Clause 24
Commons Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm

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

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 24, page 14, line 14, leave out ‘particular' and insert ‘description of'.

Amendment No. 8 relates to the power in clause 24 to make regulations regarding applications under part 1. Subsection (7)(a) will enable regulations to make provision for the appointment of persons from a panel to deal with particular applications. The amendment will ensure that regulations can assign appointed persons to deal with a class of applications rather than individual applications. For example, the Government might wish to provide that all applications under schedule 2 to de-register wrongly registered common  land must be referred to a person appointed from the panel. That would ensure that the sort of legally and factually complex issues likely to arise in such cases would be dealt with by a suitably experienced and qualified person.

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

I return to the issue that was discussed in great detail in the other place: how the panel might be established under the Bill. Is it a better solution for dealing with applications of the type that we have discussed than having commons commissioners do that or establishing a group of people who I think were termed “inspectors” in the other place?

A point has been put to me by the commons registrations officer in Powys. We have indicated that some mistakes were made in respect of the 1965 Act, but a huge amount of land was registered in Powys—probably 13 per cent. of all the common land in England and Wales. None of the decisions were ever challenged in any way. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy might say that the reason was the high cost that could have been borne by the person making the challenge. Nevertheless, the decisions were accepted by the people involved. The issue that has been put to me is that we should have some form of tribunal or statutory decision-making process to give people confidence that there is the necessary objectivity and clarity in these contentious issues.

I am told that a tribunals Bill did not complete its passage and did not become legislation. It would have been an appropriate vehicle to set up a proper tribunal for these purposes. The other suggestion made to me was that we could have something along the lines of the existing agricultural tribunals. This might seem a small issue to the Minister, but it is about confidence for those who own commons or who have rights on them, and for the public who seek to enjoy them and to promote nature conservation, archaeology and all the other issues on which we have put so much emphasis today.

I suspect that the Minister will reject what I have said. I can see from the expression on his face that he is conjuring up the words that will let me down gently, but this is a matter of great concern. Although proposals were resisted by the Minister in the other place, the Minister who is present in our Committee has an opportunity to say that there will be a statutory form or a statutory body to deal with this matter, rather than its being dealt with by the seemingly ad hoc type of organisation referred to in the Bill.

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

The clause gives the national authority powers to make regulations regarding applications to amend registers of common land, and town or village greens made under part 1. We are discussing subsection (7) in particular. My understanding of what the hon. Gentleman just said is that in essence the question is why we are getting rid of the commons commissioners, who, to some extent, currently have an  authority. They have a certain amount of competence, so he wants to know why we want to get rid of them.

The commissioners were established under the 1965 Act to determine disputed initial registrations under that Act. Commissioners had to be lawyers of seven years’ standing. I do not criticise that decision, or lawyers or those individuals for the job they have done. We expect that most applications under part 1 of the Bill will be straightforward and well within the capacity of registration authorities advised by the likes of Mrs. Griffiths. Authorities already deal with all applications for amendment to the registers under the 1965 Act.

Where applications raise particularly difficult matters of law or fact, we have made provision for them to be determined by an independent panel inspector. The amendment that we have just discussed would allow referral to particular individuals. Unlike commissioners, panel inspectors may be qualified because of their knowledge and experience, or technical understanding of agricultural practice, rather than their legal skills. That will add value over what happens at present, when the commissioners are simply there by virtue of their legal background. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will agree to the clause, as amended, standing part of the Bill.