Rural Landlords and Land Letting: Reform

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We have to stop for five minutes while a Division takes place in the House.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

That was not the Bell—it was the noble Lord’s phone.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I apologise to noble Lords—can the noble Lord resume, please?

[Lord Carrington (CB) [V]]

I was saying that the Government have not announced in any detail what happens next, so farmers are unable to plan. This could involve both tenancy and tax matters. For example, let us suppose that they want to enter a tree-planting scheme under the ELMS, and their tenancy excludes silviculture, or the ELM scheme that they enter has a 25-year life, whereas their tenancy is a 10-year FBT, and so on. Details of ELMS may be unavailable until 2024. Those are the real issues that must be resolved by the TRIG.

The introduction of ELMS may have adverse tax consequences, as current tax rules operate as a disincentive to diversification in how they treat investment and trading activities differently. Leaving aside that information gap, I congratulate the Government on the reform measures in the Act, which were agreed by the whole industry, rather than spending time on divisive old chestnuts such as reform of AHA succession provisions. These restrictive tenancies, designed for issues of a different age, do not satisfy either landowners or succeeding tenants, who want the flexibility of an FBT where consensual terms are agreed. Other mooted changes such as introducing reasonableness tests and minimum tenure FBTs are unlikely to secure widespread industry support. I urge all reform to be on a consensual basis.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Please could the noble Lord draw his comments to a close, as there is a Division in the House?