Session 2009-10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

Draft Commons Councils (Standard Constitution) (England) Regulations 2010



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Gary Streeter

Austin, John (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)

Blackman, Liz (Erewash) (Lab)

Davies, Philip (Shipley) (Con)

Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

Greenway, Mr. John (Ryedale) (Con)

Irranca-Davies, Huw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen (South Thanet) (Lab)

Paice, Mr. James (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con)

Raynsford, Mr. Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

Strang, Dr. Gavin (Edinburgh, East) (Lab)

Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)

Taylor, Mr. Ian (Esher and Walton) (Con)

Todd, Mr. Mark (South Derbyshire) (Lab)

Watkinson, Angela (Upminster) (Con)

Williams, Mr. Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)

Wright, David (Telford) (Lab)

Mick Hillyard, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Third Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 15 March 2010

[Mr. Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Draft Commons Councils (Standard Constitution) (England) Regulations 2010

4.30 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Commons Councils (Standard Constitution) (England) Regulations 2010.

I welcome you, Mr. Streeter, to what I am sure will be your safe stewardship of the Committee. I also welcome Committee members. I was travelling down here today when I heard the news of the unfortunate passing of my very good friend Ashok Kumar, who represented the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland. My hon. Friend was also a Parliamentary Private Secretary—a role that is never glamorous; those who hold it are asked constantly to do many often unglamorous but essential jobs. Such people are tail-gunners for Ministers in awkward situations. Ashok Kumar will genuinely be sorely missed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash is an able stand-in for Ashok Kumar in our proceedings, and I know that she will join other hon. Members in the many tributes that will be paid to him. Many people will say what a hard-working MP he was and what an assiduous constituency Member he was—and indeed he was. His other role as Parliamentary Private Secretary is one that is least known, but most fundamental, within Parliament; it keeps Ministers and Committees ticking along. Ashok will indeed be missed. He would want us to get under way and focus on the work in hand.

The regulations will enable the establishment of commons councils on almost 400,000 hectares of common land in England, which make up 3 per cent. of its total land area. Approval from the Committee will establish a framework to help those people with a recognised interest in a common to work together effectively to manage agricultural activity at a local level. As members of the Committee know, most of our common land is found in our most sensitive landscapes—more than three-quarters of it is located in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, particularly in the north of England.

Common land is central not only to our landscape, but to our heritage. We must value it not only for agriculture, recreation and nature conservation, but for its cultural, historical and archaeological significance. The Government fully recognise the value and importance of common land, not least its vital role in the continued viability of upland farming. We are committed to protecting its future economic, social and environmental well-being. To ensure that we protected that precious resource for current and future generations, the Government introduced the Commons Act 2006. Section 29(1) of the Act requires regulations to be made setting out standard terms for

the constitution and administration of all commons councils established by order. Those regulations are before us today.

As the Committee will know, the regulations prescribe terms governing a council’s membership and proceedings, approach to fees, use of income and property, requirement to keep accounts and, when appropriate, need to have those accounts examined independently. The standard constitution is designed to help minimise set-up costs for prospective councils by specifying terms for their general administration. We have also provided example establishment orders for individual councils, which show how additional flexibility can be built in. It is hoped that they will reduce the need for candidate councils to seek private, legal advice.

Before finalising the regulations, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sought the views of all key stakeholders through a wide public consultation exercise. A draft of the regulations was included within that process, and some minor modifications were made as a result. The legislation is long overdue. Poor or inadequate management or excessive grazing—or a lack of grazing—can all harm the biodiversity and landscape of our common land. The establishment of commons councils will ensure that those with an interest can come together locally to manage agricultural activities, vegetation and the exercise of rights of commons and, thus, maintain much-valued landscapes. I want to make it clear that commons councils are not compulsory. However, approval of the regulations today will enable people who wish to establish a commons council to get on with it.

