Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. It is, unfortunately, ironic, as has been said, that the real pressure for its need—over-grazing for the past 13 years—is about to disappear at the same time that the Bill is enacted. I predict that, with the introduction of the single farm payment, under-grazing will become a more serious problem. Nevertheless, the Bill is welcome. I shall touch on one or two management issues. In   Clause 7, subsection 4 obliges the registration authority to refuse an application for variation if, in its opinion, it would increase the burden on the land in question. I have two comments to make on that. First, with under-grazing becoming a problem, increasing the burden on the common may be what is needed in the future. So the wording should be ““detrimentally increase the burden””. Secondly, if that matter is cleared up, will the Government provide some guidance on how the authority will obtain access to proper agricultural advice to ensure that it takes a professional decision? Moving on to Clause 9, I totally support the prohibition against severance. The connection between commoners and the common is an essential part of the culture and, indeed, is the raison d’être of our commons. I am thus not totally supportive of the proposed rights of the Countryside Council for Wales and Natural England to perpetrate severance and possibly ride roughshod over the commons associations. Always bearing it in mind that overgrazing could be a thing of the past, might it not be better for the Bill to allow the associations themselves to buy in—if that is the correct term—the rights or stipes and to hold them in abeyance for when under-grazing becomes a problem. Maybe, they could then distribute, sell or lease them in some way to other graziers who might resolve their under-grazing problem. I warmly welcome Part Two, on management of the commons. This is the meat of the Bill. I welcome the flexibility that allows the commons associations to be established and to cope with the different circumstances in the many different types of commons that exist in our   country. Having sound local management of those commons is crucial for their sustainability. However, I do not approve of Clause 33(3), which states:"““The appropriate national authority may revoke any rule made by a commons association””." If you give responsibility, you should stick to that. It is not a good idea to give it with one hand and to take it away with the other. The commons associations will know what is best for their part of England or Wales, without being told that by some national body. They will be able to take all aspects of management into account on a local basis. The Minister spoke about empowering commons associations. It seems odd to put one’s faith in the setting up of these associations and then, through that ultimatum, to indicate such a lack of confidence in the same Bill. In any case, there are sufficient clauses governing the management of commons inherent in the Bill to make such an ultimatum unnecessary. Turning now to the clauses on protection, I recognise that there is a large element of public involvement and interest in all commons, especially after the CROW Act. I also recognise that some people abhor the existence of any man-made works on our commons. However, that viewpoint needs to be balanced against the desire of the average member of the public properly to enjoy the common. That inevitably requires proper management and, to a large extent in this context, will depend upon having a satisfactory grazing programme. Therefore, it is important that the consenting regime for works on common land, as set out in Clauses 36 to 42, should work quickly and efficiently for the benefit of proper management and the proper enjoyment of access on the commons. I would have thought that the digging of ditches and trenches for drainage was different from the normal restricted works—particularly where there is short-term flooding, such works must benefit both visitors and stock. I suggest that there should be an option of fast-track works where there is a natural assumption in favour of permission. That would include drainage works. Similarly, works carried out for the benefit of animal welfare might require some fast-track treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, mentioned Travellers, whose presence might require urgent action. In that respect, the building of tank traps on the edge of village greens and commons might be relevant. Tank traps are small ditches with low wooden fences that keep off other problems too, such as motorbikes, joy riders, fly-tippers and other illegal intruders, but do not prevent access by foot. Without some form of fast-tracking and looking at the consent procedures in Clause 38, I am afraid that it will take a long time for any improvement works, even if urgently needed, to be carried out on any of our commons. I ask the Government to come up with a satisfactory solution. My final point is that the combination of Clause 39 and the CROW Act means that anyone in the world can now object through the county courts to management works on the commons. I do not believe that the county courts have loads of spare time on their hands. Thus, it would seem to be more sensible to limit such objections to the locality where the objector is more likely to be a regular user of the common and thus have due cause. I accept that there are probably legal difficulties, notably of definition, with that approach. In conclusion, having made my few points, I congratulate the Minister and Defra on the Bill, which is long overdue. I am sure that it will be beneficial to commoners, to the commons and to all who use them, including flora and fauna, particularly of the two-legged variety.