Application of Following Sections of Part Ii

Part of Orders of the Day — Clause 17 – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 19 October 1976.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Francis Pym Mr Francis Pym , Cambridgeshire 12:00, 19 October 1976

I quite agree. We also want people in agriculture with other areas of knowledge and expertise. However, by rejecting the amendment the House would be limiting the eligibility stakes to only two years in agriculture.

I disagree with almost everything that was said by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. He indicated that he is not thinking about the well-being of agriculture or its future prosperity. The hon. Gentleman is concerned with Socialism and the other place. He said that it is quite unnecessary for this place to have another opportunity to discuss the mat- ter. He wants a uni-cameral Parliament, no doubt carrying through measures on a majority vote, even if only 38 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Government. That is the sort of Parliament that he would like. The hon. Gentleman's speech excited the PPS—the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott)—to refer to the land as the people's land. That is the good old principle "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too". I do not think that is a good basis if we are contemplating a prosperous and progressive agricultural industry. That should be the only purpose of agricultural legislation.

I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary was entirely genuine when he indicated that the amendment is, in his opinion, a genuine attempt to get much nearer to what is required without being so restrictive in the course that has to be followed. I hope that on a fair and reasonable basis, bearing in mind the implications of the clause and the whole Bill, that he will have second thoughts.