Commons councils will provide an alternative mechanism for management of agriculture on common land, but only in areas where there is substantial support for that. They are not designed to replace existing voluntary commoners’ associations, which work well in many areas, but they could work alongside such associations to ensure that everyone using a common complied with agreed rules. As a result, their establishment may assist with the entry of commons into agri-environment stewardship schemes, for example, thus helping protect commons for the foreseeable future.

Protecting the biodiversity of our common land and the viability of rural communities is of paramount importance. Commons councils will not only address local management needs but achieve wider environmental and public benefits. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

4.36 pm

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): I thank the Minister for his introductory speech. I wish to associate myself and my colleagues with his remarks about Ashok Kumar, as we can now refer to him. I recollect that he served his constituency on two separate occasions. I remember campaigning against him in a by-election, and he was returned to serve for a number of years. Like him, I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as it was in those days. I fully understand the Minister’s remarks about the role of the PPS; it can be extremely frustrating when one cannot say anything, but the PPS is there to help and guide. The Minister likened the job to being a tailgunner, although I sometimes think that

we were the frontgunners as well—we were often there to deflect the flak rather than just deal with those coming up behind.

On a more serious note, Ashok Kumar was a diligent Member of Parliament and I know, from performing this role, that he was a diligent PPS in the Department. Obviously, we all extend our sympathies to his family and relations. He will be missed.

I served on the Commons Bill, as did the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. It was a pretty non-controversial piece of legislation that was long overdue and brought things up to speed. In principle, we support the idea of commons councils on the understanding and condition—inherent not only in what the Minister said, but in the Bill—that they can occur only if the majority of people involved with the common want them. They are not compulsory, and we would not support them if they were.

I have a few questions for the Minster. They are quite critical, particularly with regard to his remarks about entering stewardship schemes. As the Minister said, there are examples of both overgrazing and undergrazing. It is clear, from both the standard constitution and the examples of establishment orders, that commons councils have the power of sanction and can correct those situations. However, it is not clear what the sanctions would be for people who did not comply with the agreed rules. Will the Minister clarify that? I look forward to his answer.

One issue is already arising in relation to commons—admittedly, commons where there are no councils. It relates to the lord of the manor or whoever owns the common blocking applications by graziers to enter a stewardship scheme, usually at the higher level of the scheme. Having read them, I am not too clear whether the regulations would prevent that from happening or whether the landowner would still have the capacity to block. Equally, there is nothing in either the constitution or the establishment order that allows the council to enter an agreement, such as a stewardship agreement, as a whole. Obviously, individual graziers could do that, but my understanding was that the Government’s rules required that the whole of the common should be within one scheme and that there would therefore be a single scheme for everyone. I do not see the words that allow for the making of agreements. That is significant.

I also wanted to raise the issue of membership. In one of the example commons used in the explanatory notes, six of the 10 to 12 members of the council will be representatives of the active graziers. That gives a maximum of 50 per cent. of the membership to the graziers. If the councils are to be able to enter into stewardship schemes, which I wholly support and want to see happen, the graziers ought to have a majority on the council. Will the Minister confirm the arrangements? In the event of a council’s consisting of 12 rather than 10 people—the draft regulations talk about a range of 10 to 12—we would need seven to be active graziers.

I am concerned about the people who are passive—that is, people who have grazing rights but are not active and might live hundreds of miles away; as we established during the passage of the legislation, that can happen. Many grazing rights are held by people who have no interest in the common whatever. It would be tragic if such people could block those who actually use the common and work on it from entering into a scheme. I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s remarks.

Subject to what the Minister has to say on those questions about the sanctions, about unlocking the issue of what we are told in some places is the landowner being obstructive, about the majority of the membership being active graziers and about entering into agreements, we support the regulations.

4.42 pm

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about the untimely death of Ashok Kumar. He was a familiar figure on Statutory Instrument Committees and at debates in Westminster Hall as he supported various Ministers in the Department. He will be missed—his friendly approach was always a particular part of such occasions.

I, too, served in Committee on the Commons Bill. Some of the regulations have been rather a long time in coming. During discussions on a previous SI, relating to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, I reminded the Minister that we were waiting for these regulations. Believe it or not, within a fortnight or three weeks, here they are. I shall have to try that approach again.

