairy cows") and insert ("feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48. These are merely drafting amendments carrying through to the remainder of paragraph 7 in Schedule 2 the more precise definition contained in paragraph 7(1)(b) qualifying the tenants' improvements and fixed equipment and the land to be considered in the calculation of the tenant's fraction. These amendments do not alter the effect of the original wording. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am afraid that they do alter the situation. The word "accommodation", which is one of the words mentioned here (as I said earlier when I think my noble friend was not in the Chamber), could apply to beef cattle or sheep, or anything else at the same time. I would suggest to him that he looks carefully at this, and that instead of the wording he has put down he should use the words "specifically adapted for dairy cows". This would cover the situation that he is clearly seeking to cover.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I must say to my noble friend that even if I were persuaded by his argument I should find it impossible to accept it in those terms. The terms of Amendments 46, 47 and 48 are clearly stated on the Marshalled List. They are to,
"leave out ('keeping of dairy cows') and insert ('feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept')",

987
in Amendment 46. In Amendment 47, it is proposed to leave out,
"('keeping of dairy cows') and insert ('feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept')".
In the case of Amendment 48,
"('keeping of dairy cows')"
is to be left out and,
('feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept')"
is to be inserted.
My best information is that these words have been carefully selected and achieve the object that we have in mind. With respect to the noble Lord, while I am grateful for his assistance, I think I must stick to the words on the Marshalled List.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 46A and 46B not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 35, line 9, leave out ("keeping of dairy cows") and insert ("feeding, accommodation or milking of dairy cows kept").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 35, line 9, leave out ("keeping of dairy cows") and insert ("feeding, accommodation of milking of dairy cows kept").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 36, line 1, leave out ("in the open market").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that arbiters and the Scottish Land Court must be able to make use of all the evidence available in determining the value of quota under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2. This paragraph as it stands confines that evidence to sums paid on the open market for interests in land. It would in this connection be wrong to ignore such evidence as may be to hand relating to private transactions. In the early cases of quota valuation at least there will not be a great deal of evidence of any type available to arbiters, and therefore a restriction which cuts out a significant body of evidence would be unwise. This amendment removes that restriction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 36, line 20, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 77 and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. When the Secretary of State is a party to an arbitration the Scottish Land Court appoints the arbiter rather than the Secretary of State. These amendments make it clear that this will also be the case in an arbitration to determine milk quota compensation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 37, line 6, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 77 and").
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 37, line 12, at end insert—
("(4A) in the case of an arbitration under this paragraph, section 61 of the 1949 Act (determination of claims for compensation where landlord's interest is divided) shall apply, where the circumstances require, as if compensation payable under paragraph 2 above were compensation payable under that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment applies Section 61 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 to an arbitration under Schedule 2. Section 61 deals with the situation where the subjects of let are divided between several proprietors and the rent has not been apportioned. Section 61 entitles the tenant to require that any compensation payable to him is determined as if the holding had not been so divided and the arbiter shall where necessary apportion the amount awarded between the persons who together constitute the landlord and the holding. The section further provides that any additional expenses of the award covered by the apportionment shall be paid by the proprietors in such proportion as the arbiter shall determine. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Duty to balance interests in exercise of agricultural functions ]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 11, line 14, after ("features") insert ("and of any features of archaeological interest there").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will put into the Bill a requirement on agriculture Ministers to take account of the need to conserve and enhance any features of archaeological interest in the countryside. Your Lordships debated this point in Committee on an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I explained then that it had always been our intention that archaeological features should fall within the scope of this clause but I appreciated that there might be some element of doubt in the present wording. I was then very ready to accept my noble friend's amendment in principle and undertook, having looked more carefully at the precise wording, to bring forward this amendment today. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Capital grants

.—(1) In section 28 of the Agriculture Act 1970 there shall be added to the definition of "agricultural business" the following words—

"and, for the purposes of capital grants, includes such ancillary farm-based businesses as the Ministers may, from time to time by order specify."

(2) Orders made under subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put down this amendment purely as a precaution, but I am delighted to say that, as I expected would happen, my noble friend Lord Belstead was as good as his word and Amendment No. 62A is the official Government

989
amendment for the extension of agricultural grants to cover ancillary farm-based businesses. I must say to my noble friend, if I may speak to his amendment at the same time in order to speed up matters, that I should like to thank him for having brought his amendment forward. I know that he has had, if I may say so, a certain battle on his hands, and I am therefore particularly grateful to him for having come forward with an amendment which is really much wider than I, and I feel many other people who spoke to the matter originally, had hoped for.
If I may, I should like to ask him a question directly connected to the amendment which he will be moving; that is, Amendment No. 62A. I am curious to know what the "appropriate authority" refers to. I should like to raise one further point, if I may. In my original amendment I included extending grants to tourism and craft industries outside the less favoured areas. Because of the certainty of objections from the European Commission I withdrew that from this amendment and it does not appear in my noble friend's amendment either. But I would urge him and the Government to put pressure on the European Commission perhaps in future to try to get this extended, because I feel that it would make a difference to farms outside the less favoured areas. We tend to think that all the impoverished farms are within those areas, but this is simply not the case. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend on the Front Bench for what he has done in this field, and to thank him also for no less than three letters to me on the topic, to which I should like to make some brief response. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel was, and still is, specifically on the question of grants. The amendment in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench, No. 62A, is also on the matter of grants.
I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench can make it clear when he responds that, welcome as it always is, except for the grants for tourism and crafts in the less favoured areas—which have been, as it were, available for the last 14 years and which at last were taken up a year ago—every other extension beyond tourism and crafts in the less favoured areas and into tourism and crafts and any other form of diversification outside the less favoured areas will require further negotiations with the Commission. Let us hope that my noble friend will be as successful with them as he has been with our own Treasury.
Turning from grants to planning, I am particularly grateful for what my noble friend had to say about that. I think there is a considerable amount of work still ahead of us in order to modify the background against which all town and country planning has been done since the war—reserving all the best land for agriculture alone and operating as though agriculture was the mainstay of the rural economy, which, alas, it no longer is.
May I also particularly welcome the arrangements which he and I have been able to come to, in my capacity as chairman of the South-East Regional Planning Conference, for setting up a rural issues
990
group and focusing studies and research on these knotty problems in that particular area. My only regret is that we did not start all this about five years ago, in which case we would have been in a much better position to help the farmers than we are today. But at least we have now made a start, and I am grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Peel withdraws Amendment No. 54, as he referred to Amendment No. 62A may I speak to that amendment so that it does not have to be spoken to again? Amendment No. 62A is supposed to be the Government response to the very cogent case which my noble friend Lord Peel, together with my noble friend Lord Sandford, put forward at Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Peel presented the case for an amendment similar to No. 62A in Committee, and has really played a great part in bringing this issue before the House. I would just say to your Lordships that this issue has been pursued all the way through another place, and it is my two noble friends who have brought it to finality today. In Committee I said we would do what we could, and Amendment No 62A is the response.
I think that for the record I must just say this. We have all the while tried to say that we were very sympathetic to the case for on-farm diversification, but that there were several difficulties. One of them, uppermost in our minds, was really a problem of ministerial powers. How far, for example, was it appropriate for the Ministry of Agriculture to venture into the field of non-agricultural enterprises—a field in which a number of other highly-skilled agencies, notably the Development Commission and the tourist boards, are already doing excellent work?
However, your Lordships will have noticed that the new clause in Amendment No. 62A would restrict the grants to enterprises carried out on the same, or adjacent, land, and by the same person as the relevant agricultural business. The new enterprise would therefore be centred on an existing farm business. Quite clearly, over many years the Ministry of Agricul-ture has developed considerable expertise in helping farmers to identify and mobilise the resources of their businesses into other enterprises. It is that, and the universal support for my noble friend's amendment, that has convinced the Ministry that we would be the appropriate agency for giving grants in the field.
The other thing which, for the record, I must say is that difficulty exists over the availability of funding for new grants of this sort. My noble friend Lord Sandford made the point that grants for crafts and tourism are restricted. Yes, they are restricted to the less favoured areas, because that is what the Commission requires them to be; but, of course, the less favoured areas in this country are now enormously extended, compared to what they were a year and half ago, as a result of a successful negotiation by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, in Europe for the extension of the LFAs in England and Wales.
We are left, so far as this amendment is concerned, with the question: where is the money going to come from? I have to say to your Lordships that we have not yet been able to resolve that. Therefore, we shall need to give further thought to how any new grants could be

991
financed; but I recognise that your Lordships believe this is to be an appropriate moment for the Ministry of Agriculture to take powers which have been urged on us by my noble friends. When I come to Amendment No. 62A, I shall move that amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Sandford, for having somewhat jumped the gun. I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:—
("Keeping bulls on land crossed by public rights of way.

.—(1) Section 59 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (prohibition on keeping bulls on land crossed by public rights of way) shall have effect subject to the amendments provided for by subsections (2) to (4).

