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. 19, in clause 42, page 24, line 9, leave out

‘at the commencement of this section'

Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Work & Pensions; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

Amendment No. 81, in clause 42, page 24, line 13, leave out subsection (3).

Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23.

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

Again, these are technical amendments, which I do not propose to comment on. I shall do the equivalent of moving them formally, while allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud to get up and speak—should he really need to—in respect of his amendment.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

I shall be quicker on my feet in future. They used to say that when I played football.

Amendment No. 81 is intended to probe the Government by examining the powers to override existing schemes of management, which links directly with what I said about clause 41. I want to probe what the Government intend as the normal way of doing  things. The amendment would ensure that the appropriate national authority cannot override an absolute prohibition of works contained in an existing scheme of management.

Schemes of management are important because they are the existing way in which things have been done and it would be wrong if the Bill superseded schemes that are already working well. Where they are not working well, I hope that Bill will give them a kick up the backside and make them improve.

It is somewhat sad that the clause appears to weaken the way in which existing schemes of management operate and I am looking for the Minister to assure me that that is not the intention. Where long-standing schemes—I could list them, but I shall not—are extant and deserve recognition, they do not need alteration. I hope that he will assure me that the Government’s intention is not to disrupt some of these schemes that go back a long way in history and work very successfully.

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

Clause 42, as a whole, applies to land covered by an existing management scheme under either the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 or the Commons Act 1899. Where the terms of such a scheme prohibit works without any scope for any person to consent to them, the clause allows such works if they receive consent under clause 38. Where such a scheme provides that works are permissible with the consent of the national authority, consent has to be given under the criteria set out in clause 38. These measures are designed to increase flexibility while improving consistency.

I shall resist my hon. Friend’s amendment because it would be a retrograde step. The whole point of subsection (3) is to avoid an absolute ban under an existing scheme on works on a common that would be beneficial, for example, by helping visitors to enjoy the common. This is not a matter of covering scheme commons with major new developments or removing people’s access rights. Rather, it is a matter of having the ability to do something if it is appropriate for the land, taking into the account all the checks and balances that the consenting scheme system involves and all the views expressed to the national authority on the subject. We do not want to shut down that new flexibility and I hope that my hon. Friend will not seek to press his amendment to a Division.