Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 1:"After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—" ““COMMONS INSPECTORS (1)   There shall be a body of adjudicators known as ““Commons Inspectors””. (2)   The Secretary of State shall appoint— (a)   persons who have a 7 year legal qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act (c. 41); and (b)   persons with such other expertise as he considers to be appropriate; to be Commons Inspectors. (3)   The Commons Inspectors shall undertake the functions of the Commons Commissioners established under the Commons Registration Act 1965 (c. 64). (4)   The Secretary of State shall confer such other functions upon the Commons Inspectors as he considers appropriate. (5)   The Secretary of State shall pay to the Commons Inspectors such fees, travelling allowances and other allowances as he may determine.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 proposes a new clause after Clause 4. I headed it ““Commons Adjudication””, but it appears on the Marshalled List as ““Commons Inspectors””. I would prefer it to say the former, but there we are. In proposing this amendment, we know it has some similarities to the amendment I proposed in Committee, which was to retain the commons commissioners introduced under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The Minister’s response was that the commons commissioners had fulfilled their tasks under that Act, which were to determine the first wave of disputed provisional registrations under the 1965 Act and to inquire into the ownership of unclaimed common land. We believe that there are still issues to be resolved from time to time, some of which have legal implications and others of which do not. We agree that the previous system was a little inflexible and that it is not necessary for all adjudicators to have legal qualifications or that they should occupy such a position for life. However, our amendment to create commons inspectors takes account of many of the reservations expressed by the Minister in Committee. There would be lay as well as legal inspectors and the amendment is flexible enough to provide a majority of lay inspectors with the necessary specialised expertise. The amendment would provide a framework for adjudication of disputes and disagreements to be resolved by an independent body. Commoners would have confidence in such a body which would have time-limited membership. We acknowledge that a great deal of the original work of the commissioners originated with disputed provisional registrations after the 1965 Act, and is now complete. However, we still need an independent body to arbitrate on disputes regarding common rights and, indeed, in some cases the legality or otherwise of activities associated with common land. There is genuine anxiety among commoners and commons registration authorities at the disappearance of the commons commissioners, and that there is no adequate replacement body. While we agree with the Minister that inspectors should be appointed by the Secretary of State in England and the Minister in the Welsh Assembly government in Wales, the idea of a panel of inspectors seems ad hoc without a clause in the Bill, and ultimately in the Act, which provides a framework for the inspectors to operate independently as adjudicators. I suspect that the reluctance shown in Committee may have quite a lot to do with cost. Lawyers cost money and there is a drive to cut costs in Defra, but in doing so there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The function of adjudication is important and remains an issue. The alternative could well be the county court or even the High Court. Commoners are not wealthy people and may not be able to afford such a recourse. It is far better to have these matters resolved by people with the necessary expertise at as local a level as possible without turning to the courts. Finally, our amendment is flexible. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause does not envisage inspectors with retainers or a preponderance of lawyers. Subsection (2)(b) ensures that persons with other expertise can be appointed and could shoulder the majority of the work. There is no compunction either that they should be permanent staff, merely that they should be available at times of need. There is though a necessity to have a few secretarial staff to keep the body on the road. The commons registration authorities will manage day-to-day matters but it is vital that there is an independent contact point to resolve matters of genuine concern. This kind of arrangement is not likely to bear down heavily on the public purse, but it will perform a very necessary reference and action point for commoners, village greens and commons associations, all of which will be able to communicate with and have confidence in a body which is there to help. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment which is tabled in good faith. Schedule 1 contains a number of references to the activities of commons commissioners which show that they perform a very valuable service in resolving problems regarding the commons of England and Wales. This is a necessary matter in which commons, commons associations and others who deal with commons should have confidence in the future. I beg to move.