The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Jim Knight): I cannot put more eloquently than
the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) the pleasure
that I have in serving under your astute chairmanship, Mr. Weir. I now
beg your indulgence by asking whether I can briefly dwell on clause
27(5)(b) on which the Committee divided last Tuesday, when we met
previously. I am
grateful to my hon. Friends who supported my principal argument about
flexibility. I have reflected on the cause for the Division about the
wording of clause 39, which we will be debating later. It would be
possible for me to amend the clause to resolve the issue, but having
thought clearly about our debate, I thought that it would be helpful to
table an amendment on Report to amend clause 27(5)(b) along the lines
of that which
we discussed on Tuesday, so that we can pay greater regard to active
commoners when deciding whether to set up a commons
association. Mr.
Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I
am even more grateful for his generous words. It shows that we can lose
a vote and still win, which is a novel achievement. I was fairly hard
in my response to his argument on that occasion. After serving with him
on a number of Committees, I have come to expect his sensible, serious
and analytical approach. I am pleased that he has taken the mature
approach of looking back at what took place and has realised that there
was some sense in what we
said.
Jim
Knight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. At one point
in Committee on Tuesday, I described myself as a flexible friend and I
want to continue to be one. I shall now address the matter in hand and
will start by saying a few words about clause 32 as a whole. It
provides for an association with wide ancillary powers so that it can
carry out its functions in the most effective manner. Subsection (2)
provides some examples of the activities that fall within the remit of
the wide power, but it is not exhaustive in respect of the possible
uses of that wide power. It is informed by subsection (1) under which
an association “has the
power to do anything”. We
should be mindful of that when considering the
amendments. 9.15
am I am pleased to
tell the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that, as he
anticipated, amendments Nos. 52 and 62 are unnecessary because commons
associations already have such powers. There is the broad power that
allows a commons association to do anything that it considers will
facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to the carrying out of its
functions. An association can already appoint agents to act on its
behalf and enter into agreements. The ancillary powers may well include
appointing an agent such as a voluntary commoners association to carry
out various tasks on its behalf or enter into an agreement with
representatives of such an association. I hope that I have given the
reassurance that the Committee
wanted. Amendments
Nos. 53, 102 and 103 are unnecessary because such powers are already
available toassociations. The Bill enables them to appoint a
non-statutory tribunal or to undertake dispute resolution procedures,
if that would assist them in their functions. As the hon. Member for
South-East Cambridgeshire said, that power is limited to activities
within the scope of the functions that may be given to the association.
A dispute resolution tribunal established by a commons association
would therefore not be able to deal with disputes concerning, for
example, the registration of land or rights or issues concerning access
or recreation. It would be inappropriate for it to have a formal role
in resolving issues outside its remit.
Mr.
Llwyd: As usual, the Minister is being helpful to the
Committee. In what way will the decision of the tribunal be binding on
those before
it?
Jim
Knight: As we have discussed, each association is set up
with its own order, at which time I hope that dispute resolution
procedures would be agreed. They could be updated if necessary. If I
need to give the hon. Gentleman more information, I shall write to him
and other members of the Committee unless inspiration comes to me in
the
meantime.
Mr.
Williams: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy made
a good point because the statutory body representing commons could
enter into an agreement with the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, Natural England and the National Assembly for Wales
about the management of the common. If one commoner failed to comply
with the management agreement, that would put in jeopardy the benefits
that would flow to the commoners and the common itself. Such matters
are not trivial; they are
important.
Jim
Knight: Yes. The next clause that we shall be discussing
focuses on the enforcement of rules, which will have some bearing on
the hon. Gentleman’s point. As I said, I may write to him or
inspiration may suddenly
arrive.
Mr.
Llwyd: While the Minister refreshes his memory, I have in
my hand the fabled draft statutory instruments that we were to see
today. Mr.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): You found them,
then?
Mr.
Llwyd: Yes, the documents were under my bed. Unless I am
mistaken, I can find no reference in them to a dispute resolution,
which is an important issue. I urge the Minister to ensure that there
is a mechanism within the statutory instruments for dispute
resolution.
Jim
Knight: The debate is useful, because it may inform us
when we draft the rules. The rules could provide a requirement to
comply with the decision of a tribunal. Obviously, the extent to which
the tribunal will have authority would have to be defined, and it will
depend on the nature of the dispute, but it has been useful to flush
that issue out, and to find out whether we would need to put something
in the rules, which will come through by
order. My hon. Friend
the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is not
here—[Interruption.] Oh, he is here now. Very good. Well,
I will look forward to hearing his wise words on the other
amendments. Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I apologise for my
lateness, but alarm clocks work only occasionally. I am delighted to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Weir.
My amendments are purely
probing amendments. I caught the latter part of what the Minister was
saying about the other amendments. My amendments are
simply intended to clarify the situation as regards the acquisition or
disposition of land. That should be allowed to happen in a way that
does not fetter any other arrangements. The amendments are really about
getting further amplification on what the Government intend to do if a
dispute occurs. How can it be settled amicably, rather than being
fought through the courts? Will the Minister explain exactly what the
Government have in mind? The rules will be made through
secondary legislation, but will there be a code of practice of some
description to explain to commons associations—or committees, as
we are to call them—how to go about acquiring additional land?
