HL Deb 19 October 1981 vol 424 cc614-7

106 After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:

"Payments under certain agreements offered by authorities.

(1) This section applies where—

  1. (a) the Nature Conservance Council offer to enter into an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act providing for the making by them of payments to—
    1. (i) a person who has given notice under section 28(3) or 29(4); or
    2. (ii) a person whose application for farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the Council: or
  2. (b) the relevant authority offer to enter into a management agreement providing for the making by them of payments to a person whose application for a farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the authority.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the said payments shall be of such amounts as may be determined by the offeror in accordance with guidance given by the Ministers.

(3) If the offeree so requires within one month of receiving the offer, the determination of those amounts shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State; and where the amounts determined by the arbitrator exceed those determined by the offeror, the offeror shall—

  1. (a) amend the offer so as to give effect to the arbitrator's determination; or
  2. (b) except in the case of an offer made to a person whose application for a farm capital grant has been refused in consequence of an objection by the offeror, withdraw the offer.

(4) In this section— farm capital grant" means a grant under a scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970; management agreement" and "the relevant authority" have the same meanings as in section (Duties of agriculture Ministers).

As amendments to Amendment No. 106:

106B Subsection (3), line 3, after ("arbitrator") insert ("(or, in Scotland, an arbiter)").

106C Subsection (3), line 7, after ("arbitrator's") insert ("or,) in Scotland, the arbiter's)").

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106. I shall, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 106B and 106C to the amendment. This is a new clause which relates in part to management agreements offered under the "Sandford" clause, but which also concerns agreements entered into by the Nature Conservancy Council following a notification to the council under Clause 28(3) or Clause 29(4) of the Bill as amended. The new clause requires the NCC or relevant authority to provide in the agreement for payments, in accordance with guidance given by Ministers", and this reflects the original Sandford proposal.

However, as I said last Thursday, the Government have gone further and added provision for arbitration in the event of dispute. Under subsection (3), the offeree will have the right within one month of receiving the offer to require reference to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator is to be appointed by the Secretary of State in default of agreement. In the case of management agreements offered by the NCC—except where capital grant has been refused, in other words the voluntary agreements—the offer can be withdrawn by the council if the arbitrator determines a higher sum. However, in the case of management agreements offered by the NCC or relevant authority following rejection of an application for a farm capital grant, the arbitration decision will be binding. The Government share the view taken by another place that this is a fair approach where it is the council or relevant authority which has taken the initiative to object. The clause provides farmers with a guarantee of reasonable terms when management agreements are offered in the circumstances stated. Discussions are already in progress on the terms of Ministers' financial guidelines, and we expect to be consulting on a draft of such guidelines shortly after Royal Assent to the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 106B and 106C replace the word "arbitrator" with "arbiter" in deference to Scots law; I am advised that arbitrators are not a resident species north of the Border.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

[Amendment No. 106A to the amendment not moved.]

As an amendment to Amendment No. 106:

106B Subsection (3), line 3, after ("arbitrator") insert ("(or, in Scotland, an arbiter)").

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question amendment to Amendment No. 106 agreed to.

As an amendment to Amendment No. 106:

106C Subsection (3), line 7, after ("arbitrator's ") insert ("(or, in Scotland, the arbiter's)").

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the amendment to the amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, amendment to Amendment No. 106 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 106D and 106E to the amendment not moved.]

Lord Sandford

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to confirm that the guidelines, when they have been agreed, will be laid before Parliament by statutory instrument? All our discussions indicate that they will be of the greatest importance.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, may I, for clarification, ask my noble friend a question relating to subsection (3), as I believe one month will be insufficient to consider and possibly initiate an offer, and it seems that the Bill is somewhat unclear as to whether or not the authority is expected to discuss arrangements with the farmer before making the offer? I hope that my interpretation is correct that the offer of one month refers to the final offer of a financial payment and not to the offer of a management agreement, for the very obvious reason that we want time to consider the matter. Can my noble friend confirm that the offer of one month is the final offer?

