Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 163:"Page 16, line 28, after ““or”” insert ““the exercise of””" The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 163 and 180 clarify how certain rules and fees levied by an association can relate to the exercise of an owner’s right to use the surplus. The change in wording clarifies that rules made by an association which relate to agricultural activities, vegetation management or the exercise of rights of common, can have the effect of limiting or imposing conditions only on the exercise of an owner’s right to use the surplus. Such rules cannot, for example, have any effect on an owner’s right to lease or license out his right to use the surplus. It may be worth pointing out that the power conferred in Clause 30(3)(b) to make rules to control the leasing and licensing of rights of common has nothing to do with an owner’s leasing or licensing arrangements of the surplus grazing. In a similar manner, the power to require payment of fees under Clause 31 can relate only to the exercise of rights to use the surplus, irrespective of who is actually exercising the right. It could be the owner himself, his tenant or his lessee. Fees cannot be levied in relation to any surplus rights not being exercised. These government amendments are being introduced to clarify that certain rules made by a commons association do not affect an owner’s right to manage the leasing and licensing of his right to use any surplus. We believe that these amendments strike the right balance between on the one hand protecting an owner’s right to manage his surplus grazing, in terms of his ability to lease or to license out that surplus, while on the other hand allowing a commons association to make rules relating to the management of all grazing on a common. I beg to move.