Commons Bill [Lords]

---

TheCommittee consisted of the followingMembers:

Chairmen: †MissAnne Begg,Mr.MikeWeir

Atkinson,Mr. Peter (Hexham)(Con)

†Cunningham,Tony (Workington)(Lab)

†Drew,Mr. David (Stroud)(Lab/Co-op)

†Dunne,Mr. Philip (Ludlow)(Con)

†Goodman,Helen (Bishop Auckland)(Lab)

Griffith,Nia (Llanelli) (Lab)

†Keeley,Barbara (Worsley)(Lab)

†Kidney,Mr. David (Stafford)(Lab)

†Knight,Jim (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs)

†Levitt,Tom (High Peak)(Lab)

†Llwyd,Mr. Elfyn (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)(PC)

†Maclean,David (Penrith and The Border)(Con)

†Paice,Mr. James (South-East Cambridgeshire)(Con)

†Rogerson,Mr. Dan (North Cornwall)(LD)

†Tipping,Paddy (Sherwood)(Lab)

†Truswell,Mr. Paul (Pudsey)(Lab)

†Williams,Mr. Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire)(LD)

Gordon Clarke, Frank Cranmer,Committee Clerks

† attendedthe Committee

Column number: 2

StandingCommittee D

Tuesday 25April2006

(Morning)

[MissAnne Begg in theChair]

Commons Bill [Lords]

10.30am

TheParliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs (Jim Knight): I beg to move,

That—

(1)during proceedings on the Commons Bill [Lords] the Standing Committeeshall (in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 25th April at 10.30a.m.) meeton—

(a) Tuesday25th April at 4.00p.m.;

(b) Thursday27th April at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00p.m.;

(2) theproceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) bebrought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 27thApril.

It is a greatpleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, MissBegg. It is perhaps a sad reality of devolution that no ScottishMembers of Parliament are members of the Committee, so it is a joy thattwo Scottish MPs will be in the Chair using their wisdom to look afterus. We are all looking forward to that and to our forthcomingproceedings in which the various stars of the debate on Second Readingwill be brought together. The programme motion is straightforward inrespect of the timing of the four sittings of theCommittee.

Mr.James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): May I addmy welcome to you, Miss Begg? In light of the Minister’sreference to both Chairmen being Scots, I am sure that we shall havecomplete impartiality from the Chair—even more than we wouldhave done—as the Bill is solely to do with commons in Englandand Wales. The hon. Gentleman referred to the stars of the debate onSecond Reading. It was not the longest debate in the history of debatesin the House of Commons; nevertheless the Bill involves many issues.Although it will not grab partisan headlines, a lot of matters willaffect many ordinary people, farmers and others throughout thecountry.

I confessthat, during my preparation for the Bill, I was surprised how manydifferent issues arose. I have many matters on which to challenge theMinister and I know from working with him on previous Bills—Ican say “with” not “against”—that heis always open to constructive proposals. I am sure that we are lookingforward to his constructive responses. Several wrinkles need to beironed out. Questions need to be asked and, in some cases, changes needto be made despite the excellent work of the House of Lords in itsconsideration of the Bill. However, unusually, it did not get the Billentirely right so I am happy to support the programmemotion.

Column number: 3

Mr.Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I alsowelcome you to our proceedings, Miss Begg, and look forward to servingunder your chairmanship.As the hon. Member for South-EastCambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, when preparing for our proceedings inCommittee we received several representations and a number of issuesmust be teased out. We might not have the opportunity for another 40years to deal with common land. It is therefore our duty to give theBill full scrutiny and attention so that we can put it in a form thatwill serve the interests of not only landowners and rights holders, butthe public who regard commons as an important national resource fortheir recreation, nature conservation and other conservation issues. Asalways, I look forward to the Minister’s constructivecontributions to the debates and his responses to our amendments. Therepresentations that we shall put forward will not necessarily betechnical, but they come from people who have experience of managingcommon land and exercising theirrights.

Questionput and agreedto.

TheChairman: I remind the Committee that there is a moneyresolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are availablein the room. Adequate notice should be given of amendments. As ageneral rule, I and my fellow Chairman do not intend to call starredamendments, including any that might be reached during an afternoonsitting of theCommittee.

Clause1

Registersof common land andgreens

Questionproposed, That the clause stand part of theBill.

JimKnight: The clause requires commons registrationauthorities, generally county councils and unitary councils, tocontinue to keep the registers of common land and town or villagegreens that were established under the Commons Registration Act 1965.It is not a new duty on local authorities; the clause simply preservesthe responsibility that they already have under existinglegislation.

Questionput and agreedto.

Clause 1ordered to stand part of theBill.

Clause2

Purposeofregisters

Questionproposed, That the clause stand part of theBill.

JimKnight: We think that it is helpful if the Bill clearlysets out the purposes to be achieved by the registers held andmaintained by commons registration authorities. Subsection (1)explains:

“Thepurpose of the register of common land is...to register land ascommon land; and...rights of commonexercisable”

over suchland. Subsection (2) applies the same principles in relation to theregister of town or village greens.

Column number: 4

Question put and agreedto.

Clause 2ordered to stand part of theBill.

Clause3

Contentofregisters

Mr.Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 2, line15, leave out subsection(5).

