Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have a long-standing interest in what I regard as these long-delayed reforms. I served as a vice-chairman of a national park committee for   Dartmoor in my twenties, and then advised the Countryside Commission and the national parks collectively on the issues some years ago. I note from the Explanatory Notes and from what the Minister told us that the Bill is considerably dependent on the consensus achieved by the Countryside Commission in its work on the Common Land Forum in 1986. In another place, I sought to secure the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill. I very much refer the Minister to the experience that we had there and in your Lordships’ House—the Bill started in this House—because many of the issues that we are debating arose during its passage. Sadly, that Bill was sabotaged in the end by Members of another place who sought the opportunity to ride a stalking horse for general access legislation, and as a result the Bill fell. As a direct result of that, the Bodmin Moor commons have suffered from overgrazing to this day. Environmental management has been undermined and incentives for responsible commoners have been denied. The chance to benefit from ESAs, to which other noble Lords have referred, was by that simple act removed. My personal interest is that I live and have lived for the past 30 years under the shadow of Bodmin Moor. With the Bill, I am particularly concerned to secure for future generations the experience that my family and I have had of the harmony of well managed uplands in the care of those who wish to practise truly sustainable agriculture. I am conscious of the sense of history that has already been referred to by several noble Lords. Those, like myself, who regret the delay in bringing forward the proposals will, I hope, still recognise that it has taken a long time for the legislation to be passed in this country. I note that Clause 45 repeals the Commons Act of 1285, from the reign of Edward I. We are not rushing this. It reminds me of the Cornish expression, ““dreckly””, which, simply translated, is something like the same as the Spanish word manana, without the sense of urgency. At this stage, I am primarily concerned with Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with reform of management arrangements. I have already referred to our problems encountered on Bodmin Moor, by commoners and environmentalists alike, with irresponsible overgrazing by a small minority. Indeed, noble Lords have already referred to the problems that mass invasion by New Age travellers can cause. That took place on Bodmin Moor, too. A different Private Bill set up a very successful management scheme on Dartmoor, but its passage was assisted by the existence of the national park designation there, with all the financial and legislative advantages that conferred. On Dartmoor, a Private Bill established a successful management scheme—but that is a national park, and huge financial and legislative advantages have been given to all concerned. The Bodmin Moor Commons Bill, to which I have referred, started life in your Lordships’ House in 1994, was exhaustively examined here, along with many of the issues that we are considering today, and received its Third Reading only on 15 February 1996. During that time, both Houses had an opportunity to rehearse the issues with which your Lordships’ House is concerned this afternoon. During a debate in another place on 21 May 1996, the then Labour spokesman, Elliot Morley, not only supported our Bill, but committed his party to early implementation of the recommendations of the Common Land Forum. Nine years later is better than never. The present Bill fully reflects and echoes the same need for effective local management. However, I am far from clear as to how the Government propose to walk the tightrope between unnecessary and over-powering central control on the one hand, by setting up the associations, and effective but sufficiently flexible local self-discipline on the other. A small minority of irresponsible commoners cannot be allowed to destroy the consensus between the majority and environmentalists on the best way to avoid immutable overgrazing. I recognise that the Minister, who referred to majority voting, is alive to this problem. Sustainable agricultural husbandry is always a desperately difficult balancing act. That is especially the case where conflicting interests in difficult economic conditions—which, surely, is the case among upland livestock farmers—can be so potentially disruptive on the uplands. The landscape and ecological sensitivity of those areas are known to all noble Lords and have been referred to. It is vital that the Bill can develop robust new management structures, building on the existing associations and taking full advantage of their local knowledge, but giving them the strength to insist on effective self-discipline in the areas for which they are responsible. I have referred to the number of commons on Bodmin Moor and, of course, in the Private Bill, we sought to bring them together in a single commoners’ council. I hope that the Minister in his response will indicate whether that is the sort of pattern that he would wish to see in other parts of the country. I very much welcome the Bill. It has been long delayed and we look forward to its implementation.