Mr.
Drew: I understand my hon. Friend’s
situation—he is trying to forestall reopening that debate. I do
not want to intrude on his private grief over what might happen if we
compel Natural England to find village greens where they are not
justified. It is
important to recognise that every community needs its own space to be
protected. Giving that space the nomenclature of village or
neighbourhood green, or whatever we want to call it—to return to
the debate on who is likely to be responsible for it—would be an
excellent thing for the Bill to do. I hope that, wearing his other hat,
the Minister will go righteously from evangelism to promoting the
measure as a good thing that comes on the back of the Bill.
The rest is rather technical.
Even though it is important to underpin in statute what has been
happening voluntarily for many generations, as my hon. Friend the
Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said, it will not really set the
world alight. What we are trying to do in the new clause
could.
Mr.
Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab): I echo the comments made by
my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood and for Stroud. One of the
characteristics of this Committee is a preponderance of Members
representing rural or largely rural seats. I speak mainly as a townie
whose introduction to the arcane and abstruse but nevertheless
absolutely gripping issue of commons has been through an example in my
constituency, with which I have already bored Members on Second Reading
and in Committee. It
is important that some body should be responsible for promoting
awareness of town greens. The residents of many areas with town and
village greens do not know that they have one because it is not
formally designated. During debates, we have clearly identified that
communities such as Yeadon in my constituency become aware that they
could get that formal designation and all the protections that it
encompasses only if they go through the application process to
establish a town or a village green. Few people in Yeadon are aware
that that is a possibility. Indeed, those who originally raised the
idea were regarded as community eccentrics, as no one knew what they
were talking about until their helpful Member of Parliament collected
the information, much of which was provided by the Open Spaces
Society. However,
organisations such as the OSS are small and have limited resources.
They do a fantastic job of providing support and information, but they
cannot easily discharge that role. I add my comments to those of my
hon. Friends. There must be some organisation—Natural England
seems to be a good choice—to promote awareness of town greens
and provide support for people who want to go through an often
convoluted and demanding
process.
Jim
Knight: I am grateful, as ever, to my hon. Friends. They
will know that Natural England already has a power to carry out such
activities when they benefit the natural environment. The Natural
Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 gives Natural England the
overarching purpose of ensuring that the natural environment is
conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future
generations. That includes promoting nature conservation and protecting
biodiversity, conserving and enhancing the landscape, promoting public
access and encouraging recreation in the
countryside. Natural
England already has all the powers that it needs to carry out the
activities set out in new clause 4 provided that they are beneficial to
present and future generations. I worry that imposing a duty on it to
carry out those activities would remove its element of discretion over
whether such activities would be
beneficial. I
appreciate that new clause 4 might be an attempt to establish what the
Government see Natural England’s role to be in implementing the
Bill. I told the fifth national seminar on commons in Cheltenham last
year—an excellent event, which my hon. Friend the Member for
Stroud attended—that I see Natural England becoming the
Government’s champion for the management and well-being of
common land.
3
pm We want Natural
England to facilitate the establishment of commons associations where
better management of a common would help to enhance biodiversity and
public benefit, particularly on sites of special scientific interest,
for example. However, imposing a duty to promote their formation in all
cases might not be appropriate. Commons associations will be the key to
improved management on some commons, but will not necessarily be
appropriate for all of them.
The same applies to promoting
the creation of greens. The Natural England bodies have a strong track
record in local open space creation and protection, and we expect
Natural England to build on that important work. Creation and
protection of registered town and village greens is only one part of
that activity.
Natural England is crucial to
the implementation of the Bill and to the well-being of common land in
general, but imposing a duty on it is unnecessary. I give an additional
reassurance to my hon. Friends that I will write to Sir Martin Doughty,
chair-designate of Natural England, enclosing a copy of what I have
said, so that my expectations in respect of common land are clear at
the outset.
Paddy
Tipping: I am very grateful to the Minister for saying
that Natural England will be a champion of common land, that it has a
record of excellence in respect of village greens, and that he will
write to Sir Martin Doughty, who is an enthusiast for these matters, as
is the new body. Given that Natural England is following our
discussions and will have the advantage of receiving a letter from the
Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
5Advisory
committees ‘The appropriate
national authority may appoint a committee of not more than 15 or less
than seven members, representative of commoners and the public interest
in common land, to advise
them on the discharge of their functions under this Act or any related
matter.'. — [Mr.
Paice.]Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Paice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. This is a
straightforward new clause, but the Minister probably will not be able
to accept it as drafted as it may be deficient. It was suggested by the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, among others, because of
concern that professional advice to the national authority is needed on
how it should go about doing things.
