Jim
Fitzpatrick: I shall ask the Committee to reject the
amendment. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall
for tabling it. I will explain why it should be rejected and will try
to address the point raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and
Ripon. The clause
will place restrictions on how far orders granting development consent
can go in authorising the compulsory purchase of common land, open
space and fuel or field garden allotments. The restrictions are drawn
from section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. They provide that
any order granting development consent that would also authorise the
compulsory purchase of common land and other specified types of land
can be made only after being confirmed by means of a special
parliamentary procedure. There are two exceptions to that: first,
where less than 200 sq m of common land will be acquired; secondly,
where the applicant offers replacement land. I draw the attention of
the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon to the explanatory notes
for the Planning Bill. On clause 114, they state clearly that
the Secretary of State is
satisfied either that: a)
replacement land has been or will be given in exchange and that it will
be subject to the same rights, trusts and
incidents; b) the land is being
acquired in order to secure its
preservation. I hope
that that addresses the point that he has
raised.
Mr.
Curry: The fact of the matter is that with a road or a
pipeline, there is likely to be common land on both sides. Where will
we find the land that compensates for the land that has been taken,
other than outside the common? If it is outside the common, how can the
Secretary of State satisfy herself, in the terms of the Bill, that
those rights can be attached to the new piece of land? It will not have
those rights to start
with.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: Clearly, were the Secretary of State not
satisfied, and the parliamentary procedure used, any hon. Member could
object to the proposal. I understand the important issues that the
right hon. Gentleman raises on transferring rights and entitlements,
but the clause simply repeats provisions that are already extant in the
1981 Act. It will not introduce any new provisions or remove any
existing rights. In that sense, the clause is simply a
repetition. On the
question from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about the
reason for the figure of 209.03 sq m, it is a straightforward
conversion from the imperial measurement in the 1981 Act. That is how
we end up with that rather obscure
figure. 11.30
am A third
exception exists. Special parliamentary procedure would not be required
in this regard if the compulsory acquisition of common land is being
carried out in order to secure its preservation or improve its
management. Amendment No. 403 would require the Secretary of State in
such cases to publish a statement explaining the means and extent of
any preservation or improvements. The effect of the amendment would be
problematic as it would require the Secretary of State to make a
statement whether or not she was the decision maker. Furthermore, this
statement would presumably be required before the decision was made,
which would pose difficulties as the Secretary of State would not have
been involved in the examination of the
application. However,
I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for North Cornwall that
the promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects could
claim to be acquiring common land for its preservation or management as
a loophole to avoid needing to provide replacement land. I hope that I
can reassure him and the Committee that we share his concern and that
the Government are currently considering tabling an amendment that
would prevent such a situation arising. With that assurance and the
explanation of the other points, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
If the Government decide not to pursue the matter, he
can return to it on Report. But as we intend to bring forward an
amendment that should meet his needs, he should let us do the
work.
Mr.
Curry: Were I to table an amendment on Report to change
209.03 sq m to 210 sq m, on the grounds that a nice round figure makes
disputes less likelyI would hate to fall out with somebody over
0.03 of a metrewould it be regarded as a concession that went
beyond the Governments compass? As we have had no concessions
of any description up to now, would a piece of land of about that size
meet with the Governments approval? The suggestion is just in
order to have a nice, tidy metric system, which I am rather in favour
of.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I understand exactly where the right hon.
Gentleman is coming from. I am personally a big fan of imperial
measures. I would rather have seen the figure left as it was in the
Land Acquisition Act. However, we do have an amendment to go to 200 sq
m, if that would suit him. It is, however, a reduction in the amount
that is contained in the Bill at present. I have heard what he has
said. Obviously, we will reflect on his suggestion, and he will have
the opportunity to return to the matter.
Finally, if there is no
equivalent land to replace it with, the expectation is that the
Secretary of State would simply not certify it and it would go to a
special parliamentary
procedure.
Dan
Rogerson: I am grateful to the Minister. There are perhaps
one or two problems with the clause in relation to that provision for
compulsory purchase if it takes place without adequate explanation. I
am grateful to the Minister for considering that. I am also grateful to
him for standing up for imperial measurements and getting involved in
that debate. As someone of a generation who was taught metric but was
surrounded by adults who quoted back in imperial, I use that as an
excuse for not being good at metalwork, woodwork or anything like
that. I am glad to
hear that the Government are
considering[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. The Committee must let the hon. Gentleman
speak.
Dan
Rogerson: The key point here is certainly what the
Minister was talking about and how the provision might be used as an
excuse with regard to compensation. Even if it is not an excuse and
there are legitimate reasons, exactly what those are must be made
clear, because of stewardship issues and all sorts of matters, such as
the Rural Payments Agency, as we heard from the right hon. Member for
Skipton and Ripon. I look forward to seeing what the Government come up
with. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
114 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
115, 116 and 117 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
118Public
rights of
way
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move amendment No. 404, in
clause 118, page 58, line 6, at
end insert (2) In order to
be satisfied under subsection (1)(b), the decision-maker must have
regard to public
consultation.. Public
rights of way are a controversial subject; many hours have been spent
along this corridor in various Committees debating rights of way and
rights of access. I took part in such debates when I served on the
Committee considering the recent Commons Act 2006, along with the hon.
Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and perhaps others on this
Bill. It is crucial
that people have the chance to comment on any proposal to alter or
extinguish a right of way. The clause as drafted allows a right of way
to be extinguished as long as the decision maker is satisfied
that (a) an
alternative right of way has been or will be provided,
or (b) the provision
of an alternative right of way is not required.
However, it does not say how that
conclusion will be drawn and what information will be available on
which the decision-maker will base his decision. Consultation must be
part of it, and there should be a duty to consult specifically on that
issue. The proposal
to extinguish a right of way may not have been a significant part of
the overall debate on the application or on site-specific national
policy statements. The previous consultation will have addressed the
bigger issues and people in the local community may not have noticed
what was happening to the rights of way. At the end of the process when
the development consent is granted it is important that the issue is
drawn to the attention of local people so that they have the chance to
comment on it. It may affect only one or two people but in a very
significant way, and they may not have been aware of it when they were
considering bigger issues connected with the development: for example,
its construction, its size, transport issues and so on.
I hope that the Government
will consider accepting the amendment to ensure that the decision maker
has all the information to hand when deciding whether the provisions in
the clause have been
met.
Robert
Neill: We are very much inclined to the support the
amendment because we want to maximise peoples consultation
opportunities in the Bill as a matter of principle. Rights of way
generate surprisingly strong feelings, as hon. Members know from our
constituency postbags. It is better to have a requirement to have
regard to consultation and to ensure that people feel that they have a
fair crack of the whip, rather than a group of dedicated ramblers, for
example, going for judicial review arguing that their concerns about a
right of way that is precious to them have not been properly taken on
board. I hope that
the Government will be sympathetic to the
amendment.
Mr.
Curry: As my hon. Friend said, this is a complex issue. On
one hand, I am very sympathetic to farmers who find that a right of way
goes straight across their working surfacesfor example, through
the centre of a farmyard where animals are keptand any attempt
to divert it to a more sensible path usually meets with huge
resistance. On the
other hand, many arable farmers display agriculture at its most
bloody-minded in their absolute refusal to obey the law, which is that
when land on which there is a public footpath is ploughed over, it
should be made good within a certain time. But that land is often
deliberately left so that to go across it is like engaging in an
endurance test because walkers end up with mud up to their knees. There
are important enforcement issues to be
considered. A lot of
common sense needs to be brought to the issue. People need to recognise
that there are genuine concerns about the management of livestock, and
rights of way need to have a sensible regard to them. Equally, those
historical rights of way have not been put there for the express
purpose of interfering with the work of the agricultural community and
irritating them, but it would be much better for all concerned if they
did the minimum required to ensure that they are observed effectively.
Those who do it rarely have cause for concern, but there are few issues
that get people more angry than the obvious disregard of something
through, as I have described it, sheer
bloody-mindedness.
Mr.
Llwyd: We all know, for example, that the procedure for
stopping a current right of way, a stop order, is time-honoured and
defined in law, and I am sure that many of us have had experience of
inquiries of that kind. I am concerned about the wording of paragraph
(b), which states
that the provision of
an alternative right of way is not required.
Who is to decide that?
Let us think about public
footpaths, which often join up with one other. If a public footpath
does not join up with another, is that a reason for saying that it is
not necessary? For example, if there were two footpaths in a locality
running roughly in the same direction, does that mean that one is not
necessary? I would be wary of ditching the current procedure whereby
age-old usage and local conditions are examined, along with whether
they link up with others and are in reasonable repair.
I would be the first to say
that there have been occasions when our friends in the Ramblers
Association have suddenly decided that they use a footpath that they
have not known for half a century previously, and spin out the costs in
time, money and sometimes a great deal of frustration. That said, there
are many public rights of way that people are reliant upon and that
have existed for good purpose over many generations, so I am wary of
the clauses working because I would not like someone totally
divorced from the locality to decide suddenly that a footpath is not
necessary, for whatever specious reason there might be. In his
response, perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee what kind of
reasons are likely to be adduced to support the contention that a right
of way is not necessary, as that would be quite useful for the
debate.
Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): I am
grateful for the opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the wording
of the clause, because I am interested in the words is not
required. On a variety of occasions I have had to deal with the
protection of rights of way and have found myself at different times on
different sides of the argument. For instance, many people will recall
the van Hoogstraten case, concerning an outrageous obstruction of a
public footpath where maintenance of the right of way was absolutely
crucial. However, there has often been obstruction to the closure of
rights of way in circumstances where closure is necessary for the
reduction of crime and disorder, such as on council estates and in
inner-city locations.
A few years ago, we clarified
some of that in legislation in order to make it possible for
appropriate closures to take place. The problem is that we all want
appropriate closure and protection, and the definition of which is
which, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, is not
always easy. Therefore, being absolutely clear about what is meant by
the words is not required is important, and it would be
helpful if the Minister could spell that out.
I have some concern that
public opinion could be the only arbiter of whether a particular
closure takes place. There are some places where all sorts of closures
would take place on the basis of instinctive public opinion, despite
their being necessary for people to get around. In other circumstances,
public opinion is absolutely the right criterion to use. Again, the
devil is in the detail, so my concern is to be absolutely clear what
the clause means and to ensure that there is no danger of unintended
consequences, where wording is intended to mean one thing but perhaps
at a later stage could be interpreted through case law to mean
something rather different. Therefore, the clearest possible
explanation from the Minister of the test for whether an alternative
right of way is required would be extremely
helpful. 11.45
am
|