(2)In subsection (2) paragraph (b) shall be omitted.

(3)Subsections (4) and (5) shall be omitted.

(4). After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections:—

"(4) On the application of an occupier who wishes to permit a bull to be at large in a field or enclosure crossed by a right of way to which this Part applies, a council may, subject to subsections (5) (6) and (7) below, order the temporary diversions of the right of way.

(5) A temporary diversion order made under subsection (4) above shall continue in force for a period of not more than 4 months from the coming into operation thereof and no subsequent order shall be made under that subsection as respects any length of right of way to which the previous order relates unless a period of 12 months has expired from the time when the previous order took effect.

(6) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (4) above the council shall take into account the interests of users of the right of way but shall not unreasonably refuse to consent to the making of an order.

(7) The council may make an order under subsection (4) above either in terms of the application or, after consulting the applicant, in such other terms or subject to such conditions as they think fit.

(8) If, within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of a written application, the council fails either to determine the application or to notify their decision to the applicant, the application shall (subject to the provisions of subsection (5) above) be deemed to have been granted and the council shall forthwith make the order under subsection (4) above.

(9) On the making of an order under subsection (4) above the council shall forthwith cause a copy of the order, together with a plan at a scale of not less than 1:10,000 illustrating the effect of the order, to be sent—

(a) to any other council or parish or commmunity council, in whose area the right of way is situated;

(b) to any organisation prescribed to receive copies of public path diversion orders for that area; and

(c) any person to whom the council is required to give notice of a public path diversion order under the pro- visions of paragraph 1, (3A) to part 1 of schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1980;

and to be displayed, and maintained for the period of the diversion, in a prominent position at the ends of the diversion.

(10) It shall be the duty of the council to be satisfied that the diverted right of way is, throughout the period of the diversion properly signposted throughout its length, and the provision of any necessary signposts may be included in an agreement under subsection (11) below.

(11) An order under this section temporarily diverting a right of way—

(a) shall not affect the line of the right of way on land not occupied by the applicant,

(b) shall not divert any part of the right of way on to land not occupied by the applicant, unless written consent to the making of the order has been given by the occupier of that land, and by any other person whose consent is needed to obtain access to the land,

992

(c) may require as a condition of the taking effect of the order the provision and maintenance, for the duration of the order, of any necessary facilities for the convenient use of the diversion,

and the council may enter into an agreement with the applicant for the provision and maintenance of any such facilities by the council at the expense of the applicant.

(12) In this section "council" has the meaning given to it by section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the subject which we discussed at not very great length at Committee stage—namely, the change in the law made by Section 59 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which allowed farmers to run beef bulls over a certain age on fields crossed by public rights of way as long as they were with cows and heifers.
I return to this point, after withdrawing the amendment at Committee stage, for two reasons. First, at that stage the Government had not received the information they had requested from the Ramblers Association about the number of cases which had been reported to the association where people had encountered bulls in fields crossed by public rights of way and where they had either been chased from the field or frightened or had some other unpleasant experience. The other reason I withdrew the amendment which I tabled at Committee stage was because a number of your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in particular as well as the Countryside Commission all said that the procedures which I had in that amendment for temporarily diverting rights of way were unnecessarily bureaucratic and complex.
I consulted the Countryside Commission about this. A meeting was held by the Countryside Commission with other interests also present—the National Farmers' Union, the Ramblers Association and others. The Countryside Commission has provided a draft which is now my Amendment No. 55 in which it has, I hope successfully, tried to come up with a much simpler formula where basically a fanner who applied for a diversion would automatically get one and would know that he was going to get one within six weeks unless some fairly exceptional circumstances applied.
I should make it clear first of all that this amendment is not supported by the Ramblers Association. The association feels that the amendment has gone too far in allowing temporary diversions of rights of way. It thinks it would be open to abuse and that farmers would be able to divert rights of way where they do not need to. It opposed the amendment for that reason. I personally would confess to having some worries about it myself. But it seems to me that the problems caused by the change of the law in 1981 are so great that, if we can in Parliament find a compromise which will prevent walkers being injured and possibly in future killed by bulls, we should try to find it. It is for that reason that I tabled the amendment, which, as I say, has the support of the Countryside Commission, although not, I suspect, of the National Farmers' Union and not, certainly, of the Ramblers Association. Whether or not that makes it a reasonable compromise other noble Lords may care to comment on.
The only other point I wanted to make in introducing the amendment is that since the Ramblers Association produced a dossier of cases for the Government I have received a large number of letters—about 20 or 30—from people who have encountered bulls on public rights of way. These were not included in the dossier. I think there was a feeling from some noble Lords at Committee stage that this was not really a very serious problem and did not apply to very many people. I would simply say that every time there is any publicity about this matter when I have been involved or when the name of the Ramblers Association has been mentioned, a large number of letters have arrived, many describing incidents that happened some time ago but all, of course, since 1981.
Very quickly, to give your Lordships some idea of this—and I have no intention of going through all 20 or 30 letters—perhaps I may mention a few of them. Some people wrote to me about an incident in Devon where they were following a signposted public footpath. They were confronted by a bull and got away only by jumping into a ditch full of water. They made the point that at the time they were 20 years old and fit. It would have been a different story had they been elderly or with children or whatever. Another letter from Devon described an incident which occurred when somebody following a path went through a gap in a line of trees. As he went through the gap he came face to face with a large Charolais bull which had been out of sight until that point. I hope that will convince people that it is not always possible when you enter a field to know whether or not there is going to be a bull in it. In that case, the person had to climb out of the side of the field, leaving the right of way.
In a large number of the letters I have received it has been a case, as in previous correspondence, of people walking with young children. In October of last year a mother walking with her daughter on a footpath in Hertfordshire noticed some cows as they walked through the field but some way further on went round a corner in the field and found a bull blocking the path. They had to get out across the hedge.
Someone writing from Essex was on holiday in Somerset and was following a walk with waymarked coloured signs showing them where to go. They were confronted by a large white bull, presumably a Charolais or a Limousin. The children with them were aged 12 and 9. The adults were frightened, not so much for their own safety but for that of the children.
So it goes on. A family from Norfolk who were walking in Norfolk were unable to complete a walk because they met a bull and were frightened that the children would be attacked by it. Finally, there was another incident where a group of children were being taken for a walk in the countryside by two teachers and another adult. They were in a field and suddenly a bull appeared with, as they said, enormous horns. They had to huddle the children together and retreat backwards out of the field to the stile. The teacher who wrote to me said it was an extremely unnerving experience and they felt it was lucky that none of the children was injured.
It is because of what I believe are a large number of incidents of that sort that I am convinced somebody
994
will be injured or killed if the law is not changed. I hope that in replying to this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will be able to comment on the Countryside Commission's view, put to me in writing, that this amendment as drafted represents a reasonable compromise. I hope the noble Lord can also say whether the Government still believe, now that they have some details of incidents, that the law as it was changed in 1981 makes it safe for people to walk through fields where there are bulls grazing with cows and heifers and whether the Government are still convinced that nobody will be seriously injured, or killed, if the law remains unamended. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I have great sympathy with this amendment. I must confess that when the subject of bulls was discussed during the passage of the 1981 Bill—it is dealt with in what is now Section 59 of the Act—I was not particularly interested in this subject. I was not turned on; I believe that is the phrase. But since then I have met a bull on a public footpath in an area of outstanding natural beauty and my interest has been sharpened considerably. It was a large Hereford bull confined between two hedgerows. It was not looking at all friendly. It was not turned stern on, or whatever is the expression in farming phraseology, and it was facing me. I turned a corner and there it was. I suspect that the farmer was using that section of the footpath temporarily as a pen. I did not stop to ask the bull its age; I turned tail and fled.
Clause 14 of the Bill lays upon Ministers responsibility for achieving a balance between, among other things, agriculture and enjoyment of the countryside. There can be no doubt that on that occasion the balance was tilted heavily in favour of agriculture. I think it follows, as night follows day, that this amendment should be agreed to.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Hunt I was deeply interested and involved in this matter when it was discussed in the debates on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill away back in 1981. Indeed, at that time I felt very strongly that the arrangements we came to under Section 59 of that Act would not be satisfactory. I think that events which have taken place since then have shown that 1 was entirely right.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, brought this matter to our attention at the Committee stage of the Bill and, as he rightly said, his amendment was objected to by many noble Lords in all parts of the Committee on the ground that it laid an unnecessarily onerous burden —an administrative and bureaucratic burden—on farmers and local authorities in working that particu-lar clause. I am bound to say that with the help of the Countryside Commission the new form of words introduced by the noble Lord removes that objection. I do not believe that the arrangements outlined in the amendment are unnecessarily burdensome adminis-tratively, and I think that they are matters which could easily be dealt with by landowners and local authorities.
When this matter was dealt with and discussed at Committee stage, it seemed to me that it was dealt with on the opposite side of the Chamber with a degree

