Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, in preparing my thoughts for the debate, I read a short history of common land and common land law. It brought it home to me how divisive the issue had been over the centuries, especially in your Lordships’ House. It is interesting to see how the debate has changed from the early days of the 19th century, when it was about enclosure and the hardship that emanated from that. I thought that it was encapsulated by the doggerel of the poet at the time who said:"““The law doth punish man or woman who steals the goose from off the common,      But sets the greater felon loose who steals the common from the goose””." That was the feeling at the time. As the Minister has said, we have to move on, and we have moved on. In a sense, the debate is now more about how we balance the use of commons, many of them privately owned, with the demands of public enjoyment. I welcome the Bill as a step in that process. It allows us to modernise and to clarify. With the emphasis on public benefit, it takes us a long way forward. Right from the beginning, I see, as the noble Baroness said, that it has traditionally been a divisive matter and that there is still potential for division. I declare an interest in the sense that I am clearly on one side. I happen to have been brought up in south Cumbria, where we had the great benefit of south Cumbria being run by the Lakes Urban District Council. I never realised why, but under Section 173 of the wonderful Act to which my noble friend referred—the Law of Property Act 1925—the public had access to all common lands in urban districts. So we could go where we wanted, and if we went a little further north or further afield we were again lucky because most of the other commons were covered by the National Trust legislation, which again allowed access. Of course, there were difficulties; the Cumbrian farmers had to learn to deal with them and, by and large, they did. As we have looked at the debate over the years and moved from enclosures to public enjoyment, it is interesting to note that the county with the greatest proportion of common land in public ownership for access is Surrey. That is quite an unusual view of the rights of commoners. I declare a non-pecuniary interest: I am vice-president of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society and a former chairman. We are very proud to be the oldest amenity society in existence in England, and we claim credit on our stick, so to speak, for such victories as Hampstead Heath, Epping Forest, Hainault Forest and so many other open spaces in the metropolitan areas and other areas as well. We are delighted with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which has been mentioned. Having said that, I was quite struck by the latest journal of the Open Spaces Society. It said that the organisation’s treasurer, who travelled 600 miles across an area that the Minister knows well, the east midlands, looking at common land in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire, was appalled that commons were lost under impenetrable scrub, a car park, farm storage, a Christmas tree plantation—not the Forestry Commission, I hope—and gardens, to name just a few things. This brought it home to me that we need an inventory of common land. We need to know what the position is. I hope that the Minister can discuss this with some of his colleagues in Defra and see if there is a way to produce ground rules or a map so we know where the common land is. I very much welcome the Bill. It is a good Bill, although one or two aspects cause me concern as they do other noble Lords. In particular, I want to flag up something in the part of the Bill covering registration. I was rather surprised that it did not vest unclaimed common land in the local authorities. Defra’s common land policy statement of 2002 proposed to enable the vesting of unclaimed enclosed common land into a suitable body. That proposal, which does not seem to be included in the Bill, would be a step forward. Clause 39 refers to groups of persons taking action to remove works. It talks about local authorities and about eligible persons, and I welcome that. However, I am concerned about a point that has already been raised. Does that include corporate bodies and charities? We need clarification if we are to make this work and achieve good legislation. Although the Bill can be improved it is, all in all, a good Bill, because it moves the debate forward and leads to clarification and modernisation. That is what I think the whole House wants.