Mr.
Llwyd: I reinforce the points made by the right hon.
Member for Penrith and The Border. It would be worse still to leave the
wording in the Bill and then proceed with orders using another name.
That would be confusing in itself, let alone in comparison with a
voluntary body. It would be compounded. The point may seem small, but I
am sure that the Minister will get round it because he wants the Bill
to be a good Bill, as we
do.
Jim
Knight: I am grateful for those comments. I will go away
and reflect on all that has been said and the view of some
parties.
Mr.
Drew: I am becoming increasingly persuaded that we should
call them commons committees because that is exactly what they will be.
They will be separate from councils
The key point is that when the
Government, presumably with some form of code of practice, go out and
encourage voluntary associations to think about becoming statutory
bodies and to be available to consider the environmental gains as well
as the social gains that they would achieve, we must be clear about
what they will be called if and when they become statutory bodies. We
need to know that sooner rather than
later.
Jim
Knight: I will go away with the intention of tabling
amendments on Report, probably for the bodies to be referred to as
commons committees.
However, for the remainder of our debates I think we should continue to
refer to them as commons associations; otherwise we shall become
confused.
Mr.
Paice: Miss Begg, I am beginning to feel even more
inferior than usual, because during today’s proceedings the
Minister referred to the immense importance that he always attaches to
everything that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy says about
such issues and he referred to the power of the argument of my right
hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, but I have so far
escaped such
blandishments.
Jim
Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Paice: I am not sure that this is wise, but of course I
will give
way.
Jim
Knight: I hope that it is taken as read that I fully
respect but do not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman’s
thoughts and comments. As always, they were well thought through and
well
intentioned.
Tony
Cunningham (Workington) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman should
not have given
way.
Mr.
Paice: No. I think I am grateful to the
Minister. As my right
hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said, I thought that
the Minister’s initial response was extremely weak. The clause
states clearly:
“A body
corporate established under this section is to be known as a
‘commons
association’.” That
could not be clearer or blunter, and to suggest that they should be
called something else is stretching the point. Nevertheless, the
Minister quickly moved on from that position to a more emollient one,
which I welcome. I am sure that the Bill is on a word processor
somewhere and I do not believe that the necessary amendments would be
difficult to achieve. I would be happy with the word
“committee”. My principal concern, as I made absolutely
clear, is to avoid confusion and I am unfussed about whether we have a
single term or, as the Minister suggested, a range of options. The
important point expressed by all Opposition Members is to avoid the
confusion of having both statutory and voluntary
associations. In the
light of that, I look forward to the Minister’s amendments and
promise that I will not chide him for the hundreds that will be
necessary on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. 5.30
pm Clause 26
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
27Procedure
for
establishment
Mr.
Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 27, page
15, line 28, after ‘land', insert
‘(and in particular persons actually
exercising rights of common over
it)'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
amendment No. 100, in clause 27, page 15, line 30, at end
add ‘(and in particular persons
exercising rights of commonover
it).'.
Mr.
Paice: This is a short, straightforward amendment. It says
that, under the procedure for establishment in clause 27(5), the
appropriate national authority for the purposes of the
debate—the Minister—must have particular regard to
representations from three groups of people. We should make it clear
that, under subsection (5)(b), it should not only be those who are
entitled to exercise rights of common over such land. We have already
heard how many rights are not exercised, but what matters is that the
role of those who do exercise the rights over the land rather than
those who just own the rights should be particularly important. In
other words, if they were to receive an application to establish an
association and it transpired that virtually everyone who was pursuing
it may hold rights and be entitled to exercise them, but have not done
so since the year dot—or, at least since 1965—clearly
that application would be considered baseless. The amendment does not
require great changes to be made to the Bill, but it is important that
we ensure that the voice of the active commoners—those who are
exercising their rights, and who obviously have a much greater role in
the management of the common, which is what the Bill is about—is
strong.
Mr.
Williams: Our amendment is the same as that tabled by the
hon. Gentleman, although it is directed at a different place in the
Bill. As he said, it emphasises the difference between active and
inactive commoners. Many people with rights do not exercise them and it
seems wrong that their views should be of equal weight to those who do
exercise their rights. If the management of a common is to be altered
as a result of the formation of the statutory body—the
association—it is the people who are grazing the common who
should enable that change to take place, either by reducing the number
of stock on the common or increasing it. Inactive grazers are unlikely
to be encouraged to put stock on the common as a result of the
formation of a statutory
body.
Mr.