I certainly support the proposals, but I want to ask a few questions, many of them along the same lines that have been used already. It is key to note that undergrazing is as much of a problem as overgrazing on a lot of commons at the moment. Ways and means must be found to ensure that the condition of such valuable pieces of land—valued for all the reasons expressed so far—is maintained and enhanced. Commons have been produced by grazing regimes over hundreds of years and it would be a disaster if their particular attributes were now lost.

The councils must have a balance between those with grazing interests and those with other interests relating to the commons. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire drew a distinction between active graziers and people who no longer graze or do not exercise their rights. It is anticipated that other people will wish to be represented on the councils—they may have interests in access or biodiversity, or representation may be required by Natural England. All those are important matters. Certainly from my point of view and that of my party, there has to be a majority of people who exercise grazing rights, because they are the people who will be active in maintaining the commons. I would be pleased if the Minister addressed that issue and told us whether anything in the regulations will ensure that that takes place.

Although there will be no compulsion to set up councils, entry to some of the stewardship schemes, and in particular the support given to the uplands entry level scheme, would be an important part of the income for commoners and people farming in the uplands. I assume that a council would have to be in place for such an application to be made and to succeed; perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

It has been suggested that funds would not be paid to individual commoners but to the council, and that it would be up to the council to decide how much to distribute and how much to retain for any purposes that it might have for managing the land. Will the Minister enlighten us as to what the support for upland farmers—in

particular commoners—is likely to be, and how it would work? Would the money be paid to individual commoners, whether active or passive, or would it be paid to a council if one was in place? I can see benefits to both approaches, but I can also see disadvantages. It would be useful for the Minister to put on the record how he sees the support working and the role of the council in that support.

In general, we are pleased with the regulations, which will allow councils to be set up. However, this legislation comes at a delicate time, when there is a change in support for upland farming. It would be useful to know how the formation of councils relates to that support.

4.47 pm

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) (Con): I shall not detain the Committee long, but I want to make a couple of points and ask some questions. First, I should say that, like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I was a PPS at the Ministry of Agriculture —in fact, we were PPSs together. Although I do not think that any part of my constituency has a common boundary with Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland, I regarded Dr. Ashok Kumar as a good neighbour in that part of Yorkshire in north-east England.

Many of us never really took to the concept of Cleveland, and the Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland constituency is entirely in what used to be the North Riding of Yorkshire. If I remember correctly—this was certainly the case when the Langbaurgh constituency existed—a small part of that area is in the North York Moors national park. I join the Minister and my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Ashok Kumar, who was an extremely nice man as well as a good constituency Member of Parliament. We shall miss him. I shall especially miss seeing him on the train to Yorkshire, although I will probably not be going on that train too often now as I am not standing at the election. I am deeply shocked at what has happened.

I mentioned the North York Moors national park because I want to ask the Minister a question. The common land in the north York moors is within the park. The help and advice on national park committees could be a critical component not only of achieving what the regulations propose, but of gaining the improved stewardship—particularly of moorland—that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to.

The state of some of the land in the national parks is critical. In my judgment, there is probably more undergrazing than overgrazing. If handled correctly, the commons councils could provide a good, new mechanism for improving land management. However, that will not work unless organisations such as Natural England listen to and take account of the preferences and wishes of local farmers who have rights on the commons. That much is obvious. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on the national parks’ role in providing guidance and ensuring that where there are commons, people are aware of the possibilities that the regulations and the Commons Act 2006 have introduced.

If I understand correctly, one of the reasons for introducing the 2006 Act was to promote the concept of more land getting the protection of commons; it applies

not just to upland grazing in the moors but to village greens and commonly owned areas. Given that so much green land in our country is under threat from development, it seems that there is still a great opportunity for enhanced protection.

I should, however, add a caveat. When I was shadow Minister for Sport and subsequently, I was a trustee of the old National Playing Fields Association, now called Fields in Trust; I am only too well aware, from that experience, of the pressure on common and open spaces, which affects constituencies the length and breadth of the country.

