Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we arediscussing the following amendments: No. 71, in clause 16, page 8, line33, at end insert—

‘(2A) Ifan application for release land of not more than 200 square metres ismade less than 10 years after an application has been granted for therelease of other land within a distance of 50 metres of it, then,regardless of any change of ownership that may have occurred duringthat period, the application must include a proposal under subsection(3).'.

No.33, in clause 16, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection(4).

No. 72, inclause 16, page 8, line 41, after ‘green',insert

‘or already be any otherpublic open space;

(aa) thereplacement land is not less in area and is equally advantageous to thepersons (if any) entitled to rights of common or other rights, and tothepublic;'.

No.70, in clause 16, page 9, line 6, at endinsert—

‘(e) whether thealternative land is no less in area and equally advantageous as thelandtaken'.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

I shall take up where Ileft off. Having chatted to my hon. Friend the Whip, I shall be evenbriefer than Ithought.

The point ofthe amendments is to sort out the issue of the possible exchange ofland. Amendment No. 71 would ensure that there is no de minimis size ofland resulting in land being nibbled away. It would also impose a timeconstraint restricting the degree to which land can be released insuccessive periods, so that we do not see it gone beforelong.

Amendment No.72 is straightforward. It would make it clear that it is wrong toprovide a piece of so-called open space as an alternative to theconstituted village green or common land. I am sure that that ruse hasbeen played on all hon. Members: someone offers the village what wasalready a piece of open space on the grounds that it is secured forever and a day, when the village is losing a piece of common land thatis just as valuable or even more valuable. I hope that that amendmentis clear.

I particularly want theMinister to respond to amendment No. 70. It would guarantee that avoluntary exchange of common land or a village green would be subjectto the same test as compulsorily purchased land. Section 19(1)(a) ofthe Acquisition of Land Act 1981 requires that land given in exchangemust be no less in area than the other land and must be “equallyadvantageous” to anypersons

“entitled torights of common or other rights, and to thepublic,”

who now have aright to walk on all commons under the Countryside and Rights of WayAct 2000.

Theamendment would ensure that what is received is no worse than what isgiven, provide a clear yardstick for exchanges as well as compulsorypurchase and obtain a subsequent guarantee from the Minister that itwould apply to the de-registration, exchange and registration of landtaking the place of the land being lost. It is very clear, and I knowthat the Minister will be dying to accept theamendments.

Roger Williams (Shadow Minister (Rural Affairs), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

We, too,support the amendments. Village and town greens are precious to thosecommunities able to enjoy them. We know of many towns and villages thatwould like to have a village green for all the benefits that accruefrom them but do not have one. We often see encroachment on thoseprecious areas of land, sometimes in small bites. Theamendments’ strength is that they address that. The loss of avery small piece of a green is an important matter for thecommunity.

The hon.Members who tabled the amendments have made their points, so I will notrepeat them, but it is up to the Minister to respond to the amendmentsas positively as he can. The communities affected by such problemswould hold him in the highest esteem if he let his defences down ashade and let somebody slip the quicker ball through and get aresult.

Jim Knight (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

I recall that during debates on theNatural Environment and Rural Communities Bill the hon. Gentlemanpromised that I would be held in the highest esteem in respect of somerace between horses, men and all sorts of things—it got himnowhere theneither.

I listenedcarefully to my hon. Friends. I said that I always pay close attentionto my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping); I try to dothe same for my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) as well,although sometimes he does not make that as easy. My hon. Friends makeimportant points and I support the intentions behind their amendments.

However, I shallresist the amendments. Clause 16 strikes the right balance forflexibility, and I shall take time to persuade my hon. Friends and thehon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that we have gotit right. If the proposed release land has an area of more than 200 sqm, replacement land must be offered—no ifs or buts. That isclear. It would apply whenever release land had an area greater than,say, 20 m by 10 m. However, I know that my hon. Friends and the hon.Gentleman are concerned that small areas of land would be eaten away.They want to prevent nibbling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroudput it.

