HL Deb 03 April 1984 vol 450 cc592-6

2.55 p.m.

Lord Chelwood

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government in how many cases and at what capital cost (including as a lump sum pledged annual payments) landowners or tenants have been paid compensation for not carrying out farming operations judged inconsistent with the scientific or amenity value of land and what changes they have in mind to reduce this cost.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I must apologise for the length of this Answer. The Nature Conservancy Council has entered into 84 agreements with landlords or tenants relating to constraints on fanning or forestry operations since the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The capital cost of these agreements was £315,079; periodical payments amounting to a further £36,431 per annum were made, with a net present value of approximately £241,118 capitalised over the lifetime of the agreements.

Comparable information on management agreements reached by local authorities is generally not available. However, a special fund held by the Countryside Commission was made available in 1983–84 to assist the first-year costs of agreements entered into by National Park authorities, and I am advised that the commission has made payments, mostly of a capital nature, of £57,350 from this fund in respect of a total of six agreements.

The Government will keep under review the workings of the 1981 Act, including the terms of the financial guidelines which relate to payments under management agreements of this kind.

Lord Chelwood

My Lords, is my noble friend going far enough? Is not the Treasury in a very embarrassing position here, being required to pay out very large sums of money in grants and subsidies to encourage farmers to grow, for example, cereals, partly because of the common agricultural policy, with the only alternative being to pay quite large sums of money to the same people for not growing cereals? Is that not a pretty ridiculous situation which really requires urgent attention? May I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will look at the compensation provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act as a matter of urgency to try to ensure that they do not get into the same kind of ridiculous muddle which resulted from the planning Acts of 1947?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I think it would be premature to draw the conclusion, as my noble friend has done, that the Act is too expensive to operate. There is no general evidence of extravagant demands for management agreements, but naturally the Government will keep the costs of such compensation under close review. There has never been a case of a management agreement failing through lack of funds.

With regard to the first point that my noble friend made, this is a matter which will continually exercise the minds of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture. But I should point out that the financial guidelines are based on the fact that fanners should not lose out in financial terms by not farming in certain areas in the way they prefer. In short, that means a loss of profits basis; and the calculation of such profits includes compensation for any MAFF capital grants forgone.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern in the country that inadequate attention is being paid to the integration of environmental policy with agriculture policy, and can he give us some information on what steps are being taken by the Government to improve this? Is he further aware that, as it now stands, the Act is of no assistance to local authorities in protecting their landscapes, since they are quite unable to bear the financial burden? Does the noble Lord know that Suffolk County Council has calculated that it would cost it £375,000 a year to protect just two grassland valleys and one coastal heath? Will he agree that the financial burden on local authorities—the squeeze—is going to get worse and worse and they will be able to afford to spend less and less on protecting the countryside?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I think, and I am surprised by it since the noble Baroness was involved in the passing of the Act in this House and I was not—

Baroness Birk

No, I was not.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the noble Baroness says she was not. But she was certainly aware of what was going on at that time. The whole basis of the Act is not that one should seek to conserve everything. The Act covers those areas which have been identified by the Nature Conservancy Council as areas of special scientific interest. There is no doubt that over a period of years changes will occur in the countryside through normal changes in fanning practices. There is no way, with the best will in the world, that this can or should be stopped.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to say how much compensation has been paid out to farmers or landowners to compensate them for not doing things that they never had the remotest intention of doing in the first place? Does he agree that giving a grant to persuade a farmer to do something is a simple and straightforward matter, but that giving compensation to dissuade him from certain action is much more complex? In that connection, can the noble Lord say in how many cases, if any, where there have been negotiations between a farmer and the department concerned for compensation in this area, the department has called the landowner's bluff, and what has been the result?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I have no information about what might be called the "try-on" underlying the noble Lord's question. Of course, we look to the bodies offering agreements to satisfy themselves that the planned operation is a genuine proposal. They will be in the best position to make such judgments in the light of their local knowledge as and when occasion demands. If false claims were made to any great extent, the total amount payable for compensation would become so great that the Government would have to consider statutory controls. This would be totally counter-productive to fanners' interests generally and, I suggest, to the interests of conservation, too.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what is the highest payment to an individual farmer per year? It is reputed to have been a figure of £20,400 a year paid to a certain gentleman. Secondly, can my noble friend say how many times the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of the Environment has refrained from objecting to the application of grant on conservation grounds because they think that they would not have got the money for a management agreement?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, as I said, up to the present, there has never been a management agreement refused on financial grounds. As regards the two specific questions that my noble friend asked me, I am afraid that I cannot answer without notice.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in a number of instances, notably in Halvergate Marsh in the Broads and also in the North York Moors National Park where farmers have been refused Ministry of Agriculture grants on environmental or military grounds, farmers have nonetheless declined compensation available under a management agreement and have gone ahead with development for agricultural purposes to the detriment of the environ-ment or the amenity concerned? Does this not reveal a weakness—

Lord Denham

Question.

Lord Hunt

Would the noble Lord not agree that this reveals a weakness in the Wildlife and Countryside Act where there are no fallback powers of last resort to prevent such a development taking place?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am afraid that I must correct the noble Lord. There is, indeed, a fallback power in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This is the so-called Section 29 Order that has been used in three cases since the Act came into force. So far as the North York Moors National Park is concerned, I do not know the details, but I would suspect that in the cases that the noble Lord has mentioned they are not covered by a site of special scientific interest.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only people in this House when the Wildlife and Countryside Act was being debated who appeared unaware of the appalling problems to which it would lead were those speaking on his Front Bench on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture? Is he aware that everyone else criticised the Bill on exactly these grounds from all sides of the House? Secondly, can the noble Lord say why the Government have set their face so firmly against implementing the guidance side of the common agricultural policy in ways that it is implemented in other European countries to make extensive systems of agriculture more profitable and thus reduce the cost of these compensation handouts?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I do not think that the cost around which discussion seems to have revolved this afternoon really enters into it. The Government are prepared and have been prepared to make the funds available for the management agreements. So far as the CAP goes, there is no doubt in my mind that the high return for crops sometimes resulting from the CAP is obviously a factor in the equation. But the indexation provisions of the financial guidelines provide that, if the sales value of the new crop reduces, then so will the compensation payable. In any event, the important point to remember is that the land would not have suffered change of use because, by very definition, the fact that compensation payments have been made means that there is no change of use.

Lord Glenkinglas

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, while he says that the cost is not important, there have been cases where considerable sums of money have been spent for people not to do things which were, in fact, impossible to do, and they have had that information before they claimed the cost?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, if that is so, I should like to look closely at proof of it. As I said in reply to an earlier supplementary, I have no evidence that that is correct.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, I am glad that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, because he has made a real point. Is the Minister aware that I took down the sums of money involved. Can he say how many acres these sums affect? Is he aware that the publicity that this situation has received has led people to look and see whether they have anything that could come under this category? If he wants instances, I can give a personal one. A neighbour asked me why I did not apply to grub up scrub woodlands next to Epping Forest in an area of outstanding beauty and make a claim. Is he aware that I know of two other cases along the same lines? It is definitely time that the Government took this matter seriously. I wish to preserve these areas, but the Minister must look at the matter carefully.

The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)

My Lords, I fully understand the emotions aroused by this question and this particular problem. I could perhaps give some instances myself which might match those of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. But that would not help the business of the House. We have taken 30 minutes on three Questions. I would ask noble Lords whether we may continue now with business because Questions have been taking a long time.