HC Deb 17 April 1986 vol 95 cc1131-7
Mr. Maclennan

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 11, line 4, leave out 'person' and insert 'landlord and tenant'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 19, in page 11, line 4, leave out 'having an interest in' and insert 'farming'.

No. 20, in line 5, leave out 'that person agrees' and insert 'those persons agree'.

No. 22, in line 27, at end insert— `( ) Prior to the making of an agreement with a tenant of agricultural land, the Minister shall notify the owner of that land of the terms offered to the tenant and shall provide the owner with a copy of the agreement. '.

No. 23, in line 28, leave out subsection (7).

Mr. Maclennan

I move the amendment, admittedly at a late stage in the proceedings on the Bill, to get clarification from the Government about the arrangements which they may make under the provisions in the clause for the designation and management of environmentally sensitive areas, and to seek elucidation as to with whom the Government intend that the arrangements should be made.

It seems that both landlord and tenant would have an interest in the arrangement, although normally it would be the tenant, if there is a tenant, who would be most immediately involved in the sense of his income being affected by the recompense for the implementation of the management agreement. None the less, the use of different techniques by the tenant could affect the capital value of the land and might even affect the rent. Therefore, it would be interesting to know how the Government see it. The use of the word "person" which I seek to have substituted might cover both landlord and tenant, but, as I read the clause, it is not necessarily so. I should be grateful for the Minister's elucidation.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)

The purpose of amendment No. 19 is to make clear with whom the agreement about environmentally sensitive areas will be made. Clause 12 (4) says that the agreement may be made between the Minister and somebody having an interest in agricultural land". I carefully read the Minister of State's notes. As he knows, I was not on the Committee, and I found that his explanation of the matter was quite clear. I noted that he was anxious to ensure that the terms used were sufficiently broad to make sure that one did not write any person or group out of the legislation.

The term, any person having an interest in agricultural land is so broad that it makes that part of the clause misleading. Our amendment seeks to remove that term and substitute "a person farming agricultural land." The amendment will ensure that the agreement cannot be unfairly exploited by landowners, especially landowners who do not work the land.

The second aim of the amendment is to ensure that any ESA grants or moneys go direct to tenants, because they are the people who farm the land and who could lose the use of productive land or find that their agricultural output is reduced as a result of the experiment. In its submission the National Farmers Union said: Agreements should whenever possible be entered into with the person who has the right to determine the practices followed. Clearly, that says that it is the tenant to whom we should be referring.

There is a need to make the wording of the clause more specific for the purposes of clarification. In Committee the Minister made a fair point when he said that there is a need to ensure flexibility to cater for all the cases and for the range of cases to which the ESAs and the various agreements will refer. For example, one could have an agreement between the Minister and a tenant, and one could also have sub-tenancies and grazing rights and all these things need to be catered for. The phrase "farming agricultural land" makes it clear that the clause is still broadly based and caters for the range of cases for which it needs to cater without the need for subsequent amendments to the legislation.

The words, "having an interest in" are too general and could lead to abuse. Some landlords have an interest in their land but do not actually farm it, and the clause as presented could be taken to embrace landlords who do not work the land. That is not what the clause should be about. For too long we have been damaging our environment, and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who will lose his seat at the next general election, ought to concern himself about these matters. When I lived in his constituency, I was aware and, indeed, was continually told by people in the constituency, how he neglected it. Rather than barracking, he ought to think about his own constituents and about some of the ESAs because they would be useful in his constituency.

If an ESA is to be a success, the prerequisite is that it must be seen to be fair. Fairness is crucial. This means that we must compensate tenants for the loss of productive capacity and output, which obviously affects their incomes.

In addition to ensuring that they get all this money, there must be an incentive to participate in the scheme and make sure that it works effectively. We all know that landlords have a lot of practical and financial influence and many powers. This means that they have enormous inherent advantages. They can, for example, determine tenancy agreements when there is a change of tenancies, and whether an ESA continues. The amendment attempts to counter this inherent advantage and to provide a more balanced arrangement.

We also believe that the agreement should be directly with the tenant, namely, the person who farms the land. We believe that it would not be unreasonable for the landlord to be informed of the agreement. It is not difficult to think of instances where certain interests of landlords could be affected in a detrimental way.

