Mr.
Williams: The way in which the members are appointed is
important. The hon. Member for Stroud has suggested that there should
be a democratic process, but other hon. Members have indicated that
that might not always be the best way forward. I should have thought
that commoners would want some democratic process for electing the
people who would represent them on the statutory bodies, given that
they will commit them to schemes and practices over which they will not
have a direct
influence. On Second
Reading, I indicated that there was a huge difference between the
involvement of active and inactive commoners and whether a dominant
tenement is in the ownership of a sole trader or a
partnership—for example, whether one person may own six or seven
dominant tenements around a common and whether he or she should have
greater rights than a person owning one dominant tenement. Should there
be some reflection of the fact that one person may have rights to graze
100 sheep and another has the right to graze 1,000? Should the many
different commitments to the management of the common be reflected in a
different election
system? The clause
says that, by regulation, the national authority can indicate what sort
of election process could be used to appoint members. Will the Minister
say whether he has had any thoughts on
that? Helen
Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): The hon.
Gentleman’s question raises another, which I hope that the
Minister will be able to answer, about the system for the landowner to
secure representation on the group. I envisage a situation in my
constituency, which has a large number of large commons, but only two
significant landowners that will, in effect, be guaranteed places in
all the associations. I cannot understand how a system of election
would fit in with that, or whether different systems of appointment are
desirable. I should like the Minister to clarify how that will pan
out.
Mr.
Williams: The hon. Lady raises an interesting question.
There are commons in my constituency with more than one
landowner. Although
we are pleased that the Minister has spoken about the importance of
people’s legal rights, it is important, if associations are to
enter into environmental agreements, that they have the support of
organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
and, perhaps, the wildlife trusts and others. I am not sure how an
election would work in such cases. Perhaps he will share any ideas that
he has on this tricky and rather thorny
problem.
Mr.
Llwyd: Perhaps I could return briefly to an area of
confusion, and I am obliged to the National Farmers Union for drawing
attention to it. The NFU refers to the clause, in respect of which we
are talking about board, council, or executive members. Surely,
everybody who exercises rights of common on the common will be members,
as such, of the association. [ Interruption.] Is that not
right?
The
Chairman: Order. That was not an intervention; I was
taking it as a
speech.
Mr.
Llwyd: I was developing the theme. Surely, if the Minister
wishes to intervene, it would be fair for
everyone.
Jim
Knight: I was trying to intervene to be helpful, but I
have forgotten what I was going to
say. The members of
the association would be the representatives and members of the
committee. They would be there by virtue of their representation of the
various legal interests. In some cases, there might not be enough
people for an election; when there are, there will be an
election.
Mr.
Llwyd: I am grateful for
that.
Jim
Knight: I may have answered most of the questions in my
intervention. The establishment order will determine voting mechanisms
for electing members of the association. In some cases, weighted voting
might be appropriate. We cannot give one method that would work for all
commons—as we have discussed, they are so varied and there are
very different balances between landowners, commoners and so
on. We need to
retain flexibility and to ensure that how the associations are formed
and properly consulted on is appropriate to each case. It may well be
that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop
Auckland (Helen Goodman) one or two landowners would be representative
because of their legal interests in a number of associations, if one
big one had not been formed. However, unlike at present, such
landowners would no longer have the veto over what went on, because the
associations would make the
decisions. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause 30
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
31Functions
David
Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in clause 31,
page 17, line 43, at end
insert— ‘(5A) Where a
commons association is established for an area of land that consists of
more than one common, it may exercise the functions conferred on it
under subsection (1) separately for each common or group of
commons.'. Part
2 of the Bill deals with statutory commons committees and the functions
related to the management of agricultural activities, vegetation and
the exercise of rights of common. Currently, to a
greater or lesser extent, those functions are carried out by the
voluntary commoners associations. The Federation of Cumbria Commoners
is excited about part 2. It tells me that if its potential is to be
properly realised, the voluntary associations will have to be convinced
that it is worth the candle to change to statutory committee
status. At the
moment, the additional cost and responsibilities and increased burdens
may outweigh the advantages of going down the statutory route, unless
there is some Government pump-priming. If there had been a stand part
debate on part 2, I would have made a speech on the missing funding
elements. However, there is no legitimate scope for me to do so and be
in order. The most
appropriate size for a typical upland statutory commons committee is
uncertain, although the larger the grouping of commons covered, the
greater the potential for cost-efficient administrative structures. At
the same time, the very individual and peculiar nature of some of the
commons, both in respect of their historical development and their
modern-day management needs, demands very localised and sometimes
individual decision making at individual commons level.
