Agriculture Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on this amendment. It is encouraging that in the briefing note the Minister gave all of us there is a paragraph on the Government’s agriculture bounce-back plan, arising out of the impact of Covid-19. I am conscious that the Government are onside, but the question is whether this should be in the Bill, as the noble Lord described.

I share that I am closely involved with Sri Lanka, as many noble Lords will know. I remember seeing the devastation there on Boxing Day 2004. My wife and I went out there a few days later to help. If you happened to be in the spice trade, it was totally wiped out by two waves. These things do happen.

I also declare an interest in the Cayman Islands. I have family there. Those islands were almost wiped out some 20-odd years ago. In the last season Hurricane Irma did horrendous damage. These are part climate change, part other events.

I add to that list that I worked in India, in Calcutta, for the Reckitt & Colman group when the Indians invaded the tea estates. That hit the tea market something rotten that year—from memory it was 1962. These strange events do happen.

We are used to financial crashes and I think that seed health and other sorts of areas are covered. Nevertheless, today, in the world we are in now, I believe we need to have something in the Bill. It does not proscribe the Government too much. It is just a very sensible precaution relating to climate change and all the other challenges we face.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests, which I declared on previous occasions. I will make one small flanking point to those made already.

As I explained to the House on Tuesday, you can see from farming accounts that the vast bulk of a farm business’s income is from traditional agriculture. They are businesses that have a relatively high turnover and low margins. Against that background, we have been talking a lot about various environmental changes that we want to see in the country, which in turn will be paid for by the public money for public goods formula.

However, against the whole-farm income of the vast majority of farms in this country, that amount of money will still almost certainly be relatively small. If a farm business faces a complete crash in its market—I speak as someone who has an animal livestock business that was wiped out in the foot and mouth outbreak—it faces an existential threat. When faced with an existential threat, you simply do everything you can to save that business. In reality, that means that, whatever the rules about how public money is paid for carrying out environment changes of one sort or another, it will simply be stopped and it will have to be sorted out later.

Rather the same problem faces Lake District farmers, where I am chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, with the Covid outbreak, which has killed off much of the tourist trade, although it is picking up now. It had a pretty devastating effect on farm incomes in a form of agriculture where the margins from traditional husbandry are very low and the farm business’s survival depends on generating tourist revenues.

I argue that the effect of market disruption, quite apart from the impact it might have on any particular farm business, poses a very serious threat to a lot of the entirely good propositions for environmental change and improvement inherent in the debate we are having on the Bill. Therefore, the environmental aspects of what we are discussing are a genuine potential candidate for collateral damage from market collapse. As such, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others have given, it is appropriate that these provisions should be in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to participate in the debate on this group of amendments. Noble Lords will know of my interest in my family business, which is on the register.

I speak as someone privileged with “boys’ land”—they say this of the silts around the Wash. This land is ideal for arable farming, and we grow a diverse range of crops, from bulbs, in which we are prominent, to cauliflowers and potatoes. My neighbours are engaged in a great variety of different cropping, and this diversity —together with the marketing and distribution facilities —has encouraged field-scale horticulture similar to that in the Netherlands. It has also led to large-scale investment in protected cropping indoors and not exclusively under glass. I admit that this experience colours my thinking as to how we can raise productivity and harness modern techniques of scientific agriculture. It also colours my thinking about the role that the occupation and use of land plays in allowing a lively and prosperous industry.

I spoke in Committee on amendments covering tenancy issues and, in particular, about the value of cropping licences. I explained the background to my conviction that a dynamic farming and growing industry depends on having a lively market for land occupation to make this land readily available to up-and-coming farmers and growers. Schedule 3 is the product of the dialogue between the Government and the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, where different parties to this issue are seeking to find consensus on landholding issues.

Consensus must be the right way to seek to change something as complex as this. I might add that it seems to me that this whole Bill is about establishing a consensus on a path for agriculture into the future. It is with this in mind that I cannot support the wish of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to remove Clause 34—and, with it, Schedule 3—of this Bill. I believe that Schedule 3, which his amendments seek to remove, delivers on the Government’s consultations in England and Wales and, indeed, on many of the recommendations from TRIG.

The Bill is not a root-and-branch reform of tenancy legislation. It is not intended to be. Listening to this debate, I am very much aware that many noble Lords are impatient for more changes. However, these modest key and agreed changes, which form Schedule 3, will help to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation and, more importantly, play a part in giving this key industry the flexibility to adapt to change, and this is why they should remain in this Bill.

