Mr.
Paice: On a point of order, Miss Begg. As we have changed
the structure of the debate, will I have another opportunity to
speak?
The
Chairman: I was going to offer you that
opportunity.
Mr.
Paice: Thank you, Miss Begg. In that case I do not need to
intervene on the
Minister.
Jim
Knight: As we have had a thorough debate, I hope that it
will be taken as a stand part debate.
Mr.
Paice: I appreciate your tolerance, Miss
Begg. I am grateful
for various things that the Minister said. Starting at the end, he
talked about amendments Nos. 46 and 47 and I am grateful for his
explanation that owners will be notified and that whether an owner has
sought to prevent or has given permission would both nullify the
as-of-right clause. I confess that I was not aware of that definition
of “as of right”, so I accept that the amendments are
unnecessary, but the points are important and it is worth having them
on the record. On the
earlier amendments and planning consent, I confess that I am still
slightly concerned about the Minister’s response. I appreciate
the technical distinction between a judgment on policy and a judgment
on law, but the Government will have a serious problem with the present
situation. The Minister kindly said that he would reflect on the
matter, but he may want to reflect on the developments that will be hit
by the measure now and he might want to consider an amendment to exempt
those on which construction is already in
process.
Jim
Knight: If the hon. Gentleman is aware of any such
circumstances or any are made known to him and he communicates them to
me, that would help me when considering the
matter.
Mr.
Paice: I am grateful to the Minister and I will certainly
try to do that, with the agreement of those who approach
me. The Minister said
that much of the provision is just re-enshrining previous legislation,
but there are some twists that change it slightly and it is important
that people who will be caught by the measure should be exempted. It is
fair enough that anyone who applies for planning consent in future
should be covered by the legislation and I accept the Minister’s
point, but those who have already received it and believe that
everything is going forward need an opportunity to make
representations. I
heard what the Minister and other hon. Members said about the period of
one to five years, but I still think that people could go a bit quicker
than has been
suggested, although I have not considered the Trap Grounds issue, which
I accept as a reason for needing a fair period. Unusually, I found myself at
odds with the hon. Member for Sherwood, although that will not surprise
him. I fully recognise that the world has moved on. If he was implying
that I was defending property rights as they might have existed 50
years ago, he is living in a different world. I certainly am not doing
that, norwas I.
Paddy
Tipping: Some of the discussions reminded me of the
debates about enclosures, so we are talking about centuries ago, not 50
years ago.
Mr.
Paice: I was not a Member of the House then, so I shall
have to bow to the hon. Gentleman’s memory, although I think
that he is straining the point. As I made clear at the outset of my
remarks, I wholly support the principle of registering village greens.
However, owners should not be caught unwittingly by the legislation,
which could, in effect, nullify the value of an asset.
My only other point relates to
the Minister’s intervention on me on amendment No. 43. He said
that the fact that subsection (5)(b) depends on subsection
(5)(a)—that is, the end of paragraph (a) ends with
“and”—makes it subsequent. Having spent a few
minutes reading the provisions, but like him not having a legal
background, I am not entirely convinced that he is right. His assertion
that subsection (5)(b) is dependent on subsection (5)(a) is of course
correct, but subsection (5)(a) refers to prohibition under subsection
(4), which refers to
prohibition “by reason of
any
enactment.” Logically,
therefore, subsection (5)(b) refers to prohibition by reason of an
enactment. My
understanding of the Minister’s response to amendment No. 43 is
that landowners who have previously done nothing should not suddenly be
able to put up a welcome board to avoid registration. I entirely agree
that that should not be permissible, but that is not how I read
subsection (5), linking it to subsections (2) and (4). There is no
reference to subsequent and the prohibition appears to refer only to an
enactment. Unless I am wildly wrong, I do not think that an enactment
means an action by a private
individual.
Jim
Knight: We might need to get our collective non-legal
heads together and work out the wiring of the provisions. To go back
through all the stages, subsection (4)
says: “In
determining the period of 20 years”.