The amendment seeks to ensure
that when a statutory commons committee is in the form of an umbrella
organisation that looks after two, three or half a dozen commons,
because that is seen as the most appropriate and cost-efficient way
forward, rules that relate to specific individual commons within that
umbrella may be created, and there may be different rules for different
commons. To give a
simple example, Caldbeck and Allendale commons in my constituency and
that of the hon. Member for Workington might decide to set up a
statutory umbrella organisation to share the costs of administrating
the statutory functions. However, they might wish for there to be
totally different management rules for Caldbeck common on the one hand,
and Allendale common on the other. The amendment seeks to make it clear
that a statutory commons committee could exercise different functions
for all the individual commons within its
umbrella. 7
pm
Mr.
Rogerson: Our sitting has been long and I shall attempt to
be brief. I rise to
support the thinking behind the amendment. The example of Bodmin moor
has been raised before and I raise it again. It covers a large area of
my constituency and of the neighbouring constituency of South-East
Cornwall. It is not a common, but a patchwork of many rural
communities. Around 17 parishes would be affected so a large number of
people would want to be involved. The more flexibility there is for
voluntary associations to act within a statutory association or in
concert with a statutory association, the more effectively the Bill
will function. I
shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about
provision for small areas of common land that may be near a major area
of common landwhere commoners and landowners want to form an
association and whether a nearby area might be able to have some form of
relationship with the larger statutory association to gain access to
some of the provisions in the
Bill. Jim
Knight: I am grateful for the amendment and to be able to
respond to the concerns of the Cumbria commoners and perhaps some of
the Cornish
commoners. The
amendment is unnecessary, but that is good news because part 2 is
already sufficiently flexible to enable a commons association to do
what hon. Members are asking for. It can respond to the different
conditions found on each common that it manages. For example, its
functions relating to the management of agricultural activities do not
have to be exercised in exactly the same way in relation to each
common. That will depend on the needs of each individual common. The
national authority could, in the establishment order, confer different
functions in respect of different commons within the same association,
but we would probably prefer to give commons associations wider
functions and allow the association itself to pick and choose those
most suited to it at any one
time. As commons
associations are empowered to do anything that will assist them in
carrying out their functions, they could, for example, vary the
livestock management regimes for each common or make different rules
for different commons to respond to local conditions. They could also
set up different voting regimes for different commons within the
association to avoid the need for everyone having to vote on issues
unrelated to their specific common.
In response to the last
question asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson), I
suspect that if there was worry about a small common being subsumed by
a larger one in an association, different rules would be set up for
their
management. Mr.
Rogerson: The question also related to areas such as Bodmin moor,
which has clearly defined boundaries with areas of common land nearby
but not actually in the area. Would they be able to have some form of
relationship?
Mr.
Knight: I am sure that they could have a relationship
because the associations will have wide and flexible powers to do
anything that will assist them in carrying out their functions. I hope
that that will be sufficient for the hon. Gentleman, and that the right
hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will withdraw the
amendment.
David
Maclean: In view of the Minister’s assurances that
the various sections of part 2 of the Bill will allow to happen what I
want to happen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
31 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Tony
Cunningham.] Adjourned
accordingly at four minutes past Seven o’clock until Thursday 27
April at Nine
o’clock.
| 
