---

Column 264

coming forward. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was right: we may find ourselves in no man's land--I am sorry to use the word "land"--where people go on to the land without the necessary back-up of those provisions. Therefore, I again request the Minister please to bring as much influence as he can to bear on that point. The change in inheritance tax has been mentioned. That measure is a double- edged sword. If the big investors move in, land values will escalate, which cannot be good for farming. With regard to the retirement scheme for farmers, European Union moneys are available, so why do we not apply for them?

I listened carefully to the debate about monitoring. It is 100 per cent. vital to many communities that we monitor the Bill. In my constituency, one family in every five relies wholly or in part on agriculture. That is how important the Bill is to me, as it is to many other hon. Members on both sides of the House.

I said on Second Reading that the Bill was a curate's egg, that it needed strengthening and bettering in many regards, but I am afraid that in many respects that has not happened. However, I do not have a monopoly on the future. I sincerely hope that the Government are right, and if they are, I hope that I shall have the good grace to admit it in due course.

I had misgivings, and I still have those misgivings. Monitoring the situation and making available parliamentary time if necessary are musts. I appreciate that the Government have in all sincerity tried to address the problem. I hope that they have been successful, but I still have grave doubts about it.

6.41 pm

Mr. Tyler: I have only one major quibble with the way in which the Minister introduced the Third Reading, and that is that he implied that his was the parentage of the Bill. If the Child Support Agency was to look at it more carefully, it would say that he might be the adoptive or the foster parent, but the real parentage was that of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group.

We should all pay tribute to the way in which the industry came together, without which the legislation would have been impossible. There was no sign of it coming forward from the Ministry until the Tenant Farmers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the young farmers got together. That is a tribute to the work they have done.

I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for persuading the Chancellor to make the important change in inheritance tax, but I remind him, as I reminded the House on Second Reading, that three years ago his colleagues on the Finance Bill Committee voted down just such a reform when I put it to that Committee. We must make it clear that that is not a concession; it is to try to introduce the end of some discrimination in tax. That is why hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is long overdue.

There seems to be some consensus now in the House that the present situation with regard to tenancy is unsatisfactory. Even the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said that the Bill would make things less worse. If all the legislation that came before us in the House and emerged into the open air made things less worse, we would all be much happier than we sometimes are at the standard and quality of legislation that is passed.

---

Column 265

Earlier, the hon. Member for Stroud said that it was his objective to ensure that the purpose of legislation such as this was to ensure that there were freely negotiated contracts. It seemed from what the Minister said in introducing this debate that he concurred. I suggest that freely negotiated contracts are not themselves the end; they are the means to an end. The ends upon which we should surely all be agreed are threefold.

First, there should be ready access for new entrants. I think that that is agreed throughout the House. Secondly, we should seek wider involvement in agriculture generally. It filled with me with dismay to hear the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) expecting a greater involvement of the large City institutions in the ownership of land. That is not the purpose of this legislation. Surely what we should be seeking is the greater involvement of a number of smaller enterprises, giving them more opportunity. The short-termism of the City institutions is not on all fours with the long-termism of stewardship to which the hon. Member referred.

Thirdly, we want to try to give wider opportunities to those who are making a success of agriculture, but on a small scale. When they seek to expand those opportunities, we want to ensure that more land is available.

It follows from all this that our previous discussion this evening about monitoring the success of the new tenancy arrangements, the new farm business tenancies, will be extremely important. We all take seriously what the Minister said in answer to the concerns expressed on both sides of the House.

It also follows that we need a period of stability to build up the confidence to enable those changes to take place. Therefore, I too welcome the declaration from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that the Opposition will not be seeking to introduce any retrospection if and when they are in a position to review the legislation.

I imagine that it is unlikely that any incoming Government, of whatever colour, or of multi-coloured, would seek to undo this legislation in a relatively short time, unless it had clearly gone wrong. I hope that even the present occupants of the Treasury Bench would accept that, if things have clearly gone wrong, we shall all have to return to the matter within a short period.

I do not have time to go into any great detail, but there is one nagging worry that I think hon. Members on both sides still have, and that concerns the timetable for the preparation and publication of the RICS guidelines. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that those are brought forward as speedily as possible, even if they are not in their final form, for consultation and fine tuning.