My second question to the Minister is this: how is the whole process working out in practice? I know that a group of people in my constituency in the York suburbs tried to establish a common. They found the application process incredibly difficult and were unsuccessful in the end. We have passed legislation here at a rapid rate, and if it is to have effect, the regulations that support the statute are the critical element. I hope that the Minister will cover that point when he replies.

Otherwise, I am delighted to be here to support my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and to be under your chairmanship, Mr. Streeter. This Delegated Legislation Committee is the fifth that I have served on in the past three weeks, and I keep thinking that each may be the last. If it is, it will have been a pleasant last such Committee sitting for me, because we can all agree that the issue needs to be addressed.

4.52 pm

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I begin by thanking hon. Members for their comments about Ashok? That will be a lot of comfort to his friends in this place and his family and friends elsewhere, in difficult times.

Let me respond directly to the points that have been raised. I welcome the comments made about the support that hon. Members gave to the Commons Bill as it went through Parliament and that given by members of this Committee, in principle, to the useful regulations before us.

I am happy to address the first point, raised by the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Brecon and Radnorshire, about the majority of graziers and those interests needing to be in the majority. The simple answer is that if, for example, there were 12 people on a council, seven of those would need to be active graziers to have a majority. Let me also give the slightly longer answer.

All the key legal interests in a common should be represented on each council to ensure the protection of all parties. Each council member will normally be entitled to one vote. However, there may be exceptional circumstances where it would be more appropriate for the votes of council members to be weighted to reflect the size, number or value of the common, or the area or interest represented. It would be inappropriate automatically to include provisions in the standard constitution for active graziers to have a majority vote, as account needs to be taken of commons where there are no active graziers—in fact, the hon. Member for Ryedale has just mentioned the type of model where there might be no active graziers. There might also be very few graziers as opposed to other legal interests. Let us not have

a completely prescriptive model. A decision over representation and voting arrangements will be taken on a case-by-case basis on individual establishment orders.

However, the important point is that the interests of commoners actively exercising their rights must be given weight over those of the inactive rights holders. I return to my original point: where there are active graziers, we would expect there to be seven graziers in a council of 12, so that they had the majority.

Mr. Williams: Just so that we can understand this a little better, when the Minister says “seven active graziers”, how does he expect the other five who are to come on to the council to be appointed or identified?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That decision would be for the council itself, as it is made up. For establishing councils, we have not only the models suggested in the regulations but also assistance. The models are based on two existing examples, and, if need be, there can also be assistance from Natural England and others to help constitute the council. However, it all has to be done on a case-by-case basis.

Councils will come into existence only if there is good support from all the stakeholders, and part of that support will be implicit in agreeing the right constitutional make-up of the council. Again, we do not need to be absolutely prescriptive about this. In fact, councils will not come into existence unless they are expressly desired by the local community.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked about the power for making agreements. Section 32(2) of the Commons Act 2006 gives that ability. It enables commons councils to “enter into agreements”, which would include environmental stewardship agreements. A council can enter into an agreement.

The hon. Gentleman probably knows, as I do, that one can enter into agreements as an individual landowner and so on, but that sometimes one enters difficult territory if everyone apart from one individual wants to enter into the agreement. One can look across the dales, or wherever, and see, because of one individual, that the landscape and habitat are deteriorating because of overgrazing—or, quite often, undergrazing. The regulations would enable a council to enter into an agreement, if there were a will to do so.

Mr. Paice: This is an important point. The Minister has suggested an example, and we know of examples where, because DEFRA or Rural Payments Agency rules at present require all graziers to enter into an agreement, as I understand it, we do not have the higher level stewardship schemes on commons that we ought to have. Is the Minister saying that the council, if there were one, could sign up to an agreement, even if it had some graziers who did not wish to be part of it? I hope he will confirm that that is the case. If it is, the question asked by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is raised: who gets the money? Do the recalcitrant still get some money?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Yes, it is absolutely right for a council to do that in that situation. Suppose, for example, a council is

established and, a couple of years down the line, the vast majority on it decide that they can see the sense in coming together and agreeing the terms and the apportionment of agri-environment money, whatever form it takes, but one individual says, “I’m sorry, I have fallen out with someone, there are personal differences.” In that situation, the council itself could apply for the agri-environment scheme and do it by majority.

