Mr.Rogerson: During the debate on the parking of vehicles foraccommodation purposes, I was struck by something that seems to behappening more in Cornwall. I refer to the parking of vehicles that areused effectively for signage in that signs are painted on the sides ofvehicles presumably to get round planning regulations. Does the hon.Gentleman think that it would be helpful for the Minister to come backon thatissue? Mr.Llwyd: It is right and proper to raise the matter in thedebate, but I believe that that is more to do with planning law.However, no doubt the Minister will address the issue when he sums upthe debate. It was a good point. It has also been put to methat, under clause 38(3)(c), there should be an ability, albeitlimited, for ditches and wooden posts to be erected on the perimetersof commons and village greens to prevent 4x4 vehicles from beingunlawfully driven across land and to stop joyriders and so on. Thatwould also deter wholesale fly-tipping. I do not know theMinister’s view, but we all know that it is a major problem. Itis a major problem in parts of south Wales, as it is inmanyareas. It destructs grazing land, the natural environment and itaffects biodiversity. What would the hon. Gentleman do to prevent 4x4vehicles from encroaching where they should not? No one wants thepublic’s access to be impeded, but it is a point that might wellbe considered. Ishould like the Minister’s view on another representation that Ireceived. If he cannot respond to it today, perhaps he will drop me aline. For the first time, the provisions would prevent mineral workingfrom taking place on common land without the consent of the Secretaryof State or the National Assembly for Wales. I have been advised thatthat might be undesirable for two reasons. First, it is an additionallayer of regulation in that planning permission is still requiredbefore such activities are carried out. The planning regime is moreappropriate for such consideration. Secondly, the test would have to bewidened to take into account conservation, public interest and public access issues before such consent can begiven, and that may be inappropriate under the Bill. I should begrateful if he could comment in duecourse. The amendmentsare sensible, because they introduce an element of proportionality.That is important, because we want a regime that is regulated, butnevertheless practical, and that allows for commons to be living and tobe maintained for the commongood. 10.15am DavidMaclean: I rise to support the amendments tabled by myhon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and to give mystrong support to the comments made by the hon. Member for MeirionnyddNant Conwy on the need for occasional temporary fencing to deal withpractical farming problems on commons. There is no philosophical orpolitical divide on this issue, and the hon. Member for Stroud has gotthings slightly wrong—one would not want to go to the Ministerto settle disputes. What we are talking with regard to reseeding is asituation in which all the commoners agree to reseed a few acres ofland and that they should have a temporary fence, such as an electricfence, in place for a few months until the grass seedtakes. If commonershave to go to the Minister on every occasion that they want a fewhundred yards of electric fence for a few months until the grass seedtakes, he will be very busy. I come across such cases all the time.There are hundreds of miles of stone walls in Cumbria that run overcommons, and most of them are fairly clapped-out; indeed many of themfall down. At the moment, farmers who go out in the morning to checktheir lambs may see that a few yards of stone wall have fallen down andthat sheep are pouring through. They are not going to bring in theEnglish dry stone walling champion Steve Allen from Tebay, who charges£13 a yard; they will fix it themselves over the following fewweeks. Every time they go out to feed the sheep in the morning, they doa little bit of stone walling and, in the meantime, they stick up fiveyards of fencing round the gap in the wall to stop the sheep and lambsgoing through. Isuspect that that is happening at this precise moment in Cumbria, andit happens every day of the week. If a bit of temporary fencing to pluga gap in the stone walls has to be the subject of an application to theMinister, he will get 20 applications a week from Cumbria alone. Thatis not what will happen, however. Instead, the requirement will just beignored, and I do not think we should have a law on the statute bookthat is ignored because it is practically impossible tooperate. I am not surethat the term “permanent,” as usedby my hon.Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, is the right, or thebest, word. However, that part of the Bill that deals with the erectionof fencing is unworkable in practical farming terms. We shall have toexamine it again and consider either having definitions of the words“permanent” or “temporary” that are not asthreatening as the hon. Member for Stroud believes, or making thedefinition of fencing erection a bit more wordy so as to explain that temporary, short-gap fencing to deal with holes in stone walls, orfor reseeding, ispermitted. There arenumerous other examples of temporary fencing. On the Pennine fells,there were 2,000 lead mines, meaning that there were 2,000 verticalholes in the ground where people dug down 50 to 60 ft until they hitthe lead, and then tunnelled along a bit. Nearly all those holes arecapped now, so that not too many people fall down them. However, theodd sheep