Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting forward his amendments and, particularly, for saying that he recognises that there is a slight problem, and that the Government are willing to explore the issues when the Bill moves to another place. This amendment is an attempt to meet our concerns, which the Minister has explained, about how to involve commoners in the association when the only members are the 10 or 12 elected or appointed persons who will run it. Again, that is a slight play on words. I should say, for those noble Lords who were not in our previous discussions, that before, anybody who was a member of an association would have regarded themselves as such a member; now, with what the Government propose, they will technically not be a member in that way. That is why we raised this issue before. The remaining government amendments to Clause 30 are all part of the same exercise. In his letter of explanation the Minister stated that he would welcome comments on whether these five amendments,"““improve the understanding of how commons associations are intended to operate””." We are still uncomfortable with the terminology. We feel that where everyone is paying a fee or a subscription, either they should all be members or the management team should be a council or a board with no one classed as a member. I reiterate that today. The type and scale of the confusion caused by the present wording has been demonstrated to me in respect of existing, small, voluntary commons associations—a matter which my noble friend Lord Plumb raised on the previous amendment. If they go down the statutory route, the money they will have to pay to support the costs of the association is likely to be larger than that indicated by the Minister on 30   November at col. 240. Unfortunately, there are areas of the country, particularly in Wales and the north of England, where commons frequently support only a few people. Under the terms of the Bill, the 1965 Act will be repealed in its entirety, leaving the voluntary organisations, to which my noble friend referred earlier, totally without legal protection. A number of those likely to be affected in this way have worked out that they could apply to have a single commons association covering, for example, the whole of Wales—a very large area indeed. It would then consist of a board of 10 to 12 elected representatives, who would then mandate a council consisting of one person from each voluntary association. By their reasoning this would then bring each of the voluntary associations under the umbrella of the overarching statutory body. In return, the constituent commons would agree to abide by the rules set by the board for the conduct of commons’ business. The problem is that they cannot be sure that this suggestion would conform to the new law and, while I think it is eminently practical and a sensible way of avoiding the unpleasant black hole, I share their concern. The Minister has explained a little more in introducing the amendment today. Could he reassure the House that the Bill will allow a number of commoners to join together in a statutory association, and for a number of voluntary associations to federate under the umbrella of a single statutory association? If I may digress for a moment, the difficulty is that many of the smaller, voluntary organisations have very limited fees and very limited money comes into the pot compared to a big, statutory association. They feel that those fees and the costs of having to have records, meetings and formal set-ups will rise considerably compared to their current costs. The idea of a small board and a large council covering a wide area is not new. I understand that the National Sheep Association is run very effectively by a board of 15 with a council of about 200. My noble friend Lord Plumb tried to raise this point under the previous amendment. Unfortunately, it is typical that when people are considering legislation, they do not realise the implications for some smaller groups until it is almost too late. That is why the matter has been brought to the House at a very late date. The Minister assured us earlier that he is willing to explore the issues that we have raised, for which I am very grateful. I do not expect him to respond fully today, but it is essential that it is pursued when it goes to another place. There is a big difference between the larger voluntary associations, which may have sufficient fees coming in, and the very small ones, which, if they want to become an association, will have to conform to and fulfil the requirements laid down in the Bill, but will not have the funds to do so. An overarching, umbrella organisation may solve some of the problems and concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Caithness. The difficulty for those organisations is that, unless they become part of a statutory association, they will lose out on claiming some of the benefits of being under the umbrella. That is why I have taken a little time to explain the situation. I am grateful to the Minister for moving his amendment.