There are two reasons why landlords should not worry about an amendment of this kind. First, the agreements are voluntary in nature, and last for about five years only. The full support of the tenants is vital to the success of any agreement. It is important that tenants get the full financial compensation. If not, the ESA scheme will fail. We believe that this will be bad for Britain.

We say that the amendment is accurate, broadly based and indicates clearly that the agreement is to be with those who farm the land. We hope that the Minister will take this into account.

If I may deal briefly with amendment No. 22, on the face of it it looks not unreasonable, but I would like to have the Minister's interpretation of the words notify the owner of that land of the terms offered to the tenant". The amendment states that the landlords should be notified beforehand of the changes and agreements. Does notify mean notify, or does it provide the landlord with an opportunity to take part—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) is waiting to explain his amendment to the House. It might be more convenient for the House to listen to the hon. Gentleman before it starts to make up its mind on the amendment.

Mr. Randall

That is a good idea. I take your advice on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall wait to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I shall respond to it afterwards.

12.15 am
Mr. Colin Shepherd

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene, and I shall speak very briefly to amendments Nos. 22 and 23. During the Committee proceedings, the CLA was worried lest there be misunderstanding that amendment No. 22 sought provision for prior consent by a landlord before a tenant could enter into an agreement with an ESA. That was not the case. The CLA was seeking to ensure that the owner was made aware of the fact that an agreement was being entered into and the terms of that agreement. Apart from wishing to know about management decisions affecting his land, the owner should be informed of any financial arrangements entered into by the tenant that may well be material in rent reviews.

The Minister replied that the MAFF would normally want the landlord to take his full part in the agreement". He also said: First, we shall be discussing the matter with all those concerned. Secondly, in agreeing with a tenant we shall require him to notify the owners".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 January 1986; c. 259–61.] If that is to be the case, the CLA feels that the Act should say clearly that the owner is to be notified. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), it is the pure dictionary definition of the word "notify". The Act should also state whether the tenant or the Minister should notify.

In Committee, the Minister gave repeated assurances that no agreement would be binding on anyone who did not voluntarily enter into it, nor on one who was not party to it. In view of that, it would be preferable to delete a clause that seeks to bind successors in title—hence the reason for amendment No. 23. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will give sympathetic consideration to accepting these two amendments because they put straight matters that were subject to confusion or misunderstanding in Committee.

Mr. Gummer

I shall deal first with the amendments that were introduced by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is difficult to accept them. If they were inserted in the Bill, it would mean that the Minister would be able to make an agreement only with the landlord and the tenant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not what he would wish us to do, because there will be occasions on which one might wish to make an agreement with an owner-occupier. That would not be possible if this change were made, and one might wish to make other agreements with the tenant without reference to the landlord, although it will be insisted that the tenant must notify the landlord.

It may be that we shall wish to reach agreement with a tenant on a matter that is purely in the direct interest of the tenant. We want to be as flexible as possible in our arrangements. That is the purpose of the ESAs. They are experimental areas, and all sides of the House will agree that we want to keep them as such so that we can learn from them and perhaps build upon them.

If that is so, it is important that we do not tie anyone down to a precise formula of the kind that would involve making an agreement only with the landlord and tenant. I am keen that it should not be as narrow as that, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will not wish to press the amendment, given that it has an unfortunate side effect which I do not think he intended.

Mr. Maclennan

I am not sure whether it has that unfortunate side effect, but perhaps that is a matter of interpretation. The Minister's intentions are important. What does he mean by a person having an interest in land? In a case involving landlord and tenant, does he mean merely the tenant? If that is so, he has at least cleared up part of my uncertainty, but I am not satisfied that the landlord should not have a say in such cases.

Mr. Gummer

What we mean is precisely what we have said about persons having an interest in the land. We want to have an agreement with the person who can deliver on the subject on which the agreement is made. These agreements will be very wide. We shall be making various kinds of agreement, different circumstances, and different arrangements. Some will be minor, some major, in the impact they have upon farming patterns. In all cases, in dealing with a tenant we shall require that the tenant informs the landlord. That is a requirement that we shall lay down, and I have given an absolute commitment to that which I repeat this evening.

What we do need, however, is to be able to have that agreement with the person who has the interest in the land and who can deliver the goods, so to speak, the person who is carrying out the activity or is involved in the activity on which we wish to get agreement. I am sorry that it is as broad as this, but, if we are experimenting in the way that we wish, we do not want to get into the position the hon. Gentleman would put us in, that of having to agree with the landlord and tenant in circumstances where we need an agreement only with the tenant, only with the landlord or where we want to have an agreement with the owner-occupier. The amendment would mean that we could have none of those separately but only one in combination. It is more than unnecessary; it would be onerous and wrong to write into the legislation what is contained in the amendment.