995
of levity which frankly made it appear that many noble Lords did not understand the seriousness of the problem. It was said to us, in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, I think, that people who went to the country ought to learn about it and ought to know all about bulls. Indeed they should, but I would say that those noble Lords who are fortunate enough to own land through which pass public rights of way, and particularly land in national parks—and I happen to be one of them—are very privileged indeed, but they also have certain responsibilities. I think that they have a responsibility to see that the rights of those who use the public footpath are properly protected, and indeed that those rights are properly enjoyed by the people concerned.
I, too, have received the list of cases sent by the Ramblers Association, and it is deeply impressive and very worrying. It shows not only that a very large number of people have been frightened but that some people have been quite seriously injured by bulls being run in bits of land through which pass public rights of way—and it is by bulls who are present under the arrangements under Section 59 that many of these people have been injured.
The allegation made at Committee stage was that townspeople ought to learn a little more about the country. The cases that have been presented by the Ramblers Association, and which I am quite sure have been brought to the notice of the Minister by the Ramblers Association, show that many of the people injured were not townspeople but farmers, farmers' wives, stockmen and herdsmen. Indeed, these cases also show that there were just as many people injured, and indeed killed—because some have been killed—by beef bulls as by dairy bulls.
I think the facts that we have been given from the Ramblers Association show that it is time that we took some steps in this matter. I do not know whether we can take these particular steps, but we really must do something. I have some kind of interest in the public footpaths, particularly the long-distance routes pioneered by the Countryside Commission, and it has been my feeling since the passing of the Act and the new arrangements under Section 59 that there has been an attitude of increasing indifference by certain farmers—not all, certainly—to the rights of those who use the footpaths. In the area where I live in the Lake District, I have spoken with a neighbouring farmer who I know very well and who keeps a bull in a field which has a public footpath. It is the same path that goes through my land. The bull's name, if any of your Lordships are interested, is Cedric. I said to the farmer, "Is he dangerous?" "He is that", he replied. "What about the footpath?" I asked. "Would you walk down it?" "No," he said; "I would go in the tractor".
I really think that where a farmer or landowner knows that a bull may be running in land through which there is a public footpath—quite properly under the present arrangements—and where he knows that it might constitute a danger to people walking along that footpath, then that farmer or landlord has a duty to put up a notice or to draw this fact to the attention of those people using the footpath.
I think that the arrangements in the noble Lord's amendment provide an admirable solution. Certainly
996
some solution must be found, and I hope that we do not have to wait until we have a fatality—we certainly will have such a fatality in due course—involving someone sufficiently famous and distinguished to reach all the headlines in the newspapers. Then we shall take action very rapidly. I hope that we shall take some action before that day, and I am very glad to support the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I cannot support this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will know that I cannot. First of all, I am surprised that he has 100 per cent. support from the Countryside Commission. I must say that I have not had a brief to that effect. No doubt when he sums up he will say that he has had 100 per cent. support from the Countryside Commission.
Noble Lords know all my objections, but I shall deal with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in particular. He thinks, quite misguidedly, that these paths only go across the land of the large landowners that he believes sit on these Benches. I am not a landowner, though my wife might be called a small landowner. These paths go across small farms. What does the small farmer do under the noble Lord's amendment, particularly the small farmer who farms in Anglesey, where there are footpaths all around the coast.? What does he do? He may have to talk to 25 other small farmers, and it is very difficult to get 25 farmers to agree. That is the first point.
Let us forget about the large landowner. I care about him, of course; I have been a tenant of one. But let us just think for one minute about the small farmer and the problem that he will have on his 20-acre holding. How is he to divert a footpath when he is next to the sea? If your Lordships can tell me, I shall do it, but I do not know how.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made his second point. He said that it was not walkers who were killed but me, the farmer, or my wife. With great sadness, I draw attention to a report published today by the Health and Safety Executive. I rang up to find out how many people were killed on farms last year. Out of a tragic figure of 70 or more, I think six were killed by bulls. They were all farm workers or farmers in gangs. I think it was Mr. Boswell, the chief inspector, who said that the reason why those accidents occurred throughout agriculture was, as I know only too well, that we cut corners. Why do we do that? I am speaking under privilege here, thank goodness, but I do a lot of naughty things because I am under pressure. The sun is coming; I have to make the hay. Then along comes the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, saying "You have to move this footpath, put up signs and everything else". I am under stress, as are all my farming neighbours. I make no bones about it. I cut corners.
Both noble Lords talked about balance. It is a question of balance. Seventy-seven or so people were killed on farms last year because we cut corners. The amendment would put another load on to my back and on to the backs of small farmers generally. Somebody may one day get hurt by a bull on a footpath; but somebody may get hurt crossing the street tonight. Putting more stress on the farmer on

997
balance will kill more farmers, their wives and farm workers. That is a point that I have not raised before; I shall not raise the old one again. I object to the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I shall not vote for the amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has raised a matter which we ought to take slightly more seriously. A problem has arisen. Some people are frightened. If a bull can frighten the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he must be extraordinarily brave; considering Everest and the Imphal, the bull should be made a Japanese general. There is a recognisable problem and something ought to be done about it.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly against the amendment. There is no point in repeating arguments that I put forward at Committee stage, but I should like just to take up cudgels with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. While he was speaking, I read carefully page 16 of the Marshalled List. I cannot see that the amendment is anything but a complicated affair both bureaucratically and in practice, with notices being posted and signposts being put up for the length of the right of way. People would have to be consulted, and so on. I do not think the wording is a great deal better than last time in that respect. I have risen to speak to say just that.
If the amendment were enacted there would be rather a mess. There would be such confusion that the walkers, the ramblers and the bulls would all come together by accident. It is easy to leave signposts where they should not be, and little boys run away with notices posted across the countryside. I have been involved in diverting footpaths, and the notices usually disappear within 24 hours somehow or other. I hope that the amendment will be resisted.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said by noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned some cases where there had nearly been fatal accidents. In the North of England and in the Yorkshire Dales national park I have been inundated with letters from small farmers who would be seriously inconvenienced if this proposal became law.
We have many cases where footpaths go through almost every other field. If farmers had to adhere to what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggests in this amendment, not only would their lives become extremely difficult, but they would incur great expense. They would no doubt have to resort to agricultural buildings as an alternative. It is a question of balance, as several noble Lords have said, but I urge all noble Lords to reject the amendment. It would be unworkable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I see that there is a difficulty, which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has spelled out. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in a charming speech, if I may say so, pointed out how he had his wits sharpened. He said that as night follows day the amendment should be accepted. My night does not follow day in quite the same way as the noble Lord's.
998
The noble Lord had an experience with a bull. I had an experience when I went to Devon and went into a field. There was no bull there, but there were a couple of horses. They came towards me. When they were near me they reversed themselves and showed me the back end of their hooves. I found that a disagreeable and frightening experience. Bulls are not the only problem.
If people go into the country, they are bound to come up against country matters and country animals. My noble friend Lord Peel made a pertinent point that with so many small fanners and so many public footways, it would be an intolerable burden if they had to divert their paths.
The amendment is a considerable one. If a person wishes to put a beef bull in a field, which is the only way in which beef cattle are kept, he has to apply to the council. If the council has not agreed to the diversion within six weeks, various action is taken. When the council agrees, it has to send a plan of the change with a map to all the interested parties and local authorities. Signs have to be erected at the beginning and end and all the way down the new diversion. Presumably that all has to be done at somebody's expense. As my noble friend Lord Radnor said, all the signs are susceptible to being removed by people who like to use them as walking sticks and other such things.
This is a bureaucratic and lengthy amendment which would produce great problems if it were put into action. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not press it. One accepts the difficulty that exists with animals in fields, whether they are cows, bulls or horses. On the whole, the system has worked reasonably well. The alterations suggested in the amendment would produce more complications than they would resolve.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we have footpaths; they are rights of way. The public have the right to use them. We have stock on the farms which have the foothpaths. The farmer feels that he has the right to put the animals in the fields, particularly if he is a dairy farmer using a beef bull or has suckler herds with beef bulls.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has twice put forward amendments. He has produced this one on behalf of the Countryside Commission, a body which we all respect for what it does. Noble Lords opposite are nearly 100 per cent. against the amendment. They must produce a solution to the problem. Except for the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, noble Lords have merely condemned the amendment out of hand, as far as I can see, without producing a solution to a problem that we all know exists. Before we condemn the amendment of my noble friend Lord Melchett, which does seem slightly—well, actually a little more than slightly— bureaucratic and will cause difficulties, I would invite noble Lords to consider what is the solution to the problem if it is not something similar to what he has produced. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say before making any further comment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Reverting to what has been said about a sign, I should like to draw attention to an article in the Daily Telegraph in May this year, when under the heading "Horns of a Dilemma", there

