Mr.
Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 15, line 5,
leave out ‘association' and insert
‘council'. It
is a challenge to know how to introduce the amendment. I would be quite
happy if the Minister said that he would be happy to accept it, and we
could move on, because it has huge support, which I will describe. The
amendment is logical and sensible and I look forward to listening to
any reason that the Minister might have to oppose it. It goes without
saying that were it to be approved, there would be a large number of
consequential amendments and I hope that we will not waste time arguing
about that. We are at the principal point at which the term to be
applied to the new statutory bodies needs to be considered.
As the Committee and the
Minister are aware—the Minister made the point in his previous
comments on Second Reading, in the Committee and outside the
House—it is expected that a very large number of voluntary
commons associations will remain in existence. Indeed, the Minister
said that there will be many occasions on which groups of them will
come together to form a statutory body, which is why the next few
clauses in the Bill are relatively vague. I entirely agreed with the
Minister when he said that he wants to leave it open to see how things
work and how groups of organisations and people come together. We
will discuss later issues such as the proportion that should belong to
commoners. Overall, I support the Minister’s desire for
flexibility. A number
of these overarching bodies already exist. We discussed on Second
Reading the Dartmoor commoners council, which is laid down in
statute—the Minister has tabled an amendment on the matter.
There is the Federation of Cumbria Commoners, the Federation of
Yorkshire Commoners and Moorland Graziers, the Welsh commoners forum
and, I am sure, many, many other groups of individuals who come
together within an umbrella organisation. What is common to them is
that they bring together voluntary commons
associations. The
second part of my case is that there is no doubt that many voluntary
commons associations are not convinced that it is in their interests to
convert into statutory associations because of the costs and regulation
involved in doing so. The Minister will seek to allay that concern, but
it is genuine. Thoughts on the issue are being put forward in a joint
paper by the NFU and the National Sheep Association, which represent
many hundreds of commoners. The Welsh commoners forum is also involved
in putting the
case. The
associations are very concerned that there considerable added costs
will be involved in running a statutory body by comparison with running
a voluntary body. The Minister made it clear that he wants to keep
voluntary bodies when they wish to remain so. Indeed, it is
likely—many may say desirable—that a statutory body would
be an umbrella body for a group of much smaller voluntary
associations. That
leads me to the issue of the terminology. For the life of me, I cannot
see why we need to call the statutory body an association, given that
the voluntary body will remain a voluntary association. That can lead
only to considerable confusion. As I said, many existing umbrella
bodies have chosen other words to describe themselves, such as
“council”, “forum”,
“federation” and so on.
I am not wedded to the word
“council”; if the Minister says that it has too many
local government connotations and that we need to think of another
term—“commons court”, “federation”
or whatever—I shall not mind. My principal point is that to
avoid confusion it would be wise for the word
“association” not to refer to both a statutory and a
voluntary body, because nobody would know the difference.
Somebody trying to deal with
their local commons association would not know whether it was statutory
or voluntary without some investigation. If the titles were different,
that person would know that there was a distinction. I have struggled
with this issue and I shall listen to the Minister with interest if he
tries to persuade us to leave the Bill as it is. There is, however, an
unarguable case for an alternative term. As I said, if the Minister
wants to think of a term different from “council”, so be
it, but it has to be other than
“association”.
Mr.
Drew: I am happy to make an offer to the hon. Gentleman;
we will agree to “council” if he agrees to our amendments
that would promote legitimacy by having people elected to that body
rather than things
being contrived so that those who form the voluntary associations decide
who serves on them. I do not think that that would give such bodies any
great legitimacy. The hon. Gentleman may choose to think about that
offer before we come to clause 30.
I am intrigued by the notion
of a difference between a council and an association. If I read the
regulatory impact assessment properly, the Government will set much
greater store by how people form themselves into that body, whatever it
is to be called, in respect of environmental and social
purposes—environmental in the sense that it will be a
representative body that applies for environmental grants, or some form
of support, and the single farm payment and ascertains when they get
paid, and, more particularly, looks at the higher level of
environmental support for the area that people are farming.
On the social side, we are
looking at some accountability and also some responsibility. Animal
welfare, in which I have an interest, is listed as one of the issues.
The last time I went out with the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals we were looking at a beast on Minchinhampton common,
which was mentioned on Second Reading. The RSPCA officers made it clear
how difficult they had found things because this animal was in some
distress, and it needed its hooves cutting back. The officers found it
difficult to serve an order because it was not clear whom the animal
belonged to; although they had tried to ascertain that, they had not
made much progress.
I see this measure as
encouraging those who keep animals on the common, who will be part of
the representative body, to take some responsibility for the animals if
they are grazing on the common. To be honest, I am indifferent to how
we would change the term. “Association” means something
to me, but I can see the value of calling the body a council if that
differentiates it from existing voluntary associations, provided that
under clause 30 legitimacy is entailed as part of the
Bill.
5.15
pm
David
Maclean: I support my hon. Friend the Member for
South-East Cambridgeshire, who made a valid point. No point of
Conservative party philosophy is involved in the amendment; there
should be no political divide between us. I knew nothing about this
issue until I got a brief from the Federation of Cumbria Commoners. As
the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), the Whip, will tell
the Minister, the Federation of Cumbria Commoners is not a big
Conservative landowning interest with an axe to grind, but represents
hundreds of small farmers and commoners on the fells in both our
constituencies, who are saying that this provision will simply cause
confusion. They generally like what the Government are trying to do in
the Bill and can understand the concept of a statutory association.
