I shall start by picking up the Minister’s comments to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). We were unable to conclude the discussion in which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) discussed long-standing planning consents. We were not trying to allow someone with planning consent to circumvent the basic import of being able to apply to register a village green. The Minister has suggested that I was asking for a third concession, which was not the case. I was asking for a clarification of the word, ““construction””, which the Minister has just provided for my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire—although as we all know, it will be for the courts to decide. It would be a shame if anybody who had begun a development—the moot point is what constitutes ““beginning development””—finds that the opportunity is taken away from them.
This is an extremely important Bill. It is a great pleasure in many ways—I know that other Members find this—to deliberate on a matter without party division or point scoring. We had a little contretemps during the debate on the last group of amendments when it was suggested that my party was divided. That is not so; I merely wanted to ensure that the other side of the debate was properly aired because I knew what the Minister was going to say. There are two points of view, and it was right that they should both be put.
It is also unusual to debate a Bill dealing with legislation that is in many cases hundreds of years old. I think that the earliest piece of legislation that we mentioned dated from the 1270s. We have some ancient commons in my constituency, some with their own statute, and I have learned a great deal about that law. I hope that that will enable me to understand local problems better, if not to resolve them.
As the Minister said, his predecessor, who is now the Minister for Schools, led us through Second Reading and Committee in the extremely constructive way that those of us who have worked with him for some time have come to expect. I congratulate him on his promotion, which was well deserved. He was a good Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I hope that he takes that skill forward in his new role. The current Minister has carried on the style adopted by his predecessor and has been extremely helpful in discussions outside the Chamber, as well as in his responses today. I thank him for that.
I also thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who has adopted an equally constructive approach, bringing his experience as a Welsh hill farmer to bear, and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who brought to our debates his tremendous experience as a rural lawyer dealing with common law, among other things. He has contributed considerably. Many outside interests and organisations have put forward their thoughts and views, and were involved in the long discussions and consultations that the Government held prior to publishing the Bill.
It would be remiss of me not to say that one or two concerns remain, including on development and minor but necessary works. I look forward to the regulations that the Minister will publish as a result. I am sorry that it has not been possible for us to deal with incorrect registrations. We considered several options, including the concept of reintroducing the principle of levancy and couchancy. The Minister and I discussed that, and I accept that it would be difficult. However, it is a pity that we have not been able to find a solution to the glaring examples of people on the register who have rights that they should never have registered, but are difficult to shift.
Nevertheless, we have dramatically improved the common law of this land as it applies to commons. I hope that what we have done will prove durable and flexible for a very long time. I hope, too, that it will help not only landowners but owners of the ancient rights that we have discussed and owners of newer rights such as open access. The only group that I hope that it does not help are lawyers. I hope that we have created a Bill that is clear enough, so that the common man can understand it and the lawyer is the poorer for it. I wish it well.
Commons Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
James Paice
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 29 June 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Commons Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
448 c482-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:52:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_333895
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_333895
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_333895