Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. The amendment revives a debate which we have had over the past few weeks about the appropriateness of the ban on severance in Clause 9. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others who do not necessarily take the same view as him who have taken the trouble to talk to us about the issues. I hope that, even though I am unable to accept the amendment in its current form, we may be able to find some common ground. Let me reiterate our position. Clause 9 is founded in a consensus—I am almost tempted to say unanimity—among stakeholders that the severance of rights of common should be prohibited. That consensus was reflected in the report of the stakeholder working group, which in 2003 stated:"““We endorse the Government’s commitment to prohibit severance of rights from the land to which they are appurtenant, and we feel that the Government should give urgent attention to the matter””." We have done that, and I am not in favour of resiling from that consensus at the eleventh hour. However, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, reminds us that we are legislating for common land for a long time, perhaps as long as half a century. What may be the right answer for common land today may present an unacceptable straitjacket in the years ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made that point a moment ago. We obviously cannot be certain about the future, and it is sensible to preserve some flexibility to accommodate unforeseen changes. That is why I am prepared to consider whether we can go some way towards meeting the noble Lord’s aspirations, while maintaining a consensus. I know that there are strongly held positions in and outside this House on the matter, and I do not want to depart from the centre ground. I will explain briefly what we have in mind, and maybe we will be able to debate it in due course. We propose that a power should be taken, along the lines of subsection (5), to prescribe for the permanent severance of rights. The power would be a reserve power. We may not use it at all. Still less do we envisage using it as part of the routine implementation of the Bill. In so far as the power might be used, it would be used in relation only to particular areas, and then only when the Secretary of State or the Assembly was satisfied, after consultation, that there was clear support for doing do. There is no reason why the power should ever be used in relation to, say, Dartmoor, where there is no support to move in that direction. I hope that that is a response to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that such a proposal may be all right in Cumbria but not elsewhere. We will think long and hard before making an order in respect of any particular part of the country. We go further, as we intend that there should be a requirement that either a statutory commons association or the landowner may veto the severance in any case. I will endeavour—it may be an endeavour—to bring forward an amendment in time for Third Reading, but time may be short and I cannot give any guarantees to the House about the outcome. I simply undertake to do what I can. I hope that my undertaking will encourage the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. We may have found a way to resolve the dilemma.