Clause 38
Commons Bill [Lords]
9:45 am
James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture & Rural Affairs), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
We now move on to part 3 of the Bill, on protection of commons, which is a very important aspect of the legislation. Clause 38 is about prohibition of works without consent, but it is clear from subsection (1) that the relevant consent is that of the appropriate national authority, which effectively means the Minister, and I think that most people would say that a sense of proportion is needed regarding which issues should go to the ultimate decision-making point of a Whitehall Minister, when both the common and the issue concerned might be very small.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 therefore seek to introduce a de minimis position and a sense of proportionality on some aspects, as do certain later amendments that could equally have been grouped with these, and to which I shall refer later.
Amendment No. 54 would simply insert the word “materially” into the sentence that defines restricted works—works which require consent—as
“works have the effect of preventing or impeding access to or over any land to which this section applies.”
The Country Landowners Association has suggested inserting the word “materially” before the word “preventing,” to prevent vexatious litigation and delay through someone saying that a minor work has impeded access, when the work may be an urgentand sensible piece of commons management. The regulatory and, dare I say it, bureaucratic process of seeking Government consent will be considerable, and the amendment deals with that.
Amendment No. 55 was touched upon on Second Reading. It refers to fencing. Obviously nobody wants to fence off a common permanently. It is reasonable that permanent fencing should require consent, because it seriously undermines many of the attributes of much, although by no means all, common land.For example, there are fenced commons in my constituency. However, there is a distinction between that sort of permanency and the temporary arrangements using electric fencing, for example, which may be necessary to keep stock off roads.
We discussed on Second Reading how much road traffic has increased and developed since commons were invented. Not too many sheep were run over by horses and carts, but they are more likely to be run over by a Harley-Davidson roaring across the common, as I have seen in my constituency. Sometimes, there is logic in requiring an electric fence to prevent stock from straying on to roads. However, the converse is using electric fencing to prevent stock from straying into areas of a common that, for conservation purposes, it may be right to exclude them from. Such fences may be used to keep stock off private property, which is a matter of common sense, although arguably it is the private landowner’s responsibility to fence stock out. Lots of gardens and drives open on to common land. However, it may be simpler to erect an electric fence, rather that facethe major issue of constructing permanent fencingon private land. The amendment would insert proportionality into the Bill so that the Minister and his officials are not besieged by requests for miniscule works.
Amendment No. 56 is slightly different; I touched on its subject on Second Reading. It would insert in subsection (3) reference to the works that need consent, especially
“the parking of vehicles used as accommodation.”
I am aiming this measure at Travellers. In my constituency, we have the serious problem, which is not unique, of Travellers parking on common land and often leaving a dreadful mess behind, if they ever leave. It is difficult to remove them.
The amendment would not change the law on the illegality of parking on common land—I am not suggesting that it does—but by including a provision requiring people to get consent from the national authority in charge of commons before parking a caravan on common land, it adds emphasis to the perception that what they are doing is illegal. It takes the matter beyond planning consent and the powersjof the local authority—the planning authority—to national consent through the Government.
The amendments are straightforward and designed to improve the basis on which the prohibition applies. I should be grateful if the Minister agreed to them.