Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, first, we thank the Minister for all his co-operation in what he has produced, especially on behalf of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, whose points he took on board with such detailed care. On Amendment No. 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, on the question of which public body should take over, I can see his point that if Natural England or any other body took over a small part of a common and then extinguished the rights, that would be an absolute disaster. If it succeeded in gaining severance of all rights, we might consider whether it should be able to distinguish those rights, but there is a danger of piecemeal severance of a common going to Natural England or some such body. To return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, only last night, we received a letter from Professor Mercer, chairman of the Dartmoor Commoners Council. Despite its late arrival, I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate the importance of his contribution. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, told the House, Professor Mercer states:"““the present bill, and the work which led up to it . . . has fed in part from the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 and our experience since then””." However, it seems that in changing our attitude to severance, there has been an oversight that he feels that we would want to correct. The letter continues:"““The repeal of our Section 8 diminishes the protection of the historic process of commons management on Dartmoor, and yet any other common or block of commons will have—provided an association is formed—greater protection under the present Bill. Its association can veto the only exception to general severance in favour of a third party, and can ensure that right grazing levels are sustained by having at its disposal rights to deploy (directly or by lease or license) on the common in question””." It seems that we have omitted to provide for the fact that Dartmoor will not have an association but retain its council. Unfortunately, this letter came to my attention too late for us to table amendments through the usual channels. However, I would be grateful if noble Lords would allow me to read out Professor Mercer’s brief suggestions, so that we all have food for thought. Professor Mercer suggests four options:"““(a) a positive reference to the Dartmoor Commons Act (1985) and its Commoners Council rather than the lone negative implied by repeal, perhaps by a ‘miscellaneous’ clause or in a schedule which accorded statutory association status to the Council, after all Clause 32.2.e already gives the national authority necessary power over the Council’s processes""(b) amend the 1985 Act, in this Bill’s Schedule 4, by inserting in its Schedule 2 Section 1 a sentence applying all the functions and obligations of a statutory Commons Association (2006) to the Council""(c) apply Clause 9 of this Bill to the 1985 Act with a rider that all references to a commons association should be read as including the Dartmoor Commoners Council""(d) if it is feasible by Regulation give this Council the powers of a statutory association, and get the minister to commit to that in debate””." He also says that he would be grateful for our help and that he is asking the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for his help too, as noble Lords will have heard today. The amendments in this group, particularly the amendment moved by the Minister, are a very good example of how the Government are listening, but it seems that they have the capability of listening only by enabling all sorts of things to be done by regulation. So even if we are burying Edward I and his Commons Act 1285, Henry I and his heirs are still rubbing their hands with a certain amount of glee. In paragraph 1(2)(a) and (b) of the new Schedule proposed in government Amendment No. 28, there is no measure to ensure that persons who wish to sever a right of common have a duty to inform the commons association as well as the owner of the land, although subparagraph (2)(b) perhaps implies that. Is that not required, or is it simply not clear enough to me? On the question of temporary severance and leasing, will the Minister clarify the meaning of the phrase ““framed by reference””? Does that mean that the provisions and rules referred to will be constrained by their relevance to particular land or descriptions of land, or to descriptions of persons to whom the rights of common may be leased or licensed? If so, what effect will that have? Perhaps this is superfluous, but I wonder whether there is a typing error in paragraph 3(4) of the proposed new Schedule. At the end of the first line of the paragraph there seems to be an extra ““that””. It says that it,"““must include provision securing that that the owner of any land over which a right of common is exercisable””." I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify those points.