HL Deb 30 January 1995 vol 560 cc1279-90

4.20 p.m.

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.

Clause 34 [Service of notices]:

Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 7: Page 16, line 6, leave out from ("by") to end of line 7 and insert ("prepaid post").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has a familiar ring to it. Indeed, I have moved this amendment and variations of it at different stages of the Bill, so that I now feel a certain empathy with Postman Pat.

Nevertheless, this is a matter of some importance which we debated on Report. Largely as a follow up to the Report stage, we thought it appropriate to table an amendment on this matter today. We are concerned about the manner in which documents under the Act are to be served and in particular the evidence of proof of serving such documents.

Briefly, Amendment No. 7 has been retabled to ask whether the noble Earl has concluded the consultations with industry that he described on Report (Official Report, 23/1/95; cols. 920–921) and whether he can yet tell the House what Her Majesty's Government are likely to do about the service of documents when the Bill comes before another place. May I take it from him that discussions and consultations are still progressing and that those discussions and consultations have as their objective the tabling of an amendment in the Government's name to this particular part of the Bill, in order that the matters which we have raised consistently during debates on the Bill in this House can be fully dealt with in a satisfactory manner when the Bill reaches another place? In that spirit I beg to move.

Earl Howe

My Lords, it is for me to apologise to the House for the inconvenience caused by my absence from the Front Bench. I do so in the hope that I may be forgiven and in the expectation that it will not happen again. Nevertheless, I regret any inconvenience caused to your Lordships.

When we debated a similar amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, last week, I explained that if service by ordinary prepaid post was authorised by the Bill and then a dispute arose on whether a notice had been served, the onus would be on the recipient to prove that he had not received it. That would place someone who genuinely had not received the document in a very difficult position.

The noble Lord wonders whether I can add anything to what I said last week on that point. I can assure your Lordships that we are working on an amendment to Clause 34 to clarify the rules regarding the giving of notices. However, this is a complex area on which we shall want to consult the experts in the field before proceeding with changes to the Bill. At present we await comments from industry representatives. Once we have settled on some satisfactory wording, the intention is to introduce an amendment in another place. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said and for his assurance about the introduction of a suitable amendment in another place. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 8: After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:

("Agricultural Holdings Act 1986: Review of rent

Paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 shall be amended to add at the end— (d) Without prejudice to the particularity of the foregoing, any increase or reduction of rent other than one consequent upon a comprehensive review of the rent payable by reference to current economic circumstances.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to a point raised on Report. Noble Lords will notice that the amendments that we tabled are intended to follow up the Report stage, when the Minister indicated that he was prepared either to reconsider the matter or to come forward with his own amendment.

I felt that this point was important to bring forward. It is technical and relates to an apparent anomaly in the 1986 Act. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the circumstances in which a reduction of rent is agreed, which was not intended to result in resetting the three-year time limit for rent review and which does not fall within the present exceptions, do not—as they presently would—reset the time limit for rent reviews. As I said, it is a technical point. We have discussed it before with the Minister.

I brought back the amendment because I was surprised when I came to read Hansard and took in its import. The Minister said: As I have just made clear, we do not wish to make retrospective changes, however meritorious a case could be made for those changes".—[Official Report, 23/1/95; col. 923.]

That seems to be an extraordinary attitude to a technical amendment to remedy a weakness in the 1986 Act. We do not often have a major Agricultural Tenancies Bill. There is a chance with this Bill—the Long Title is suitably drawn—to take the opportunity to put right such technical matters. It is not a point of great principle or a political point.

The Minister said that the departmental doctrine, whether through inertia or for other reasons, was that however excellent a case is made for a change, it has to be resisted just because it is a change in the 1986 Act. That seems to me unreasonable. The Bill gives us a chance to put right technical points, which are important for practitioners who are trying to use the 1986 Act. It is worth repeating that many tenants will be subject to the 1986 Act for a long time. In fact the majority of tenancies will be 1986 Act tenancies for a long time. We have a chance to use the Bill to put right a technical flaw in the previous Act of Parliament, but the Minister resists it, not on grounds of the merits of the case but simply because he does not wish to look backwards. That is not the best way to use the opportunity afforded by the Bill. I hope that the Minister has had time to reflect and will change his mind. I beg to move.

