Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 7:"Page 9, line 2, leave out ““the relevant period”” and insert ““twelve months of the date upon which the landowner posted a notice prohibiting the use of the land for sports and pastimes””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. This clause will come into force in accordance with the provisions made by order by the appropriate national authority. We are still waiting for some aspects of the Animal Health Act—which we will be discussing later—to come into being on which we will have no influence once this Bill has left the House. There are matters within the Bill which will have a bearing upon our discussions. It is possible that the owner of land might decide—perhaps as a consequence of practical experience of the single farm payment—to sell up. As part of the preparation for the sale, he might have to erect a notice clarifying that the use of a particular field is permissive and that permission is now being withdrawn. Under this clause, unless the Secretary of State had already brought it into force, he would then have to wait for five years to complete the sale even though the notice was not put up until after the Bill had become law. This is a little technical but I hope the Minister is following me. On the other hand, had the clause already been brought into force, he would have to wait a mere two years. I wonder how many people would consider it reasonable to be required to wait for two years between deciding to sell their house and being able to put up a ““For Sale”” notice. If this clause is brought into law, any number of farmers whose land now adjoins a conurbation could be faced with that problem. The situation is made worse by the recent changes to the common agricultural policy. There are farmers who are faced with a drop in their income sufficient to wipe out a fairly fragile profit, especially if there is any delay in the new single farm payments, which we will no doubt debate on my Question next week. The process of trying to applying to register land as a town or village green is not specified in the Bill, but if it follows the procedure for establishing rights of way, the application will be made considerably in advance of any decision. Moreover, that decision process will involve both the registration authority and those who are making the application. It is quite reasonable to set a limit of 12 months for the filing of an application. That is the thrust of these two amendments. Rather like the matter relating to the Dartmoor Commoners Council, another issue was raised with me only yesterday. I apologise to the Minister. I hope that he will not mind my sharing it with the House, even though I understand that it may not be possible to do anything until the Bill passes to the Commons. I hope the House will forgive me for introducing an additional angle to the debate on this part of the Bill. The matter is, I think, of great interest to us all. It is not intended to slow up proceedings, but to ensure that all possible areas of debate are covered before we pass our hard work over to the Commons. The much debated Clause 15 has thrown up yet another problem. It has come to my attention that a retrospective effect of Clause 15(6)(a) could be an unintended loop hole. This ties in with our amendments. If land had been used for a 20-year period and its use ceased five years before the Act, under Clause 15(6)(a), houses which had already been built would be in line for demolition. I shall describe a situation in which this could apply. A building society could have fenced a site on commencement of construction works, with the appropriate planning permission, in 2002, and commenced building work. Under the current law, the development could have been completed. I have been made aware of developments where this is the case. The case of which I am aware was challenged by protesters under existing common law, but the challenge was overturned by a public inquiry conducted by a QC and supported by a High Court ruling. Yet I understand that, under Clause 15(6), both those respected and official rulings could be overturned by an oversight. In spite of its comprehensive defeat, the protest against the development would be renewable under this new legislation. I am sure that that is not what is intended. Those who were against the development would have a window until 2007 to attempt to overturn the development or part of the proposed development. It seems that Defra is aware of this problem. A letter which I believe was dated 10 January 2006—I have unfortunately left my copy in my office—has instructed local councils to withhold planning applications on the assumption that village green applications might be made. Surely this is not the operation of a government department through the usual channels. I also refer the Minister to the recent European Court ruling in the case of Pye v UK 2005, in which an attempt by the Government retrospectively to vary a law was found to contradict European rulings on human rights. I apologise to the House for the complexity of the matter, but as it is directly relevant to this part of the Bill, it is important that is in Hansard. When the matter moves to the Commons, perhaps Ministers and the department will look into it further. I do not expect the Minister to have clear knowledge on the issue. I beg to move.