Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 37:"Page 17, line 1, leave out ““members”” and insert ““officers””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that the Government may be considering Amendment No. 37 but it is important that I set out the background for it. There are some very real issues that I had not appreciated in Committee. In our earlier consideration of this Bill, the Minister promised to consider issuing some draft statutory instruments, which we received. But, so far, we obviously have not discussed them. The standard constitution defines a commoner as,"““a person entitled to exercise a right of common over any land in respect of which a commons association is established””." A Member is defined as a person,"““standing elected, appointed or co-opted””," to an association. An association may levy subscriptions on, or demand contributions from, commoners. The second statutory instrument enables a mythical association and, among other edicts, states:"““The Association shall consist of not less than ten and not more than twelve members””." The first members shall be appointed using the good offices of the returning officer appointed by the Secretary of State. I am concerned at the intentions revealed by these documents. While I know that they are in draft, the standard terms will have to be accepted by both Houses before they can become law and those applying to individual associations will be governed by the negative procedure. I am, however, doubtful about the following points and would be grateful for clarification; first, the desirability of depriving commoners of their title unless their common has an association. The third-day debate in Committee elicited from the Minister that the Government have no set ideas on how many commons associations will be in existence five years from the passing of this Bill, nor of the proportion of commons that will be covered by the associations, as set out at col. GC 92 of the Official Report on 2 November 2005. Clearly, after the passing of the Bill, commoners who do not belong to a statutory association will be commoners no longer. Secondly, I doubt the wisdom of charging a subscription and then denying a membership. Will the Minister explain the thinking that lies behind this draft rule? I nearly said ““daft rule””, but I mean ““draft””. Will he or she—I am not sure who the Minister is—comment on the implication that, if there only 10 to 12 members and they run the association, they will not be accountable to anyone? I wish to bring to attention of the House a little problem that I have with this Bill and the draft statutory instruments. The Bill allows for a commons association to be established by order. Does this mean that a currently established association will automatically receive an order without having to go through the procedure under Clause 27? Clause 27(2) says ““must””. The standard terms define a commoner as someone ““affiliated”” to a statutory association. What are commoners who have no such group? The test statutory instrument defines, in effect, a ““member”” as one of a select band. The Bill and the statutory instrument make it crystal clear that the commons associations will be able to charge fees, subscriptions and whatever you will on commoners who will not, however, be members. Clause 37 allows for the national authority to deem an association ineffective and to allow the,"““transfer of rights, property and liabilities””" to Natural England or the CCW. Does that mean that the commoners who are not members of an association will have to pay fees to exercise their rights of common, and may face losing those rights to Natural England? The more I look at this, the more worried I get. Thus I wanted to fully explain to the Minister some of the concerns that we have with this provision. I beg to move.