999
was reference to a sign spotted by a reader on a footpath near Berwick-upon-Tweed. It said, "Warning. Bull loose in this field. Cross it at your own risk."
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to reiterate what I said at Committee stage. There is a solution to the problem. It is progressively to divert footpaths on a permanent basis so that that they run along headlands and along routes that are more attractive to walkers and more practical for farmers.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is surely illegal already to have what I believe is called an animal of dangerous propensity out in a place where it is liable to affect the general public. I am worried as to where we draw the line. I have handled bulls, including Jersey bulls, for a long time. But the only animal that flattened me was a cow. The only other that nearly caused a good deal of damage was a roebuck. I happened, however, to be stronger than the roebuck.
Where do we draw the line? My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to horses in a field. That is absolutely right. There can be some very dangerous stallions. A tame stag or a tame roebuck is extremely dangerous. Even a dog could be dangerous. One has to comply with the law. Another example could be ganders. Indeed, we had a buzzard on the ground that damaged several people. But, being a protected bird, we were not allowed to kill it. We had a cock pheasant that nearly every day put the fear of death into schoolchildren on their way home from school. However, it was out of season, so we could not kill it. Thousands of acres of parts of the country could be sterilised if we were to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is a great deal of truth in what my noble friend Lord Burton has said. I was interested to hear my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Peel explain the problems for farmers, my noble friend Lord Stanley referring to land near the sea in Wales and my noble friend Lord Peel dealing with the uplands and the national parks of which he has knowledge, if an amendment of this kind were to be made. We are, incidentally, talking about the production of beef, in some cases through suckler herds. The production of high quality beef is what we rather hope farmers will concentrate upon instead of growing too many acres of cereals.
We are also concerned, if I may speak seriously, with the living of farming families. There really could be occasions where we should be talking about driving farming families out of business in regard to beef production if an amendment of this sort were made. Although the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has taken great trounble with the amendment in an effort to make it less bureaucratic, it nonetheless seeks to provide for making temporary path diversion orders for up to four months in a year. If this could not be done, the farmer would have no practical alternative to running his beef bull in a field.
Although this is in many respects simpler and therefore preferable to the previous amendment, the overwhelming objection to the amendment remains.
1000
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, this is a system that would present a heavy administrative burden at a time when we are striving to reduce the burden of bureaucracy and regulation. My noble friend referred to local councils which would be faced with considerable demands upon their staff and resources. I understand that, as a result of the meeting between the Countryside Commission, the Ramblers Association, and the National Farmers' Union, the local authorities made it quite clear that this amendment would create difficulties for them because of the administrative burden it would place on them.
My noble friend Lord Radnor made the point that this would have a very serious effect for farmers. What worries me is that it would require farmers to plan weeks in advance where their bulls would be on any given day and to deal with yet more paper work. I seriously wonder at the moment, when we are in a period which is approaching a drought, exactly how, if this amendment was agreed, one would organise where to keep beef cattle which had to be moved around quite a bit with the grass starting to dry up.
I am sorry, but I feel that I cannot make a very helpful response to either my noble friend Lord Onslow or the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, with regard to the point that something needs to be done. We have the compromise position which was reached in the 1981 Act. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, gave us wise advice; but the advice which he gave is a difficult matter on which to reach agreement, as all your Lordships will know.
I am very happy to look at this problem, but I am not happy to move away at the moment from the compromise which was reached in the 1981 Act. On balance I think very definitely that if we did so, it would result in a situation which would make life almost impossible for a farmer, be he small or big, who was keeping beef cattle on his farm.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he would do me the courtesy of answering my specific question. I asked him, in the light of the cases which the Ramblers Association presented to the Government between Committee and Report stage, whether the Government still hold the view that it is safe for members of the public to walk on footpaths through fields where beef bulls are grazing with cows or heifers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that point is easily answered. The Ramblers Association has prepared a dossier of incidents where bulls may have presented a hazard to members of the public. The reports include just one incident in which a member of the public has been injured by a bull being kept in accordance with the 1981 Act. Even one incident is one too many. But we have to keep a sense of proportion. In saying that I think the balance of advantage lies very definitely against this amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I was particularly disturbed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, begin his remarks by saying that there was a lot of truth in what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, had said, because I think that was rather an insult to the many hundreds of thousands of people who are concerned about this

1001
matter. The idea that some silly story about a cock pheasant is treating this problem with the seriousness which most noble Lords—at least on this side of the House—believe that it deserves is a little insulting coming from a Back-Bencher on the other side. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will reconsider that remark. The only danger that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is likely to meet with a cock pheasant is if he shoots one and it plummets dead on top of his head. I dare say that there will be one or two walkers who, having read his remarks in your Lordships' House tonight, will hope that a cock pheasant will be prepared to commit the ultimate sacrifice on their behalf.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, suggested that it was already illegal to keep dangerous animals in fields where the public had access. That is right. It is an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act. The Health and Safety Executive has refused to issue advice as the Government said it would following the 1981 Act because the executive agrees with the Ramblers Association that the 1981 Act is wrong and that all beef bulls are dangerous and should not be put in fields crossed by public rights of way. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, is at least right on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said that this will involve putting up a lot of extra signs. But it is already a legal requirement—I hope that the noble Lord is aware of this—to put up warning signs if a bull is grazing in the field. That is a legal requirement under the Health and Safety at Work Act, as no doubt the noble Lord knows. It seems to me that it is a question of either putting up warnings signs or putting up signs diverting the footpath. I cannot see in that respect that a great deal of extra work or trouble will be caused.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I did not say necessarily signs; I said extra work and extra stress. As my noble friend Lord Belstead said, we will not know where we are going to put them in two or three years' time.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as I said, it should not involve extra work because the noble Lord should be putting up warnings signs as it is, and under my amendment he would be having to put up diversion signs. I do not see that that will involve extra work, as he suggests.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that it would cause serious inconvenience to some farmers who had written to him. A number of noble Lords seem to have forgotten that over a great area of the country before 1981 there was a total ban on putting any bull in fields crossed by public rights of way. The suggestion that the 1981 provision was a compromise is ludicrous. Compromise involves some meeting of minds. There was a compromise agreed before 1981—that embodied in the amendment. The compromise between the National Farmers' Union and the Ramblers Association involved temporary diversions of footpaths. The provisions in the 1981 Act were not agreed by anyone representing people who walk in the country or anyone else who uses the countryside for recreation. They have been opposed consistently by all
1002
those interests, including now the statutory body responsible for giving advice on these matters.
While I accept that this certainly would cause some inconvenience for some farmers, it would be less than many farmers had to suffer before 1981 when no power of temporary diversions was available to them and there was a total ban on putting bulls in fields crossed by public rights of way.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, seemed to suggest that I might be misleading your Lordships' House in saying that the Countryside Commission supported the amendment. I have a letter dated 27th June from the head of the recreational access branch of the commission which says of the text of the amendment that it would,
"in our view achieve a fair and equitable balance of the various interests (farmers and landowners, users of rights of way and the local authorities) but at the same time ensure that the procedures to be followed in making a temporary diversion order are as simple as possible."
It seems to me that this is the last possibility that we have for a compromise on this issue. The compromise goes further, as I said, than the Ramblers Association is prepared to agree and than I should personally. The alternative which a number of noble Lords said should be suggested is to go back to pre-1981 and have a total ban on all bulls in fields crossed by public rights of way. If a compromise of this sort is not acceptable, that seems to me to be the only sensible solution. It is certainly one I will press for if the amendment, as I expect, is not accepted by your Lordships.
There has been a lot of laughing and smiling by noble Lords opposite about bulls and the dangers of other assorted animals with which people frequently no doubt come into contact in the countryside. I think that one noble Lord opposite at least might have had the courage of his convictions and said what a correspondent to Farmers Weekly said a couple of weeks ago about this amendment and the attempt to prevent a walker, probably a child or an elderly person, being seriously injured or killed by a bull. He said what I believe noble Lords opposite also believe.
"First, young children, invalids, old people, disabled persons and the like have no valid reason to be in fields in the countryside on isolated footpaths, even if accompanied by well-meaning guides".
That is what the conflict on this amendment is really about. Noble Lords opposite simply are not prepared to accept that a large number of people in the country have any right to use the public footpaths and the public rights of way granted to them by Parliament across private land. I believe that they have, and I believe that the amendment will make it safe for them to do so.
10.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 38.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Gallacher, L.

[Teller.]

Hunt, L.

David, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller]

1003

Morton of Shuna, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Winstanley, L.

Stoddart of Swinton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Boston, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Burton, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnock, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Onslow, E.

Craigton, L.

Peel, E.

Davidson, V.

Radnor, E.