Mr. Randall

Just a very quick point of clarification. I take the Minister's point about flexibility. It is just that when one looks at this particular clause one immediately has the impression that, if the courts had to interpret it, they would see the main motive not as looking after the interests of the tenant and ensuring that all the money goes to the tenant, but providing loopholes for the landlord, who might not necessarily farm the land, to get his hands on some of the money. This is really what I should like an assurance on from the Minister.

Mr. Gummer

The purpose of the money is to achieve the end that we have in mind; therefore, the money is provided to the person who can deliver the goods. I am putting it as broadly as that because I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in following very carefully, as I know he has been doing, the Hansard report of the Committee, will see that we are concerned with a whole range of different agreements. So I am putting it as broadly as that to cover the whole range of deals that we may do in order to protect the environmentally sensitive areas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose is to use that money to recompense people who would otherwise have farmed in a different way, so, in a very large proportion of cases, they will he the farmers.

I do not want to be tied to "the farmer", for the reason that, if we put in "farmer", as the hon. Gentleman would wish, it would mean that we were tied then to doing the deal only with the tenant, if it was a tenancy that was involved. I can envisage circumstances in which that would be inhibiting. Let us take, for example, a situation in which there might soon be a change of tenancy. One might want to have a tripartite agreement between the existing tenant, the landlord and the Ministry, in order to ensure that a number of aspects of the matter were taken into account. Sometimes we might want to link together a group of people; under the amendment, we could not actually do that. That is why we think that it would be a mistake. We want to be in a position where we can make an agreement with the landlord if that is the person with whom it can most properly be made, and where, if we need to make an agreement with landlord and tenant, we can do that.

We have been perfectly straight about it: if the experiment is to work we must have the opportunity of trying to find the best agreement in the circumstances, so that we can look at all these five or six places and see how they work, in order to learn one from another.

I hope that Opposition Members will accept that and will not feel it necessary to press these amendments. It is right for them to have raised the amendments, but I feel that to be more precise here than we have been will be to put ourselves into a more difficult position.

Turning to the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), I had hoped that we had dealt with these earlier, in Committee. I repeat that I am absolutely committed to requiring the tenant to notify the landlord when there has been an agreement with the tenant. I do not want to include a specific provision on this point in the clause because we have not gone into detail about this in all the other areas of which we have been speaking. It would be a very peculiar general enabling position if the only thing that we put into it was that in the case of a tenancy we would require the tenant to notify the landlord. I give an absolute assurance that that is what we shall do. That is the way in which we shall conduct these experiments. In the light of that absolute assurance, I ask my hon. Friend whether he would feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The clause could so easily have become a pantechnicon of bits and pieces—each perfectly reasonable—and would have become unwieldy. We would gradually have moved to a position where the experiments would have been far too regimented. For the sake of others, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The amendment was selected for debate, not for a possible Division. It has not been moved.

Mr. Gummer

It would be right to leave the position as it is because to do otherwise would complicate the matter and lead others to feel that other things should be added. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurances.

My hon. Friend referred to a succession of tenancies. We are thinking in terms of five-year agreements, so any agreement passed on to the next tenant would not be very onerous. It is necessary to have some continuity. As we are talking about the defence and protection of sensitive areas, we are keen that the agreement should be given a reasonable run. If there is a change of tenancy, it would not be onerous for the agreement to be passed on for its duration. We do not want to be tied entirely to the norm of a five-year agreement because, for experimental purposes, we might try slightly shorter or even slightly longer periods. It would be a small price to pay for some degree of continuity.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that to have all but one tied to a five-year agreement, with the one split because of a transfer from one tenant to another, would be damaging to the experiment. I hope that he accepts my assurance that it is less onerous than the provision in section 39(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, under which agreements can extend for an unspecified and much longer period. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this shorter period.

Mr. Maclennan

I remain a little uneasy about the wording for fear that an agreement reasonably entered into between the Minister and one party with an interest in the land may adversely affect the interests of another party such as the tenant or the landlord.

I admit that my concern has not been voiced strongly by outside interests, so it would be inappropriate to press the amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to