Standing Committee B
Thursday 30 March 2000
(Morning)
[Mr. Humfrey Malins in the Chair]
Clause 1
Principal definitions
10 am
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford): I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 1, after ``Part'', insert
`, unless a contrary intention appears'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 14, in page 2, line 12, at end insert-
` ``Inner London'' means the area comprising the Inner London boroughs, the City of London, the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple;
``interest'', in relation to land, includes any estate in land and any right over land, whether the right is exercisable by virtue of the ownership of an estate or interest in land or by virtue of a licence or agreement, and in particular includes rights of common (as defined by section 22 of the Commons Registration Act 1965) and sporting rights, and references to a person interested in land shall be construed accordingly;
``local highway authority'' has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;
``local or private Act'' includes an Act confirming a provisional order.'.
No. 15, in page 2, line 12, at end insert-
```land'' does not include land covered by water'.
No. 27, in page 2, line 18, at end insert-
No. 28, in page 2, line 21, at end add-
` ``regulations'' means regulations made by the Secretary of State (as respect England) or by the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales);
``telecommunications code'' and ``telecommunications code systems'' have the same meaning as in Schedule 4 to the Telecommunications Act 1984.
(2A) In relation to any land which is subject to a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 or a tenancy to which the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applies, the definition of ``owner'' in subsection (2) does not apply where it is excluded by section 20(4) or by paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 2.
(2B) For the purposes of this Part, the Broads are to be treated as a National Park and the Broads Authority as a National Park authority.
(2C) In subsection (2B) ``the Broads'' has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.'.
No. 85, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 42 to 46.
No. 129, in clause 2, page 2, line 42, leave out from ``owner'' to end of line 46 and insert
`means a person interested in land'.
Mr. Green: I start by welcoming you to the Committee, Mr. Malins. I am sure that we shall find the experience mutually beneficial. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for creating the concept of clusters of amendments. Those that we are about to discuss fall into three natural clusters. Amendments Nos. 85 to 129 form one cluster, amendment No. 15 forms another and the remaining amendments form the third cluster.
I shall explain the amendments in reverse order, beginning with our technical proposals that would tidy up the Bill. Clause 1(2) sets out some definitions, as does clause 41, which refers back to clause 1. The amendments would bring the definitions together to avoid different provisions in the Bill conflicting with one another. They would consolidate into one clause the definitions that apply to part I of the Bill. Seven of the 15 definitions under clause 41 refer back to clause 1. They include important definitions of owner and interest and explain the status of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. It would be preferable for all those definitions to be in one part of the Bill.
When we tabled the amendments, we did not realise the importance of the definition of inner London. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has made it clear that, to him at least, that is one of the central features of the Bill. It may be surprising, but we try to help each other. The definition of inner London under amendment No. 14 coincides with the Minister's definition that he explained to the Committee at our previous sitting. The amendment should knock the matter on the head once and for all, so that we do not have to discuss the definition of inner London again.
Similarly, local highway authority has the same meaning as set out under the Highways Act 1980 and local or private Act
includes an Act that confirms a provisional order.
This cluster of amendments would put the definitions into one part of the Bill. That is important because much of the Bill will depend on definitions and on their future interpretation. I hope the Under-Secretary will consider them sympathetically.
Amendment No. 15 suggests that ``land'' should not include land covered by water. That is a different matter, but is still clearly about definition. It is on a point of principle about what the Bill seeks to achieve. The access provisions throughout the Bill are concerned with rights of access on foot. Other parts of the Bill make that explicit, such as schedule 2, which prevents bathing and the use of vessels or sailboards in non-tidal water. Those issues and that of rights of navigation are obviously for separate consideration.
I should be interested to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about the amendment, as it is by no means theoretical. The access regime to many lakes and reservoirs in mountains and the open country has tremendous practical implications. He will be aware that we have had and will have more arguments about safety considerations, and obvious and specific safety considerations relate to areas covered by water.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Was my hon. Friend concerned when the Minister for the Environment airily dismissed the issue at our previous sitting by saying that it would be absurd not to give people access to streams that go across land? That ignores the question of high-level ponds, lakes and reservoirs.
Mr. Green: I agree that the Minister dismissed such possible safety problems in a slightly cavalier way. I hope that we shall have a less cavalier response from the Under-Secretary. My hon. Friend makes it clear that we are talking not only about streams, but about significant areas of water that can be dangerous.
Amendments Nos. 85 and 129 relate to clause 2 and concern a discrete and separate issue, but I can understand why they are included in this group. The definition of an owner is clearly one of the most important practical considerations for anyone attempting to operate the regime that the Bill will introduce. The drafting of the relevant part of clause 2 is slightly bizarre, in that it does not deal with the problem of sharing the powers and rights of ownership between the owner of the land and an agricultural tenant as defined. It simply states that all the ownership rights are invested in the tenant. I am genuinely puzzled as to how the Government have come to that definition. There is an argument for saying that there is an implicit regime of shared ownership between the owner of a piece of land and its current tenant, but it seems bizarre to say that the owner has no ownership rights. The amendments would tidy up the definition and give the owner some of those rights, which seems acceptable. I hope that the Government will accept that, or at least provide an extremely good explanation for the current drafting. The issue is not theoretical, but practical.
Clearly, the Bill will affect areas of land that ultimately have one beneficial owner and several tenants. Somebody may behave unacceptably on a piece of land, or go on to the land on a day when access is excluded for perfectly good reasons. Somebody may be on the land and doing one of the many unacceptable things that are still mentioned in the Bill. A tenant can only move such a person to the next-door tenancy. The person may still be on the same piece of land. Indeed, he can carry on doing the unacceptable thing until the next tenant comes along and tries to remove him for the rest of that day. I cannot believe that it is intended that people should be allowed to behave in such an evasive fashion when they are abusing the right of access. The anomaly arises because, with an agricultural tenancy, the ``owner'' is defined as the tenant.
As I said, I am interested to know the rationale behind the current drafting. Apart from the practical effects on people who abuse the right of access, the Bill seems to be a recipe for worsening relations between landlords and agricultural tenants. Again, I cannot believe that the Bill is meant to achieve that, even inadvertently. As the Minister knows, there are many arguments about the principle of the Bill, and whether it will lead to outright confiscation of property rights. Whatever position one holds, that is possibly the worst example. It is a question of principle, although it cannot be discussed with this group of amendments, whether the Bill is trying to achieve that.
The Bill says that the remaining rights of ownership will be invested in one person, and that that person cannot be the owner of the land. It seems unarguable that that goes further towards naked class warfare than any other aspect of the Bill. If that is the Minister's intention, he will no doubt happily tell the Committee so. If not, two of the amendments would provide a more practical way forward, which would protect the interests of wildlife and the environment from anyone who abuses the right of access, without creating a source of friction between owners and agricultural tenants. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept those amendments and, for the reasons that I have advanced, the other amendments in the group.
|
