Commons Bill [Lords]

I apologise. No doubt, as a community councillor, she will find her way in there somehow or other. Will the Minister tell me whether that is the kind of standard association that we are looking at? If so, I suggest that the balance is not quite right, but no doubt that is a matter not for Second Reading, but for Committee in due course. Much has been said about the registration of greens, and quite rightly so. It is an important area of law, and another area that needs significant change and simplification. We need to consider further modifications. There is a possibility that the legislation could become an effective weapon for objectors to development, once the planning process has not had the desired outcome for them. It is not unheard of—under previous laws and currently—for spurious claims to be made in a last-ditch attempt to prevent development. Depending on the quality of evidence, those claims can be extremely difficult for a landowner to refute. I was professionally involved in a case some four years ago on behalf of a county council that wanted to develop a corner of a parcel of land. As soon as the council made its intentions known—it wanted to use the land for affordable housing, for letting and part sale—the people in the locality said, ““No, this is a green and it always has been.”” Well, it never had been, but it cost many tens of thousands of pounds to prove that. Thirty or 40 people came along and each spent up to half a day in the tribunal hearing. The thing went on for about 12 or 14 days. Tens of thousands of pounds were thrown away—for no good reason, it seems to me. We need to look again at that mechanism, to prevent that happening again. We need a balance. We need to ensure that where greens have been used since time immemorial they continue to be used, for all the good reasons that they have been used in the past. Equally, if a part of a green is needed for some reasonable development, that should not be objected to and stopped in its tracks, per se. There should be a better means of dealing with those conflicts, rather than the current expensive litigation procedure. We need to strike a fairer compromise between the residents of a locality and possible developments. My next point has already been made, so I will be brief. It is about what was referred to as the common land policy statement. There are occasions when a landowner is willing to permit the general public to have access to a piece of unfarmed land for recreation, where that would be of benefit to the community. There is now great anxiety among people who would be willing to do that. I could name names from my own locality. People are happy for that to happen, but they are concerned that over time, it will become a right capable of registration and that the land could become something akin to a green. Paragraph 50 of the common land policy statement 2002 says clearly that that will be legislated for in primary legislation, and that when the landowner makes it clear that people have limited recreational access, that is not to be transferred into a public right. The highway example given earlier is the same. Many of us are disappointed that that provision is not in the Bill. It would have freed up more access for the public, because landowners would not be concerned that public rights would be created, adverse to their own. I hope that even at this late stage, with a very limited Committee stage, that matter can be revisited. In general, despite some of the things that I said earlier, this is a good Bill, which is overdue. However, other hon. Members and I have raised points that need to be addressed. The Bill will not succeed if the additional costs that will follow are not met. I was encouraged by what the Minister said when I intervened on him at the beginning. I welcomed that response and I hope that there will be some new money available. Otherwise there will be confusion, and we will have misleading plans and, potentially, lots of litigation, which nobody wants to see being pursued unnecessarily. With those caveats, I welcome the Bill. If I am fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to be selected for the Committee, no doubt I can raise further points at that stage.