Commons Bill [HL]

I am not a lawyer—I enter that caveat. However, I know that people who dispose of property belonging to other people often end up being detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. I understand that and that will be incorporated in my reply. Amendment No. 174 would make commons associations less effective and efficient in carrying out their powers and functions. For example, if a commons association decides through majority voting to enter into an agri-environment agreement, this amendment would mean that a single individual in the form of an owner could prevent such an agreement being made if it impeded his rights. Preventing an association from entering into an agreement of that nature would thwart the association in achieving improved management of the common, which is of course one of the main reasons for their establishment. I remind the Committee of our Amendment No. 182A, which we shall come to presently. It will make the position regarding owners’ consent of common much clearer and will ensure proper protection for the rights of landowners and others who have a right or interest in the common. Amendment No. 175 deals with Clause 30(3), which already makes it clear that one of the functions that can be conferred on a commons association is that of preparing and maintaining a register of grazing. In some cases where the level of agricultural activity is low, the appropriate national authority may decide that the keeping of a live registry is unnecessary and would not confer such a function on the association. In other cases, the authority might decide that such a register is vital to the effective management of the common and require such a register to be kept as an essential management function rather than an ancillary power. Of course, even if the establishment order did not confer such a function, an association could set up a register under the ancillary powers given to it in Clause 31 if it considered a register to be conducive to carrying out any of its functions. Amendments Nos. 176 to 178 either add or remove specific elements from the illustrative list of ancillary powers in Clause 31(2), which sets out a wide range of ancillary powers that a commons association may exercise, depending on its circumstances, to enable it to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible in discharging the functions that it will be given in its establishment order. I must stress that the list is purely illustrative and the clause allows an association to do anything it considers will facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the carrying out of its functions. We think it right to include the power to raise money. A commons association will need a small amount of money for standard administration purposes—for example, sending out letters, paying phone bills and hiring rooms. Most voluntary commons associations charge their members a small annual subscription fee for those and similar purposes. The amendment, which would add the power to borrow at standard rates, is unnecessary because the power to raise money itself includes the power to borrow at such rates. We also think it right to include in the illustrative list the ancillary power to acquire or dispose of land. That is not to say that acquiring land is something that we expect commons associations to do routinely. I reassure the Committee that we envisage associations raising funds through subscriptions paid by commoners and other participants at a modest level to meet their running costs, not amassing large cash reserves to fund land purchases. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel asked about the power to dispose of land being given in the Bill. The new consent clause does not refer to landowners’ land but to other land that the association may acquire—such as a building for an office or land that is left to it in a will. The association cannot dispose of the common itself—I reassure the Committee of that. My noble friend also raised the issue of security of loans. If an association owned property, it could offer it as security for a loan, but it could not offer the common itself as security. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised the question of fees. The setting of fees is primarily a matter for the association. Rules will be able to require the payment of fees by, for example, all commoners exercising rights—perhaps in proportion to the number of rights exercised. If commoners do not want to pay the fees set, presumably they will vote for a new board of management if they object to how it is run. My noble friend Lord Williams also expressed concern that the power to dispose of land in Clause 31(2)(d) might be interpreted as a power to dispose of land belonging to others. I hope that I have totally reassured him on that. Of course, an association could benefit from a bequest or grant and may want to use the funds for other purposes. It could be left property in a will. We cannot support the amendment removing the specific reference to a commons association having power to raise money. We resist Amendment No. 179 because levying fees for the exercise of rights of common and of rights to use the surplus, all requiring an annual subscription from members of an association are considered to be the two main ways in which such an organisation will raise money. They will have operating costs, so they must have a source of income. That is not a new concept. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is an expert on Devon. We are aware that a small fee for the exercise of rights has been used successfully on Dartmoor for 20 years. Many voluntary commons associations, such as the Federation of Cumbria Commoners, also require members to pay small annual subscriptions. I was asked about tax. I understand that capital gains tax becomes due only if capital is coming in. If capital is coming in, it will be used to pay the tax. If I am wrong on that, I will write to noble Lords. Individual members would have no liability. An association is a body corporate, as noble Lords know, unless of course they were voluntarily to give personal security for borrowing. I think I have covered the questions that have been asked. If not, I will write to noble Lords.