Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 18 January 1988)

§ The Earl of Radnor
My Lords, for obvious reasons I should like strongly to support the amendment and at the same time to thank my noble friend very much indeed for holding consultations with me. For a moment I was a little worried by the word "may" but became totally convinced that this was not a permissive clause but would oblige the Minister to review these grants at those intervals of three and five years thereafter.
In your Lordships' House one does not always score a complete success. It is perhaps sad that the whole matter could not have been automatic; I felt that it might have saved a little trouble if it had been indexed. However, I think this is a fair and good degree of accountability that should be, and now will be, in the Bill. I hope that as a result more people will he encouraged to join the scheme with confidence who previously might have backed away from it, on seeing the erosion that has affected forestry grants at times simply because they are overtaken by inflation. The lifespan of a tree is a very long period indeed.
62 At the end of the very longest Bills, just when one thinks everything is over, I have noticed that occasionally everyone rises and again makes a long speech. I shall not do that, but perhaps I may say that my noble friend beautifully combined her great ability with her sense of humour when she began her speech—and perhaps I may say "ho, ho, ho!". I do not think that has often come up in Parliament before and been repeated in Hansard. But I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment as I do. I hope that the scheme will be a success.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the explanation of the noble Baroness. She has now made clear, as I thought, that the draftsmen would have found it easier if they had used "shall" in the first phrase instead of "may". I understand that the Government are saying that if they are so minded they could review the grants every year. Is that correct?

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I did say that I was not a legal eagle. Neither— thank God!—am I a parliamentary draftsman, but I also had the same reaction as the noble Lord. What he has said is perfectly true. If the two Ministers involved should feel it necessary, they could do so.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, I am tempted to say, "Chance would be a fine thing!" However, I accept that that is the meaning of the amendment, and we support it.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

§ Lord John-Mackie
My Lords, before we let the Bill slide off to another place, I think that we should congratulate the noble Baroness. I think that this is the first Bill she has put to the House in her new post. She has done it with good humour, considerable skill, and perhaps some mistakes—small ones—but we naturally support this Bill, which we consider should do a good job.
I should like the noble Baroness to clarify one point if she is minded to speak again. It is on the diversification statutory instrument that we passed before Christmas and which came into effect on 1st January 1988. If under the provisions of the Bill somebody wishes to put forward a feasibility study based on the diversification scheme, does that mean that he can do nothing until, as the noble Baroness said, the Bill comes into operation at some point in the future? That would make matters very difficult for somebody who wants to put forward a feasibility scheme for something under the farm diversification grant scheme. Does that not make it impossible for him before the Bill becomes law? I wonder whether the Minister has given that any thought? I do not think that can be done because, as far as I can see, one cannot have a grant unless the feasibility scheme is passed. That is how I read it.
63 I hope that the noble Baroness can reply. In the meantime we give the Bill our blessing and hope it does not daily too long in another place.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, gave me faint praise while at the same time damning me. The two schemes to which he refers are separate from the clause that we have been talking about. Diversification is one matter. The woodland clause is specific.
I may yet be proved wrong and the noble Lord may be proved right, but as regards the grant, let me put the position more elegantly. The noble Lord will be able to receive a capital grant now, but he will have to wait for the feasibility grant. One can get capital grants without feasibility studies. I hope that clarifies the situation for the noble Lord. If it does not, that is just too bad.
While I am on my feet, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part at different stages of the Bill, including my noble friend Lord Borthwick who made his maiden speech at Second Reading. I also thank my noble friend Lord Hesketh for his invaluable assistance at all times. The interest and erudition shown by the House, not least in the last gasps of the Bill, have as so often made it a pleasure to consider the Bill with your Lordships. 1 look forward to being able to introduce subordinate legislation later this Session and to the future discussions I am sure we shall have. It is a small Bill but it has a wide and beneficial future.