Commons Bill [HL]

I am quite sure that the Committee does not expect me to comment on current historical activity. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am advised that nothing in Part 2 affects private vehicular rights of way over a common. Such rights will continue to be exercisable. The more longstanding legal right issue was resolved by the House of Lords last year in Bakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others, where their Lordships clarified the circumstances. On Amendment No. 169, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we do not want commons associations to ride roughshod over the wider national concerns and public interest in common land as places for recreation, reservoirs of biodiversity and highly valued landscapes. While the appropriate national authority is able to give guidance on such issues as broader national interests in commons, it is also important to require associations to have regard to these. Otherwise an association could completely disregard the potential effect of the way in which it uses its new statutory powers on the wildlife interest or natural beauty of the commons. The Bill does not make these overriding considerations but it requires them to be taken into account. Amendment No. 172 would extend the definition of ““public interest””, while Amendment No. 170A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, offers an alternative definition of the term. We do not see the need to change the ““public interest”” definition beyond our Amendment No. 171, which expands the definition to include the protection of archaeological remains and historic features. The proposed amendments tend to mix private interests with public interest in their expansion or change of the definition of the term ““public interest””. We do not feel it appropriate for a commons association to have the same level of regard for these private interests as for broader public interests in the common land. Most, if not all, of the concerns expressed by the movers of these amendments can be managed through rules made by an association under its functions in this clause. In essence, Amendment No. 170A sums up the very reasons that we are creating commons associations—to allow use of natural resources, to take account of access and to have regard for the protection of the natural environment. I agree with the noble Lord that in many cases, over hundreds of years, it is agricultural activity that has created many of the aspects we cherish. Our approach here has been to strike a balance between the different interests of a common. We must provide for associations that can manage the agricultural activities on a common while having regard to these wider interests. We are also aware that not every common is subject to agricultural activity, so we have broadened the functions of associations in our amendments to this clause. The amendments of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel—