Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this long-overdue Bill. I hope that due time will be given to consider it properly, unlike the time given to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. My first concern is that Clause 24(1) states that:"““Regulations may require or permit the whole or any part of a register kept under this Part to be kept in electronic form””." I stress, ““may””. At a time of great technical advancement, coupled with the transparency of the Government, it would surely be shameful if the word ““may”” is not changed to ““shall”” so that everyone can, with minimum expense and trouble, see a national terrier on his computer. My other concerns are more complex. The Bill requires commons associations to be established. Although the national authority establishing these commons associations must have regard to representations from various persons, it would be sensible to explore whether an association could be controlled by a clique, whose interpretation of, say, ““sustainable agriculture”” would have an adverse effect on other members and their interpretations of ““promotion of sustainable agriculture”” and possibly on the interests of the wider public. For the record, what is the definition of ““sustainable agriculture”” and how can we ensure that the wider public’s interests are respected too? Will commons associations be able to restrict some of their members from certain types of traditional and acceptable farming practices? Continuing with commons associations, I welcome the ancillary powers given to them and that they can enter into agreements. Cynically, one rather suspects that this is a polite way of saying that they shall enter into agreements with national authorities to conserve and enhance, and possibly enter experimental schemes, as described in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. After all, Defra’s public service agreement target aims to achieve getting 95 per cent of all sites of   special scientific interest in favourable condition by   2010. That will require much conserving and enhancing, since we are told that 49 per cent of SSSIs on common land are not in favourable condition. That would not be possible unless commons associations enter into agreements with national authorities. National authorities hold the purse strings of heavy purses. Therefore, one suspects that commons associations will eventually be compliant. What new funds have been budgeted for these purposes? Will they come from existing agri-environment schemes or from which other budgets? In Clause 27, headed ““Status””, subsection (3) states:"““A commons association is not regarded as an authority to which section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies””." However, by virtue of the commons association entering into agreements with national authorities, will they not be the agents of those authorities enforcing the Act as a whole? One must wonder if this awe-inspiring fact will dawn on them as they form themselves into associations. I declare an interest as a person who is responsible for caretaking an SSSI, although it is not classified as   a common. I have much experience of national authorities’ demands. To help future associations and myself, will the Minister define the words ““enhance”” and ““concern””; and what is the definition of a ““sound experimental scheme””? It would be sad if commons with historical characters of complete disorder, as described in the commons book, were enhanced incorrectly. I believe that that was a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Patten. It certainly would be a concern of mine and other noble Lords. Finally, what responsibilities will these common associations have regarding the safety and well being of the general public and wildlife? For instance, would they be responsible for the control of rabid foxes which could threaten the safety of the public and other animals? I, and other noble Lords, look forward to expanding on and exploring the concerns and questions voiced today in future stages of this much welcomed Bill.