To my mind, that informs the subsequent
nature of subsection (4). Subsection (5)(b) is free-standing from
subsection (5)(a), but both are subject to the words
“in a case where the condition in
subsection (2)(a) is
satisfied”. We
could probably have this debate for some time and we might want to
return to it on Report, but in the meantime we might want to have a
chat and clarify it for ourselves.
Mr.
Paice: That may well be necessary, especially as the
Minister just said that subsection (5)(b) is free-standing from
subsection (5)(a), whereas I thought that he told me earlier that it
was dependent on paragraph (a), which indeed ends with the word
“and”, which suggests that paragraph (b) is not
free-standing. I am happy to have the discussion that the Minister
suggests. To conclude,
I have attempted to remove too much of an element of retrospection.
That is why I talked about planning consent, particularly involving
developments that are already under way, and why I sought to remove
subsection (5)(b), which strikes me as a retrospective provision. It
seems odd that only a few months ago the Minister and I were debating
retrospection about a different form of access. He was arguing against
my case because it was retrospective, but today the boot is on the
other foot. He is trying to do things retrospectively that I believe he
should not. We have
had a good debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to
reconsider certain aspects and explain others.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 3, in clause 15, page 7, line 34, leave out ‘the
relevant period' and insert ‘the
period of two years beginning with the cessation referred to in
paragraph
(b)' No. 4,
in clause 15, page 7, line 34, at end
insert— ‘(3A) This
subsection applies
where— (a) a significant
number of local inhabitants indulged as of right in lawful sports and
pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20
years; (b) they ceased to do so
before the commencement of this
section; (c) the application is
made within the period of five years beginning with the cessation
referred to in paragraph (b);
and (d) the land was neither
covered by a building nor within the curtilage of a building on 18
April
2006.' No.
5, in clause 15, page 7, line 35, leave out ‘and (3)(a)' and
insert ‘, (3)(a) and
(3A)(a)' No. 6, in
clause 15, page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (6)—[Jim
Knight.] Clause
15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
16Deregistration
and exchange:
applications
Paddy
Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 8, line
32, leave out subsection (2).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments:
No. 71, in clause 16, page 8,
line 33, at end
insert— ‘(2A) If an
application for release land of not more than200 square
metres is made less than 10 years after an application has been granted
for the release of other land within a distance of 50 metres of it,
then, regardless of any change of ownership that may have occurred
during that period, the application must include a proposal under
subsection
(3).'. No.
33, in clause 16, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (4).
No. 72, in clause 16, page 8,
line 41, after ‘green',
insert ‘or already be any other
public open space; (aa) the
replacement land is not less in area and is equally advantageous to the
persons (if any) entitled to rights of common or other rights, and to
the
public;'. No.
70, in clause 16, page 9, line 6, at end
insert— ‘(e) whether the
alternative land is no less in area and equally advantageous as the
land
taken'.
Paddy
Tipping: I shall use my time constructively. Clause 16
deals with the deregistration and exchange of common land. Amendment
No. 32, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud,
and the other amendments all reflect the concern of the Committee that
pieces of land of less than 200 sq m may not be properly
protected. The clause
gives a permissive power of replacement, but under the amendments, when
an exchange of land is to take place, whatever its size, new common
land should be put in place. My feeling—I am delighted that it
is shared by other members of the Committee—is that common land
is mostly not large areas of open countryside but small, fragmented
spaces. If land of
less than 200 sq m is not replaced, we will see the gradual eating away
of commons. That is the purpose of the amendments. I hope that the
Minister will consider
them. Mr.
Drew: My hon. Friend, in sharing the amendments with me,
has given me even less time to speak to them than he had. I shall be
commendably brief.
Amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 70,
in which mine is the lead name, are complementary to my hon.
Friend’s inasmuch as they seek to clarify which bits of land may
be brought forward for exchange. I shall deal with each amendment in
turn; they seek to stiffen the resolve of those who wish to see in the
Bill some protection for smaller pieces of land.
Amendment No. 71 would prevent
the nibbling away of pieces of land. Areas of less than 200 sq m should
not be taken without replacement.
It being One o'clock,
The Chairman adjourned the Committee without
Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at Four
o'clock.
| 