In the model approach that we have here, which deals with different circumstances, a 51 per cent. majority may be required for certain items; for others, particularly when money is involved, a higher majority—perhaps a two-thirds majority—may be required. That could be set out in the constitution and then everyone would sign up to it and agree to it. That would unravel the roadblock that we have sometimes had when 12 of 13 individuals want to progress but the landscape is deteriorating because they have not been able to get agreement with the last individual. So, yes, councils will be able to get agreement with majority support.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire asked whether a council needs to be in place to have an agri-environment stewardship agreement. There is no such requirement in England, but where commoners have difficulty in agreeing the terms of such an agreement, a council will then, as I have said, be able to use its powers in majority decision-making. That is in the interests of the common as well, because when commons deteriorate, it is to everyone’s disbenefit.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the aspect of other representation, which I touched on; it could be access or conservation interests and so on. Councils would be entitled to co-opt additional members, alongside graziers and landowners, which could include someone from the veterinary service or other bodies. However, their role is specifically the management of rights and agriculture—commons councils have no specific functions for the management of access, for example.

Mr. Williams: Common land is part of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, where there is an opportunity to restrict the public for a month during lambing or when ground-nesting birds are laying. That is something that the council would surely get involved in. It could have a very good role to play.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall return to that point towards the end of my comments.

The hon. Member for Ryedale raised the national park authorities’ role in providing guidance. The authorities may indeed have a seat on the commons councils if there is support from local interests, including the commoners themselves. DEFRA’s new circular, to be published shortly, will recommend that national park authorities support the development of new commons councils, not least by facilitating negotiations. I have been up in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world discussing exactly that issue and how we get people working together in a common interest.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the implementation of part 1 of the Commons Act 2006. In England, implementation of the registration provisions in part 1 of the Act began with a pilot scheme that started on 1 October 2008. Seven registration authorities are involved in the pilot, and a decision on how and

when to roll out part 1 to the rest of the country will be taken after the end of the pilot period in September this year. Matters are progressing quite well.

We were talking about agri-environment schemes and the funding that comes through them. I did not make it clear that, if they were to be part of the council, the council would receive the payments and would also be responsible for agreeing how the payments would be distributed. Part and parcel of what the council has to do is to agree the fair distribution of payments to the commoners in the interests of the commons.

As for Natural England imposing restrictions or exclusions on access, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire was right. We debated the matter a lot in previous Committees, and it is for Natural England to impose restrictions or exclusions on access under the 2000 Act, as needed in the interests of conservation or land management. However, there is a role for commons councils. It is not for them to impose restrictions or exclusions, but that is different from making their views clear and making representations. A commons council could—and, I suspect, would—make representations on the need for conservation restrictions, land management restrictions and so on.

Mr. Paice: I have a couple of points to put to the Minister that he has not yet dealt with. One is about sanctions and the other concerns the recalcitrant landowner. It is becoming clear that there are some schemes where the landowner is not keen for the land to enter into higher level stewardship, even if most of the graziers wish it to.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My apologies—I thought I had dealt with that point, but I am quite happy to clarify things once again if I omitted it. In respect of sanctions, any person who breaches any rule made by a commons council is guilty of an offence under section 34(3) of the Commons Act 2006 and is liable to a penalty of level 4 on the standard scale, which I am informed is up to £2,500. The Secretary of State has to agree that such a breach should be an offence, so there is a backstop.

My apologies, but could the hon. Gentleman remind me of the second point?

Mr. Paice: Recalcitrant landowners.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Sorry?

