Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for laying out its historic context. Even today, talk of making changes to legislation relating to common land or to rights of common can and does provoke strong feelings, particularly in rural communities. That is why I am looking forward to getting this Bill right. Although it is primarily technical in nature, amending the omissions and mistakes of past legislation, I believe that we form part of an historic tradition in trying to address these issues. Indeed, I share with the Minister the pleasure of sharing in, as he put it, ““plumbing the arcane depths”” when exploring the arcane language and its meaning. It continues to have great resonance. It refers to rights that are particular to certain localities and regions. I cite one example from my own parish which I will explore further in Committee, that of potwalloping, which takes place on Northam Common. Land, and the rights and responsibilities of its ownership or use, lay at the heart of the Government’s Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. All sides of the House recognised then that commons needed further legislation in their own right. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches commend the Government for making time in their legislative schedule to address the failures of past legislation. It was recognised in 2000 that this needed to be done. We need to be able adequately to protect our common land, as well as the rights to it which continue to be exercised. We warmly welcome the Bill, as do most NGOs and agencies and, indeed, all the correspondents I have heard from. We also welcome the fact that Defra has made it plain that it is still open to making improvements to the legislation. But I shall want to press the Government on whether they have recognised sufficiently the changing nature of the use of many commons. Several questions arise on Part 1, including what will happen to unclaimed common land. I want to explore further in Committee the extent of such unclaimed land and how the Government see its future within the framework of this legislation. I refer also to the resourcing of those local authorities responsible for carrying out the work of registration. I am most familiar with county authorities. They are already overburdened in trying to meet the improvement requirements set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 using only meagre resources considering the enormous and historic nature of the work they are undertaking. I am sure that the Minister is also aware that the backlog of public inquiry work that has accrued since the passing of the CROW Act is enormous. If that work is multiplied many times by taking into account what is being faced by local authorities, he will recognise that the additional work involved in the registration of commons will need substantial further resources. The same staff simply cannot do any more than they do already. Part 2 covers the management of common land. We welcome the setting up of statutory commons associations where it is felt that they are needed. Such management will be able to recognise the tensions between the needs of those with grazing rights, wildlife management and rights of public access. I am sure that plans can be developed to manage those conflicting needs so as to ensure the best possible outcome. But the Bill as drafted defines such outcomes in terms of ““sustainable agriculture””. That is far too narrow and I hope that we are successful in agreeing a much better definition. It is clear that some commons will have to be managed especially for their wildlife value. The Minister has already acknowledged that many are not currently in good condition. However, some areas, particularly in Wales—about which my noble friend Lord Livsey will speak in detail—and the West Country, common grazing rights are critical to the existence of traditional farms, which may own only a small acreage of meadowland but will have extensive grazing rights. We are talking here not only about the importance of the wildlife on that common land but of   the social and economic viability of some of our most fragile rural communities in some of our most environmentally sensitive areas. So, while the Bill refers to over-grazing—which, I agree, historically has been a problem for many commons—against the background of the reform of the CAP under-grazing and no grazing is likely to become as much of an issue. It could be just as damaging to an SSSI which relies on a grazing regime because bracken and scrub can very quickly ruin a previously flower and butterfly-rich area. Indeed, as highlighted on Monday in an article in the Independent, the number of butterflies could be a useful indicator for Defra about the health of the countryside. One of the department’s current indicators as regards quality of life and farmland improvement is farmland birds whose numbers seem to have been turned around slightly by this year’s figures. I suggest that at the Committee stage of the Bill we might introduce another indicator—that is, the number of butterflies on common land. I draw to the Minister’s attention the view of the National Trust. In its useful briefing it stated:"““It is important that SCAs have the flexibility to meet the future needs of society and are able to make the most of new business opportunities e.g. managing commons for flood management, water quality, carbon sequestration, public health and wellbeing””." I could not put it better. I agree with its examples of some things which are extremely important but are not mentioned anywhere and do not fall within the remit of sustainable agriculture. We on these Benches are also concerned about the emphasis in the Bill on the influence and power of the national government agencies, particularly Natural England when it is formed. We shall question in Committee whether it is balanced sufficiently with local knowledge and local policies. It will be important to explore the question of commons which are likely to be lost as a result of managed coastal realignment and rising sea levels. I appreciate that it may take the Minister some time to gather the information about which commons will be particularly affected, but the Bill needs to look forward and make provision for the likely serious results of climate change and the effect it will have on such commons. Finally, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady   Byford, that vast swathes of the Bill are covered only by the word ““regulation”” at the moment. The Minister has indicated that he will bring forward one model establishment order. I hope that we will see more model regulations because, if we do not, we will certainly need to make detailed amendments to those parts of the Bill which we are unhappy to leave simply to regulation. In the mean time, I warmly welcome the Bill and look forward to working on it in Committee with the Minister and other noble Lords.