David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 46, page 27, line 11, at end insert—

‘(7A) An order made under paragraph (b) of subsection (7) may authorise the relevant authority to carry out any requirement of an order which a person on whom a notice is served under this section has failed to comply with and to recover from that person the costs reasonably incurred by the relevant authority in doing so.'.

I will not delay the Committee for long. The amendment would simply strengthen the provision when there is no immediate sanction available for a court order for the removal of unlawful works that is not carried out. The idea is to give greater power to the relevant authority to take action to ensure that the problem is cleared up. It parallels section 137ZA of the Highways Act 1980, which allows the relevant authority to make good unlawful agricultural work.

With your tolerance, Mr. Weir, because presumably there will not be a stand part debate, I have been asked by the National Farmers Union whether we would  consider the impact of non-agricultural work, especially by those who want to bring vehicles on to a piece of common land or a village green. There was an attempt in the other place to include a clause on how vehicles of various descriptions would be excluded. It would be useful to know whether the Government would consider tabling a proposal on Report for a reserve power to deal with non-agriculture abuses of common land.

Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

I support the hon. Gentleman’s final comments. He is probably right in saying that, in a way, this is a stand part debate. I should hope that, in view of my sickening sycophancy towards you this morning, Mr. Weir, you will permit me to take two minutes of your precious time.

I fully support the point that the hon. Gentleman made about reserve power, because as the clause is currently framed it deals simply with breaches in agricultural practice. As we have mentioned many times during the debates on Tuesday and today, there is a great concern about non-agricultural transgressions, that is, the damage all round that motorcycles and 4x4 vehicles do to agricultural interests and the natural, living environment. One hopes that the Minister will consider this point carefully and respond, because there is surely a good cause for making the clause a general reserve power for the Minister, not just confining it, as is the case at present, to unauthorised agricultural activities. We have been urged to take this course of action by the National Farmers Union, the National Sheep Association and the Welsh Commoners Association, to which I am indebted for telling me about it.

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

I shall address the amendment, then deal with the other points that have been made.

The purpose of the amendment is to allow a national authority to take action to stop an unauthorised activity on a common and recover its cost, where a person fails to comply with a court order requiring them to cease that activity. We do not see a role for a third party, such as the national authority, trying to physically stop an unauthorised agricultural activity. If, for example, a court orders a person to cease depasturing livestock beyond the number of rights held, the authority would have to find, identify and remove the offending animals. That would be difficult on a large upland common. The authority would then have to engage in further proceedings in order to recover costs from the individual concerned, which might be unsuccessful if they had already ignored the original court order. A more effective approach is to use the judicial system to ensure that the individual, who knows his livestock and where they graze, personally takes action. That may take longer to achieve in some circumstances, but in the long run it will be more cost-effective. The provision carries the ultimate sanction, once a number of hurdles have been overcome, if it becomes necessary, of contempt of court proceedings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked why we have addressed agricultural activities only and wanted us to think about non-agricultural activities harming a common. As they anticipated, my answer is  that a range of instruments already exists for dealing with unlawful activities that might be damaging a common, such as driving a motor vehicle over it, or building on it without consent. It would not be appropriate for the national authority to have powers of enforcement against criminal activities that lie more properly with the police. We have to be clear about where those responsibilities lie.

Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 allows the police to seize any mechanically propelled vehicle being driven in a careless or inconsiderate manner on or off road.

Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

I hear what the Minister says and I know that he is trying to be helpful, but I do not recall any prosecution or action by the police along the lines that he is referring to. In fact, the police cannot wait on the uplands for a 4x4 to cross the common. It is virtually impossible to enforce the measure. In fact, it is very much like the Hunting Act 2004—no real regard is given to the way in which it is enforced. The Minister’s words give me no comfort, and I would urge him to have another think about the matter.

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

I will, as always, reflect on the proceedings of the Committee. Not only has the Home Office issued guidance to police in England and Wales on the legislation and the circumstances in which it might be used, but the power has been used very effectively in a recent clampdown in Wales, where a great many section 59 notices were issued to off-road bikers who were riding illegally over commons in Caerphilly and two bikes were confiscated. In that case, the police had teamed up with countryside rangers from the local authority and the Forestry Commission to target the problem.

Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

I am encouraged by that; obviously I must go home more often.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue and for pushing me as hard as he did, because it gave us the opportunity to identify that example. I hope that others will pay close attention to the proceedings of this Committee and will notice that. Perhaps hon. Members here will go out and evangelise about the excellent work that has gone on in Caerphilly—they could campaign in their own constituencies for the powers to be properly used, or use the antisocial behaviour toolkit issued by the Home Office as part of its Together campaign.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

I shall withdraw the amendment, although I think that the point about non-agricultural use of common land could be worth reflecting on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.