Commons Bill [HL]

I am grateful to Members of the Committee. I thought that the debate on this might last a little longer than it did, but the reason why it has not is because Members are so succinct with their arguments. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, last week when he was good enough to say that he was unable to attend the first day in Committee. The effects of his amendments, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would substantially relax the prohibition on severance in Clause 9, which would enable rights of common to be freely traded between commoners with rights over the same common. It would also enable the vendor of part of a farm holding with rights of common attached to sell the land, but to retain the rights. Those rights would then become attached to the retained part of the holding. There has been strong support for a ban on severance. Interested parties have been asked about it and there is strong support for it, particularly from the farming community. In April 2003, a stakeholder working group said:"““We endorse the Government’s commitment to prohibit severance of rights . . . and we feel that the Government should give urgent attention to the matter””." Clause 9 delivers exactly what has been sought; that is, a ban on severance of rights. It means that where rights are attached to land, whether a farm-holding or, perhaps, a dwelling house, the rights cannot be sold or otherwise disposed of separately from the land itself. However, we recognise that an absolute prohibition would be too rigid. The Bill provides that, in general, rights may be temporary let in accordance with regulations. We have published draft regulations, which if made in the same form at a later date would enable the letting of rights for up to two years. I am aware that two years is a very short time for hill farmers who invest heavily in shepherding and hefting their flocks, and, not unnaturally, are looking for long-term security. We intend to consult on further regulations, which may enable longer leases in specific areas where a convincing case can be made—for example, on grounds of continuity of local tradition or in the interests of promoting nature conservation. We are also prepared to confer powers on statutory commons associations to manage the letting of rights in their own locality. I believe that we have gone a little way to meeting the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others who support what he has to say, by tabling an amendment which will enable rights to be concentrated on a farm holding where part of the holding is developed for non-agricultural use. But we do not see a need to draw back from a general prohibition on severance in the form proposed by these two amendments. Obviously, the robust arguments put forward on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for greater flexibility in the north of England, particularly with regard to severance and the economic arguments behind them are understood and respected. But I do not detect the same consensus of interests behind these amendments which motivated the inclusion of Clause 9 in the Bill. Some landowners would oppose these amendments because they essentially reduce rights of common to tradable assets and further dilute the owner’s influence. I know that some commoners oppose the amendments because they would enable a few right holders to acquire a dominant position in the management and control of their common. However, I am willing to listen to the views of Members of the Committee and the stakeholder representative organisations more generally to see whether there is wider support to move in the direction indicated by the noble Lord. Obviously, I would encourage them to make their views known to me or my department, so that we can reconsider the issue on Report. But we will need quite a lot of persuading that we have got this argument wrong in principle. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, would enable rights to be severed not as now in favour of the national nature conservation bodies, but in favour of commons associations. The amendments would permit severance only in the interests of what is described as agricultural sustainability. I hope therefore that the government amendments which permit the severance and acquisition of rights by a statutory commons association will meet with the approval of the noble Lord. Let me say a few words in defence of the provision in the Bill for severance by the national nature conservation bodies too. In England, English Nature has already acquired a number of rights of common by severance in the north west of England. It does that to reduce over-grazing on certain commons where current stocking levels are considered to be excessive and incompatible with the achievement of the Government’s target for 95 per cent of sites of special scientific interest—we know of their close connection with commons—to be put in favourable condition by 2010. Except where English Nature owns the common, which is indeed rare, it is obliged to acquire the rights by severance and to hold on to those rights in order to prevent their exercise by someone else. If it were to arrange for the rights to be surrendered that could increase the surplus available to the owner of the common. Those rights are being acquired under the Sheep Wildlife Enhancement Scheme. The position is that no commoner need sell his rights if he does not wish to. I can understand the resentment which arises among neighbouring commoners in such cases, not least because of the impact which cessation of commoning can have on the hefting pattern, which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, told us about. We also think that it would be short-sighted not to provide for such acquisitions in the future.