Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 34:"Page 15, line 29, leave out ““substantial support”” and insert ““majority support among the relevant local councillors””" The noble Duke said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, responded to our attempt in Committee to replace this term. I owe the Minister an apology. I was around on Thursday and then I left at 6.30 on Friday morning and my box was not open. I therefore did not see his letter in which he explained at great length some of his views on this question of majorities and non-majorities. We have therefore tabled this amendment which concerns how the consideration should be weighed. In Committee the Minister attempted to replace ““substantial”” with ““majority”” by saying several things, among which was:"““Making registration dependent on a majority . . . would be unduly restrictive and would set a burden of proof that would be impossible to satisfy in practice””.—[Official Report, 14/11/05; col. GC8.]" In response I said that the narrowing of the support criteria to take account only of those entitled to rights of common does not reflect the broader interest in most commons. We still feel that the demonstration of substantial support for the creation of a commons association will be an uncertain thing in some circumstances, particularly where a local inquiry has been held. Any national authority decision to hold an inquiry will itself point to considerable argument and unrest in the area. It may well be that in a few cases opinions will continue to be divided. Having regard to the burden of proof point made by the Minister, we felt that a vote taken at a meeting of whichever council covers the proposed common would settle the matter transparently. All shades of opinion could be expressed to the councillors who, being local, would be in a much better position to decide how much support there really was. I beg to move.