1965: Sweeping changes to British farming

The Labour Government has put forward a plan to improve production in farming and decrease Britain's reliance on imports of beef.

But the Agriculture Bill has provoked opposition from Conservative MPs.

Speaking in the House of Commons during a debate on the second reading of the bill, the Minister of Agriculture, Frederick Peart, said the proposals were designed to "bring lasting benefit to all who cared for and worked on the land or who were concerned with the great meat industry".

An independent statutory body - to be known as the Meat and Livestock Commission - would have sweeping powers from the breeding and slaughter of animals to marketing of meat to the consumer. The commission would initially be funded by a tax on every animal slaughtered.

The bill also aimed to:

• encourage modernisation of farm structure by making it easier to organise farm mergers,
• promote better use of hill farm land
• encourage wider co-operation in agriculture and horticulture;
• allow farmers to increase borrowing to improve welfare of their animals
• improve the marketing and distribution of livestock and meat,

While Mr Peart acknowledged the commission would have a great deal of power he had decided against support buying - whereby if market prices fall the government would buy up produce to keep prices buoyant.

He said the system would be expensive to the Treasury and would benefit neither the consumer nor the farmer.

'Odds and ends'

The other major thrust of the bill was the amalgamation of small farms to improve production by buying land from those who could not find a buyer.

Rural development boards would also co-ordinate development of agriculture and forestry in their regions.

But the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Joseph Godber, accused the government of rushing the bill through Parliament, as a collection of "odds and ends".

He also expressed doubt that it would increase production and efficiency and concerns about the extent of the new commission's powers.

He said the scheme to buy up large tracts of land for amalgamation would be wasteful and expensive.

	E-mail this story to a friend