 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Commons Bill [Lords] |
Commons Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Gordon Clarke, Frank Cranmer,
Committee Clerks † attended
the Committee Standing Committee DThursday 27 April 2006(Morning)[Mr. Mike Weir in the Chair]Commons Bill [Lords]Clause 32Ancillary
powers 9
am David
Maclean (Penrith and The Border) (Con): I beg to move
amendment No. 52, in page 18, line 13, at end
insert— ‘( ) In exercising
its powers under subsection (1) the association may appoint agents to
act on its behalf and such agents may include voluntary commons
associations which are members of the statutory
body.'.
No. 62, in clause 32, page 18,
line 15, at end insert ‘including
agreements with commons associations, or with such persons as the
council considers to represent the interests of persons exercising
rights of common over the
land.'. No.
74, in clause 32, page 18, line 18, leave out paragraph
(d). No. 102, in
clause 32, page 18, line 18, at end
insert— ‘( ) make
arrangements for the resolution of
disputes;'. No.
53, in clause 32, page 18, line 19, at end
insert— ‘(f) appoint
tribunals for the resolution of
disputes.'. No.
103, in clause 32, page 18, line 19, at end
insert— ‘(f) establish
tribunals.'. No.
75, in clause 32, page 18, line 25, at end
add— ‘( ) The powers of a
commons association to acquire land as specified in subsection (2)(d)
includes a power to cause its registration as common land or as a town
or village
green'. No.
91, in clause 32, page 18, line 25, at end
add— ‘( ) The powers of a
commons association to dispose of land as specified in subsection
(2)(d) shall be subject to provisions of section 16 (Deregistration and
exchange: applications) as if the association is the owner of the
land.'.
David
Maclean: The amendment, tabled in the name of my hon.
Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), is a
straightforward probing amendment that seeks information from the
Minister on whether, in exercising its powers under clause 32, a
statutory commons association could appoint agents—people to act
on its behalf—that could include a voluntary commons
association. The Minister may say that that is taken as read and is
already in the clause, or is somewhere else in the Act, but I just want
an assurance that it is not precluded by
the Act, and that it would be legitimate for a voluntary commons
association to be an official agent—paid, if necessary—of
the new statutory commons committee.
Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I am sure
that it will be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Weir. I understand that it may be the first time that you have chaired
a Standing Committee, and I am sure that you will find that we all
behave in the best possible way. My party intends to support the
Bill—the Minister has the privilege of steering it through and
he has all-party support. However, it is our intention to improve it as
muchas possible, because this is a once in a lifetime
opportunity, and that is why we have tabled
amendments. Amendment
No. 62—in the name of the hon. Member for South-East
Cambridgeshire and myself—is similar to amendment No. 52. The
Minister already indicated his anticipation that, whenthe
statutory bodies representing commons are established, they may not be
set up in relation to a single common but instead for a group of
commons. In covering a range of commons, voluntary associations will
still exist, and will still have purpose and function, bringing
knowledge of local issues to the
fore. The amendment is
therefore a probing amendment, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and
The Border (David Maclean) said, and I hope that the Minister will say
that what it proposes is how things should indeed work, and that the
statutory association can act on behalf of the voluntary association in
establishing agreements, including environmental agreements that will
bring resources to commons, in order that commons achieve their
agricultural and public
purposes. Amendment
No. 102 proposes making arrangements for dispute resolution, and there
is a further amendment that is intended to establish tribunals. On
reflection—it is not just the Minister’s prerogative to
reflect—our amendment No. 53 isbetter than amendment
No. 103. Much of the implementation will be done by means of
regulation, and I hope that statutory bodies will be given the power to
resolve disputes, because if commons associations are to be more active
in commons management, from time to time there will
bedisputes about management, about implementation of
agreements, and about the role of individual commoners. What we do not
want is a costly system of court applications for every dispute, so we
want the Bill to include a means for establishing dispute resolution
procedures. The
amendments are small ones, but will be of great import when the
statutory bodies are set up. We would like the Minister to consider
them, and in his wisdom, agree to them in due
course. Mr.
James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): May I
apologise for my delay of a second or two in arriving, Mr. Weir? I
thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border for
his words. As he rightly said, amendment No. 52 is designed to ensure
that the statutory associations, or
whatever we end up calling them, can appoint voluntary associations to
act on their behalf—in other words, act as agents.