Having said that, I hope there can be consensus on further issues that the UK and Welsh Governments will wish to discuss with TRIG to see what other actions will lead to a thriving tenancy sector. In turn, this will require further consideration by Parliament and legislation. However, as it is, Schedule 3 makes considerable changes now, and they should be supported.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, although I declared my agricultural interests earlier, I should specifically declare that I am, and have been, a landlord, as a freeholder and as a trustee of let agricultural land, as well as having been a tenant, both of family land and, until recently, some land belonging to a third party. What I found interesting and remarkable about the speeches on the amendment is that, while a number of speakers have taken varying stances, they almost all seem to be coming from the same general place on the map—as I do and hope will become apparent.

It is helpful when thinking about these matters to start from the original economic rationale for the landlord and tenant system. Landlords provided fixed equipment and the tenant the working capital. The parties negotiated around that and the farm business was put together as what might be described as a form of joint venture. The reality in days gone by was that the landlord’s negotiating power was frequently stronger than that of the tenant. This point was graphically drawn to the attention of the House by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn in his final speech on the Bill reorganising the composition of this House, some 15 or so years ago, in what I consider to be the finest speech that I have heard in this Chamber. The imbalance over the years has led to a series of specific pieces of legislation to introduce rules for fair trading—something that we have just been considering in a different context—into this marketplace. That is as it should be.

Too often, the debate is conducted in black and white terms, when it is in reality shades of grey. Landlords range from hard-nosed financial institutions and Dukes to widows, orphans and charities—for example, the National Trust, which interestingly is not always popular among its own tenants. Tenants range from huge farming companies to smallholders. Their circumstances are wide-ranging. There are good and bad landlords, and tenants who are exemplary farmers and some who are chancers and incompetents. However, both sides, whatever characteristics they have, ought in a free society to be treated even-handedly within the legal framework surrounding whatever arrangement they wish to put in place. While this may, to a degree, depend upon one’s perspective, the landlord is not, in granting a lease, conveying away his freehold or emotional and other commitments to the land. It is not the re-creation of some form of copyhold system.

A tenant, particularly when he also obtains a farmhouse, is acquiring more than a mere business asset but a home, and making a considerable investment in someone else’s property. This must not be forgotten. Questions around bare land may be different. On top of that, both parties may be investing substantial sums of money, and all this must be taken into account. There is a perhaps an understandable tendency, at least superficially, to treat tenants as good and landlords as bad. That is not, by any means, universally the case. I speak from first-hand experience on which it is unnecessary to elaborate further here.

The conclusion that I have come to when thinking about these matters over the years is that perhaps the best way to make a mess of the landlord and tenant system is to rewrite it on the hoof on the Floor of Parliament in an ad hoc manner. Rather, as a number of speakers have said, those in the industry should, from time to time, review the matters to find a middle way that, as far as possible, represents a compromise acceptable to all those involved. That will need to be led by some entity or organisation like the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, TRIG. Failure to do that will not only wreck a system that must adapt anyway to completely new circumstances as the output of farming changes but, as many speakers have said, but properly ensure fairness on all sides. It is certain that if changes are made in an ad hoc, incremental way, real injustice in all kinds of unexpected places is likely to result. I am old-fashioned enough to think that it is a matter that Parliament should do its best to avoid.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkeharle, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, again I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and thank her for having introduced this amendment. The amendment speaks for itself and she spoke to it well. In light of what happened on the previous amendment, I am sure we will get reassuring words from the Minister asking us to take them to heart and not press the amendment. It would be more convincing if a declaration of that kind, which I know he makes in good faith, were backed up with some specific indication in terms of timing—what will this mean and how speedily do the Government intend to act.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as a number of noble Lords may know, I am a livestock farmer, and if you are a livestock farmer you have to try to ensure that the animals in your care have the highest levels of welfare. It seems to me that that is axiomatic, and I believe that, as a general proposition, it is incumbent on all us to treat animals of all kinds properly, whether farmed animals, domestic pets or whatever other category they may fall into. My concerns about the previous three amendments are that, quite honestly, they are very blunt instruments and I could not support them in the form they were drafted, for the kinds of reasons that were made clear by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the Minister.

I remember many years ago there was discussion, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, about whether it was appropriate to introduce the concept of sentience into the legislative codes of the Union in order to underpin and safeguard the position of animals. At that time, I am prepared to admit that I was unsure about that, but since then, I am beginning to think that I was wrong. I do not believe that animals have rights as such, certainly not in the sense that we have human rights, but I do think, as I have explained on previous occasions, that humans have responsibilities—indeed, they should be legal obligations —towards animals and that these should be enforced. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that something along the lines that we are discussing tonight, and was debated inter alia in the general election campaign, is appropriate, because it means that we can deal with these issues in a much more targeted and specific manner. I think that this would be much more beneficial, both for the society as a whole and for animals, than just simple, very broad, blanket statements, which is the approach that some people have adopted.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on Amendment 74 be adjourned.