He also questioned the continuing viability of livestock farming on the Shropshire Hills where much of the most spectacular scenery such as Stiperstones and Long Mynd are commons.
Full text of Philip's speech:
6.46 pm
Mr. Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): I remind the House of my declaration of interests. I am a partner in a farming business that holds modest ownership rights, and slightly more substantial grazing rights, over common land. That means that I have some knowledge of which I speak.
I am pleased that there has been such consensus across the House, notwithstanding the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The debate is important because common land raises considerable concerns among many of our constituents who have historical rights that go back many generations. In the county of Shropshire, which I represent in part, there are more than 5,000 hectares of common land in 86 registered commons. The county council that monitors the commons anticipates that there is a substantially larger amount of unregistered land and is trying to pull together various interests. The Bill is designed to put right several of the deficiencies of the Commons Registration Act 1965.
I am extremely relieved that the Minister has decided that the most appropriate registration body is the local authority, rather than his Department. I say that for several reasons, not least of which is the performance of the Rural Payments Agency, which his Department supervises, on the mapping and registration of agricultural land throughout the country. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it has some relevance to the debate, I will cite a letter that I received from the agency shortly before the recess-on 28 March. The letter was about the form that I was invited to complete for my 2006 single farm payment. It said:
"Your application form has been pre-populated with the number of entitlements that were notified to you on your un-validated entitlements statement."
It led me to think that there might be some data included on the form, but it was not until I got to the eighth page of zero information that I reached part D, which was on common land grazing rights. I was pleased to see that there was notification on the form that I was entitled to graze 43.3 cattle and 720 sheep on common land. As it happens, I cannot reconcile those figures with any of mine, which shows that the entire form is gobbledegook. It is a great relief that Shropshire county council will be responsible in future.
I have spoken to the registration officer, who has some concerns about taking on that onerous task, not least because of the resources that will be required to manage common land-in particular, the cost of installing digital mapping. I share his concerns about the potential for confusion and conflict between the Rural Payments Agency and the common land registrar in each local authority. I hope that they will be able to match up the two different systems. I urge the Minister to address in Committee how that will be done in practice, because few MPs and even fewer people outside the House have much confidence in the Government's management of IT projects.
I was relieved that the Minister confirmed that funding would be made available to the registration authorities. I hope that it will be sufficient to cope with the extra burden.
I wish to address three aspects of the Bill, which have been touched on already today. Concerns have been expressed about the definition of village greens and open spaces that is set out in clause 15. Several hon. Members have referred to the Trap Grounds case that is going through the other place-the decision is awaited-and I am pleased that the Bill will provide clarity for all those concerned to establish ownership of village greens. In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome that.
However, some concerns arise from the Government's changing views on the matter and I take slight issue with the comment made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the potentially conflicting rights of those seeking to obstruct or gain access to land, as opposed to those who have ownership rights over the land. The issue has been addressed throughout the long period of debate over common lands and I hope that the Government will consider introducing in Committee similar protections for those who have ownership rights, as laid out in section 31 of the Highways Act 1980.
There would be a precedent for such a move. In the discussions that took place during the public consultation in February 2000, Ministers recognised that such protection for landowners' interests would be appropriate. In particular, the "Common Land Policy Statement 2002", issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stated, in relation to future legislation:
"There would, however, be a similar provision to that under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 concerning rights of way, so that a land owner could give notice that it is not his or her intention that the land should become a permanent town or village green".
That has been referred to in the other place in debates on the Bill over the past year. The concern is that by providing a mere notice in the relevant place, it could give rise to vexatious or frustrating action on the part of those who have ownership rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) effectively countered that argument by making the point that it could also prevent any new land from being opened up for public access, for fear that over time it would be turned into a formal village green, with all the implications that that would have for the landowners.
I have a particular, slightly unusual case in my constituency, which relates to land owned by a charitable trust set up by the Church. The land is known as Glebe land and it is in the village of Clun. It has been owned by the Church for centuries and people in the village have had full public access to it on a permissive basis for much of that time. However, it is now potentially subject to sale, and there is considerable scope for conflict between the public who use the land and the Church. Far be it from me to get in the middle of that battle, but the issue appears incapable of resolution other than through the result of the Trap Grounds case or if the Bill included a similar provision to section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, as I have just mentioned. I ask the Minister to consider that proposal in Committee. The Church has had many lands confiscated over many centuries, since Henry VIII started the process, and this is not the right time to deny its property rights.