Or they may wish to sell a piece of land when they need to raise
money—hopefully, as we said on Tuesday, to replace like for
like. We would certainly like to know more about
that.
Jim
Knight: All three amendments from my hon. Friend are
linked to the power of a commons association to acquire or dispose of
land, as we have heard. I am grateful to him, because his amendments
allow me to get certain matters on the record in respect of those
issues. The power to
acquire or dispose of land is one of the illustrative powers that a
commons association might use to help it achieve its purpose. We do not
expect that a commons association will engage in the buying and selling
of land on a regular basis, but there may be instances when it wants to
make use of that power. For example, if a small piece of the common was
to be sold off, the association might want to buy that land to ensure
that it did not fall into what it would regard as the wrong hands, or
an association might want to dispose of any land that it had acquired
in order to raise funds. The land in question may not necessarily be
just common land—it could be a lease on an office, for example.
We need to ensure that commons associations have sufficient flexibility
to carry out their functions in the way best suited to their
circumstances. Amendment
No. 75 is unnecessary because a commons association, like any
landowner, can create new common land under common law by simply
creating rights of common over that land. It can also voluntarily apply
for the registration of the land as a town or village green under
clause 15, without having to show 20 years’ use. If an
association were to sell common land that it had acquired, the land
would remain registered common land, as is the case with any landowner
selling common land. The exchange provisions in clause 16 apply to any
landowner seeking an order for the exchange of land, so there is no
need for a special reference to commons associations as is suggested in
amendment No. 91. My
hon. Friend asked about a code of practice on how to acquire additional
land. We will be working with Natural England and the Countryside
Council for Wales to provide advice to commons associations on their
activities and functions. We would not expect to give detailed advice
on commercial matters such as land purchases; that is not for
Government. However, we will seek to provide useful guidance. I hope
that that helps my hon.
Friend.
Mr.
Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for his responses to
the amendments in my name, and to those
in my name and that of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. I
fully understand the Minister’s comment that they are
unnecessary, inasmuch as clause 32(1) provides such wide powers that it
covers all the other things. It is difficult to refute that, and I
appreciate that the Government are loth to start adding examples to the
Bill. Nevertheless, it is important that those points have been raised
andthat he has made it absolutely clear that agencies,
agreements with other organisations and dispute resolution are properly
covered. Although I
listened carefully to the Minister, I am slightly concerned. I suspect
that every Member now has a copy of the sample “Commons
Associations (Standard Constitution) (England) Regulations 2006”
and “West Barsetshire Commons Association Establishment Order
2006”, but nothing in either of them refers to how the
associations will carry out their business. The west Barsetshire sample
refers to the functions of the establishment, the application of the
standard constitution, the functions of the association and the
rule-making procedure—how the register will be maintained and
members appointed—but nowhere does it explain how the
association will carry out its functions. That is why clause 32 is
terribly important.
Although I appreciate the
Minister’s statement that our debate informs the drafting of
those rules, it is important that the issues that we have discussed
such as agencies, agreements, dispute resolution and tribunals are
clearly put into the constitutions so that there can be no doubt that
the associations have those powers and are expected to use them to
resolve disputes. People need clarity. The purpose of the amendments
was to improve association
delivery.
Jim
Knight: I shall just add further clarification on
disputes. The findings of the tribunal that the association will have
the power to set up will be binding if they relate to the enforcement
of rules set by the association, such as commoners’ compliance
with grazing reductions, but they will not be binding on issues outside
the association’s remit. I hope that that is
helpful.
Mr.
Paice: It is helpful, and it is what most of us
understood. I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. This
short debate has been useful. On the understanding that the new draft
rules will include those points, so that they are clear to everybody, I
shall invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border
to undo the damage that he did in the
beginning.
David
Maclean: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Williams: I rise to make one short point about clause 32.
On Second Reading, I asked the Minister a question about the European
convention on human rights. If a statutory association enters into an
agreement on behalf of its members—we have considered the
proposed standard constitution order—
representation from the graziers will not be measured in large numbers
of people. A small number of people will be making decisions on behalf
of a large number of people. One issue was that as part of that
agreement, people would have to reduce the number of animals that they
graze on the common, effectively reducing their rights. How does that
stand in terms of people being able to enjoy their property? We are
talking about a statutory body taking a decision on behalf of
individuals whose right to enjoy their property is protected under the
European convention on human rights. Has the Minister considered that
issue? Will he share his thoughts with
us? 9.30
am
Jim
Knight: I am delighted to share my thoughts on that issue.
As with all legislation, there is a statement on the face of the Bill
that its provisions are compatible with the European convention on
human rights. A wide consultation process, which we sketched out on
Tuesday, is gone through in setting up the associations, so that all
those with a legal interest are represented. That enables their
interests to be heard in the association. We expect that any
restriction onrights will be underpinned by an
agri-environment agreement, which will compensate commoners for their
loss. That is also relevant to ensuring that those rights are properly
respected and that decisions are for the greater benefit of members. I
hope that my response assists the hon. Gentleman, and that the clause
will stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed
to. Clause 32
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 35 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
| 