I do not wish to destroy the
harmonious mood of the Committee in the past two days, but there have
been times when some Opposition members of the Committee have felt that
there was insufficient practical understanding of the implications of
what was being discussed. Without rehearsing those matters, it is
important that the Government, or the Welsh Assembly in the case of
Wales, have the necessary advice on the practicalities and implications
of the proposal. We
discussed earlier matters such as minimal and trivial works, which are
all relevant to the Bill, and wider management issues such as what
works should, or should not, be approved. On Tuesday, the Minister
touched upon the body that he is setting up to bring together the
registration officers and advise and help them in their functions under
the Bill. That may be linked to my proposal, the principal purpose of
which is to invite the Minister to explain how he sees the national
authority moving forward. I hope that he will give us some more
information about setting up the organisation for land registration
officers and say where he will get practical advice to help him to
fulfil the significant amount of responsibility that he, or the
Department and his successors, will assume under the Bill. I stress the
word “practical”, because I say specifically in the
amendment that the national authority should be representative of
commoners as well as those with a public interest in the land. The
Government should use the real interests and the wealth of experience
and knowledge of people who have held commons rights and applied them
and used them for grazing—or indeed used any of the other rights
that we have discussed—in applying their responsibilities under
the
Bill.
Jim
Knight: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is acting from the
best intentions in wanting to ensure that the national authority acts
on the best advice. However, it is not necessary to include that power
in the Bill, as the national authority already has the power to
establish a non-statutory advisory body, if it were felt to be
appropriate. We intend
to establish a national stakeholder group to provide advice on the
implementation of the Bill—but to do so on a statutory basis
would introduce an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and impose
additional costs. In section 101 of the NERC Act 2006, we repealed no
fewer than five committees established under various enactments, which
had become redundant. We have rehearsed the arguments about this Bill
being an opportunity that comes round rarely and wanting it to stand
the test of time.
There will be a separate
organisation from the national stakeholder group—the Association
of Commons Registration Officers—which we have already started
and funded for set-up costs. We also want to ensure that we use advice
from other bodies that currently exist, such as the Welsh Commons Forum
and the federations of commoners in Cumbria and Yorkshire. The
Federation of Cumbria Commoners, with assistance from a rural
enterprise scheme grant, has recently issued a series of good practice
guides for commons, which we thoroughly welcome. We want to make sure
that we are using such advice beyond the national stakeholder
group.
Mr.
Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. As I said at the
outset, I did not expect him to accept the amendment. Indeed, he has
explained not only why he will not accept it, but why it is
unnecessary. Nevertheless, it has given him the opportunity to place on
the record the Government’s intention to set up such a
stakeholder group. It
is getting late in the afternoon, but my right hon. Friend the Member
for Penrith and The Border said that perhaps the stakeholders were
useful in respect of the fencing measures that we referred to
earlier—but that might be lost on some hon. Members.
[Interruption.] Yes, it was much better when my hon. Friend was
Chief Whip, because he was not allowed to speak. Nevertheless, I am
pleased that the Minister will take up the idea of an advisory group,
and I hope that it will involve a lot of people with the on-the-ground
practical experience to which I referred. In that light, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
6Rights
of way on commons ‘Where a
vehicular track running through a common or village green, roadside
waste or verge can be shown to have existed and to have been used
regularly by persons gaining access to their property from the adopted
public highway and by visitors to such property since before 1st
January 1966, such tracks shall from the commencement be deemed to be
roads subject to a public right of way and not part of such commons,
village greens or manorial wastes and shall vest in the parish council
within whose parish they lie.'. —[Mr.
Rogerson.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Rogerson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. The new clause
relates to an issue highlighted by a learned gentlemen who resides in
the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman
Lamb). It would clarify the situation relating to people’s
ability to access property surrounded by common land. I am not greatly
familiar with the case that gave rise to the new clause, but I can see
how such circumstances might be a problem in an area with no recognised
roadway, where people have customarily crossed common land to access
their property. The new clause would provide an opportunity to deal
with that situation by having the parish council take on that right of
way and ensure that it is maintained. Any issues about crossing the
common land could be resolved in that way.
Helen
Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): I am slightly puzzled,
although I appreciate the practical problems. Surely the hon. Gentleman
is not suggesting that what is at the moment a track that is used by
one or two people who live beyond common land should be kept up by the
local authority, involving all the costs of tarmacking and so on? Will
he clarify that?
Mr.
Rogerson: Certainly. I understand the hon. Lady’s
point. The intention is that the matter should go to the parish council
rather than the highways authority, so the track would not need to be
adopted in the same way as a road. The new clause refers
to “persons gaining
access to their property from the adopted public highway and by
visitors to such
property”, so it would
affect the track that links to the public highway, which does not need
to be maintained as a highway. It is referring to a right of way, not
requiring it to be tarmacked and turned into a permanent road. That is
the intention of the new clause.
Mr.
Drew: I want to ask the Minister a question about the
problem of easements, which I have mentioned on various occasions. I
thought that we had clarified the matter under the NERC Act, following
questions that arose from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
Can the Minister clarify that the new clause is not necessary, because
what the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) achieved in that
Act stands in primacy over this measure? I could be persuaded that we
need to nail the matter down even more exactly, because it is a great
problem in my area, and I expect that it also affects the hon. Member
for North Cornwall and
others. Where there is
a lack of clarity about rights of way—particularly vehicular
rights of way—there should be some attempt to make it clear that
people crossing common land have extant rights of way. That has become
an issue in my area, where there is a dispute with the National Trust.
There is an understandable demand for a body to take ownership of
pieces of land, because some people have had difficulty in selling
their property in the absence of clarification about their rights,
particularly vehicular rights of way, and whether they should be paying
the so-called owner of the land. I hope that the Minister can provide
such clarification, so that I do not need to support the new
clause.
| 