Could the status of smaller areas of land be swept away as unimportant? Far from it. Unless the applicant proposes replacement land, there is an absolute duty on the national authority, under subsection (7), to have particular regard to the extent to which the absence of replacement land would be prejudicial to any of the interests in the land. The authority must think about the property rights of the commoners or others, the interestsof the neighbourhood and the public interest in all senses of thephrase, including nature conservation, landscape conservation,protection of public rights of access and protection of archaeological remains or other historic features.

That list is prettyformidable. In the vast majority of cases, when the area of proposedrelease land is less than 200 sq m, replacement land of a comparablesize or quality will need to be provided if the proposal is to beapproved. A case of deregistration without exchange being approvedwould be truly exceptional, but we do not want to rule out thepossibility.

I shallgive an example. Suppose an area of common or green were landlocked byhouses and no land nearby could be used as replacement land. Let ussuppose that there was a proposal to take a very small proportion ofthe land to facilitate, shall we say, disabled access to some adjoiningcommunity facility, and that that proposal was supported overwhelminglyby local people because it really made sense. Although such a casewould be exceptional, we would not want it to be impossible for us toapprove that application because of what was instatute.

What of theother issues raised by the amendments? Should there be a requirement orstatutory expectation that replacement land should be at least as largeas the release land, or equally advantageous to the various users ofit? We do not think so, for the same reason. Of course, it would beexceptional for the replacement land to be smaller, but we do not wantto rule out the possibility altogether. Such a proposal could provide abetter deal for the commoners and the public. Perhaps the release landwould be inaccessible and remote, while the slightly smallerreplacement land was on people’s doorstep, but had not hithertobeen available to them. In such circumstances, we should not be forcedto turn down an application because ofstatutes.

We resistthe “equally advantageous” formulation simply because itcould well be interpreted as meaning that the replacement land had tobe equally advantageous in respect of every one of the interests setout in clause 16(6), which is a much extended list of the issues towhich the national authority must have regard when an exchange isproposed. Currently, the national authority is concerned only withwhether an exchange is fair to the private interests involved;subsection (6) would also include the public interest.

My hon. Friend the Member forStroud mentioned the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. He was right to saythat in the case he mentioned replacement land due to a compulsorypurchase order would have to be equally advantageous to any commoners,other legal right holders and the public. This is the closestcomparable example. However, the deregistration and exchange provisionsin clause 16 involve considering the impact of proposals on a far widerset of interests than even those in that legislation, includingthe

“interests of theneighbourhood...nature conservation...the conservation of thelandscape...the protection of public rights of access...andthe protection of archeological remains and features of historicinterest.”

There is adifference, and there would be a potential legal problem if we were toopen up the possibility that all those interests must be equally servedby the exchange land.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

I am very pleased that subsection (8) defines thepublic interest. The problem is that we do not define what we mean bythe “interests of the neighbourhood” and how that wouldbe reflected. With the best will in the world, that is where theconflict is most likely to occur. For example, a group of people mightsee the exchange as somewhat less advantageous, but the landowner andperhaps a larger authority, which could have already granted planningpermission, might say, “We think this should take place”.How do we measure those conflicting interests? Perhaps that issueshould be taken on board.

Jim Knight (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point aboutthe definition of the “interests of the neighbourhood”.Clearly, it is up to the registration authority to make decisions on acase-by-case basis as to whether an exchange is reasonable and whetherit balances all those interests up. As things stand, it will have todefine the “interests of the neighbourhood”. I shallreflect on whether we need to flesh that out a little in some form forhim. I hope that on the basis of my explanations, my hon. Friends, andhon. Members, will not press their amendments to aDivision.

Paddy Tipping (PPS (Rt Hon Jack Straw, Secretary of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Sherwood, Labour)

I am grateful for theMinister’s kind opening remarks for my hon. Friend the Memberfor Stroud and me. As always, they were followed by a“however”. The “however” that I heard theMinister discuss was that we would be talking about replacement landsave in the most exceptional circumstances. On that basis, and the factthat it is on the record that most of the sites will be replaced in asimilar way, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.