disappears. When farmers go out on the fells and they find adeep hole like that or a wet boggy bit that sheep go into and never getout of, they are not interested in erecting miles of fencing. They wantto put up five or six yards of fence around the wet boggy hole untilthe farmer can do something about it. If we have to go to the Ministerabout a bit of fencing round a wet hole in the ground or a crevice thathas materialised, he will be verybusy. I do not havethe solution, and I am not sure that my hon. Friend’s word isexactly the right one to deal with the problem without driving a coachand horses through the law—the concern of the hon. Member forStroud—but the point will have to bereaddressed. JimKnight: The amendments are the first that the Committeehas considered on part 3 of the Bill. Before I comment on them indetail, and with your indulgence, Mr. Weir, it may be helpful if I givesome background explanation of the works control system that is thetheme of most of this part of theBill. The regime datesfrom the fundamental reform of property law undertaken in the early1920s and culminating in the Law of Property Act 1925. Strong concernwas expressed at the time that, as a result, commons would becomeclosed to both commoners and the public and would turn by default intoordinary private land. The result of that fear was sections 193 and 194of the 1925 Act. Section 193 introduced a public right of access forair and exercise to commons in urban districts and boroughs. The original plan was to makeall commons subject to those access rights, but that plan metopposition in the other place, so a compromise was reached that ruralcommons were not to be subject to express rights of access under thelegislation. Instead, section 194 provided that, on all commons,fencing or works that would prevent or impede anyone’s accesswere unlawful without the prior consent of the Secretary of State.Section 194 has made such provision ever since, with the result that,by and large, a wonderful national resource remains largely open,unspoiled and suitable for the exercise of common rights and publicenjoyment, and as a fantastic pool of landscape, wildlife and heritagefeatures that I know all Committee members seek to celebrate and allowto continue. Theregime in part 3 is substantially the same as the one in section 194,which it will replace. However, it updates the controls in certainspecific ways to make them clearer and more consistent, particularly onwhat types of land are covered by the regime and what types of worksare exempt. For example, the present controls apply only to land subject to rights of common in 1926. As time goes on,that becomes more and more difficult to establish with any certainty.The Bill will create a clear link between works controls and landregistered as common or, in some cases, exempted from such registrationin the 1960s. Finally,the Bill will ensure, as far as possible, that when the nationalauthority’s consent is required for works on commons, a uniformset of criteria will guide their determination. That is not thesituation at present. I hope that those remarks are helpful in settingthe scene for part 3, which had proportionally less scrutiny in theother place than the other partsdid. I am afraid thatour view of amendment No. 54 has not changed from the view that we tookin the other place. Adding the word “materially” wouldsimply make the provision more difficult to interpret. There would beall manner of debate about what “materially” meant and towhom. Different landowners, enforcing authorities and members of thepublic would take different views on the subject. It is unlikely that trivial orinsignificant works on commons would be regarded as contraventions ofclause 38 as it is now worded any more than they are under identicalwording about preventing or impeding access in section 194 of the 1925Act, which has stood the test of time for more than 80 years. It iseven less likely that a county court would make an order against suchtrivial or insignificant works in the event that it was asked to doso. Mr.Llwyd: What the Minister says is right—the countycourt will not make an order in a de minimis situation—but somemember of the public will undoubtedly take it upon him or herself toinitiate the proceedings, causing delay, cost and everything else to nopoint. That underlines the need for theamendment. JimKnight: I listened to the hon. Gentleman with care, as Ialways listen to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire—Iwould not want him to feel left out—but I return to the problemof defining “materially”. The Bill includes a mechanisminclause 43 to exempt certain works from clause 38 and takethem en masse, but I shall come to that in a moment. I encourage thehon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw amendment No.54 Amendment No. 55would also create definitional problems. In the end, no fence ispermanent. While supporting the amendment, the right hon. Member forPenrith and The Border made this point to some extent: all fences falldown in the end and need to be replaced. The amendment’sformulation might result in the outcome that no fence at all requiredconsent.The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshirementioned electric fencing, which might appear to be more temporarythan other forms of fencing but which can be just as much of animpediment to access as permanent fencing. It being twenty-five minutespast Ten o’clock, The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to theStandingOrder. Adjournedtill this day at Oneo’clock. | 
