Mr.
Drew: We are running out of time, so I shall be quick. I
have not tabled the amendment just to get the
board of conservators into the Bill. The amendment is important. It
applies to those open spaces that were provisionally registered by
their public body owners in the knowledge that that was not strictly
correct, because all rights of common had been acquired and
extinguished many years previously—nevertheless, no objection
was raised and the registration became final. It is believed that that
was done to perpetuate the memory of historic status. The amendment
applies largely to urban centres, particularly London, where there are
still a number of metropolitan commons as defined under the
Metropolitan Commons Act 1866.
I move the amendment on behalf
of the Open Spaces Society. I shall read the final sentence of its
submission: “It
would be mischievous pedantry for this to be reopened now with no
benefit to anyone, and the amendment would prevent
this.”
Jim
Knight: The purpose of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the schedule
is to enable rectification of the register when land can be shown to
have been wrongly registered under the Commons Registration Act
1965. I cannot agree
to the amendment; it would not be right to exclude certain types of
landowner from the benefit of the provisions. As I understand it, the
amendment accepts that land owned by some local authorities may have
been incorrectly registered, but as those authorities’ purpose
in seeking to remove the land from the register may be motivated by the
possibility of development, we should make a special case for
them. I do not accept
that. I certainly recognise the possibility that some authority-owned
land was registered without objection, notwithstanding that its
eligibility for registration was doubtful; some parks and recreation
grounds may fall into that category. I find it less credible that we
should expect a flood of applications from opportunist councils and
charities to have the land removed from the register.
The provisions of the schedule
should apply equally to all landowners. We should not say that we
acknowledge that some land was improperly registered and that we are
going to enable the land to be removed from the register, but that we
do not trust local authorities to do the right thing. It is certainly
possible that some wrongly registered land will be developed as a
result of application under schedule 2. That would be unsurprising,
because a mistake in registration may have held up development.
However, we cannot complain about that result. I hope that my hon.
Friend will withdraw his amendment.
Mr.
Drew: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
made: No. 28, in schedule 2, page 36, line 46, after
‘registration'
insert— (i)
the land was covered by a building or was within the curtilage of a
building; or
(ii)
'. —[Jim
Knight.] Schedule
2, as amended, agreed
to. Schedule 3
agreed to.
Schedule
4Works:
supplementary
Mr.
Drew: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in schedule 4, page
41, line 28, leave out ‘on or after
28th June 2005
but'. I
move this amendment, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the
Member for Sherwood. We seek clarification on why a specific date is
set. The implication is that any transitional arrangements for
enforcements against unlawful works under this schedule prior to that
date will no longer be permitted. We are disappointed that, along with
the lack of a specific duty on local authorities to take action against
unlawful work, that element of the schedule would seem to be a
diminution. I could quote many cases, but I shall sit down and either
allow the Minister to say something or allow my hon. Friend the Member
for Sherwood, who has now risen, to back up what I was
saying.
Paddy
Tipping: I am conscious of the time, and I apologise to my
hon. Friends. The amendment’s intention is to return the Bill to
the form in which it was originally published. Perhaps the Minister
will tell us why the proposal to insert the June 2005 date was accepted
in the House of Lords. Many obstacles across the country prevent a
right to roam. Had that date not been put in the Bill, people who feel
strongly on those issues could have taken enforcement action. Powers
are available for the future but not in respect of the
past.
Jim
Knight: As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has just
said, the Bill extends the power to seek enforcement action against
unlawful works to any person or organisation in future. Amendment No.
36 is about the past. The issue it raises boils down to whether any
person or organisation should be able to ask the court to enforce
against unlawful works that were undertaken before the Bill began its
passage through the other
place. In practice,
the question is not that simple. The Limitation Act 1980 rules out
enforcement against works undertaken more than 12 years ago, and the
effective window for action tends in fact to be much shorter than that,
because the courts, which have a discretion rather than a duty to act,
tend to look critically at any suggestion that they should enforce
against works that are more than a few years old. So, there is likely
to be a limited number of cases in which the amendment would make a
practical difference to the enforcement position.
