Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly the Minister, for the cordial, constructive and pragmatic way in which they have approached the matter. We have made progress in a way that does not damage people’s interests, but rather improves the future for common land. It struck me during our debates on the Bill that severance, in most people’s minds, means the detaching of common rights from a common. It also has a technical conveyancing meaning of the severance of common rights from the dominant tenement. I suspect that many people who have thought about it have not quite appreciated the technical difference between the two. I was heartened by my noble friend Lord Peel because, in his words, some proviso that involves the reasonable consent of the owner in the appropriate formulation could provide a constructive platform for further discussion to reach an agreement. I am extremely grateful to him for drawing that to our attention. In the debate, I deliberately avoided talking about the possible practical consequences of severance. Under the model by which I was proposing that this matter should be dealt with, those consequences are for another day. I cannot resist making one brief remark before withdrawing my amendment. In considering the effect of permanent, as opposed to temporary, severance, it seems to me that an awful lot of the argument is dependent on the biological phenomenon that a sheep which grazes on a common by virtue of a lease behaves entirely differently from a sheep which grazes on a common by virtue of a freehold right of grazing. I think that that is a biological development beyond where we are now. I thank your Lordships and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.