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Lord warned us at Report stage that he would want to return to his proposed amendment to the rent provisions contained in the 1986 Act. I am sure that the noble Lord will have read in full the Hansard record of my remarks last week (cols. 922 and 923). I explained that no doubt the amendment was well intentioned. But I took care to avoid commenting on whether there was a technical deficiency in the rent provisions. Certainly, I did not accept that there was an obvious anomaly (as he then described it).

The noble Lord inferred from my remarks that the Act was bad law but that the Government would not change it. No doubt the noble Lord has received advice from the leading practitioner to whom he referred at Report stage. However, apart from the representations made to the noble Lord, I am not aware of any real concern in the industry at large that the paragraph in question is in need of amendment.

During the consultations over the past four years on tenancy reform, I have been asked by many people to address all kinds of matters dealt with in the 1986 Act. This is not one of them. As the noble Lord will know, many parties agree not to trigger statutory rent reviews at present but settle changes in rent without reference to arbitration. They are perfectly entitled to do so. A great deal of time and trouble is thereby spared, although the party who most wants the rent review will usually make sure that statutory notice is given, to ensure that arbitration will be there as a fall back.

I remain unpersuaded that there is a serious problem. The noble Lord said that there was not a point of great principle at stake, and I agree with that. Even if I were to agree with the noble Lord—which I do not—that there was a significant flaw which could in theory be corrected, I am not satisfied that the noble Lord's amendment would necessarily improve matters. I suggest to the noble Lord that the wording of the amendment could give rise to disputes about what should be disregarded for working out the statutory three-yearly rent review cycle in respect of a specific holding. There is no requirement that rent increases or decreases agreed at a rent review should be based on current economic circumstances. I could envisage much scope for litigation on whether or not a specific rent increase had been based on a comprehensive review. Nor does the amendment deal with cases where parties themselves agree (in writing or otherwise), when a rent review falls due, that the rent for the holding should continue unchanged.

The final point that I should like to make will be a familiar one. I am particularly concerned that the noble Lord's amendment would have an impact on existing tenancies. One cannot say with certainty that the consequences would tend to work more often to the advantage of landlords or of tenants, but one effect would be clear: it would undermine the industry's confidence that any holdings legislation would be free from the risk of subsequent retrospective amendment. That is why the Government—with the industry's support—stand by their commitment not to amend substantively the existing holdings legislation.

I am sorry that for those reasons I cannot even offer to come forward with our own wording for a government amendment. I am afraid I can only invite the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to reflect on what I have said, and to withdraw his amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, that answer was not wholly unexpected. The Minister refused to comment on the merits of the amendment at Report stage. He began his reply today by saying that he was refusing to comment, and then he proceeded to comment and tell me what was wrong with it.

We have made the point. The fact that nobody referred to it during the past three or four years does not mean that it is not a good point. I am pleased that we found a new point that the industry group somehow missed in its comprehensive review. I did not feel that the issue concerned arbitration. I understood it to be related to the setting of the time clock on the rent reviews. The comment in relation to retrospective legislation is a thin one. I have been involved with a number of Bills in this House concerning agriculture, social security and health. It is always the case, if the Long Title allows and there is an anomaly in a previous Act, that the opportunity is taken to put it right. I do not believe therefore that that is a major argument against the amendment.

It is clear that we are not going to change the mind of the Government. But I am glad to have brought to the attention of the House this extraordinary new doctrine that, even when there are merits in a proposed change, the Government will refuse to acknowledge them because of the doctrine they adopt of not looking back at previous Acts of Parliament which, though they were thought to be perfectly drafted at the time, are often found to contain anomalies. This was a chance to put a small anomaly right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36 [Interpretation]:

Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 9: Page 18, line 12, after second ("a") insert ("written").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 was tabled to give the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the opportunity of returning to a subject which we discussed at Report stage and which he promised to look at again in the light of what was said at that time.