They are saying, “We may continue with our voluntary
associations, but we might move to statutory ones if there is money in
it for us; and the Minister has all the money to go with the powers
that we will have”—although that is a different
debate. The Cumbria
commoners are saying that there will be total confusion if the
associations are called the
same thing. Irrespective of the legitimacy of the new council or
statutory association, the Cumbria commoners are saying,
“We’re small farmers, not lawyers or experts, and when we
hear of a commoners association, we assume it is the current thing that
we have and understand. If the Government are going to create a new
body, please, for goodness’ sake, irrespective of the powers
they give it, just call it something different.” The commoners
have suggested the word “council”, which is not set in
stone—perhaps it could be an authority, or some other words
could be used—but they want something different from commoners
associations, which is the current model that they all understand, have
had for many years and are happy with. The Government are creating
something new and they should call the statutory body something
different, so that we can tell the dog from the rabbit, as they might
say in
Cumbria. Mr.
Williams: The Liberal Democrats support the setting up of
a statutory body to represent the interests on commons. The Minister
will know that whereas the voluntary associations have been successful
in entering some of the environmental schemes that have been available,
there has always been a difficulty, because they have always had to
have unanimous support from the commoners. We hope that the statutory
solution will ensure that when the majority of commoners wish to abide
by a management scheme agreed to achieve environmental objectives, the
whole of the common will be able to go in and get the benefit and all
the people who contribute to its management get the reward as
well. It was brought
to my attention some time ago that a common on Abergwesyn hill that
tried to enter an environmentally sensitive area scheme in Wales was
confounded because one of its members refused to conform to the
management scheme put in place. That is a huge disadvantage and damage
to the common, but it also affected those commoners who could have
benefited from it. We
support this measure, but we also believe that there is a role for
voluntary commons associations, because they do an awful lot of good
work in managing the commons, easing out problems arising from time to
time in terms of access and nature conservation and in the co-operative
gathering and shepherding of sheep that takes place to ensure that, for
instance, in terms of scab control, particular commons are cleared at a
particular time so that sheep are not left that can continue the cycle
of infection. We also
believe that confusion could occur, with the voluntary associations
being confused with the statutory bodies. We support the amendment
moved by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. We are not
particular about what the statutory body is called, but if the
amendment were accepted it would give a huge amount of clarity to the
situation. It would not be cost-effective for some small commons to
form a statutory body on their own; they would get together to share
costs and administration, so there would be a common in two
associations—a voluntary one and a statutory body. The concept
of common law, going back to manorial times, is difficult, but the
provision would just add a complication to that difficulty. I hope
that the Minister, with his graciousness and his understanding of the
issues, will accept the
amendment. Mr.
Llwyd: I think that all the points have been made, but I
should like to make one brief point. The Farmers Union of Wales and the
Wales National Farmers Union are as one on the issue; they believe that
there should be a change in nomenclature. When they actually agree,
there must be something serious going on. That would be an excellent
idea to avoid confusion. To support what other Members have said,
whatever the wording, it should differentiate the voluntary bodies from
the bodies set up under the Bill. Incidentally, the Farmers Union of
Wales and the Wales National Farmers Union also see the need for
voluntary bodies that work well to continue. They feel that we should
keep the statutory form as simple and as representative as we
can—we shall come to that shortly, no doubt—and that
things should be done with the minimum
cost.
Jim
Knight: I am grateful for the amendment. I recognise that
the term “commons association” might attract some
confusion, firstly because only appointed representatives, many of whom
will be elected, will be members of a commons association—the
remaining commoners and landowners will simply be
participants—and secondly because of the potential for confusion
with existing voluntary commoners associations. However, the Bill does
not require us to include the words “commons association”
in the name of each new statutory body. When making the establishment
order, the national authority has to decide on the name of each new
statutory body, and under the order it could well call it a commons
council. Having
listened, I am willing to consider a minor amendment to clause 26 that
would put beyond doubt the fact that the establishment order is not
restricted to using the words “commons association” in
the name of the new body.
Mr.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I am grateful to the
Minister for the direction in which he seems to moving. Unfortunately,
it would be rather odd for the Bill to refer to
“associations” throughout, and then for organisations to
have different titles across the country. Bodmin Moor Commoners
Association has formed as an interim group, based on the model of the
Dartmoor Commoners Council. They are obviously expecting that to be the
model for going forward. Does the Minister feel that there might be a
little more room for further movement on the
issue?
Jim
Knight: There may be room. As ever, I am your flexible
friend. We may well want to call a new body a commons council. However,
if we were to change all the wording in the Bill, that would require a
considerable amount of consequential amendment, which might in turn
confuse people, but I do not rule that out at this stage; I just offer
the option of deciding to be consistent in all the order making, so
that the bodies would all be called the same thing. The Committee might
want to dwell on what that name
should be, because there may be confusion with councils, too. It may be
decided in some areas with a parochial church council, a parish
council, a district council and a county council that a new council
might be one council too far, particularly given how popular councils
can be with the public. Some areas may prefer a commons committee or a
commons court. I am relaxed about that; there is some merit in keeping
the wording in the Bill as it is but simply being consistent in the
order making, but I am happy to listen to the will of the Committee on
that.
David
Maclean: Will the Minister accept that he is probably on
the thinnest ice that he has been on all day? That may be reassuring in
some ways. Almost every single subsection of clauses 26, 27, 28, 31 and
32 talks about commons associations. If every section and subsection of
the Act refers to commons associations, it is no good telling us that
at the end of the day they might be called councils, committees,
authorities, quangos or courts. They will always be known as
associations if the Act refers to them as
such. I welcome the
Minister’s assurance that we will look at other matters, but we
must do that in the next few days so that we can return to this matter
on Report. His other defences and his buts and howevers have been
reasonable, but he is being unreasonable about this
matter.
Jim
Knight: I will take the hon. Gentleman’s words
seriously. I am happy to consider the matter, but I am reluctant to
accept all the consequential amendments and the confusion that they
might
create.
| 