De La Warr, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrier, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.57 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 55 A, I should say that there has been a misprint, and the amendment should read, "County Councils shall have the power to make Landscape Conservation Orders" and not "designate Landscape Conservation Areas".
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 55A:
After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
("Landscape Conservation Orders.
. County Councils shall have the power to make Landscape Conservation Orders.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first of all I must say that I have no intention of dividing the House, or even hoping that this particular sentence will go into the Bill. I am moving the amendment because when it came up at the end of Committee stage last time I think we were running at least two hours late, my noble friend Lord Denham was looking very flustered and putting pressure on us all to get on, and I have a feeling that we did not air it enough. There is no hint of criticism of my noble friend Lord Denham for getting flustered. He was quite right to get flustered. We were all taking much too long and talking too much, and I might even say having unnecessary Divisions, but be that as it may.
I think that there is a need for the power of local authorities to make landscape conservation orders. Funnily enough I think the need for that power is greater outside national parks and even outside AONBs than within them. We have the precedent of the tree preservation order, which allows a local authority to keep trees but does not allow it, for some extraordinary reason, to keep small trees when they have been cut and laid and formed into a hedge.
We have all had the bits of paper, and I do not think that at this late hour one wants to go into the details of the cases where great damage has been done. There are obviously two dangers to the concept of landscape conservation orders, and one is the exact opposite of the other. One is that local authorities will make one
1004
at the first stirring of a minority in a local conservation area which has nothing better to do and will slap them on all over the place, and that will bring them into disrepute. The opposite of that is that they will not put them on enough because they will say, "It is too much 'aggro' and too much difficulty", and so on and so forth.
I think those of us who have even had bits of Laurence Gould second hand have realised that there is an opinion that perhaps the Wildlife and Countryside Act is not functioning as efficiently as it should be. I know that the Government are thinking along the lines of landscape conservation orders. I am hoping that I can get from my noble friend some views of how the Government's thinking is going. I do not want a commitment. All I want is a pre-Green Paperish sort of idea. Then I shall have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I want to emphasise that we are talking about landscape conservation orders and not areas. I apologise to your Lordships for the difficulty that has been caused. It was not the fault of the Office. There was a small upset on the way to the Office and that is why the printing has come out as it has.
I support the noble Earl in this amendment and I shall give a few more reasons why we have brought it forward tonight. The Association of County Councils and other bodies would like these reserve powers to preserve valuable features of the countryside; not as a matter of course, but only where voluntary agreement fails, as it does sometimes. If I may, I shall give one example: I do not want to waste too much of your Lordships' time. I shall not talk about national parks and the Broads, for I believe they have a degree of protection already and I know that the Government are considering having discussions with them about extending this kind of power.
I give one example of an area outside national parks, AONBs or anything else that one can mention. This is in Hampshire, near Whitchurch, where a chalk downland, not protected in any other way except by the local council—who declared it a country heritage site, which is its local term for saying that it is a desirable feature—has been badly damaged by motor cyclists. In this case the landowner was not interested in working with the county council to protect it. The council felt that if it had had a power of this kind it could have done something instead of waiting for the local population to be up in arms.
It would perhaps be to the advantage of farmers in the long run if we had this kind of power, because on the whole people do not mind too much what farmers do, but, when there is a special area about which they are concerned and which is dear to them either as an amenity or as a piece of natural beauty and they see it being destroyed, they cry out for planning controls on fanners. It seems to me that it woud be much better to avoid the demand for blanket planning controls by giving the county councils this reasonable power to protect these simple areas where there is a need.
As the noble Earl has said, there is no intention of pressing this to a Division. In view of the fact that dangers to these areas are likely to increase now that farming grants have been changed and there will be

1005
less pressure to grow things on the land, such areas will need protection in other ways. We want to know from the Government when their consultation document is likely to come out and whether they envisage legislation, say, in the next Session. I shall not go further than that because, after all, things may have changed after the next Session. Is it their intention to give priority to this legislation?
Lord Hunt: I am happy to be one of the sponsors of this amendment, having missed the opportunity of discussing the prospect of landscape conservation orders when it was discussed in Committee on 19th June. I was naturally glad to hear—indeed I knew already because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mrs Angela Rumbold, had told my council (the Council for National Parks) at an anniversary conference—that the Government are considering the possibility of making such orders available in national parks. But I feel that the Government ought to extend their view, their focus, more widely in the course of the consultations than they say they are going to. Indeed, I particularly hope that the Government will reconsider and have not closed their minds to the possibility of extending such orders, making them available in ESAs, in AONBs and in our green belts. I will not take the time of the House now but I could give examples of damage and destruction that has been caused in the green belt areas and in areas which are not in either of the other categories. I hope that the Government will continue their consultations on that comprehensive basis.
I regard it as significant that the Association of County Councils should be pressing for this kind of legislation. Indeed, they are pressing that the Government should come forward with legislation without undue delay. It is a measure which obviously has political connotations and the ACC would not be making such a pressing case if they were not confident of public support for it locally. It is a measure of the way that public interest is growing in the protection of the rural environment.
I think that many of your Lordships know that the availability of LCOs is also the view of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Council for National Parks (which I have the honour to preside over) and the Countryside Commission. I do not take the view that reserve powers of this kind and for this purpose threaten the voluntary principle. They exist already in respect of SSSIs under the 1981 Act, as everyone knows, and they have existed for nearly 40 years in regard to access agreements in the form of access orders to the countryside under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
There has never been any suggestion to my knowledge that their existence constitutes a threat; and I know of only one example where, in the case of access orders, such an order has had to be made. That was in the Peak District. I think you have only to ask any national park authority, particularly a national park officer, and planning officers and you will find that the final power to make such orders has greatly strengthened their hand in negotiating voluntary agreements. We are not asking the Minister, as the noble Earl has said, to commit the Government, as the
1006
ACC would have us do, to legislation. We are only asking that he should undertake to give the possible availability of landscape conservation orders countrywide—wider than national parks—due consideration during his consultations.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I rise not so much to support this particular amendment as to express the hope that in dealing with this and other matters like it to do with the protection of the countryside, we try to improve our track record and our rate of response. The nearest thing to a landscape conservation order on the statute book at the moment is the landscape area special development order. That has been there since 1950; that is to say, for 36 years.
When I came to review the national parks in 1972, they had been on the statute book for 22 years and up to that time they had been adopted in parts only of two national parks. It has taken another 14 years to get to the point where we have at last agreed to adopt them in the whole of the national parks and all efforts to get landscape area special development orders extended to AONBs etc. have so far been resisted.
This rate of response cannot continue. There is enormous public support for the protection of the best of the countryside and it really is building up trouble for the future if we respond as slowly as we have so far. So in giving general support for the idea of landscape conservation orders and for the publication of a consultation document, I would urge both my noble friend from the Ministry of Agriculture and my noble friend from the Department of the Environment to move with more decisiveness and despatch after the consultation process and to get these orders where they are needed in good time.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I, too, signed the amendment put down at Committee stage, and I support very much the urgent need for something along the lines of conservation orders. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister is going to say.
Baroness White: My Lords, I would hope that at the very least the Minister will be able to assure us on this occasion that the consultations will not be confined to national parks, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said (and he and I are both very much concerned with national parks, as officers of the Council for National Parks) we recognise that at least in the parks one does have some measure of protection, and there are examples in parts of the country, which are not in designated areas at all, which require just this sort of protection for which the County Councils Association is now pressing.
It is clear one cannot simply ask the Government to accept this amendment as it now stands, although personally I wish very much that they had been sufficiently enthusiastic about this to have given themselves powers—not more than that, obviously— in this Bill; otherwise, we shall probably have to wait for a very long time before we get enabling legislation through the House. It seems to me that an opportunity has been missed, which is sad. But, I repeat, at the very least we should have an assurance that the consultation which has already been announced by the Minister for the Department of the Environment

