David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 82, in clause 45, page 25, line 39, leave out ‘may'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 83, in clause 45, page 25, line 40, after ‘(a)', insert ‘shall'.

No. 84, in clause 45, page 26, line 1, after ‘(b)', insert ‘may'.

No. 85, in clause 45, page 26, line 3, at end insert

‘; and

(c) may apply (under section 97 of and Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (c. 9)) to the registrar to be registered as the proprietor of a registered estate in the land as if the authority has been in adverse possession of the estate for a period of not less than ten years ending on the date of application.

(2A) The land registered in accordance with subsection (2)(c) shall vest in the local authority under this section together with section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 (c. 25) (maintenance of open spaces and burial grounds by local authority) or, if that is the case, the Commons Act 1899 (c. 30).'.

No. 86, in clause 45, page 26, line 7, at end insert

‘; and

(d) a national park authority or area of outstanding natural beauty conservation board'.

No. 87, in clause 45, page 26, line 7, at end insert—

‘(4) If the land is regulated in accordance with a scheme under the Commons Act 1899 (c. 30), a parish or community council may only apply for registration in accordance with subsection (2)(c) if the powers of management of the scheme have been delegated to that council.'.

No. 104, in clause 45, page 26, line 7, at end add—

‘(4) Where subsection (1) applies and a commons association established under Part 2 does not exist in relation to the land, a local authority may assume and exercise any of the rights of management of the land which would otherwise be held by the owner, until such time as a commons association exists or the owner is identified.'.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

Six of these amendments are in my name, but amendment No. 104 is in the name of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. I shall let him have all the fun of mentioning every common that might need to be included because its ownership is not clear. I shall stick to amendments Nos. 82 to 84, which are technical, and then say a little about amendments Nos. 85 to 87.

Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 try to clarify exactly what we would expect of a local authority when there is no known owner and a clear need for works to be done or stopped. This series of amendments is necessary to identify sites of special scientific interest that are in an unfavourable condition and it would force local authorities to take responsibility for that common land.

Although amendment Nos. 82 and 83 simply change “may” to “shall” and amendment No. 84 includes “may” elsewhere, they seek clarification from the Government. There seems to be a vacuum in responsibility for the protection of common land with no clear ownership. After all, it is in the public interest for such land to be protected. Again, this is a matter for which local authorities should be duty bound. I understand what my hon. Friend said earlier about the relationship between duties and powers, and I intend to push that issue. However, unlawful interference is not uncommon, and it is too easy for local authorities to say that they do not have any responsibility. They certainly do not have the means.

On amendments Nos. 85 to 87, the Government suggested that section 9 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 can be used to acquire unclaimed land. The difficulty is that section 9 allows purchase only by agreement, and that is not possible if the owner is unknown. Other statutes provide compulsory powers. For instance, there is section 89 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and schedule 2 to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, which includes an untraceable owner procedure that requires obtaining a valuation, paying it into court and then obtaining a vesting order.

It is essential that we find a mechanism for local authorities to deal with the problem of land that has no clear ownership. Section 8 of the Commons Registration Act 1965 allows for such a mechanism with regard to village greens. The mechanism is not nearly as clear for common land. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clear that up. I also support the hon. Member for North Cornwall, whom I am sure will explain why we tabled amendment No. 104.

Daniel Rogerson (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I wish to speak to amendment No. 104, which is tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Stroud. In the same spirit as the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, this amendment is about the local authority taking action where land is not in the state that we would like to see. In many areas, the problem is that unclaimed land is used for purposes that are a nuisance to the local community. The landis not brought up to the standard that we wouldlike for environmental purposes, for maintaining archaeological features, or for ensuring that it is a useful amenity for the community and that it is used as it was originally intended. Our amendment seeks to ensure that a local authority would exercise powers in the absence of a commons association and take action, so that those issues could be resolved to the benefit of the local community and those who enjoy the land.

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

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for North Cornwall would go further than clause 45 permits and impose a duty on local authorities to take action. As my hon. Friend said, we recently discussed the issue of duties and powers, and I shall not dwell on it. Authorities should retain the discretion to act, and they should be responsive to local priorities and electors.