The idea will not be completely
new to the Minister, as it has been discussed with his officials. It
came from the National Farmers Union and the National Sheep
Association; they, obviously, are involved in many of the voluntary
associations and are anxious that it should be possible to make such
appointments. If the Minister said that the amendment was not necessary
and that such powers were implicit and did not have to be in the Bill,
that would be acceptable, but there would be no harm in putting them in
the Bill. Nothing would be lost and some things would be gained by
making it clear that an association “may” appoint agents
to act on its
behalf. Amendment No.
62, which I tabled and to whichthe hon. Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire(Mr. Williams) added his name, is very similar,
apart from the obvious point that it relates to a different part of the
clause. It goes slightly wider than appointing agents; it is about
enabling other sorts of agreement to be made with commons associations.
Such agreements might not be purely agency arrangements. They might be
about different things, perhaps in respect of the points that we have
discussed several times—conservation or stewardship agreements
with Natural England, for example. The statutory and voluntary bodies
may well need to enter into such agreements. It is important that there
should be a power in the Bill for the statutory body to make
agreements “with commons
associations, or with such persons as the council considers to
represent the interests of persons exercising rights of
common”. The
hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire kindly said that he thought that
amendment No. 53 was better than his own—although he referred to
it as “our” amendment, and it is mine. Never mind; he is
very generous. The amendment would mean that tribunals would be
appointed for the resolution of disputes. We touched on that on Tuesday
in talking about the end of the commons commissioners. Although the
amendment is about a slightly different aspect of the issue, it is
still about resolving disputes over rights on the commons for which the
statutory body will be responsible.
As the hon. Member for Brecon
and Radnorshire said, we do not want to resort to the courts, although
under the Bill as it is now drafted it seems that the only way of
resolving disputes would be through them. Nobody thinks that a
satisfactory situation, so we propose that a commons association should
have the power to appoint tribunals to resolve disputes relating to
their powers, although not disputes that relate to things beyond their
functions. The
amendments are straightforward, but important for ensuring that
statutory bodies operate according to our cross-party
belief—that they should operate in the best interests of the
commons and those who use them. We are anxious that the system should
work, and the amendments would help it to work; that is why I tabled
them. Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): It is an
unrivalled privilege and pleasure to serve under
your wise and able chairmanship, Mr. Weir. That is enough flattery for
one morning, but it might ensure that I get called later in the
proceedings—who
knows? I support
amendments Nos. 52 and 62, as they are sensible. They may be of a
probing nature, but it is important that the Minister should have an
opportunity to explain whether the powers would be available in the
circumstances. On
amendment No. 62, voluntary commons associations have done an excellent
job in many areas throughout the United Kingdom and nobody would wish
to see them disappear. Their expertise is there, it should be used and
if it is to be used on an agency basis, all well and good and I think
that the Minister takes the point. He understands and said on Tuesday
that he accepts they do a good job. We need to ensure, on a
belt-and-braces principle, that we see whether it is possible to bring
them in on an agency
basis. I wish to speak
briefly to amendments Nos. 102, 53 and 103 and discuss the whole idea
of establishing tribunals. The Minister may say that that exists
somewhere within the Bill. I have not found it, nor has the hon. Member
for South-East Cambridgeshire. I do not think that any of us have found
it yet. If it does exist, all well and good. The Minister can then say
on the record that it does exist. If it does not, it is a
problem. On Tuesday
we touched on the idea of rectifying mistakes. Unfortunately, I am
still unhappy about that because there are still many mistakes under
the Commons Registration Act 1965, which are with us today and cause
great aggravation—for example, when a person has wrongly
registered far too many rights, ultimately causing over-grazing, and
friction in the commoners association.
I am not saying that the Bill
will give rise to disputes. However, the truth is that we are dealing
with competing interests. On Tuesday we referred to the balance between
the commoners, the owners and others who use the common for
recreational purposes. It is important that some mechanism is provided
for the simple resolution of disputes without recourse to the courts.
That is not really a viable option because of the time it takes and the
cost. We can
legislate for dispute resolutions in an alternative manner, which I
think would be preferred. The amendments are good and need to be
debated.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 28 April 2006 |