Clause 36 (3) provides that, A tenancy granted pursuant to a contact shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to have been granted when the contract was entered into". Our advice is that, if there was a contract before 1st September 1995 for a tenancy which is granted after that date, the tenancy will be governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and will not be a farm business tenancy.

Contracts for leases of three years or under do not need to be in writing—Section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. It may therefore be that a landlord or tenant could find that they enter into a contract without being aware that they had done so or of the consequences. If the contract is in writing, then the parties will probably have applied their minds to what they were doing and therefore the accident would not happen. If they did not, there will be clear evidence that there is a contract and therefore the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will apply.

When that information was given at Report stage, the noble Earl told the House (at col. 924 of Hansard) that he did not wish to set traps in the new legislation and he thought that Clause 1(4), read with Clause 36(3), was satisfactory. However, in view of the unease expressed by myself at that time, the noble Earl said that he was prepared to look again at the matter and if necessary return with a government amendment at a later stage. My purpose therefore in moving Amendment No. 9 is to ask whether, in the week that has elapsed since we last met, the noble Earl has had time to look again and can give the reassurance that we are seeking this afternoon. Failing that, perhaps he will regard it as an ongoing item which will be taken by the Government to another place so that when the matter is raised there at an appropriate stage, either an amendment can be tabled or the necessary reassurance given that the insertion of the word "written", which is the object of Amendment No. 9 to Clause 36(3), is unnecessary. I beg to move.

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will know from our discussion at Report stage that we want to avoid legal traps in the new legislation. Such traps have bedevilled the tenanted sector for far too long. The noble Lord has a serious point which we are studying with care.

We are still considering what amendment might be made to the Bill. Although the noble Lord's concern may be well-founded, I am advised that this particular wording may not do the job required, and that possibly some changes elsewhere may be needed instead. I am sorry that I am therefore not able to add a great deal to what I said last week. However, I hope the noble Lord will accept my further assurance this afternoon that this particular problem is being seriously considered and that this will persuade him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments and for his assurance that Her Majesty's Government are still considering this matter because of its importance. I take his point with regard to the wording as it stands; that it is perhaps not of a nature that will solve a problem if a problem exists. I fully understand also that in the week that has elapsed since we discussed the matter there may not have been time for the legal advice which the noble Earl requires to come to hand and therefore he is not able to say definitively what the Government's position on the amendment would be.

I leave the matter there in the knowledge that the Bill will go to another place. I shall certainly make it my business to ensure that the matter is raised appropriately in another place. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 9.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, remarked at Second Reading, I think with a touch of irony, how pleasant it was to be dealing with a government Bill which was largely popular and agreed by the industry to which it relates. I have to say that from where I stand it makes my task a great deal more congenial, also!

It is also my pleasure very genuinely to thank the noble Lords opposite—particularly the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher—for the amicable and constructive spirit in which this Bill was considered. If I may go so far as imputing motives to the noble Lords, I hope it is because they recognise that with this Bill we genuinely want to take real steps to revive the agricultural tenanted sector. The reason that I have had to resist certain amendments which they proposed is that we felt that they would detract from that overriding objective. Nonetheless, I am pleased to have been able to accept a number of amendments that they proposed, particularly the ones which had the support of the industry group. And throughout our debates I tried hard, though I am not certain that I succeeded, to avoid using the word "otiose" when resisting amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.

I should also like to thank the many noble Lords from all sides of the House who have contributed to our debates during the Bill's successive stages. As the House will understand, there are too many names to mention them individually, but if I were to single out one name it would be that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley whose knowledge and persuasiveness have, as ever, been of great value. I hope that he and all of your Lordships will agree with me that, in keeping with the best traditions of this House, the Bill will be leaving for consideration in another place in even better form than that in which it arrived.