Moreover, it would be quite wrong to compel authorities to act in every case regardless of the circumstances. An area of public land might be of little public value, remote from any public access, and of no use to agriculture, and the threat might be trivial or ephemeral, but a duty would require the local authority to take up the cudgels just the same as if there were a rave on the village green.

I accept my hon. Friend’s admonition that given the discretion to act, local authorities too often do not act all. That point has been made to me by others, and I agree with him that that is sometimes unsatisfactory. However, we hope to do two things that I believe might help. First, we will work with local authorities and the Local Government Association to improve understanding of the legislation and the authorities’ role in implementing it. That will include the publication of guidance to authorities, and we will consult on what that guidance might say about authorities’ use of the powers under the clause.

Secondly, we are considering whether local access forums could advise authorities on taking action under clauses 41 and 45 to promote public access to common land, particularly where public access is currently restricted or excluded. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend again, but I hope that my explanation of where the Government stand on amendments Nos. 82 to 84 is adequate.

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

In general, I support the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, but I think that there is a strong case for using local access forums. That would be a much better way forward than the first alternative involving education and consultation. I press the Minister hard to consider local access forums as the way forward, because they would consist of local people who know local problems and can often find local solutions. He has found a neat way forward.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the second option. I consider myself well pressed.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

Like a flower.

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

The Corby trouser press of the Committee system.

I turn to amendments Nos. 85 and 87. I would be first to acknowledge that in the common land policy statement of 2002, we committed to the vesting of unclaimed land in a suitable body for long-term management. In hindsight, however, there is a risk of confusing the questions of ownership and management. We all want to promote better management—that is what the Bill is all about—but we do not need to tackle difficult questions of ownership unnecessarily.

I accept that the 1965 Act provided for the vesting of unclaimed greens in local authorities. We think it unlikely that the same approach could be taken now. The 1965 Act created no mechanism to reverse vesting, for example, and today such an approach would be likely to have human rights implications. The fact that vestings under the 1965 Act gave rise to few problems perhaps reflects the lower value of a green to the owner than common land and, therefore, the lower likelihood of challenge from a dispossessed owner. Whatever the merits of that approach, it does not commend itself today.

In responding further to amendments 85 and 87, I shall also refer to amendment No. 104, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. It would enable a local authority to assume full powers of management of unclaimed common land where no commons association exist. We agree that local authorities should be empowered to take on the management of unclaimed commons so that they can be managed by local people with community interests at heart. However, local authorities can already do this in the majority of cases, through management schemes under the Commons Act 1899. Moreover, our amendments to that Act will ensure that such schemes are fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Daniel Rogerson (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances, although I am cautious in my welcome. He referred to the majority of cases. There might well be cases that cannot be resolved through the powers that he described. How does he suggest those issues should be resolved?

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

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee to sketch out what that small number of cases might be. Then he can judge whether he wants to do anything further.

It is perhaps unlikely that local authorities would want to invest resources in managing a common that could be reclaimed at any moment by its owner, but a scheme under the 1899 Act anticipates and protects against that outcome. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will accept that if an authority has full powers of management, it does not need to gain ownership of the land, as the amendment proposes.  Beyond the 1899 powers, it is also possible to manage unclaimed land under part 2 of the Bill.

I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will also agree that powers of management cannot be bestowed like confetti, with authorities choosing when and where to exercise them. They must be properly contemplated and any commitment entered into should be by the making of a scheme.

Finally, I am glad to be able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud some reassurance on amendment No. 86—I regret that I have been a little negative about most of his recent amendments. Clause 45 as drafted would have the same effect if read in context. Schedule 9 to the Environment Act 1995 sets out various powers which National Park authorities may exercise alongside local authorities, and paragraph 6(a) of schedule 5 to this Bill amends schedule 9 to the 1995 Act to include reference there to clause 45. It may seem odd not to include a specific reference in clause 45, but it is helpful if the 1995 Act maintains in one place an up-to-date list of these shared powers.

The powers of a conservation board are set out in the order establishing the board. If the local authorities promoting a new conservation board wish it to have the powers in clause 45, they can ask for that outcome. That is the way that the legislation works, and it may be of interest to the Committee to know that the boards established for the Chilterns and the Cotswolds will be able to exercise the powers inclause 45.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

I think I will quit while I am on a winning run, especially as the Minister mentioned the Cotswolds, which affect my constituency. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.