1007
should cover a wider area than the national parks themselves.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, everyone is, quite rightly, concerned about conservation, and particularly over the last few years an immense amount of work has been done and many steps have been taken to ensure conservation. It seems to me that we have at the moment the national parks, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty, environ-mentally sensitive areas and landscape special development orders; and I would ask my noble friend to say when he replies whether he thinks there is some facet which is inadequately covered—because it seems to me that we have so many of these things and if we are not careful we are going to have yet more and nobody will know where they are or whether any part of their land is or is not covered by some order. While the conservation of the land and the countryside is quite correct and quite proper, I think we have to be careful not to cover ourselves with such a multitude of bureaucratic regulations that nobody knows where they are or how they are going to be operated.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has taken the words right out of my mouth, except that I had only four items listed and he had five: I did not know about the landscape development order which he mentioned. I would be worried not so much about this order which might come along, but rather about the question of who is to operate it and who is to decide about the landscaping. Is this going to mean a whole host of extra officials for the councils? I think we would need to know a little more about how it is going to be operated, who is to take the decisions and whether there will be a right of appeal, and so on.
As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, says, I think we have plenty to be going on with, and as has been stressed by a whole lot of people—environmentalists, conservationists and so on—that they would like to have co-operation with land-owners and farmers. I would say that going ahead with order after order is not the way to get that co-operation.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, both noble Lords who have just spoken are right to say that we have a number of ways of designating the countryside, and there are a number of further designations which they have omitted to mention—Heritage Coast, for example. All these are fancy-sounding names for fancy bits of countryside, but very few of them contain any powers to protect those areas of the countryside. A major study of national parks undertaken a couple of years ago showed that whether you farmed or operated a business or anything else inside or outside a national park made little difference to whether developments went ahead, whether landscape was changed, hedges were lost, woodlands were lost, and so on.
The designation "area of outstanding natural beauty" is notorious for being largely meaningless when it comes to actually affecting the future of the conservation interests in the countryside. The same is true of many other designations. Sites of special scientific interest now have some very limited protection, but as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, stressed at the Committee stage, the Government's
1008
approach, embodied in the 1981 Act, has been a voluntary one. So the protection for sites of special scientific interest, which are the most protected areas of the countryside, still rests on the voluntary agreement of the people who own and manage the land. There is no power of compulsion there which is peculiar to sites of special scientific interest, apart from a modest delaying power of nine or 12 months.
All these fancy titles do not mean much when it comes to affecting what actually happens on the ground. The significant difference, as I am sure both noble Lords recognise, in the proposal for landscape conservation orders is that they would actually give the public the power to say that something should not be destroyed. That is what makes them different from all these other things. For myself, I should prefer to take a simpler course, and one we discussed at Committee stage—namely, to extend the planning control system. Then you cover the whole countryside. You do not need to start parcelling up different areas and calling them fancy names which sound intimidating and mean very little. You control development when it is actually proposed to take place rather than make orders to protect things which people may not want to destroy, or, in the case of sites of special scientific interest and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, sites which they decide to destroy only when you offer them compensation for not doing it.
So there is a simpler system. It is to extend development control to cover agriculture and forestry developments. But in the absence of that, I hope the Government will at least make some rapid progress with landscape conservation orders.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about such conservation orders being extended outside of national parks. I agree with him. But I should just like to make one point. Everybody seems to think that things are totally protected in national parks. Yes, of course, we have the prior approval situation, but farmers can go ahead without grants. This point is very often forgotten.
Furthermore, a good many authorities now are rather frightened. They have become diffident about entering into management agreements because of the amount of money that is involved. If we had a power of last resort, if I may call it that, along these lines, it would certainly be an improvement.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend Lord Onslow put down this amendment because we covered the point at a very late hour in Committee and he wanted to probe a little more regarding the Government's announce-ment of a consultation paper on landscape conservation orders. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked what would be the timing. The consultation paper is now in hand within the Department of the Environment. The process of preparing a final text for issue is bound to involve consultation between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in other departments who have an interest in the scheme. At the moment I cannot give an exact answer about the timing, but I know that this paper will be issued as quickly as possible.

1009
The noble Baroness, Lady White, was particularly anxious that the proposals and consultations should apply outside the national parks; a point which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. But as was indicated by my noble friend Lord Elton, our proposals will relate primarily to land in the national parks. But I would say to the noble Baroness that since this is a consultation exercise interested parties will of course be able to make their views on coverage known to Government.
Several of your Lordships have asked, "Will the Government get on with it?" I was encouraged by the way that my noble friend Lord Sandford, in passing, was good enough to make the point that, whereas when he was at the Department of the Environment he was not able to land the landscape area special development order, we have been able to do so under the present Government. I must therefore assume that my noble friend was congratulating us when he mentioned that topic in his remarks.
What can I add? I think I can add just two things. One thing we will have to think about quite carefully in this LCO area is the question of permanency; that is, should the orders be used to provide a breathing space for further negotiation, or ought they to be something which has permanent effect? That is something which the LCO consultation paper will no doubt advert to. The question of rights of appeal for the owners and occupiers of land affected by orders is again obviously something which will have to be dealt with and will be of interest in the consultation arrangements.
I do not feel that I can give, ahead of the consultation paper, any more information than that. I hope that my noble friend will not feel that I am being deliberately evasive. We are going to bring forward a consultation paper and no doubt we will be referring again to this interesting topic in your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I can certainly thank my noble friend for his civility and I can thank him for his effort, but I do not think that I can thank him for much information. I was pleased to hear him say "primarily in national parks". By that I assume he is not excluding non-national park areas.
We have the precedent of the tree preservation order and we have the odd distinction that you can protect one or two good oak trees but cannot protect the only site in north-west Europe where the yellow-legged boll-weevil, or whatever it is, breeds, except by the voluntary principle. That is unfortunate. Further-more, when we originally allowed farmland not to be covered by any form of planning it was when there were still horses on the land and the availability of the JCB and the Hy-Mac was not all that easy and most farm buildings were made of natural material—brick, clapboard or tile, or something like that. We have, of course, advanced technologically very far in those 40 years.
However, all I can do is hope that this little debate may have pushed the Government a little way with their paper. Obviously we will study the paper with great keeness when it is published and will certainly come back to the subject. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Designation and management of environmentally sensitive areas]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 11, line 35, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of the Treasury and after consulting the persons mentioned in subsection (3) below as to the inclusion of the area in the order and the features for which conservation enhancement or protection is desirable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59.
In our previous debates in Committee on this clause there was some apprehension about the role of the Treasury. There is, I believe, general recognition in your Lordships' House that Ministers of Agriculture cannot designate environmentally sensitive areas without first agreeing with the Treasury that the money is available and will be spent properly. However, several of your Lordships have suggested that the clause seems to say more than that.
Concern was expressed that the clause could give the Treasury a direct veto on the conservation merits of any particular area. That was no part of our intention in drafting the Bill. I have therefore looked at the clause again in view of what was said to see whether it could be changed to reflect our intentions more clearly. This amendment is the result of that process.
I hope it makes clear that we are not proposing anything out of the ordinary. The Treasury role will be no different from that which it has in other spheres, such as capital grants. The procedure will be as follows. My right honourable friend will select environmentally sensitive areas in consultation with the environmental experts. He will present the outcome to the Treasury, which will want to know that our estimates for each area are reasonable, reliable and can be contained within the available budget. As I have said, the present budget is £6 million. If the Treasury is satisfied on those points it will confirm its agreeement by signing the order.
I hope that will satisfy your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Renton, whose eagle eye is always on the correct drafting of the Bill. I have to admit openly to your Lordships that this amendment does not actually change the intention of the Government, but I hope that it honestly reflects what it is we meant to say and that it is more acceptable to your Lordships than the previous wording. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My lords, I call Amendment No. 57 as an amendment to Amendment No. 56.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 56, Amendment No. 57:
Line 2, after ("Treasury") insert ("Which consent shall be granted or refused on financial grounds only)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister has said a good deal of what I might have said and I do not intend to speak at great length, but he emphasised in his last two sentences that what he is proposing tonight does not in fact change the position that existed before in the Bill. It is perhaps a little neater, but it still leaves the Treasury, if it so desires, with a power of veto which it could exercise.
My amendment to the amendment would limit the Treasury's intervention to financial grounds, be it for

