New Clause "B" (Hansard, 24 June 1968)

§ Mr. MacDermot
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another matter on which I believe we have managed to find an eleventh hour solution. This Amendment deals with a problem which we discussed in Committee, but to which we did not then find a solution, namely, the weakness in our present access procedures whereby a farmer can plough up moor or heath land without notice and thereby either nullify an access agreement or effectively prevent the planning authority from making an access order. The way is now paved for a solution in consequence of the changes proposed to the Bill in Lords Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, New Clause C, which we shall be discussing later and which, if accepted, will enable a farmer to bind himself not to "except" land by ploughing it up when it is subject to an access agreement.
The Amendment proposes to empower the Minister to make an order in respect 168 of land situated within a National Park which appears to him to be predominantly moor or heath. When the order is made, anyone proposing to convert land covered by the order (and which has not been used for an agricultural purpose other than rough grazing during the preceding 20 years) to agricultural land other than rough grazing must give the local planning authority six months' notice of his intention. If he converts the land without giving notice, or converts it within six months without the written consent of the planning authority, he will be liable on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £200, or on conviction on indictment to a fine of an unspecified amount.
Orders under the new Clause are to be made by Statutory Instrument, subject to negative Resolution. It might be helpful to the House if I indicate how we envisage this procedure will work. In the first place the Minister will have to make an order applying the section to an area of land within a National Park appearing to him to be predominantly moor or heath. We hope it will be possible to reach agreement between the local planning authority and the local agricultural interests about the area or areas of land to which such an order should apply. We accept, and I think the planning authorities in the areas concerned accept, that not all moor or heath land should be preserved, and that there are many parts of these lands which may be suitable and proper to be ploughed up. We shall try to get agreement locally first about which areas should be subject to this form of protection.
Once an order has been made, the occupier of any land to which it applies will not be able to plough up or otherwise convert the moor or heath into agricultural land until the expiry of the six months' period, unless the planning authority gives him consent within that period. If the authority does not give him consent, it will use the six months' period to try to make an access agreement with him under which, in return for a suitable consideration, he will agree not to plough up and to give access to the public. As I have said, the other Amendments to which we shall come later will enable a landowner to bind himself not to convert land into accepted land at a later date by ploughing up.
169 In the event of a failure to reach agreement—and I stress that it is our intention to operate these provisions by agreement; we hope and believe that that will be possible—one of two courses will be open to the planning authority. It will be able either to make an access order under Section 65 of the 1949 Act, or it may make a compulsory purchase order under Section 76 of that Act.
The fear has been expressed that after a notice has been served of an access order or compulsory purchase order the landowner may proceed to plough up before the Minister has reached a decision on the order. We do not think that that is a serious practical risk, because a farmer will be extremely unlikely to plough up unless he is assured that he will receive a grant for doing so. He will be all the more hesitant to do that if it seems that the land might be acquired before he is able to obtain any benefit from the expenditure he incurs in ploughing up. It would be an act of spite on his part to plough up in such circumstances, and I do not believe that he would act in that way.
The situation has been changed owing to the difference in the system for authorising ploughing grants. Until last year the grants were payable as of right on proof that ploughing-up had taken place, but now prior approval of the Ministry is required. Where a planning authority made an access order or a compulsory purchase order, they would notify the Ministry of Agriculture, and I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to say that in these circumstances no decision would be taken upon the application for grant until a decision had been made upon the access order or compulsory purchase order. This shows that those fears would be unreal.
We are proposing in the Amendment a standstill period of six months, during which we hope that the matter can be dealt with by agreement and by negotiation, so that in the event of a failure to reach agreement the powers which already exist can effectively be used. We all know that they have not been able, for lack of this, to be used effectively in the past.

§ Dame Joan Vickers
Why put in a period of time of 20 years? Is there a specific reason why the period of 20 years was chosen? Are records kept? I would much prefer not to have a number of years specified.

§ Mr. MacDermot
I am assured that there are records available for a 20-year period. It is felt, in order to establish this kind of protection, that it should be shown that the land has been in effect moor or heath and open and available to access to the public for a substantial period of time, and that is a period which is capable of effective enforcement administratively.

§ Mr. Channon
I do not wish to weary the House at this hour with a long debate on the Clause. As the Minister has said, we have had several debates on this, notably in the Standing Committee, and credit ought to be paid to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) for the in-interest that they have shown in this subject.
We should like to thank the Government for having produced a Clause which appears now to be acceptable to all the parties that are interested in this difficult and important problem. The Clause that has been put before us is, I think, satisfactory. The only thing that worries me slightly is that it is perhaps a little harsh that on conviction on indictment the penalty should be so heavy as to be an unlimited fine, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that it would be only in the rarest and most extraordinary circumstances that proceedings would be taken on indictment against someone who had behaved in this way.
It is satisfactory that an Order made under the Clause would have to be made by Statutory Instrument and that this House would have some say in the matter should on order be made.
It is generally satisfactory that the Government have been able to come forward with an agreed solution, and I very much hope that my hon. Friends will agree with their Lordships and support the inclusion of the Clause in the Bill.