Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 174:"Page 17, line 5, at the end insert ““as long as it does not remove, infringe or impede the owner’s rights””" The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 174 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 175 and 177 to 179. Amendment No. 174 states,"““as long as it does not remove, infringe or impede the owner’s rights””." This is a probing amendment intended to clarify the extent of the powers of commons associations and to raise important issues of owners’ rights. It seems to me that landowners’ rights are assumed rather than provided for in the Bill. Existing legislation protects those rights, but they are, nevertheless, a vital ingredient in dealings with common land and should not be overlooked. Earlier in the debate, the Minister said that the Government had deliberately designed the Bill to enable the national authority to take account of all the various interests that might be affected by an application. Of course, they include the interests of the owners of the land involved and also of those holding common rights. Given that commitment, I find it strange that the owners’ rights are not mentioned in the Bill. Amendment No. 175 makes an important point about the use of common land. It suggests that it is important for the commons association to keep tabs on its members as a point of land management. If 100 people own rights to a common but only 50 use those rights, then a problem could arise with regard to under-grazing. If commons associations had the power to keep a register of those who were using their rights, it would be possible to approach commoners who were neglecting their rights and perhaps arrange for the rights to be returned either to the landowner or the commons association or for a loan to be arranged. This is a question of setting out the best possible circumstances for efficient land management. I turn to Amendment No. 177. If commons associations are to have the power to acquire land that they will need, they will need to have the ability to pay for it. We do not know the circumstances in which they will want to purchase it but presumably on occasion there may be time constraints. Even if the intention is ultimately to use public subscription or even private funds, it may be necessary to borrow in the short term. I do not suppose that Defra is proposing to set up a common land fund, such as we have in Scotland, where grants are given to purchase land using public money. The power in paragraph (c) to raise money needs clarification. Will the Government accept that commons associations may borrow to supplement their funds? If so, will there be any restrictions on either the source or the rate charged? Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 179, which draws attention to Clause 31(3) concerning the ancillary powers of commons associations. I was alarmed to read that the Bill proposes to levy fees on commoners exercising their statutory rights. Paragraph (a) details that the exercise of rights of common and the right to use the surplus of the common may lead to a charge from the local commons association under the conditions of subsection (3). Can it be right for commoners to pay a toll to activate their statutory rights? Is there not a possibility that some people could find themselves excluded from their rights due to the level of financial demand? With regard to paragraph (b) of the same subsection, I want to call into debate the question of fees levied by way of membership of commons associations. Would this encourage people to become members of the association? Would the fees be expected to exceed the running costs? Would the fees levied be put back into management? Who would audit the whole process? Let us suppose that fees are introduced. Would the ““appropriate national authorities”” set a cap on the amount that could be charged? How would the commons association publish the fees, once agreed? Would a percentage have to go to the landowner, and would fees increase with interest rates? Those questions will cause great difficulty in the future if they are not properly debated. I beg to move.