Commons Bill [HL]

I hope to be able to return to the noble Lord’s question when I reach government Amendment No. 171. If not, I will of course write to him. Amendment No. 170 would require a commons association to have regard to the property or other rights over which the association exercises its functions when carrying out those functions. Amendment No. 173 would insert a provision that prevents anything done by a commons association from affecting or prejudicing the property or other rights of an owner of common land. These amendments are concerned with the property and rights of those on common land over which an association may be able to make rules. In many cases, it is the persons with property and other interests in the commons who will make up the association. If there is not enough support from such interests in the management of rights and property, then it is extremely unlikely that an association would be formed. Government Amendment No. 182A, which we shall be discussing shortly, will clarify the situation with regard to the rights of others on the common. It provides that an association will not be able to do anything on the land without the consent of the person whose consent is required. There are some exceptions to this; I know that my noble friend will be interested to know that, for example, an association could make rules that would control the grazing rights of all those on the common, but the new consent clause in Amendment No. 182A aims to strike a balance between functions given to an association to manage a common and the rights of those with property interests in that common. We believe that the new consent provisions will provide adequate safeguards for the property and rights of others on commons, about which my noble friend Lord Williams is concerned. Government Amendment No. 171 expands the meaning of the term ““public interest”” to include the protection of archaeological remains and features of historical interest. I am pleased that we have had recognition from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that we are addressing the concerns raised by his noble friend Lord Greaves and by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I hope that the Committee will recognise that the amendment responds to concerns raised. Following discussions with a range of interested parties, we are convinced that we have made a significant omission by leaving out protection of archaeological remains and historic features. Further, I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that nothing in the Bill takes away any private rights acquired. Some people have purchased easements, but Section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act reflects the understood position of the law at that time. Where easements were purchased unnecessarily, I fear that that is a matter for the property owner and landowner concerned, but I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that she sought that people will not lose rights as a result of anything in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, raised the issue of resources to carry out functions. It is not an obligation on the association to undertake costly management measures in the public interest but, to the extent that such measures are desirable, they are likely to be the subject of agri-environment agreements, as he will recognise. The duty to have regard to the public interest is intended to protect the common from any damaging management changes. I fear that inspiration has not struck me on the question of who determines whether a particular item will be covered by the government amendment. I will therefore have to write to the noble Earl, as I lack that inspiration at the moment.