It is a pleasureto move the first amendment. The clause says, “Regulationsmay”. Throughout the Bill, there are many issues relating tocommons that would be subject to regulation. The Minister said jokinglyon one occasion that there will be enough statutory instruments inrelation to the Bill to see us through our parliamentary careers.Looking around the room, in terms of longevity, perhaps my hon. Friendthe Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) has more chance of seeinganother Bill relating to commons than most of us. That being the case,we are concerned that the form of the regulation is not obviouslyclear.

Any regulationthat allows information to be put on a register raises data protectionand human rights issues. We are concerned about the nature of theinformation that may be put on the register. I understand that theDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Bill team, in itsguidance document on identifying the ownership of rights of common,said that if not only the dominant tenement was included, but therights pertaining to it and the holder of those rights, that might leadto confusion about who holds the rights, because they refer to thedominant tenement, not a person. The only way to establish who owns thedominant tenement is to refer to the land register. If there were to bea problem in resolving an entry in the commons register and an entry inthe Land Registry, there might be some difficulty in agreeing who wasthe holder of therights.

Having saidthat, I have already had my hand slapped by Mrs. Griffiths, the commonsregistration officer for Powys county council, who says that thecommons registry officers for Powys and the Marches insist that theclause is included in the Bill, and she tells me that she has puttremendous effort and activity into ensuring that that takes place. Herargument for doing so is that it has been helpful to farmers whoexercise rights of common, when claiming subsidies through theintegrated administration and control scheme, and now through thesingle farm payment, because they have been able to prove that theyhave rights overthe common by getting copies of the registerin which Mrs. Griffiths has included the individuals who own therights.

I understandthat Powys county council has been reprimanded by DEFRA for taking thiscourse of action, so we are in quite a difficult position. I shall readbriefly a letter from Mrs.Griffiths:

“Currently,the Rights section of the register shows the name of the originalapplicant for registration (1967-70) against the details of grazing fora particular farm holding. If a farm with grazing rights is sold inlots then application can be made to apportion the grazing rightsbetween the various parties on a pro rata basis according to acreage.We then amend the register and cross out the original 1960s entry andinsert two or more new entries.

Column number: 5

If the farm is transferred, as awhole, to the next generation on the death of the original applicant oris sold in its entirety to a new owner, there is no requirement underthe 1965 Act to amend the register. It is legally correct to show thename of a person who died or moved away 30-plus years ago and this isone of the reasons why the register needsupdating.”

Shegives an example from the area that she administers of the importanceof entering the names of rightsholders:

“When...Llanbedrand Llandeilo hill (Ireland moor) went into the ESA, Maureen Lloyd, thecommoners’ association secretary, had to ensure that theregister was amended to show all the current commoners’ nameswere in the register or else they wouldn’t receive payments foragreeing to reduce the number of animals grazing on thecommon.”

Is itthe Minister’s intention that as a result of clause 3, commonsregistration authorities will include the names of the holders ofcommon rights? If so, that goes against the advice of the Bill team,which is a problem. We are concerned that the register, a publicdocument, might contain unnecessary information or information thatrights holders do not want to be there.

Subsection (5) says thatregulations may

“requireor permit other information to be included in aregister”.

We do not havea problem with “permit”, but we do with“require”. The provision is so open-ended that it wouldallow the publication of lots of quiteimproper andunnecessary information—perhaps even information that goesagainst the nature of the legislation. Will the Minister respondpositively, indicating how he envisages that the regulation will actand what will be init?

JimKnight: I would be pleased if the hon. Gentleman passed onmy best wishes to Mrs. Griffiths of Powys council, who clearly showswisdom. We will return to the registration of ownership of rights whenwe discuss clause 8 and the interesting issue of apportionment, so Ishall not dwell on it unduly.

The register’s coreelements are the land register and the rights register. The landregister contains a conclusive record of the extent of common land andgreens, and the rights register contains a conclusive record of thenature and quantification of rights exercisable over the land to whichthey are attached.

The power in subsection (5) isintended to amplify what can or must be shown in the register. Forexample, we expect to provide that the registers may continue to showall the additional information—information about mineral rightsand public rights of access, for example—that the 1965 Actpermitted them to show. That the register should continue to show thatinformation does not raise any new data registration or human rightsissues.

We have alsoproposed that commoners should be able to enter in the register adeclaration of their entitlement to exercise rights of common when theyown the land to which such rights are attached. I think that thatanswers the hon. Gentleman’s question—they would be ableto register those rights, but would not necessarily have to. We willreturn to that when we discuss apportionment. It is not realistic torequire people to register those rights, because in the real world itwould be difficult to make them do so. The

Column number: 6

measures will improve the availability of information about who isentitled to exercise the rights over a particular common. The provisionof such information will be for assistance only, as the informationwill not beconclusive.

Theregulation-making power in subsection (5) is an essential tool forobtaining the information that must be shown in registers undersubsections (1) to (4). The Government will consult on draft proposalsfor regulations under subsection (5), so some of these issues, whichthe hon. Gentleman has rightly raised, will be subject to debate underthose order-making powers and as those orders go through. However, wewill consult, as part of our commitment to consult, on the detailedimplementation of part 1 generally.

10.45am

In respect ofthe hon. Gentleman’s question as to why we should“require” rather than “permit”, it must bepossible for regulations to require certain additional information tobe included in the register, rather than leave it to theauthorities’ discretion, for example, declarations ofentitlements to rights to which I have just referred. I hope on thatbasis, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw hisamendment.

---

Prepared 26 April 2006