Mr. Paice: The point was about when all the graziers want to join a stewardship scheme but the landowner might not. Bearing in mind the necessity to have occupancy for virtually a full 12 months for five years before a scheme can be joined, the role of the landowner is significant. If the landowner does not want it, does that effectively remain as a veto or can the council overrule the landowner?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I think that I can help in answering that question. First, it is worth stating that a well established principle of environmental stewardship is that agreements on commons require the signature of the landowner. Components of uplands entry level

stewardship agreements are typically in the control of the landowner, rather than the commoners, not least in relation to such things as heather and grass burning, under the heather and grass burning code.

If the landlord was not in accord with the agreement but it went ahead anyway, he or she could cause a breach that would require repayment of the funds received by the common. From our perspective, we would not be guaranteed delivery of the environmental benefits that the scheme sets out to achieve. The uplands ELS scheme explicitly recognises the importance of the active grazier, so the role of commoners is essential in delivering the environmental benefits that we are seeking. That role must be fully recognised when landowners and commoners reach agreement on entering an uplands ELS scheme. Does that help the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Paice: That does help, but a point has perhaps been missed. The uplands entry level stewardship scheme is designed to replace, effectively, the hill farm allowance, which goes to the grazier—the guy who owns the sheep or the cattle—but stewardship money need not. In other words, the attitude of the landowner is irrelevant to entitlement to hill farm allowance. What appears to be happening—a conclusion that seems to be supported by the Minister’s comments—is that the landowner could now effectively prevent the grazier, the guy with the stock, from getting the replacement for the hill farm allowance, making him significantly worse off. The Minister, in his opening remarks, referred to the importance of commons for upland livestock production and farming, so it would seem extremely unjust if the landowner could prevent the grazier from getting the replacement subsidy.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We do not want obstacles put in the way of receiving the full environmental benefits of the taxpayers’ money that has gone into such environmental stewardship grants. I shall take that important point away, reflect on it and write to him with some details, but we have considered it in introducing the regulations. This approach to the establishment of commons councils is well supported in the round in principle. It is therefore important that no impediment holds up the transfer of the funds to individuals, so that they can get on with delivering the stewardship and benefits that we want. It is also important to ensure that the funds get to the right people and that there is no fly in the ointment to hold things up. If the hon. Gentleman is content, I will happily write to him and other members of the Committee to explain how the measure will work in practice.

Mr. Williams: The point raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is a good one. Often, the landowners of a common—the lords of the manor—are distant in terms of ownership in the sense that they have no financial return on their ownership and cannot hold common rights by law. The only rights that they hold are mineral rights, and if those are of little financial value, their interest is small. They could prevent the money from flowing to the right people, not necessarily because they want to be obstructive, but because they have no incentive to play a constructive part.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As I said, I will happily write to hon. Members to clarify how the measure will work in practice, as it is an important point. It may be worth just reflecting for a second on who will serve on a council. Participants of the council—they could be a commoner, as we have discussed already, a landowner or another person entitled to participate in the council by virtue of an interest in a common—will be able to vote in the council. Council members are the people appointed, elected or co-opted to serve on the councils. Most of the decisions that are made by the council will be made by members through majority voting procedures, which is an important element. We have already discussed the size, form and composition of the council to ensure that differing interests are represented. I anticipate that, through the careful balancing and consideration of the membership and composition of the councils, most of the unwanted elements would normally be avoided. However, it is an important point, and I am quite happy to write to give hon. Members the benefit of further consideration of how that will work in practice.

In conclusion, commons councils will provide an excellent opportunity to improve the environmental and agricultural management of commons. It is not possible to achieve effective management unless all parties work together. The approval of the regulations today, if the Committee sees fit, will enable those who want to do that to get on with it. The establishment of commons councils will help to protect common land in England for future generations by encouraging effective management and sustainable farming methods. Threatened wildlife and habitats will be protected. Rural communities will prosper, and improved biodiversity and resource protection of common land will ensure continued enjoyment for all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered draft Commons Councils (Standard Constitution) (England) Regulations 2010.

5.12 pm

Committee rose.


©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 10:56 on 16th March 2010