Clause19
Commons Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture & Rural Affairs), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I suspect that when the Minister—or, moreparticularly, his officials—saw the amendment, their heartssank, not least because I think thatthey know its provenance.The amendment relatesto a debate that has been going on forsome considerable time between the Minister’s officials and aMr. Pumfrey with regard to Monken Hadley common. Mr. Pumfrey, who isobviously a learned gentleman, has corresponded with us all at greatlength, and he has been challenging officials about the situation. Therefore, I have tabled amendment No. 64, which has been drafted by Mr.Pumfrey. After reading it a few times, one realises that it does meansomething. It is, I am afraid, the language of law as we used tounderstand it, rather than the rather simple language in which I tendto draft my own amendments so that I can understand them.
The principle of the amendmentapplies where there is a piece of common land created by some otherstatute prior to 1965 and someone, in the phrase of the amendment, byinadvertent non-compliance forgot or omitted to register it under theCommons Registration Act 1965. There is a concern that that land wouldbe lost. The amendment would add to the facility for correction inclause 19 the opportunity to correct that sort of situation. I will notdetain the Committee by reading out what the Minister’sofficials have said to Mr. Pumfrey—no doubt the Minister will dothat himself, in so many words, in a few minutes.
There is an important pointhere, and I hope that the Minister will address it. What is the statusof a piece of land that was common by some other statute prior to 1965,but for whatever reason, was not registered? I am sure that allCommittee members would agree that it would be a great pity if thatland were lost as common land. I am looking for some explanation orreassurance from the Minister as to how that land can be kept as commonland if clause 19 is not amended in the way we propose. I look forwardto the Minister’sresponse.
AmendmentsNos. 48 and 49 are far more straightforward and simple because Idrafted them myself, and I am a simple man. They return to the issuethat I raised on Second Reading, and the Minister replied to myconcerns to some degree at that time. I make no apology for returningto these issues because they are very important, and fair play andjustice demand that we should examine them further.
I do not think that there isany real dispute about the fact that after 1965, a large number ofrights were registered that had no true validity in historical terms.They were considerably in excess of rights that people had previouslyexercised under the old levancy and couchancy rules, which weredesigned to relate a person’s common rights to the amount ofstock they could accommodate on their own land during the winterperiod. There were absurd situations where people who could accommodate10 or 20 head of stock during the winter on their own land wereregistering rights for several times that figure during the summer.That aspect is part of the picture.
There are also examples, and Ireferred to one from my constituency—needless to say, my localpress have tried to investigate this, but I have not given them anyfurther knowledge—concerning an allegation that someone hadregistered rights when he had no rights on the common prior to thatdebate at all. They were registered, and there have been no grounds forcorrection. Amendment No. 48 would simply delete from clause 19 thesentence that would prevent a correction being made if it had anyimpact on the right of common.
Amendment No. 49, on which Iam happy to take guidance if the drafting of the precise terminology isincorrect, creates the opportunity in what is intentionally a fairlynarrow situation for correction where entries have been made thatresulted from fraud. The Minister may ask how we could prove fraud and it would be for othersto come forward with the evidence to prove that someone who had claimedthe right had no justification for doing so. By using the word“fraudulent” in the amendment I have tried to narrow downsituations when countless people could say that this or that was notquite right. I understand the Government’s desire not to reopenthe registration issue because it is a can of worms and my right hon.Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) told usthis morning what his officials said to him when he was the Ministerresponsible for such matters. It is not something to be entered intolightly. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental problem and fair playrequires that it should be addressed. The Government should not simplyshrug their shoulders and pretend that it is too difficult to deal withbecause that would do no one anyjustice.
In his replyto my Second Reading comments the Minister referred to stakeholders andthe National Farmers Union. It is true that the NFU is not in favour ofreopening the register, probably because a number of its members mightbe affected, but it is not true that it would apply to allstakeholders. The Country Land and Business Association, which I quotedearlier, is in favour and said so in its submission to the Committee.It is not a universal view among stakeholders that the matter shouldnot bereopened.
There is acase. I do not have the optimism of the hon. Member for Brecon andRadnorshire that a few charming words will convert the Ministerovernight, but then I am not as gullible as most Liberal Democrats.Nevertheless, I have made the point and I hope that the Ministerunderstands that there are some serious injustices, with ongoingimplications for management. For example, if all but one of the rightsholders of a common accurately registered the rights to which they wereentitled, but one massively over-registered, that could result inover-grazing, which the Bill is, in part, designed to address. If thereis no power to correct that registration, the consequences ofover-grazing and the management decisions that would have to be made,subject to later provisions in the Bill, would affect all rightsholders. They would all suffer because one person massivelyover-registered. That serious injustice should be addressed and that iswhat is behind theamendments.