Commons Bill [HL]

The noble Lord’s amendment is a perfectly reasonable one, with a view to better protecting common land. In fact, it is so reasonable that it was enacted to all intents and purposes three-quarters of a century ago. Two pieces of general legislation deal with driving on common land. The first is Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which made it an offence where any person without lawful authority—my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel made that point—drives on land to which the section applies. Section 193 applies to what are often described as ““urban commons””—that is to say, commons that before 1974 were within urban districts or boroughs—and other commons dedicated by deed for public access. Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence where a person without lawful authority,"““drives a mechanically propelled vehicle . . . on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road””." It is not an offence under Section 34 to drive on to common land within 15 yards of the road for the purpose of parking, although it may be an offence to do so under Section 193, on a common to which that section applies, and it may also be a trespass to do so. Village greens are also afforded protection under Section 12 of the Inclosure Act 1857. Moreover, a host of local bylaws prohibit driving on common land and greens. We do not believe that the answer to the problem that the noble Lord raises is further legislative provision. The real problem may sometimes be a want not of legislation, but of enforcement. The powers exist to control the use of motor vehicles on common land and greens, and any person may prosecute for an offence under the 1925 and 1988 Acts. One final point is that the noble Lord’s amendment refers to the possibility of consent being given by the ““commoners’ association””. We do not think that that is appropriate, given that it could result in consent being given to something that would constitute a trespass against the landowner. That would be a dilution of the landowner’s powers. I have answered in some detail even though it is late because I know that, unless I can satisfy the noble Lord that this is not the solution to the problem that he has identified, we may face this debate again. I hope that I have managed to satisfy him.