Commons Bill [HL]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. I shall do my best to respond. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will not press her Amendment No. 15. I took from what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he will not press his Amendment No. 20. Both I think are covered—whether or not entirely satisfactorily from their point of view—by government amendments that I have already spoken to. On the vexed question of sustainability, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, rather took my thunder by reminding the Committee that we shall later debate Amendment No. 142, which takes away the expression that led to such excitement at Second Reading over the exact meaning of that phrase. That only goes to show how broad-minded the Government have been in their approach to the Bill. I would not for a moment concede that there was not a proper definition of the expression ““agricultural sustainability””, but, as it is not before us in terms of any government amendment, I do not think we need to have that debate at this particular moment, or perhaps even during the passage of the Bill. What that phrase means is a nice question. I am grateful to those who have spoken about their concerns about what that expression actually means. But I think that we have enough in the Bill as it is without worrying about things that may not be in the Bill eventually. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me about our Amendment No. 18 in which we amend Clause 7(4)(b) to substitute a test of whether the common could sustain the rights taken together rather than whether the varied rights could increase the burden. Many noble Lords commented on consultation. I made it clear at the start that we would seek advice from—what is expected to become Natural England—the Rural Development Service of Defra because that would be an appropriate body to seek advice from. But we can prescribe for consultation on any application under Part 1. That could certainly involve the commons associations that might object to the application. Others will be able to express their view. That could include other commoners with rights over the common. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, invited me to make a comment on Clause 7. We do not envisage that a commons association would apply to vary rights of common under Clause 7 so as to permanently reduce a commoner’s rights, but it could protect commons from over-grazing by making rules under Clause 30 of the Bill, limiting the exercise of those rights, for example, providing that each commoner may only exercise a percentage of his total rights for a limited period. On the amendments that have been spoken to, which we cannot accept, I turn first to Amendment No. 21 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. That would go further than we have in our amendments. In reaching a view on the question of whether variation could be sustained by the common, a registration authority would be required to form its view consistent with regulations made by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. Our view is that it is quite sufficient that the authority may be required to consult on such matters, as our Amendment No. 118 would permit. That leaves me with Amendment No. 12, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. His amendment is intended to ensure that where a right of common is varied so as to become exercisable over new land instead of or in addition to existing common land, the new land should be in close proximity to the existing common. We agree that in the case of a variation, the land over which the variation to the right is sought should be close to the existing common. But variations are a matter for agreement between the landowner and the commoner. If the arrangements are unsatisfactory to the commoner, presumably he will not agree to it. So our current view is that we think we can leave it to the parties themselves to decide what is and what is not convenient. Whatever happens as a result of the variation, it will not be possible for the land over which a right may cease to be exercisable to become deregistered. That can be achieved only on application to the Secretary of State under Clause 15 of the Bill. So, even if the alternative land is remote from the common over which the varied right was formerly exercisable, the variation is really a matter chiefly for the interests in the common to determine, and not for the commons registration authority to regulate. I hope that I have answered the questions raised by noble Lords.