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.