Subject only to that particular concern, I welcome the legislation, and I hope for all our sakes that we will not have to return to the issue in the near future.

6.46 pm

Mr. Martyn Jones: I thank the Minister for handling the Bill with his usual courtesy. He has been wise in listening to the industry throughout its stages. Thanks must also be given to the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, the CLA, the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, which have all worked extremely hard on the Bill during its passage here and in the

---

Column 266

other place. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Carter said that he believed that they could fairly be described as the corporate midwives of the Bill.

However, the Opposition must express some concern about the amount of horse trading that has occurred behind closed doors to arrive at the industry agreement so often referred to by the Government. The Bill addresses a serious problem in the United Kingdom. The decline in the numbers of people farming is a worrying trend. Farming is still the backbone of the rural economy in most parts of the United Kingdom--to save Britain's rural communities from terminal decline, we need a vital and energetic farming industry. To do that, we need urgently to increase the number of new entrants, and to decrease the average age of farmers, something which hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed.

We all agree that, to increase the number of new entrants into farming, we must increase the letting of land. The Government, with the Bill, appear to believe that the only way to do that is to remove the security of tenure of agricultural tenancies.

How can we believe that the Government are sincere about encouraging more young farmers to enter farming, when all they have done is take from the people for whom they are supposedly providing? All they have given young farmers is less security, less time to obtain a return on their investments, and less of an incentive for banks to lend them the original investment in the first place. We have been told that banks will be just as willing to lend money on even short-term tenancies, as the Bill provides a range of compensation measures. Those compensation measures will allow the farmer to regain his money from landlord-approved improvements, and some tenant right aspects. But have the Government heard that banks do not just want their original investment back--they actually charge something called interest? How is a small tenant farmer supposed to pay such sums back with only a two to three-year tenancy? The Government have been nothing if not constant in doing everything in their power to wreck any chance of growth in the British dairy industry. Their policy on milk quotas, the uncertainty in milk marketing, and now the Bill, all make it impossible for a new entrant to dairy farming. On Third Reading in the other place and on Report here, we have seen Government hostility to protection of milk quotas for tenant farmers.

This is not a Bill for new entrants on small tenant farms. This is a Bill for big farmers to get bigger. As has been said, it will increase the ownership of land by companies with no interest in the rural community or the environment, but a single interest in increasing profits.

We may have to consider the sector that we are discussing again when we are in government. It is encouraging that Conservative Members show so much concern about that possibility, but methinks they do protest too much: if people in the industry were not sure that we would form the next Government, they would not be concerned about our views on the Bill. As I have said, we may have to consider the sector again, but to encourage new entrants we shall not legislate retrospectively.

The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) expressed sadness about the Opposition's decision to vote against the Bill. Let me

---

Column 267

make it clear that, although we agree with the Bill's stated aims, we do not believe that it provides the way forward. It will not work. We consider ours a legitimate position, and we shall ask the House to reject the Bill for that reason alone.

6.50 pm

Mr. Jack: The Opposition have given a typically negative response to an enormously positive piece of legislation. Conservative Members have a right to know their attitude, and they have told us what it is--in uncompromising terms that will be noted not just in the House but in the world outside.

I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) for his kind words about the courtesies that were extended throughout the Committee stage. I think that there was a genuine wish for those proceedings to be conducted properly, and I thank the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. At times, the discussion was learned, because I had experts behind me. I would not say that I had too many in front of me, but they made their contributions to the smooth passage of the Bill and the proper probing of areas that people outside the House wished to be raised within it.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West spoke briefly about banks. It is remarkable--especially in view of the amendments relating to mortgages that have been moved this evening--that the banks have shown increasing enthusiasm for the measure. They see opportunities to assist agriculture and to make more land available. I rebut the hon. Gentleman's criticism of their attitudes.

