Commons Bill [HL]

The new clause is unnecessary. Local authorities retain the existing powers under Clause 43 to protect unclaimed commons from unlawful interference and take proceedings in respect of any offences committed in respect of the land. The real problem concerning unclaimed land is not that there is no known owner but that the lack of clarity about ownership can give rise to ineffective management. We have therefore concluded that the problem can best be tackled by enhancing the powers for management of unclaimed land and, in addition to Clause 43, giving commons associations established under Part 2 the power to manage unclaimed commons. That will achieve the underlying objective: that unclaimed commons are managed more effectively where improved management is called for. Amendments that I have already tabled to Part 2, which I fear we shall not reach today, will serve precisely those purposes. The amendments do two things. They broaden the range of land management functions that may be conferred on a commons association. Secondly, they dispense with the need for the owner’s explicit consent to management activities where the owner cannot be found. So commons associations will be able to manage common land, even where the owner cannot be identified, and so ensure that our ultimate objective of better management can be achieved. It follows that the purpose of Amendment No. 85 will be achieved in part by the amendments, including Amendment No. 182A, which I have tabled to Part 2. I look forward to the noble Lord’s keen support for those amendments. Turning to what remains of Amendment No. 85, which is intended to enable local authorities to manage unclaimed common land, we again think that the task is best undertaken by a commons association where there is a need for management of agricultural activity that cannot be achieved at present. Local authorities already have powers to make schemes for the regulation and management of common land under Part 1 of the Commons Act 1899, provided that the scheme is not opposed by more than one-third of those with rights of common. The scheme would give the local authority extensive powers to manage the common in the best interests of the community. A proviso to Section 2(4) of the 1899 Act provides that owners of common land may object to the making of a scheme, but when there is no known owner, it follows that no such objection is likely to be received. These powers are already at the disposal of local authorities, and we would commend the making of such a scheme to an authority that wishes to manage a lowland common but feels that it lacks the necessary powers. Our view is, therefore, that this Bill and existing legislation make sufficient provision to enable the effective management of unclaimed common land, and that the amendment, although we understand why it is moved, is not needed.