Our view is that where works
were undertaken within that narrow time window without consent, it
would not be right for us to open up the scope for anyone at all to
seek enforcement action. In the end, those responsible for such works
did what they did, and bore the cost of doing so, on the basis of the
limited enforcement regime that then applied. There is a strong
presumption against legislation having a retrospective effect. We think
that the provision as it stands, without the amendment, strikes a fair
balance. We do not think it would be just to allow any
person—
Tom
Levitt: I shall be very brief. If an existing barrier were
to be changed, does the Minister envisage that it would count as a new
barrier, which could then come under the clause as the Minister
envisages it, or would it be caught under the old pre-June 2005
issue?
Jim
Knight: If further works, such as maintenance or an
extension, are undertaken in relation to old works, that may allow any
person to take enforcement action against them if the new works do not
have consent. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question. I
hope that on that basis, my hon. Friends will not press the amendment
to a
Division.
Mr.
Drew: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule
4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed
to.
Schedule
6Repeals Amendments
made: No. 29, in schedule 6, page 46, line 4, at end
insert— ‘Commons
Act 1876 (c.
56) | Section
31.' |
No.
30, in schedule 6, page 46, line 16, at end
insert— ‘Part
4 Repeal
relating to schemes under the commons act
1899 Short
title and
chapter | Extent
of
repeal | Commons
Act 1899 (c.
30) | In section
1(3), the words from “, and for” to the
end.' |
—[Jim
Knight.] Schedule
6, as amended, agreed
to. Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the
House.
Jim
Knight: Given that we have concluded our deliberations,
may I take the opportunity to thank you, Mr. Weir, and Miss Begg most
warmly—I am pleased to hear that other Committee members
agree—for your excellent stewardship of our
proceedings. I wish
to thank the Committee for the constructive and helpful way in
which—
David
Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As
the most senior Privy Councillor present, with years of experience in
these matters, and because of the non-partisan nature of the
proceedings, I trust that when the Bill gets Royal Assent,
the
Minister will hold a proper little drinks party to thank his officials,
and that he will feel it important, on this occasion, to invite all
members of the Committee, who have behaved impeccably—including
the officials, yourself, Mr. Weir, and Miss Begg—to Nobel house
to continue our bipartisan relationship, and so that the Minister is
not accused of favouritism.
Jim
Knight: I think that I am grateful to the right hon.
Gentleman for that invitation to a party that I am now going to host. I
am sure that it is something that we can consider, because it is proper
that everybody should be thanked, particularly my officials. Much
praise was given to them on Second Reading on account of the clarity of
the explanatory notes. I hope that they have also made my notes
clear—their in-flight refuelling has been prompt and effective.
I should also like to thank the Whip for his work in steering us almost
exactly to time.
Mr.
Paice: Mr. Weir, I am not going to try to emulate my right
hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, not least because I
am not as generous as he is with other people’s money—or
with my own. However, I entirely endorse the remarks that the Minister
has made, and add my thanks to him and his officials for the way in
which they have conducted themselves not only in Committee but prior to
the Bill’s coming to Committee. They have been more than open to
discussions about how we might handle matters. I am grateful,
particularly, for the way in which the Minister has responded—in
most cases—to amendments that we have proposed and to the issues
that have arisen from them. He promised to go away and consider a
number of matters, but he agreed to consult openly on three: possible
alterations to the register; the name of the statutory bodies; and
developments that are already under way. I look forward to those
discussions. I
understand that we will not debate this Bill on Report next week or the
week after, so we have a reasonable amount of time. However, I am sure
that the Minister will want to ensure that before we reach that stage
we continue to deal with the issues, as my right hon. Friend said, in a
non-partisan way so as to get it as right as possible, because we will
not be the ones—nor, probably, will our immediate
successors—who are asked to address the matter again. I am
particularly grateful to the Minister for the attitude that he has
taken, and to you, Mr. Weir, and to Miss
Begg.
Mr.
Williams: I, too, would like to thank you,Mr.
Weir, and Miss Begg, for your wonderful chairmanship, which has
contributed to the success of our consideration of the Bill. I, too,
welcome the Minister’s positive approach to it, and he can be
assured of our equally positive contribution. A number of issues that
have been highlighted during our considerations are outstanding, and
the Bill would be improved if they were addressed. I look forward
to
working with the Minister and his team in trying to ensure that we come
to the best possible conclusion on those
matters.
Mr.
Llwyd: I echo everything that has been said,Mr.
Weir. I have done enough bowing and scraping for one
day.
The
Chairman: Thank you all very much.
Question put and agreed
to. Bill, as
amended, to be reported.
Committee rose at one minute
to Four
o’clock.
| 