Paice: To add to that, will the hon. Gentleman not include
signing up management agreements with Natural England or the
Countryside Council for Wales, or even entering the Government’s
higher level conservation stewardship
schemes?
Mr.
Williams: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman has made a good
point. The amendment would be useful because it would assure those
commoners who contribute so much to the management of the common that
their interests will be at the front of the national authority’s
decision-making process. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister
considers it appropriate to accept the
amendment.
Mr.
Rogerson: I support what has already been said. The
important principle is that those who exercise their rights are often
those who live and work close to the common. There might be many
examples of dominant tenements being owned by people who do not occupy
the premises and often have little to do with the common concerned. In
constituencies such as mine, there are large numbers of second homes;
properties lie empty for much of the year. In the past, many of those
may have been agricultural holdings. It is particularly unfair that
those who choose to take very little active part in the community or
the management of the commons should have equal rights to
representation or should be given equal standing when it comes to the
formation of a commons association, committee, council or whatever it
may
be.
Mr.
Llwyd: May I urge the Minister to accept the amendment? I
respectfully draw his attention to clause 39(1)(a), which is, in
effect, a template for the use of the amendment in another
context.
Jim
Knight: I am just looking at clause
39(1)(a). We are
resisting the amendments for a number of reasons to do with
flexibility. It would be difficult to define what constitutes the
active use of rights. Should commoners grazing two ewes for one day of
each year be considered as exercising their rights, or should it be a
greater proportion of rights for a more limited period each year? How
long should it be before rights are considered inactive? The commoners
may have entered an agri-environment agreement that necessitates rights
not being used for a period—does that render them
inactive?—or the common may not have restocked after suffering
the impact of disease, such as foot-and-mouth. It would also be
impossible to determine who falls within the definition of an active
commoner, even if one could be
determined. The Bill
does not prevent the national authority from according greater weight
to the views of what it may define as active commoners, which will be
important when there are a large number of clearly inactive commoners,
compared with the number of apparently active commoners. However, in
reality, on an agriculturally active common, it is likely that most
interest, and therefore most representations, would come from those
actively exercising their
rights.
Mr.
Paice: I have listened to the Minister’s argument
about how it might be difficult to ascertain who is exercising the
rights of common. Following the comment by the hon. Member for
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, will he say how he will do that under clause
39?
Jim
Knight: I am sure that I will do so when we get to clause
39. While I think about that, let me just offer one other scenario to
hon. Members. On a common where there is no, or very little,
agricultural activity, more weight might and should be attached to
representations received from persons with nature conservation
interests, or with statutory responsibilities for the common. We would
not want to prevent such persons from being involved in, or having
their voices heard in, the establishment of a commons
association.
On that basis, I hope that the
hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will seek leave to withdraw
his
amendment.
Mr.
Paice: I am disappointed with the Minister, because I do
not think that he has listened to the argument at all. I am not sure
whether he is coming to the end of his file
tonight. I made the
case as eloquently as I could, and I appreciate that it may have its
weaknesses, but the comment from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant
Conwy underlined the matter completely. The phraseology is identical.
Under clause 39, it is to do with the consent for
works: “the national
authority”— that
is, the
Minister— “shall
have regard to...the interests of persons having rights in
relation to, or occupying, the land (and in particular persons
exercising rights of common over
it).” He obviously
believes that, in that context, it is
possible.
Jim
Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course,
clause 39 differentiates between landowners and commoners, which is a
much more straightforward difference than the one between active and
non-active
commoners.
Mr.
Paice: I fail to understand the logic of that
intervention, because we are only talking about people
having “the rights of
common over it”. Some of
them will be owners, but some will not be. We are talking
about “the interests of
persons having rights in relation to, or occupying, the land (and in
particular persons exercising rights of common over
it).”
Mr.
Williams: The issue here is that an owner cannot exercise
right of common because that involves exercising a right on someone
else’s land. The Minister is wrong on this issue because it is
bound to revert to a situation of people exercising rights as
commoners, not as landowners.
Mr.
Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he adds to my
argument. The Minister is accepting, under clause 39, that he, as the
national authority, will be able to divine which persons exercise the
rights of common over the land. However, half of his justification for
rejecting the amendment is that he will not be able to do that in
relation to whether to set up an association. Frankly, it is a daft
position and not one I would have expected the Minister to adopt. I am
tempted to suggest that he has not read his notes because he would have
seen through the argument if he had read them beforehand. I am far from
satisfied with his response and unless he wishes to intervene, I do not
feel inclined to withdraw the
amendment.
| 