1011
refusal of the grant or for giving it. I cannot see why this is not acceptable. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer me, and that he will feel able to accept this amendment, because it leaves the Treasury's position beyond all doubt.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think we should acknowl-edge that my noble friend Lord Belstead has done something which must have resulted from a tremendous struggle behind the scenes, a struggle which the Treasury is known always to win and never deserves to win, least of all on this occasion. But he has done his best, though he has been candid enough to acknowledge, as he was kind enough to say in a letter which he sent to those of us who were concerned, that the substance of the matter is not really changed at all by his amendment.
But the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is one that he should accept with open arms, because that amendment puts the matter right. If we have to put up with the consent of the Treasury—which is a nonsense anyway—then let Parliament make it clear that that consent can only be granted or refused on financial grounds. I hope that my noble friend will listen to the reason of the noble Baroness.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I wish I could respond to my noble friend Lord Renton, and indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, but I really cannot, and I shall tell your Lordships why I cannot. There is not a single precedent that I can find—there may be one but I cannot find it—whereby Treasury consent is fettered in the way that the noble Baroness would wish it to be in this Bill. For example, in the Agriculture Act 1947, which was legendary legislation passed during the tenure of the famous Labour Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, there is no such limitation; nor is there in the Agriculture Act 1967; nor in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 on drainage and other grants; nor in the Countryside Act of 1968, which is often in our minds—all these Acts were passed by Labour governments—nor even in the Agriculture Act of 1970 governing capital grants, which was again an Act passed by a Labour government. There is no precedent for this provision and I cannot accept it in this Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he saying that he is accepting the logic of the amendment of the noble Baroness, but also saying that he cannot accept the amendment merely because there is no precedent for it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am saying that there is no precedent but I am also saying that I think that because there is no precedent there is no case. If I may say so, the case for the Treasury's surveillance is well put in the wording that we have. This evening I have interpreted what the wording means and by tabling the amendment that I have brought forward I have tried to make that wording as clear as possible. I cannot go further than that.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am not moved by the fact that there is no Labour administration precedent
1012
for this. I did hope that the Minister would have been prepared to establish a precedent himself and perhaps make a little history tonight if he had so wished. But I think the logic of my suggestion is clear. I am extremely sorry that he has not felt able to accept the amendment, but I do not propose to put it to a vote this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 56 agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 5 7A:
Page 11, line 36, after ("sensitive") insert ("fanning")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would rename "environmentally sensitive areas" "environmentally sensitive fanning areas". There is an apology due to the Minister and to the House for the amendment being put down in this way. I put it down in the Public Bill Office last Wednesday, and it was only this morning, when I came to your Lordships' House, that I found—and the Public Bill Office wishes me to say this—that an error had been made in that office and nobody had seen the amendment before. That puts me in a difficulty, because it is a fairly complicated decision to make: am I right that they should be environmentally sensitive farming areas? Nevertheless, I shall do my best. If my noble friend on the Front Bench says that he has not had an opportunity to consider this, I shall of course withdraw the amendment and, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, I will put it down again on Third Reading.
How did the term "environmentally sensitive area" arise? I am looking at MAFF's consultation paper of April 1985, which asks for comments on the new farm structure regulations for the European Community. One of those structure regulations is Article 19, which,
"permits the designation of environmentally sensitive areas in which traditional farming practices can be encouraged through financial incentives".
It goes on:
"the details of each scheme would depend on the nature of fanning practices and conservation features of the area".
Article 19, which includes in the title the term "environmentally sensitive areas", is one of 22 articles, all of which form the basis of farm capital grant policy. In that context, the term is perfectly satisfactory, because it was one of the articles concerning farm capital grant policy. But Article 20, for example, concerns woodland improvement. Woodland improvement would be all right as a farming grant but it is far too general a term to use otherwise, as is the term "environmentally sensitive area". Article 16 is "Tourism and craft". The term came from a very narrow start.
If we think of what the term really means, every SSSI is an environmentally sensitive area, as is every national park. That is far too wide. A complaint was made by another speaker earlier about the number of terms that we have. I believe that the Department of the Environment, the NCC and other non-government organisations would not like to see "environmentally sensitive area" as the name for that

1013
narrow farming grant division. If the Minister were to ask that department, he would be told that it would be much better to call them environmentally sensitive farming areas. At another time we can have environ-mentally sensitive water-borne areas and all sorts of different designations.
I believe that I am right. I think that on reflection the conservation world and the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we all respect the zeal of my noble friend Lord Craigton for conservation. It is a zeal which I share. I am a former president of the Conservation Society. But I am very much afraid of his amendment. What I fear is that by inserting the word "farming" it will limit the effect of the clause, so that it is only farming areas which could be designated in the way that the provision intends. Areas, for example, which are given over to forestry or are merely open spaces with neither forestry nor farming on them—
Lord Craigton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, that is exactly the point. As my noble friend on the Front Bench knows, I tried to widen the area beyond farming areas by using a little equipment from outside farming areas, and he would not let me. This amendment refers solely to farming areas.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it does not appear to me to be so on the wording. I may be wrong. At this late hour one can get things wrong. I am afraid that to insert the one word "farming" would limit the operation of the clause.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Craigton mentioned this subject at an earlier stage of the Bill. He put down the amendment which I had time to see. It is not a name that we should have chosen, but it is a name adopted by the Community. It is rather technical, and long-winded, I know, but by now everyone with an interest in the matter has heard of environmentally sensitive areas. We have all become accustomed to using the tags, and we all know what they mean. That is not a good reason for saying that the name should not be changed, but it means that a new name must be better. I should readily accept a new name that was so compelling and accurate that it displaced ESA from our memory. I am not keen to change the name without an attractive alternative.
My noble friend has found the alternative that he favours—environmentally sensitive farming area. I wonder whether the House feels that that has the right ring. I feel that we should be exchanging three words for four. I am not sure that that is the mouthful that I like. If one were feeling rather tired one might not get one's tongue around it.
More seriously, my noble friend draws attention to the fact that these are farming areas rather than other types of environmental sites. Nonetheless, he is conjuring up a name which I do not think necessary. When my noble friend Lord Renton says that it could be misleading, I think that he is right.
Forestry is difficult with respect to ESAs because technically forestry is not part of agriculture.
1014
Nonetheless, forestry areas will fall within ESAs. The Forestry Commission, for instance, has gone out of its way to give special assurances that it will take particular care when it has forestry areas within ESAs. For that reason, I think that the caution of my noble friend Lord Renton is well placed.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, surely "agricultural" is the word that dominates Clause 15. Agricultural forestry is only forestry taken on incidental—I think that is the word in the Bill—to ordinary farming.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can clear this up before he sits down, but I thought that forestry was specifically excluded from ESAs. If my noble friend says that it is included, I am delighted.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, without going over the ground again, perhaps my noble friend Lord Onslow would like to read what I said. I did not say that it specifically included it. I set out the situation with regard to forestry in a few words.
If I have the leave of the House to speak a second time, I should say that if it were felt, which, with respect to my noble friend Lord Craigton, I do not think it is, that this was a better, slicker and more attractive name, we would go for it. But it is a mouthful. It is not what everyone in Europe is familiar with. For that reason, we should do well to stick with what we have.
Lord Craigton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 11, line 37, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his advice—on Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 12, line 1, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 12, line 33 at end insert—
("( ) Before entering into an agreement with a tenant or other person who is not the owner of the land, the Minister shall ensure that the landowner has been notified of the terms of the proposed agreement and has sufficient time (no longer than six weeks) in which to discuss with the tenant or other person the implications of the proposed agreement.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is similar in intent to one that I moved in Committee. However, in that amendment the responsibility for informing the landlord of any agreement made with the tenant in an ESA lay with the ministry itself. My noble friend the Minister gave an assurance that tenants would have to sign a declaration stating that their landlords had been informed. That went some

