| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 238 would remove Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales and national park authorities from the list of relevant authorities, leaving
14 Nov 2005 : Column GC288
only the national authority in each country able to exercise the power to stop unauthorised agricultural activities.
The circumstances where that power might need to be exercised may sometimes be more readily apparent to bodies functioning at a regional level rather than central government, and such bodies may sometimes be better able to act swiftly to resolve any problems.
We consider the Countryside Council for Wales and Natural England to be the appropriate bodies to take enforcement action. The Countryside Council for Wales and Natural England have, or will have, subject to legislation, regional personnel and will be suited to carry out this function. They are capable of making an informed judgment about whether the criteria for using this power are met by conditions on the ground. They will also have the range of expertise and skills to decide on the best course of action to stop the activity occurring and will be able to take swift and effective action to resolve problems.
We will, however, look again at the role of national park authorities. We can see that the duties of park authorities may sometimes conflict with agricultural interests on commons and may lack the range of skills and expertise that are necessary for the effective use of this power. We will therefore reconsider their role here.
Amendment No. 239 would enable local authorities to use this power. We do not think that they are suitable bodies to assume this role. The exercise of the power will require a good understanding of agricultural systems and local farming practices. It may also require expertise in ecology, commoning practices and farm economics. Few, if any, local authorities will be able to call on the range of expertise needed. In addition, many local authorities are unlikely to be able to provide the personnel required to visit, collect data, analyse and understand the agricultural activities occurring and their effects on remote commons. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for agreeing that perhaps the role of the national parks needs to be re-examined. However, before withdrawing the amendment, I would like to leave the Minister with this question: what are the priorities of Natural England and CCW? If they are not assembled in a sensible, constructive way, do they address adequately the desirability of keeping families on the land in very sparsely populated areas where people are a vanishing asset in many places? That must be balanced with the economic and agricultural viability of the holdings and whether they can support families. Or will Natural England and CCW be overtaken by other priorities which do not address that social question?
The Duke of Montrose: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, do the Government intend
14 Nov 2005 : Column GC289
that unauthorised agricultural activities will vary according to the views of different organisations in different places?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that they would inevitably vary according to local circumstances. That is a common-sense response rather than a well advised response, so if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Duke. It is best not to debate the priorities of Natural England because this is currently being debated under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. I hope that the noble Lord can be patient a little longer, as I understand it will not be too long until we are debating those points.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 239 not moved.]
Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 239A:
"DRIVING OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON COMMONS
No driver of any motor vehicle other than a commoner exercising a right of common shall cause that vehicle to be driven or parked on any area of common land or village or town green without the express permission of the owner of the land or of the commoners association."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 239A is to introduce a ban on any motor vehicle being driven on a common or green other than by a commoner exercising a right of common, or parking on it without the express permission of the owner of the land or the commons association. This is obviously a probing amendment to discover how the Government intend to prevent damage to commons and greens by indiscriminate parking. In some areas it affects agricultural management and I know of some areas where it has led to erosion and damage to the landscape. Damage to nature conservation and archaeological interests are also all too possible if people take their vehicles on to commons. Many commons are not fenced, hedged or walled, often making it easier to take vehicles on to them. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: No one is more enthusiastic than I about preventing unauthorised motor vehicle access to common land, but I fear that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, simply will not work. Apart from anything else, it will raise the problem of people driving to their own homes across common land. It will also lay on the owner of the land or the commons association the responsibility to prevent what is already, in many respects, illegal activity—under the Road Traffic Act as amended by the CROW Act. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not see how the provision could possibly fit into the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord's amendment is a perfectly reasonable one, with a view
14 Nov 2005 : Column GC290
to better protecting common land. In fact, it is so reasonable that it was enacted to all intents and purposes three-quarters of a century ago.
Two pieces of general legislation deal with driving on common land. The first is Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which made it an offence where any person without lawful authority—my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel made that point—drives on land to which the section applies. Section 193 applies to what are often described as "urban commons"—that is to say, commons that before 1974 were within urban districts or boroughs—and other commons dedicated by deed for public access.
Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence where a person without lawful authority,
"drives a mechanically propelled vehicle . . . on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road".
It is not an offence under Section 34 to drive on to common land within 15 yards of the road for the purpose of parking, although it may be an offence to do so under Section 193, on a common to which that section applies, and it may also be a trespass to do so.
Village greens are also afforded protection under Section 12 of the Inclosure Act 1857. Moreover, a host of local bylaws prohibit driving on common land and greens.
We do not believe that the answer to the problem that the noble Lord raises is further legislative provision. The real problem may sometimes be a want not of legislation, but of enforcement. The powers exist to control the use of motor vehicles on common land and greens, and any person may prosecute for an offence under the 1925 and 1988 Acts.
One final point is that the noble Lord's amendment refers to the possibility of consent being given by the "commoners' association". We do not think that that is appropriate, given that it could result in consent being given to something that would constitute a trespass against the landowner. That would be a dilution of the landowner's powers.
I have answered in some detail even though it is late because I know that, unless I can satisfy the noble Lord that this is not the solution to the problem that he has identified, we may face this debate again. I hope that I have managed to satisfy him.
7 pm
Lord Greaves: I am most grateful to the Minister and I feel thoroughly satisfied. Since I came into the House some years ago, I have always believed that one of the purposes of taking part in detailed discussion on legislation is that one becomes educated and gains knowledge of all kinds of things one never previously knew. I am sure that when I read the Minister's remarks they will contribute enormously to my education and to how these problems can be solved.
I feel that I have bowled a fairly gentle dolly to the Minister. It was first hit for six by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who said that it was impossible and that the legislation would be dreadful. It was then hit for six by the Minister, who said that it is already the
14 Nov 2005 : Column GC291
law. I feel as though I have been hit for six but I am not sure whether it is square leg or long-on. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |