Commons Bill [HL]

We understand that the intention behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is to ensure that the controls on works on common land contained in schemes made under the 1866 or 1899 Acts should not be weakened. However, we do not believe that our proposals would have that effect in practice. Schemes made under those Acts are administered by local authorities, and the general objective of such schemes is to enable the commons to which they apply to be managed effectively. My understanding is that schemes generally apply on commons where access and recreation are the predominant use of the land. Schemes made under the 1899 Act generally contain standard terms which follow a prescribed model, most recently revised in 1982. Those terms set out the powers available to local authorities to regulate and manage the common. I turn to the works which may be undertaken on commons subject to schemes of management. Such works generally divide these into three classes: those that can be undertaken without the consent of the national authority; those that can be undertaken only if the consent of the national authority is obtained; and, finally, works which are not provided for in the schemes and therefore arguably cannot be undertaken in any circumstances. Clause 40 changes the position in respect of the third class of works. This clause provides that such works will be lawful provided that the national authority’s consent is obtained. There are two main reasons why we consider this to be appropriate. First, it is not always clear into which class works fall. Our amendment reduces that lack of clarity. In future, either works would be permitted without consent, as now; alternatively, works could be undertaken with the consent of the national authority. Secondly, it is sometimes possible for a local authority to amend the terms of an 1899 Act scheme so as to make prohibited works lawful or to amend the scheme by excluding from its scope the land on which the works are to take place. Neither of those actions would require the consent of the national authority and we think that that is a rather undesirable approach to encourage. We believe that it would be better for the local authority to have the option of seeking consent from the national authority for the works it either wants or needs to undertake, thus ensuring that the proposals are reviewed by an independent person—that is, the national authority or someone appointed to act on its behalf, possibly following a public local inquiry when that is needed. I reassure the Committee that, in deciding any application for works on such land, the existence and purpose of a scheme would clearly be a matter of considerable importance which the national authority would be required to take into account. I apologise to Members of the Committee for having replied at length but I think that it was important to put the background to this on the record. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.