Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, we have had a good and full   explanation of this matter. Once we talk about rights, however—remembering what the Minister said earlier about my noble friend Lord Inglewood’s contribution—we are taking the long view and therefore have to get this right. There are three quite important reasons why I am concerned. First, the Bill, as named in this proposal, could discriminate against voluntary commons associations as it does away with the rules set up in 1965, which, in this context, have generally worked well. Secondly, a new Bill would be effective only for statutory associations, leaving a void between the two. Thirdly, the management of a particular common would be vested in a commons association. Knowing many of the occupiers of common land for grazing animals, I think they would be left confused over identification. If there has to be a statutory body, surely it would appear that the voluntary commons association becomes totally disenfranchised, which could be significant in both monetary and administrative terms. The public interest in common land is growing, and there is a need for countervailing strengths to take care of those livestock areas. This is, therefore, put clearly, a case of the voluntary versus the statutory instruments, and a matter of major concern to those who occupy common lands. I hope the Minister agrees that means can be found to accommodate voluntary organisations, perhaps to be affiliated to a commoners’ federation or a forum, to act as an umbrella to take on the mantle of statutory commons associations, and operate within the parameters set by a national authority. The issue should perhaps have been spotted earlier in the debate. I am sure that this was raised in different forms at Second Reading. The people concerned had perhaps not realised the difference between voluntary and statutory associations at that stage.