Clause14
Commons Bill [Lords]
11:15 am
David Maclean (Penrith and The Border, Conservative)
I congratulate theMinister on taking this Bill forward. When I was Environment Ministerin the 1990s, we looked into commons law, and I was advised by theFederation of Cumbria Commoners that it was important that it be tidiedup. Then I listened to the wise advice of my officials in theDepartment, who said, “For God’s sake, Minister,don’t touch this with a bargepole; it’s anightmare.” So I congratulate the Minister on having the courageto tidy up the law; we support what he is doing. I also congratulatehis officials, who, I believe, have been to Cumbria on a couple ofoccasions to meet the Federation of Cumbria Commoners. Cumbria’sfederation is one of the largest in the country, and Cumbria has one ofthe largest patches—or lots of patches—of common land inthe country.
AlthoughI have been briefed by that organisation, I apologise to the Ministerif I do not do justice to the complicated brief that I have beenseeking to understand. I wish to raise points about the regulationsthat may be made under the clause. The Government have stated that thepurpose of the Bill is to provide accurate and up-to-date commonsregisters to underpin commons management, through a duty on localauthorities to update and maintain the registers of common land, and toprovide that future transactions have no legal effect unless they areregistered. The problem is that the Bill does not do that completely;it is only 95 per cent. there.
The Bill will be conclusive onwhat land rights attach to, and on the ownership of those rights ingross. But the register will not be updated or maintained to show whoowns the vast majority of rights—those that are attached. TheGovernment acknowledge that, and they rightly comment that it is notpossible for both the Land Registry and the commons register to beconclusive about the ownership of the dominant tenant. The federationagrees, but does not see a problem with requiring all transfers to benotified to the commons registration authorities. The registers havenever given proof of ownership, but if they are not kept up to date,they are useless for management purposes when commoners need to belocated. Also, significant costs will accrue to the Government andcommoners in cases in which identifying and communicating withcommoners is essential—for example, in respect of applicationsto establish statutory commons associations, applications for environmental stewardship schemes, applications to undertake works oncommons and compulsory purchaseprocedures.
In theother place, the Government argued that there can be only onedefinitive record of ownership. Otherwise, which would take priority ifthere were inconsistencies between the Land Registry and commonsregister entries? The reason is undoubtedly correct; even I understandand agree with it, and that is what the federation says, too. However,it also says that that should not prevent the making of a requirementthat transfers of rights be notified—notified only—to thelocal authority and perhaps be accompanied by a certificate from theLand Registry, or something like that. The commons registers would notbe proof of ownership, but they would have all that informationattached to them, so at least they would then be useful workingdocuments. Without such up-to-date records, otherschemes—applications for commons associations and environmentalstewardship schemes—would become very difficult to set up. Thatwas recognised in the otherplace.
I want toconclude by pressing the Minister to state in this place what hiscolleague Lord Bach said in the other place when pressed on a similarissue. Hesaid:
“I acceptthat we should try to make the commons registers as helpful as possibleto those who do not need conclusive proof of the matters but who wishto have some idea of entitlement. We therefore intend to explore, inconsultation on implementation of Part 1, whether regulations shouldprovide that a declaration of entitlement to exercise rights can beincluded in the registers. I must stress that such a declaration couldnot and would not be conclusive or binding on any person, but it may behelpful that such information can be entered on the register, with anappropriate caveat. We will also consult on whether other informationcould be noted on the registers at the discretion of the registrationauthority, such as Land Registry title numbers and the identity of theowner of the dominant tenement when the authority last sought thatinformation from the registeroftitle.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25October 2005; Vol. 674, c.GC315-16.]
It has been a weewhile since that debate in the other place when Lord Bach made thatcomment. I hope that the Minister will be able to say today that theGovernment’s thinking has moved forward—that theintention to consult has firmed up a bit, or that the Government havedone some preliminary consultation and come to a conclusion that thatis a route down which they wish togo.
I want anassurance from the Minister that regulations will be made under thelegislation that enable dealings with the owner of the dominanttenement to be at least recorded on the commons register with asufficient sanction imposed for any failure to notify, so thatnotification becomes the standard conveyancing practice. When rightsare bought or sold and the Land Registry is informed, the registrationauthority should be automatically notified so that the commons registercan be similarly annotated or updated—I probably should not say“annotated” as that probably has some technical legalconnotation. An assurance on that from the Minister would make us veryhappy, and the Cumbria Federation of Commoners would be delighted thatI may have got the point across halfsensibly.