Commons Bill [HL]

It would be possible for a national authority to draw up a database of standard rules—for example CCW or Natural England could produce a model series—so there is nothing between us there. I am slightly surprised by the line taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, because the result of Amendment No. 184 would be to remove Clause 32(7). We believe it is important that where an association has applied to a county court to secure compliance with one of its rules, the court is given complete flexibility to decide on the most appropriate form of order—for example, an order ensuring that all animals on a common are marked with the owner’s mark. The association needs the option to pursue enforcement through a county court, and the court needs the flexibility to decide how that compliance should be secured. It could require the animals to be marked within a specified period or ask for the stock to be removed until they are. The effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment would be to prevent the association being able to apply to the county court, and that would constrain its options. It might have to make a rule subject to a criminal offence—and therefore prosecute for a breach in the magistrates’ court, which is a very difficult step among people who, in almost all cases, are going to be neighbours—or it might be able to arrange for an appointed reeve to resolve the matter. As to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we agree with the DPRRC that rules which apply criminal sanctions must be tested by the national authority. A statutory commons association must not be able to make its own criminal offences without any oversight. After listening carefully to what the noble Baroness said, I think she would agree with that. The national authority is clearly defined throughout the Bill and it is always the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales. I should like to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in regard to the issue of the removal of stolen or abandoned animals—not least because my noble friend is not in his place at the moment but the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is in his, and I do not like to speak about Wales without making sure that I am getting it right where there may be differences. I am also conscious that I may have committed an offence. I, too, was in the Brecon Beacons and released a sheep that had got caught in some wire. As to whether the court could refuse to make an order if the rule was considered unreasonable, it would depend on the circumstances but it does not have to. The court would not have to order compliance if it considered it to be unjustifiable. I hope that gives the noble Baroness a reassurance that she finds welcome. As to whether the court will be able to have regard to other legislation in making a decision, we do not think that is necessary. From the noble Baroness’s introduction it is obvious that there are issues behind the amendment that we did not anticipate. I shall write to her about those.