Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, Amendment No. 10, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey, is a softer option than Amendment No. 4. It merely requires that commons associations,"““shall have the first option to purchase any such right””." Although I am grateful to the Government for taking notice of what was said in Grand Committee and recognising by their amendment that this is a serious issue, of all the issues that came out when I consulted commoners on the Bill over the summer this was the one that they felt most strongly about. Without commons associations having the first option to purchase, even with a veto—I will come back to the effect of that veto—the Bill will still be seen as giving quangos the power to purchase because they have bigger purses than commons associations to begin with. Commons associations may have to spend time raising money from among their members and designing business plans on how they will make repayments from their agri-environment scheme money, for which they will have the right to apply. The Bill will be seen as taking rights away from local people and giving them to quangos. The Minister may say that that is not the intention but it is how it will be seen. Commons associations would be in a much stronger starting position if they had the first option to purchase any such rights, even if it takes them time to raise the money—it may well do. The Minister may wish to consider introducing a time limit, so that another 10 years of overgrazing does not take place. However, quangos will have bigger purses. My other fear is that simply going down the government route of giving commons associations a right of veto would create very negative feeling, because if Natural England suggested something that the commons associations were not happy with, their only course of action would be to veto it. Our approach would lay the ground for a more positive relationship. If the commons association said, ““We had the first option but in the end we decided that we did not want the financial burden and it would be better for Natural England to buy it””, that would achieve the same end as the veto would have done but in a far more positive way. I still feel, therefore, that Amendment No. 10 gets us much closer to a positive working relationship between commons associations and those quangos set up to advise on how commons should be managed. We have not yet discussed Natural England’s purpose, so it is difficult to put the cart before the horse and discuss this issue. Nevertheless, I believe that its primary purpose is to advise on land management. As I understand it, if it is to purchase anything, it would be a purchase of rights. However, if land is ill managed in another respect, the Bill may set a precedent for Natural England buying rather than negotiating its way out of problems. That is why I am particularly keen on Amendment No. 10.