Agriculture Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

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

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s Amendment 52 and my noble friend Lord Dundee’s Amendment 55 concerning

“supply sources for livestock feeds as an input to food production and the resilience of the feed supply chain.”

Further to my Amendment 12, which did not find favour with the House, I believe the issue of food security is vital, having highlighted the UK’s lack of self-sufficiency in fruit, vegetables and potatoes in that amendment as well as the figure of 30% of our food coming from the EU.

Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 50 to make reporting at least every three years, rather than every five. But, with the transition phase now ending and a volatile food supply possible if there is no trade deal with the EU, I believe that a report on food security every three years is still too limited, particularly when we are having continual cases of extreme weather and perhaps future virus outbreaks. I hope that in Amendment 51 this will be covered as a case for further reports more than once every three years.

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

My Lords, my interests in this Bill are published in the register. This has been a good debate. I wish to add my voice to those of other noble Lords in support of the Minister’s proposed amendments to Clause 17, which recognise the strength of noble Lords’ feelings, expressed particularly in Committee. That is why the Government have committed to publish the first report on food security before both Houses rise for the Christmas Recess next year, with successive reports in future every three years.

The first report will include the impact of the current coronavirus pandemic on food supply, which will be a critical aspect of it. It will give a particular and important emphasis to the report. As noble Lords will be aware, there is a wide range of statistical data on food supply and consequent security that is already made available annually. However, the whole point of the exercise is to evaluate the longer-term trends in these reports and recognise those in the sound compromise of a three-year cycle.

I may seem like a crowd cheerer for the Minister, but I believe that my noble friend should be thanked and congratulated on reading the mood of the House accurately and acting on it.

[The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 51, in which I join the Government. It was an amendment I proposed in Committee, so I thank the Minister and Government for agreeing to it. I very much appreciate the reaching of a consensus on this point.

I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Farming is, obviously, key, and its main focus is the provision of food. It is important that the House has reached consensus on this point. I do not agree with the point made that we need a more regular food security report; it is proposed that it should be annual. An annual report will result merely in a cut and paste of data and little consideration. The three-year cycle is key, because you can pick up trends and some novel work can be put into the process between or during each reporting cycle.

Finally, with respect to food security, I caution that we should not merely focus on the volume of food available. High-volume, low-cost and low-quality food is exactly what we do not want; obviously, we want sufficient volumes of food, but it needs to be food of a quality that will keep this nation healthy. We have all seen over the past six months how important good health and good diet are to the nation’s ability to deal with this terrible coronavirus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, together with my membership of the National Farmers Union and the CLA.

I sympathise with, but do not support, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in his amendments which would remove both Clause 34 and Schedule 3 from the Bill. Although, in an ideal world, the legislation on the reform of tenancies would be in a separate Bill, the clauses cover several matters that have been agreed by the industry through TRIG. So, if necessary, I would reluctantly accept Clause 34 and the schedule. However, what I certainly would not support—and I am afraid I do not support either the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, or the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—are Amendments 85 and 86 regarding succession on the death of an Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenant.

The suggestion that the rights of succession should be given to nephews, nieces, and grandchildren as well as partners and their children is several steps too far and begs the question, “Why stop there?” It would unnecessarily prolong the life of the AHA 1986 tenancies when we have moved on to the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, along with a more modern and flexible regime for letting agricultural land, with the hope of bringing new entrants into the industry.

All these amendments would achieve is benefiting a small group of successors, some of whom might succeed anyway in view of their existing competence and relationship with the landowner, and others who might see it as an easy way to inherit an otherwise unaffordable house and a deceptively attractive way of life. It would also have the serious effect of depriving landlords again of their property rights and access to their own land for another generation.

Land could and should be freed up for a wider pool of occupiers under arrangements and agreements that are more flexible and more market-oriented and might help deliver productivity advantages. New tenancy agreements or share farming, as well as joint ventures, which are more collaborative, work well for new entrants and young farmers.

I am also opposed to Amendment 88 with its proposed changes to the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. All stakeholders in the industry have expressed their agreement that the 1995 Act provides a suitable framework for tenancies in the modern era, with flexibility for the parties to agree the terms that suit their arrangement. This legislation has generated very little need for litigation or dispute resolution, and on previous occasions, all parties were agreed that the Act did not need revision or reform.

The amendment would create a situation where a recently agreed tenancy agreement can be amended in a way not foreseen or agreed to by the parties. If the parties are not able to agree on amending terms—an option that is, of course, open to them—to do this by recourse to an expensive alternative dispute-resolution process will have a very negative impact on that relationship and more widely on the landlord/tenant sector. It will undermine cross industry efforts to encourage parties into longer term agreements and possibly undermine the lettings market altogether. It is a different context to that under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 framework and will be counterproductive to the industry. It is also proposed in the amendment that the detail of how such a dispute would be resolved by secondary legislation be determined at some later point. This is very unsatisfactory.

Issues and factors like these certainly need to be further discussed and considered by TRIG before being legislated upon. The National Farmers’ Union has welcomed the reforms in the Bill but also urges that other reforms, such as landlords’ consent to variation of terms under tenancy Acts, are taken forward through TRIG. Please could the Minister consider separate legislation to cover tenancy reform issues that are not currently in this Bill on the back of the TRIG recommendations?

[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.