Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I support the amendments to which my noble friend has referred. I have another problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to address it and clarify the position that would arise if his Amendment No. 28, the new schedule, is passed with the other amendments to Clause 9. Like other members including the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I accept that the Government have gone a long way to meeting the concerns expressed on Report. I think that we are in the territory of unintended consequences when it comes to Dartmoor. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances and clarification on that. As I understand it, the way in which the Bill has developed in your Lordships’ House means that two matters have been added to the powers of a statutory association in Clause 9, which the Dartmoor Commoners Council does not at present possess. They are the power to veto the admittedly limited severance of a right of common from the land to which it has been historically attached, with which we are concerned in these amendments; and the power to receive and thus own rights so severed, to which reference has already been made. I think that the Minister will acknowledge that this Bill owes a great deal to the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985. We have had the benefit, if you like, of a pilot project in one part of the country, and useful lessons have been learnt from it. But the prohibition of severance in that Act, which has applied for 20 years without challenge or any problems arising of which I or the commoners’ council is aware, should be taken into account. The Bill as it stands would, under Schedule 5, as I understand it, repeal Section 8 of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which would mean, uniquely, that Dartmoor would not have the same powers as we are giving to the new commons associations. That is clearly an extraordinary situation. It really is rather odd that there is a very successful pilot project that everybody on all sides of your Lordships’ House recognises as such, on which we are basing the experience for this Bill, and yet we are preventing that particular commoners council from doing the job that we believe others should be doing. This grievance is perceived by the council. I understand that it has been notified to the noble Lord’s department. I hope that, maybe either today in your Lordships’ House or when the Bill goes to the other place, there may be an opportunity to redress it. Clearly, there are different ways that that might be undertaken. It could be dealt with in the new schedule in government Amendment No. 28, which we are now debating. I very much understand the references to regulations, which we are not going to see just yet, but perhaps it can be dealt with in those. There could be a positive reference to the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 at some point. That would now have to be done in the other place. That Act could be amended in a schedule to the Bill. Clause 9 could include some reference to a commons association to include the Dartmoor Commoners Council. However, it seems to me—although I am no expert and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively—that the most practical way to deal with the matter may be under regulation, which would mean that we do not have to deal with it right now. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively and acknowledge the concerns of those who have so effectively used the Dartmoor Act and have therefore provided so much experience and expertise that has so well informed this debate.