Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I come to this Bill as rather a greenhorn, although I remember that when I was the chairman of the National Trust we usually labelled common land issues as ““handle with care””. That said, the Bill is important and essentially well-drafted. As the Minister said, it has had a very long gestation, going back to the Common Land Forum of the 1980s. I should like in passing to commend the pages in the Explanatory Notes on the historical and legislative background. I too believe that it is important to place the Bill as part of an evolutionary process going back to the Norman Conquest. In that context, I should like also to commend the work, over 150 years, of the Open Spaces Society and incidentally to note that it was one of the founding fathers of the National Trust. I am sure that there will be general support for the main provisions of Part 1 on registration. Clause 9 on the prohibition of severance of rights of common will be warmly welcomed. It is one of the major clauses in the Bill, and I suspect that there may be some technical aspects of it that we will need to consider carefully. Clause 14, on the registration of greens, is also to be welcomed. Clause 15 on the other hand needs further thought. Is there, for example, a danger of ““chipping away”” of small commons under the 200 square metres proposal in Clause 15? I regret that there is not time to go into that further. Part 2 is on management and the measures that will allow and encourage statutory commons associations to be formed at a local level so that commoners can regulate how their commons are used. I hope that there will be broad agreement on the generality of this part. It seems to me that in the main what is proposed is straightforward and sensible. For example, Clause 30, on functions, is an important clause that seems essentially sound. I particularly welcome the public interest requirement and the link across from there to the nature and landscape conservation points in the clause. At subsection (7), one might also have expected the inclusion of ““heritage”” to be bracketed in with ““nature”” and ““landscape””; the more so given that, as the Open Spaces Society points out, it is picked up in a similar context at Clause 37 on consent. Please, I too would like to know what on earth we mean by ““sustainable agriculture””. This is not a point for legislation, but can we be assured that the licensing authority will not be too bureaucratically heavy-handed over the constitutions of the smaller commons associations? If we are going to achieve our objectives of better management, a relatively light touch would seem sensible. I shall now address protection. I have the impression that there is widespread recognition that the procedures for consenting to works on common land need a thorough overhaul and that in general the proposals are supported. Nevertheless, there are a number of issues of detail that we will need to examine in Committee. I will confine myself today, due to the time limit, to one point—the powers of local authorities over unclaimed land and arising therefrom the ““intervention”” section. There are two points. First, should the actions of an LA   be merely permissive, or should it have a duty to protect? Secondly, should the definition of an LA be widened to include a national park authority or an AONB consultation board? One notes that in Clause 44 relating to unauthorised agricultural activities the relevant authority does include an NPA. Why should Clauses 43 and 44 be different in that regard? I am conscious of having to skim over a whole series of interesting points. A general point has been mentioned by almost all speakers—the numerous places in the Bill where, quite properly, a particular purpose will be affected by regulation. It would be helpful to know in general terms—and I am not suggesting that it should be in the Bill—what the powers will be, who will be consulted, and how the processes will be carried out. That is important. Finally, we must get the Bill right because it is likely to be many years before we can tackle the subject again. The last time that we legislated in this field was 45 years ago.