1015
way to allaying my fears about landlords not having the opportunity of discussing these important matters with their tenants.
Very serious issues concerning the tenant and landlord are involved. It is a matter that could well affect the rental and the capital values of farms. A tenant could find himself in breach of his tenancy agreement and, indeed, might ultimately face some form of dilapidation claim. The new amendment is a compromise in that the responsibility to inform the landlord would still lie, as my noble friend the Minister has assured us would happen, with the tenant. However, in his endeavours to secure fair play on both sides my noble friend, I think I am right in saying, regarded the amendment that I moved, and indeed, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Radnor, as being landlords' amendments. It is fair to say, I believe, that the amendment that I am now moving has the full support of the NFU and the CLA. We are discussing very important items. I believe that the obligation for the landlord to be involved in these matters must be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this amendment is eminently sensible. I shall be astonished if the Minister manages to make a case against it. It is natural justice, where an agreement of which he does not know has been made concerning a man's land, that both parties should be responsible for informing him. I support the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I support the amendment very strongly. It is not simply natural justice; it is common sense. The assurance given by my noble friend Lord Belstead that a written declaration would have to be produced and that there would be a standard agreement between the Minister and the people involved with farming is not good enough. It does not take into account that although the agreement between Minister and those indulging in farming on ESAs may be standard, the agreements between the various fanners and their landlords may be very variable. That must be taken into consideration. I believe that noble Lords almost throughout the Chamber felt ESAs to be a good thing. They gave the whole principle a great welcome from the Second Reading onwards.
But it must surely be important that these ESAs work, and work very well. I think matters work well if there is good will and if they are efficient. To take the first one first, if the Bill remains as it is now and becomes an Act, there is scope for friction between landlord and tenant and that would be a misfortune. That is an important point. I cannot see any arguments against putting this in the Bill, as does the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. It seems to make it simpler, more definite, and in all probability makes ESAs much simpler to operate and to get into motion than the Bill as it is now written. I support the amendment very strongly indeed.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, during the course of this Bill the Government have given a number of assurances about the position of landlords. In essence there is not very much between my noble friend Lord
1016
Peel, and other noble Lords who have spoken in the same way as my noble friend this evening, and myself. I have therefore looked hard at this amendment. On behalf of the Government I have given my noble friend an undertaking already that if tenants have not notified their landlord and have not shown the agreement to the landlord they will not have their application for inclusion in an ESA accepted. We shall achieve this by asking the tenant to declare that the landlord has been notified and a false declaration will carry legal penalties. My noble friend would like me to go further and ensure that the landlord has been notified. I can see only two ways of doing this. First, we could seek out every landlord in an ESA and ask them whether they have been notified. That would be a huge administrative task, and inevitably I do not think that it would succeed in every case. It would be very expensive indeed. Alternatively, we could require tenants to provide a confirmatory letter from the landlord but I do not think it needs much imagination to see that that also would create some administrative problems.
I repeat that we have made it quite clear that we shall require, through the ESA agreement, that the tenant has notified the landlord before making the agreement. Having listened to your Lordships, may I go this far? I am certainly prepared to consider whether we might write that requirement into the Bill. It does not go quite as far as my noble friend wants me to go but it goes about three-quarters of the way. We have made it quite clear that we shall require, through the ESA agreement, that the tenant has notified the landlord before making the agreement. I would be prepared to look at that urgently with a view to putting it on the face of the Bill.
For the rest, I think the assurances would need to stand, and those assurances I have repeated this evening. I hope that my noble friend may feel that I have shown good will in trying to go at least half-way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain the great difficulty? Does he mean that the tenant would have several landlords? I should have thought it perfectly simple, if you know the tenant, to find the landlord.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the House will give me leave, the first and important difficulty is this. In an environmentally sensitive area—which could be a huge area—if the amendment is accepted one has to find every single landlord and to contact him. That is a very formidable administrative task. It means that hard-pressed staff in short supply will be used in pushing pens instead of doing what we want them to do in environmentally sensitive areas; that is, to get on and see that the areas are monitored and managed properly.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am a little worried about this. I had a case where I received an assurance from the Minister and the land court came out and said that an assurance from the Minister was not what was written into the Bill and therefore it was not adequate. I am very concerned about this. I know that we should all like to accept the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, but I am not happy that that is adequate.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps we are getting it the wrong way round. Why not contact the landlords instead of the tenants? After all, the landlords will do their level best to ensure that their tenants' interests are safeguarded.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what my noble friend the Minister has said. I do not think that the amendment would in fact result in every landlord having to be informed by the ministry because it would concern only those tenants who were to be involved with agreements. I am encouraged by what my noble friend has said. On the basis of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 12, line 38 at end insert—
("(7A) Where agreements have been made under subsection (4) above with persons having an interest in land in a designated area the Minister shall arrange for the effect on the area as a whole of the performance of the agreements to be kept under review and shall from time to time publish such information as he considers appropriate about those effects.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage we had a most useful debate on how we plan to monitor the effects of the environmentally sensitive area arrangements. I explained that we were committed to proper monitoring in order to ensure that our schemes are successful. But there was a general view from your Lordships—and I confess that I shared it—that it would be appropriate to reflect our intention to monitor on the face of the Bill.
I am pleased to present the amendment to the House. I believe that it provides appropriate statutory backing to our intentions. It also makes provision for the information gathered to be published. There will be many interested people who will wish to know how the schemes are progressing. As I explained in Committee, I think that formal annual reports would be a rather cumbersome way of achieving this. There is always a risk that such reports will become dry tables of statistics, issued simply because the annual deadline has arrived. The form of words in the amendment is an attempt to overcome this.
I hope that the amendment is acceptable to your Lordships. It certainly represents a move in the Bill towards monitoring environmentally sensitive areas. If your Lordships agree to it, we shall be indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who first raised the matter, and I shall be indebted to your Lordships' House for making what I believe will be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendment, which meets the monitoring point about which we were so concerned. I look forward to the first published information. We can then decide whether what the Minister considers appropriate is what we also consider appropriate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(8A) The Minister shall after consultation with the persons mentioned in subsection (3) above and with such bodies as seem
1018
to him representative of the interests concerned prepare and issue a code of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance to drainage bodies or authorised persons in the exercise of their duties in respect of any land subject to an order made under subsection (1) above.
(8B) The Minister may from time to time after consultation with such bodies as seem to him representative of the interests concerned revise the code of practice issued under subsection (8A) above by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of that code.
(8C) In subsection (8A) above "drainage body" and "authorised persons" have the same meanings respectively as in the Land Drainage Act 1976 and the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, land drainage works, both capital and maintenance, can cause serious damage to wildlife interests. Even routine maintenance works like dredging, removing silt, weed cutting, grass cutting, the use of herbicides, and so on, can all causeproblems for wildlife and do great damage. It is also possible to plan such works in ways that will minimise and maybe even remove any possibility of their causing damage.
At present the Ministry of Agriculture, the Welsh Office Agricultural Department and the Department of the Environment have issued voluntary land drainage and conservation guidance notes to help the various interests—water authorities, IDBs, the NCC, and so on—discharge their duties under Section 22 of the Water Act 1973, which was amended in 1981 by the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Those guidance notes deal with consultation procedures only. As a result of a debate in another place on a similar amendment, I understand that they are going to be amended to cover consultation in environmentally sensitive areas.
There are two problems with that approach. First, because the guidance notes are voluntary, not statutory, some people involved in land drainage and other works have ignored them. We discussed one recent example of that in Committee, an internal drainage board in the Somerset levels, and I will not go over that.
The second problem with the current approach is that, however complete the consultation arrangements and however much goodwill there may be around them, they are never likely to cover the full range of activities that a drainage authority may wish to undertake in an environmentally sensitive area. When a large number of small-scale routine works are undertaken together, they may cause significant damage.
The existing guidance notes deal only with consultation procedures. This amendment would ensure that they were extended to cover practical guidance on the operational aspects of land drainage within ESAs, thereby ensuring, I would hope, that nobody involved in land drainage was likely to damage an ESA in a way that might damage the prospects of individual farmers and landowners continuing to receive money through payments made in relation to the ESA. At the moment there is a risk that a farmer's and landowner's payments may be jeopardised by operations unwittingly carried out by a land drainage authority, such as an IDB.
Finally, there are several precedents for operational guidelines to help implement legislation of the kind

1019
which I am proposing in the amendment. The Control of Pollution Act has led to the Ministry of Agriculture producing a code of good agricultural practice. The heather and grass burning code is another example published by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Welsh Office in 1984. The Food and Environment Protection Act makes provision for a number of codes of practice for the purpose of giving practical guidance in respect of the use of pesticides.
I hope that I have explained very briefly the purpose of what is a new and fairly complex amendment. I do not believe that it is controversial: I believe that it is helpful. I feel that it will be particularly helpful in safeguarding the interests of farmers and landowners in ESAs who have a conservation interest because of their water table. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the reasons which have prompted the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to propose this amendment. However, having listened to the noble Lord, I still think that the amendment is not necessary. Guidelines to water authorities and to internal drainage boards on fulfilling their obligations with regard to conservation while carrying out land drainage operations have been in existence since 1982. However, those guidelines are currently being revised following a review of their initial operation and to take account of the recommendation of the House of Commons environment committee.
The revised guidelines will in general be based on the best practices already adopted by water authorities and internal drainage boards. This work is well advanced, and the revised version will advocate that all drainage authorities should consult annually with the Nature Conservancy Council on maintenance operations and more frequently on specific areas of importance to the council.
The guidelines will also recommend that special consultation should be carried out at the earliest possible stage of planning the construction of new or improvement works, and that environmentally sensitive areas receive special consideration. It is those last words which I should have thought covered the intention of the amendment.
There is already a statutory obligation to consult the NCC where drainage operations might affect SSSIs. In considering applications for grant aid, the Minister insists that the application must provide evidence of the views of the NCC, or other appropriate organisation, on the scheme, unless there is no possible conservation interest. However, it is the ESAs in which the noble Lord is interested in moving the amendment, and I like to think that his intention is covered in the reply which I have given to the amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I know that it is very late but, no, it is not covered. The noble Lord and I read out almost exactly the same brief, but I went on to say that the problem with the guidance notes, to which the noble Lord referred, is that they cover only consultation procedures, they do not cover the operational requirements and they do not give practical advice on operational requirements. I am afraid that I said exactly what the noble Lord said, and
1020
then went on to say that my amendment addresses a completely different point. The noble Lord did not respond to that point at all.
As I have said, it is very late. I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord to study in Hansard what I have said, and if he feels able to respond to the particular points which I raised on the amendment then—rather than my trying to press it now—he can write to me about it. He just repeated what I said in introducing the amendment and even at this time of night I feel reluctant simply to leave the matter there. If the noble Lord would be able to agree to read what I have said and write to me if he can respond to the particular point, I should be grateful.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. I have the current guidelines in front of me. It seems to me that they go a great deal wider than just consultation. However, I am very ready to write to the noble Lord, and I shall endeavour to do so before the Third Reading of this Bill.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I have great pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 62A:
After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause:—
Farm capital grants: ancillary businesses etc.

(1) In section 28 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (interpretation of provisions relating to capital and other grants) at the end of the definition of "agricultural business" there shall be inserted the words "and includes any other business, of a kind for the time being specified by an order made by the appropriate authority, which is carried on by a person also carrying on a business consisting in or partly in the pursuit of agriculture and is carried on on the same or adjacent land".

(2)The existing provisions of that section shall become subsection (1) of that section and after that subsection there shall be inserted—

"(2) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel, Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Short title, commencement, consequential amendments, repeals and extent]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 16, line 36, leave out ("section 15(12)") and insert ("sections (Validation of Apple and Pear Development Council Orders) and 1512)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are both consequential. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 16A, line 4, leave out ("and 15(7) and insert ("[Rent arbitrations: milk quotas], 15(7) and 18")
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Exeter City Council Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.