The positive side of the Bill was highlighted by my hon. Friend--my hon. and learned Friend, indeed; I congratulate him--the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). He praised the legislation, neatly--and forensically-- exposing the Opposition's failure to understand our analysis of why it will succeed.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on the positive and assiduous way in which he suggested amendments, probed, put pressure on the Government in the right place, and enabled us to present useful measures today. He said that he considered the proposed length of tenancies reasonable, and I agree: it is in the interests of landlords to find good-quality tenants in whom they can have long-term confidence. That is the basis of the Bill. The Opposition fail to understand that it is based on mutuality--on landlord and tenant acting together for a common purpose. Both landlord and tenant will get a good deal, and there will be security to protect their respective interests. My hon. Friend rightly drew our attention to the importance of innovation in both human and monetary terms. In Committee, he also drew our attention to matters connected with privity. We shall have an opportunity to explore such matters further when we debate the Second Reading of the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) later this month. My hon. Friend will know of the warm way in which the consultation document has dealt with the

---

Column 268

issues that he presented to the Committee so carefully, and he can take pride in the fact that the matter is to be addressed by the House.

The hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Clwyd, South-West entertained us with their views on the Bill. I have already dealt with the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West. The hon. Member for North Cornwall rightly praised the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, but left what he described as a "nagging doubt" about his party's attitude. He spoke of a need for extra measures to encourage more lettings, but--as always happens with Liberals--did not let us into the secrets. He will be probed in due course. I welcome his comments about monitoring, however.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) drew our attention to the importance of the RICS guidelines. I hope that I can make it clear that, while I cannot make clear statements on behalf of the RICS, I accept the need for an early publication of the document: people want to see the basis of the advice, and I shall convey the message to the RICS. We wrote to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 31 May 1994 about Tir Cymen. If points in my letter still require attention, I shall be delighted to deal with them in further correspondence with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Llwyd rose --

Mr. Jack: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. There is not much time left, and I want to deal with some of the other points that have been made.

The hon. Gentleman expressed misgivings about the length of tenancies, and about the environment. I refer him to an excellent article by Marie Skinner in Farmers Weekly , to which I referred in Committee. Marie Skinner said that there was no direct relationship between the length of a tenancy and the quality of farming. I think that, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the terms of the type of agreement that can be reached between landlord and tenant, he will see that some of those environmental matters can be properly agreed. As usual, the hon. Member for Hemsworth took up points of detail. Let me pick up a failing that the hon. Gentleman revealed. He persisted in describing my right hon. Friend the Minister as "the Secretary of State"; let me refer him to section 1 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act 1919, which he will find singularly good reading. It gives the history of why we have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Let me also point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was David Archer who wanted to become a tenant of the adjoining estate land, and Simon Pemberton who denied him that right. I, too, am an "Archers" fan.

Finally, let me deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). This week, The Daily Telegraph , of all newspapers, told us:

"Labour seeks to capture `Tory shires'".

I read on with keen interest. The report said:

"Labour launched a new attempt to capture the `Tory shires' yesterday with plans to boost wages, business investment" and

"jobs."

---

Column 269

The Labour rural millennium beckoned; but only new Labour could, with that in mind, then decide to vote against the very Bill that adds a great new dynamic to the rural economy.

It is the farm business tenancy that gives the real opportunity for innovation, initiative and youth, and allows the farm to be a centre for new business in a rural economy. It is what will enable the Tory party to sustain its support for that rural economy.

The hon. Gentleman talked of security. He ought to read the Bill carefully. The termination of tenancies, rent reviews and compensation are all dealt with in exact terms. There is no doubt that there is security of tenure for anyone entering a farm business tenancy. Without this reform, we should have only an endless succession of Gladstone v. Bower short-term tenancies.

This is a revoloutionary piece of legislation, which will ensure new lifeblood in rural England and in agriculture. I commend it to the House.

Question put , That the Bill be now read the Third time:-- The House divided : Ayes 238, Noes 181.

Division No. 129] [6.58 pm

AYES

---

Column 269

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Amess, David

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Ashby, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Bates, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Beggs, Roy

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Beresford, Sir Paul

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Booth, Hartley

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Bowis, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Brandreth, Gyles

Brazier, Julian

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Browning, Mrs Angela

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butler, Peter

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Clappison, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coe, Sebastian

Congdon, David

---

Column 269

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Durant, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Elletson, Harold

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Evennett, David

Faber, David

Fabricant, Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Forman, Nigel

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Foster, Don (Bath)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

French, Douglas

Fry, Sir Peter

Gale, Roger

Gardiner, Sir George

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Garnier, Edward

Gillan, Cheryl

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Hague, William

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

---