The clause deals with management agreements, which, the Minister will realise from my earlier comments, I entirely support. Indeed, I want to see much of the work achieved through agreements between Natural England and various people with an interest in the land. However, the definition of interest in the land in the Bill slightly puzzles me, and I have tabled the amendments to clarify it. The Minister may tell me that they are unnecessary, but I hope that he will clarify the situation.

Subsection (6) states that the definition is the same as in clause 97 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which I have of course looked up. That Act states that interest

“in relation to land, includes any estate in land and any right over land, whether the right is exercisable by virtue of ownership of interest in land or by virtue of a licence or agreement and in particular includes sporting rights”.

That definition is fairly all embracing, so many people with different interests in the land could exist side by side. An interest may derive from somebody else’s interest, but not always.

At the top of the tree, obviously, will be the owner of the land, although even that is not 100 per cent. exclusive. Alongside the landowner could be a separate owner of, for example, mineral rights, which are often held by organisations or individuals separate from the owner of the land overall, so there could be two people at the top of the tree. Below that, there   could be farm tenants, short-lease graziers, sporting tenants—there could be several of those with different sporting rights—and forestry leaseholders.

Subsection (3) clearly states that an agreement is binding on people who derive title under or from the person who made the agreement. In other words, if the owner has made the agreement, it is binding on anybody whose title, such as a tenancy or sporting lease, derives from that ownership. However, I am trying to avoid a situation in which an agreement made by, for example, a farm tenant is binding on somebody who does not obtain their title from the farm tenant. It might be desirable, but it should not be enforceable. If, for example, a sporting tenant or forestry leaseholder had a separate lease from the owner—alongside a farm tenant—the farm tenant should not be able to bind the sporting or forestry leaseholder and, of course, vice versa.