HC Deb 04 July 1967 vol 749 cc1622-6

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Stodart

I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 21, line 9, after 'circumstances', to insert: 'or where annual outlays have properly been made'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 25, in line 10, after 'exist', insert: 'or annual outlays have properly been made'.

Mr. Stodart

I hope the Minister of State does not think that I am pressing him too hard on this Clause. He was kind enough to accept an Amendment which I moved in Committee to remove the second qualification to what we might describe as payments on account when undue hardship was involved. I pointed out that special circumstances might justify payment at once when undue hardship would be caused by their being held back for five years. The hon. Gentleman's generosity is so rare that when one receives it it lasts for quite a long time. I am, therefore, still grateful as I bask in the memory of having an Amendment accepted in Committee.

What I now have in mind are regular payments for which an occupier will be quite definitely entitled to compensation. Where these payments are regular and fairly substantial, they should be paid back. In Committee the hon. Gentleman referred to the sort of things which would qualify, insurance premiums for occupiers' liability as to stock, clearing up litter and the possibility of a crop having been planted and, because an access order was made, the farmer not being able to harvest it. I should think the last example would be very unlikely. I hope that the cost of clearing litter would decline as time goes on and would not constitute a very heavy burden.

Insurance premiums paid once a year may be quite substantial. I do not know to what extent it would be advisable to take out insurance cover, but the courts are awarding very high damages in cases of serious accidents. A general cover of up to £100,000 on a farm costs an annual premium of £14. Then there is the obvious risk of damage to forestry plantations. It is immensely difficult to put a specific figure on this because premiums for insurance against fire damage to forestry vary according to the type of trees, the age of the plantation and other factors.

Figures I have received show that for 400 acres of forestry the premium of all types of wood of one year old is £8 per £100. At the other extreme, for trees of 25 years' old the average is £26 per £100. If we take an average mean of 15-year-old trees, the average premium for mixed hardwoods and softwoods is £18 per £100. That average of £18 for forestry plus £12 for the other occupier's liability makes a total of £30. I do not think anyone would be prepared to quote for the possible damage to stock. The hon. Gentleman will remember my piteous story about my cows and the polythene bags. I have not found a quotation that would give complete cover for this, though I have no doubt it exists. Perhaps I have not been lucky in finding the right insurance company.

It seems to me that it would be very simple to have premiums of between £20 and £30 a year. If this is the case and if these are to be paid once a year and are to be subject to compensation or part compensation—the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that there should be 100 per cent. compensation for this—I would have thought that when we have regular payments of this kind there is a case to be argued for the occupier involved to be able to say, "I have paid out this money. May I have it back rather than wait five years and then collect something between £100 and £500?".

That is the purpose of the Amendment. It may be that the hon. Gentleman does not like the drafting, but, of course, he has got all the necessary equipment, skill and staff for proper drafting; we have not. I have expressed the intention behind the Amendment and I hope that he will look benevolently upon it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I confess that I certainly do not like the drafting of this Amendment, but I have never used that as an argument against the Opposition. It imports in the Clause a degree of ambiguity. I do not know what the word "properly" is intended to mean. However, I do not use that as an argument against the Amendment.

I understand the principle of the Amendment, that there should be payments where annual outlays have been made. But not all outlays will necessarily be annual outlays. I am told by the legal luminaries that it would be difficult to prove that a cow died from eating a plastic bag. However, I will not go into that. Premiums might be covered, but other outlays which an occupier could incur as a result of an access order might not be covered. Some of these may not occur on an annual basis. There might even be an argument for saying that the occupier ought to be paid much more frequently than annually in respect of some particular burden that may be imposed upon the land.

The basic argument here is that the Clause leaves discretion to the local planning authority and to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends, and certainly the National Farmers' Union, feel that we should write something in to limit or describe that discretion, although I am not certain what alternative to this Amendment is proposed. We are certainly willing to consider suggestions, but this Amendment is not adequate. We think it is still preferable to leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State. The bona fides of the Secretary of State and myself are not in question, since the hon. Gentleman readily admitted that we gave him the major part of the Clause when we accepted his Amendment to strike out the requirement about undue hardship.

I am disappointed that the serpent of ingratitude has risen to strike me. After all, we accepted 19 Amendments and we promised to consider another 22. That is rather a lot out of a total of fewer than 100 which were moved by the Opposition. The Opposition had rather a good innings then. I will not call it a concession, but we certainly agreed to strike out the reference to undue hardship. I am very much in sympathy with the suggestion that we must make sure that payments are made when the circumstances are burdensome, but I do not think that this is the right way to do it. The hon. Gentleman is pressing me too hard.

Having conceded one part, I do not think that we should go on to incorporate this phrase or where annual outlays have properly been made. I am prepared to look at the suggestion and consider whether there is another phrase, although frankly. I doubt it. I think that it might be better to leave the matter to the complete discretion of the Secretary of State, thus leaving it as flexible as possible.

Mr. Stodart

As I am always hopeful that we may get another Amendment accepted before we finish these proceedings, I am going to hold out the olive branch and hope that this may help the hon. Gentleman. As he said that he will look at this—no more than that—although he was not very optimistic, and that he will reconsider this suggestion, and recognising as I do that the drafting is less perfect than it should be, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.