I should now like to pick up two or three themes that have emerged during your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. First, noble Lords opposite have commented several times on the fact that the Bill will permit much greater diversification away from primary agricultural use on a holding. Indeed, at Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I believe, referred to this as extraordinary. The fact is that diversification is an increasing feature of the rural economy but, whereas under the present law it is necessary for the parties to set up a separate commercial tenancy covering the non-agricultural enterprises, the benefit of the Bill is that it will allow scope for such enterprises to flourish within a single farm business tenancy. We see nothing extraordinary about that; indeed, it is one of the features of the Bill that the tenant organisations most strongly support.

Secondly, we have heard a lot about the perils of unwritten agreements. I have made clear in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that such oral agreements are only valid for tenancies not exceeding three years' duration and for periodic tenancies. If we were to exclude these tenancies from the scope of the legislation, we would leave the parties in a state of great legal uncertainty. At the same time, we might provide a method for unscrupulous landlords to seek to avoid the provisions of the Bill by letting exclusively on oral agreements. We therefore decided to set a framework which accommodates oral agreements whilst in no way wishing to encourage the use of such agreements.

Thirdly, a recurring topic has been a concern expressed by my noble friends as well as by noble Lords opposite, about the hazards of leaving many matters to be settled between the parties in their tenancy agreement. I plead guilty to this charge. In my defence, I quote George Bernard Shaw, who said: Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. In this area we believe freedom is essential. Landowners and farmers need to be free to negotiate agreements to suit their own circumstances, within a legal framework that provides safeguards for their basic rights. I am sure that it is true that many people may be apprehensive about this. However, the main industry organisations realise that the time has come when agriculture needs the extra freedom that other business sectors enjoy, and believe that their members are ready to accept the extra responsibility that goes with it. That is where the guidance currently being prepared by the RICS in consultation with others, will, I hope, prove helpful to those facing this new responsibility.

I do not believe that this Bill could be described as a "courts' charter", as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would have it. In essence, the parties will need to adhere to the tenancy agreement that they have signed; and where there is a dispute, the matter can be referred to arbitration. But I believe that because the Bill does not seek to deal with every detailed aspect of the landlord-tenant relationship, there will be correspondingly less scope for disputes to arise.

Most of all, our hope, as I said earlier, is that the Bill will convince landlords that a new climate has dawned which is favourable towards letting of land, and that new entrants will benefit accordingly. The latest CAAV annual survey which was published last week reaffirms once again how desperately this reform is needed. It showed a further decline in letting of full tenancies and a further increase in short-term arrangements. Excluding succession tenancies, these short-term lettings now outnumber lettings on full tenancies by a ratio of more than 5:1.

I hope that when the Bill comes to be considered in another place the party opposite will show awareness of both the substance and the spirit of the debates that we have had in your Lordships' House. And I hope that they will feel able to be equally constructive in order to help us to achieve that underlying objective. It is clear, for example, that a statutory minimum term would nullify the beneficial effect of the Bill. That is why none of the main industry organisations apart from the Farmers Union of Wales support that proposition. But another equally important aspect is that landowners should not have to fear future retrospective legislation. Just as we have resisted amending the 1986 Act with retrospective effect, I would call upon the party opposite to pledge not to introduce any future legislation on this subject with retrospective effect. In my view, such a pledge would be the single biggest contribution that they could make to allow tenants to derive full benefit from this Bill.

I have one very important point to make in conclusion. At Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the fiscal disincentive to the letting of land. If I recall rightly, he expressed the view that the decline in the number of farms available to let had more to do with taxation than with the present legislation. He implied that removing this disincentive would do more for the tenanted sector than would this Bill. I did not agree with that view, but I am delighted by the fact that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to announce last Friday that the 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax which applies to owner-occupied agricultural land is to be extended to the agricultural value of land comprised in new tenancies that are granted on or after 1st September 1995. An amendment to the Finance Bill is expected to be tabled shortly. Without doubt this will enhance still further the major beneficial effect that this Bill will have on the letting of land once it comes into force. By making this change the Government have underlined their commitment to the agricultural tenanted sector. This is excellent news which I hope will be greatly welcomed on all sides of your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Howe.)