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I think that the real evil in this clause was decided by the House last week by a very narrow majority and it would be foolish to re-open that debate. But given that the House and Parliament on the Government's advice have decided on a really disastrously expensive method of protecting important areas for wildlife, it would be reasonable to ask the noble Earl to give us some assurance in a rather more forthcoming way than he did last week to the effect that some additional money at least will be made available to pay for all of this.

In recent months it has become clear that there are a number of areas such as the North Kent Marshes, the Swale Marshes, the Berwyn Mountains, the five proposed SSSIs on the Somerset levels, the Derwent Ings, the Nene Washes, and so on which are capable of agricultural development, and for which there are either actual plans or proposals for major agricultural development schemes. If such areas are to be saved for conservation under this clause, very large sums of money, annually indexed to keep up with inflation, will have to be found to pay farmers.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said earlier that the threat of planning controls was hanging over all this huge and expensive edifice if it collapsed and did not do the job. I should not myself have said that it was the threat of planning controls, but rather the much more attractive option of planning controls. It is more attractive because it would provide a much more sensible system. It would be much cheaper to the public and I should have thought that at least on those grounds it might have commended itself to some noble Lords opposite; and lastly it should commend itself to conservationists because it would work, while this system, without huge sums of money, clearly will not work.

I hope that the noble Earl, while he has been very busy getting the replies to the questions that his noble friends asked, will also have had a slight change of heart since last week and will be able to tell us, now that the Secretary of State for the Environment appears to be having a change of heart about aspects of Government policy, that rather more money will be available than the noble Earl suggested last week.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, with regard to the questions which my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked, I am bound to tell my noble friend Lord Sandford that the guidelines regarding the consultations are not expected to become statutory, but I shall certainly look up the point and take a note of it. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley asked whether the period of one month will refer to the final offer or the first offer and discussion. The answer is that it will refer to the final offer in which a person has the time to accept or reject the final offer.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked whether I would be more forthcoming than I was last week on the question of the amount of money that would be available. The answer to that is that I will not be more forthcoming, because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, when speaking in Norwich, admitted that management agreements might be expensive, and he said: I shall have to take into account the new responsibilities placed on statutory authorities by the Bill". I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, knows perfectly well that in any financial arrangements with which departments are involved it is necessary to discuss their commitments, both individual and total, in the light of all their expenditure and the Treasury requirements. My right honourable friend has made the position perfectly clear. He said: I have many very hard decisions to make about the use of scarce resources". I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would not expect me to go further than that, but if he does expect me to go further than that, I shall not go any further.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I may speak again on this point, because, fully expecting the answer, yes, I asked my noble friend the question whether the guidelines will be laid before Parliament by statutory instrument. I should have thought that the House would certainly expect that to be so, in view of the enormous importance that is attached to the question of whether or not the funds will be available to meet the management requirements that will be called for from time to time—myself, I think not very often—under the new clauses introduced by Amendments No. 76 and 101. I think that it is getting close to improper for the House to allow through an amendment such as this without knowing one way or the other whether that particular point will be so. But if my noble friend could increase his assurances to the point of recognising the importance of Parliament seeing these guidelines and approving them before they are introduced and using his best endeavours to ensure that they are laid by statutory instrument, I should be happy to leave it at that. But I do not think that the assurances should be any less weighty than that before we allow the amendment to be incorporated.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend says that he is entirely happy to leave it at that, because in fact he was entirely out of order to have spoken again. I can tell him only what I have previously told him and your Lordships; namely, that the drafts will not stipulate any specific sums per acre to be paid in consideration of the restrictions which are imposed. That would be completely inappropriate, as the payments offered, whether by way of annual payments or a capital sum, must depend on individual circumstances and be subject to negotiation. Therefore such draft guidelines as are envisaged will not relate to sums of money, by which my noble friend thinks it is possible to make calculations.

On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.