Clause 27 addresses the role of commons associations and in particular their establishments. I have concerns that the drafting of clause 27(4) means that the appropriate national authority will have to be satisfied that substantial support exists for the making of an order for a commons association. I have examples in my constituency of existing commons associations that have a management agreement with English Nature. I met the Stiperstones Commoners Association last week, which looks after an area of nearly 1,000 acres, 700 of which are registered and 300 are unregistered. It has a management agreement with English Nature, under which it is essentially told what to do. The association has very little negotiating right on behalf of its three commons rights holders, who are small farmers in their own right. My concern is that if the appropriate national authority determines that an organisation should be set up with a dominant state entity as a party to it, that entity may call the shots, which may not necessarily be right. How will the national authority determine "substantial support" when there is a limited pool of existing rights holders? Will it be opened up to everybody who lives in the area surrounding the common? People will want to retain access rights to travel across the common, but they may not wish to exercise grazing rights.
Another example is the Long Mynd, a well known landmark in my constituency. I am told by English Nature that shortly after the 1965 Act, more than 26,000 people registered rights on that common, which comprises some 2,000 hectares. That was clearly a massive exaggeration of rights and I hope that the Bill will put that right.
There is no easy answer to these issues. The examples are so diverse, even in an area as similar as within a few miles of Shropshire hills.
Mr. Drew: My problem is the distinction between grazing rights, whose holders will presumably be active members of whatever organisation manages the common, and more distant rights, such as that of access. The difficulty is achieving the balance between the two. For example, those holding grazing rights are seriously under-represented and they do not seem to wish to come forward. How can we resolve that?
Mr. Dunne: It is very difficult to say what farming activity should take place in areas where it is no longer economically viable. It may be attractive to have an entity such as English Nature enter into management agreements in areas such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In the Stiperstones area, the graziers used to get what I would call proper payment from DEFRA's predecessor, the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, the payment that they receive now is about to make grazing in the area uneconomic, even though it is part of environmental support and so deserves reward.
My final point has to do with clause 31 and the management of common land, which I am not convinced is always best determined by a bureaucratic entity. Commoners in the Stiperstones area tell me that the land management practised by English Nature means that opportunities for grazing have fallen significantly over recent years, with the result that the land can no longer support the number of animals for which rights have existed for many decades. In part, that is a result of the management agreement entered into by English Nature, which does not consider grazing to be a priority. It has a different objective, and wants to create environmental attractions for walkers and those who pursue other leisure activities.
That gives rise to a conflict: whose rights should prevail? My fear is that small graziers, whose voice is relatively small, will be steamrollered by the bureaucrats. I hope that the registration process and the relevant management agreements will allow appeals to be mounted. So far, however, I have seen no evidence that such mechanisms will be included.
In conclusion, our agricultural sector, and the livestock industry in particular, faces difficult times. Our common lands cover large areas of some constituencies, and we must not set up a management system that weakens the possibility of a viable livestock industry in those areas. Any such system should encourage that industry.
7.3 pm
...
In summing up for the Opposition at the end of the debate, Bill Wiggin, MP for Leominster and Shadow Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs added:
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) has common and grazing rights, so he knows what he is talking about. He discussed the problem of unregistered land, which is very important, and welcomed the council's role in overseeing the registration of such land. He then mentioned his 43.3 cattle-he is a superb breeder of Charolais cattle, but even he cannot breed 0.3 of a cow, and I am sure that the Minister will sort out that extraordinary anomaly when he has a moment. He also discussed the RPA fiasco and IT projects, the escalating cost of which is causing growing worry on both sides of the House. He talked about the conflict between people who are concerned about development on village greens, people who want to see more affordable housing and people who own land. He also talked about the protection of landowners' interests in the Highways Act 1980, the value of land, which is the key to the problem, and the transfer of land to public ownership. His constituency case involving the Glebe land in Clun, which was owned by the Church and accessed by villagers, was skilfully handled, because he avoided getting stuck in the firing line. He also discussed concern about the entity that may be imposed to run common land-again, almost every hon. Member who spoke mentioned that worry. He talked about English Nature and grazing opportunities being reduced under clause 31, which will weaken the livestock sector.