4.45 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I would like to begin, as always, by thanking the Minister for handling this Bill with his usual courtesy. That is not just a form of words. It is a technical Bill, and he has handled his brief with his usual lucidity. I believe that we have all enjoyed the work that we have done on the Bill. I am also particularly grateful to him and his officials for the meetings which I have had, together with my noble friend Lord Gallacher, outside the House to discuss the Bill at its various stages. It has been extremely helpful to us on this side of the House.

In particular, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Gallacher who has shared the burden with me on the Front Bench. He has his own very effective approach in the handling of a Bill. It has certainly worked because I believe that all the amendments which have been accepted by the Government, at least in principle, were moved by my noble friend. Noble Lords will be aware that on the opposition Benches we do not have the resources which are available to the Government. Therefore, I have to say a particular thank you to our researcher, Mrs. Clare Cozens, who has been of enormous help to us in preparing for the various stages of the Bill.

I must also say a word about TRIG, the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers' Association and the Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs. I believe that they can be fairly described as the corporate midwives of the Bill. This is the first occasion on which I have been involved with a Bill where the Minister needed a nod from below the Bar as well as the usual briefing from the officials in the Box. I hope that this is a new doctrine where the Government listen to the views of industry. I shall not use the word "slavishly"—but certainly they listened on almost every occasion they were called in aid. I hope that that will now extend to all the other policies which the Government intend to introduce. The privatisation of the railways springs to mind. I hope that they will listen to what people in the industry say and will follow the excellent example of the department of agriculture and apply the doctrine to all their other policies.

Obviously, the Tenancy Reform Industry Group has worked extremely hard. There are some in the industry—and I am with them—who feel that some may have striven a mite too hard to go along with the Government's deregulatory and free market enthusiasm. They would be churlish not to note that the Country Landowners' Association, I am sure, is pretty pleased with the outcome of the Bill.

I think that we can all agree on one thing: it is absolutely imperative that when the Bill becomes law, all parties (and particularly tenants) must take proper advice before entering into farm business tenancies. I entirely accept what the noble Earl said, and that it is up to the landlord and tenant to reach an agreement, but I am convinced—I know that the Government will agree—that the guidance notes which are to be prepared by the RICS and discussed with the industry will be of vital importance. The Government have not taken on the responsibility of giving them any form of statutory power, as we asked them to do, but we know that the RICS and other groups will work very hard on this matter. That is important if the Bill is not to turn into a lawyer's paradise. I do not think that it will. Indeed, there is a good hope that it will not if all of us in the industry can get the message across that the guidance notes are extremely important. This is a whole new area. Both landlords and tenants must take advice, look at the guidance, and make sure that they are forewarned, and can thus avoid, the pitfalls that still exist, some of which we have touched on in our discussions.

The Minister mentioned the news over the weekend about relief from inheritance tax. I refer to what I said at previous stages about the effects of such taxation; but, as I have been anxious to point out, it is the way in which it is done that is so important. I should have been surprised if the Minister had not mentioned the new proposal to give 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax for agreements reached after 1st September. Obviously, we shall have to see details of the amendments to the Finance Bill. I have seen only the press releases; but my first reaction—I stress that it is only a first reaction—is that the Government are showing a very odd sense of priorities. We have heard a great deal about the pressures on public expenditure. We know that local authorities are having to slash their community care budgets. We know that all the tax increases that the Government have introduced are equivalent to 7p on the basic rate, yet it seems that the Government can still find the wherewithal to give substantial tax relief to a not particularly impecunious section of the community.

As I have said, it is the way in which it is done that is so important. As I understand it, there will be relief of 100 per cent. on all let agricultural land on agreements after 1st September 1995. That means all those agreements and existing reliefs on owner-occupied land. The danger is that agricultural land could become a tax haven. We shall have to look very hard at the proposal. I am sure that when that amendment to the Finance Bill is tabled in another place, my colleagues there will be anxious to return to the point that we may be turning agricultural land into a tax haven. We must consider the effect of that on the price of land as well as all the other factors that will flow from it. When we form the Government, I am sure that my colleagues at the Treasury will wish to look at that very hard.

To repeat what I said on Second Reading: major agricultural tenancy Bills come but rarely. We have made no secret of the fact that we should have preferred a rather different Bill with more security for the tenant; but saying that does not in any way reflect on the Minister and the way in which he has handled the Bill. We shall now await with interest the changes to the Bill that may be made in another place. There will be several and although they are largely technical, they are nevertheless important and need to be carried forward to be dealt with there.

We must all hope that once the Bill becomes law, it will achieve the Government's objective, which we all share, which is to increase the supply of agricultural tenancies, particularly to new entrants to the industry.

Lord Geraint

My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has conducted the Bill through the House. There is no doubt in my mind that the noble Earl knows his subject inside out. I should like to thank him for being a very good listener and for being very sympathetic to our views.

Over the years, I have had the privilege of considering the 1976 Act (when I was a Member of the other place) as well as the Act that was passed in the 1980s. Many mistakes were made in the 1970s and 1980s, but here we are in the 1990s. Although I voted differently in the 1970s and 1980s, I have always held the view that an agricultural tenancy is a matter between two people, the landlord and the tenant, and that if we have good legislation which looks after the interests of both parties, people in the countryside will survive.

Let us hope that the passage of the Bill through another place will ensure that more land is available on the market in September for tenant farmers. I make a special plea to the landlords of this country to try to let more land to young farmers who want an opportunity to start on the farming ladder.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those that have been paid to my noble friend Lord Howe on his lucidity and command of the Bill. It is a very complicated Bill and he has shown great clarity and courtesy in handling it as well as giving us all a real sense that he has listened to our comments. One of the most encouraging aspects of the passage of the Bill through the House is that we have improved it.

My noble friend the Minister has been up against some doughty agriculturalists, including my noble friend Lord Stanley and the two noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Carter. As my noble friend said, both have been courteous but are very much in command of their subjects.

I should like to add my congratulations to the industry. It has taken something like four years to get this agreement among the industry. The committee must have shown great wisdom and patience in meeting the arguments of all the conflicting interests. I hope that that will prove a great benefit to agriculture.

Twenty years ago, the Northfield Committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, served, stated the urgent need to free farming. This is the first time that we have done that. As I have said, it has taken 20 years to achieve and needs great support. As a result of this legislation, the somewhat dubious partnerships and the one to two-year agricultural leases which were outside the scope of the Agricultural Holdings Act will now be gone.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors still has a very important role to play. My noble friend has shown that he has great confidence in its ability. I know that the committee that was set up some months ago is working hard. I am sure that it will rise to the responsibility and give the industry proper advice.

I am delighted about the relief that was announced last Friday. I am somewhat surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggesting that agricultural land might become a tax haven. I had thought that that is what he suggested on Second Reading. I am slightly sad that the provision will not apply to all tenanted land. Finally, I wish the Bill success and a fair wind in another place.

Earl Howe

My Lords, perhaps I may reply briefly. I am most grateful for your Lordships' kind words about the Bill and my part in its passage through this House. As I said earlier, dealing with the Bill has been more of a pleasure than a duty for me. The Bill is both wanted and needed by the agricultural industry and I very much hope that it will receive a speedy passage in another place.

I have noted the strong welcome that has been given by several noble Lords to the announcement about inheritance tax. I am delighted that we have been able to make that change now because it will enhance the effect of the Bill and, I hope, render it even more successful. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that agricultural land might be in danger of becoming a tax haven. However, the intention is that the landowner will need to have owned the land for seven years before the relief that has been proposed by my right honourable friend would apply, so I believe that the noble Lord's fear is unfounded.

This is an important and useful Bill. I am grateful to noble Lords for the spirit in which they have debated it and helped us to improve it in certain ways. I invite the House to pass the Bill.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.