Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 233:"Page 23, line 20, leave out ““may””" The noble Lord said: Clause 43 deals with an important issue—that of land which is registered as common land but has not been claimed by any owners. In moving Amendment No. 233, I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 233 to 235 play around with ““may”” and ““shall””. Those words may or may not be relevant but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I believe that they are very important when it comes to carrying out legislation. Like existing legislation, the clause does not place a duty on a local authority to take any steps to protect common land which has no known owner. However, in view of the importance of common land, I suggest that such a duty is necessary—for example, to bring SSSIs into a favourable condition; to improve commons for amenity purposes; and, not least, to ensure that commons can be enjoyed using the new rights of access under the CROW Act. There appears to be a vacuum because local authorities often seem reluctant to take action to protect common land and to protect the public’s interest in commons. Of course, it is not only the interest of the public that is important but also that of the commoners. I suggest that this essential duty is placed on local authorities to take action where necessary. We have discussed unlawful interference under a different provision, so I shall concentrate on the vesting side, which is dealt with in Amendment No. 235A. Amendments Nos. 235A and 235C suggest that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty conservation boards should have similar powers—particularly national parks in view of the importance of commons within them and their importance in exercising many of the functions of local authorities in those areas. Defra’s common land policy statement in 2002 stated:"““We promise to enable the vesting of unclaimed common land in a suitable body which will be empowered to deliver effective management””." The Government may say that they are doing that ,but I suggest that making it a duty will strengthen the provision. Amendment No. 235A in particular does so. The consultation paper from Defra noted that there were approximately 2,000 unclaimed commons in England, amounting to 4,000 hectares, and 500 in Wales, amounting to more than 21,000 hectares. This is therefore an important issue, as Defra recognised in 2002, and it is unfortunate that the Bill merely re-enacts, rather than extends, existing local authority powers. I also suggest that local authorities should have more powers than those merely to protect the land from unlawful interference and so forth, and that they should have powers to manage the land positively in the public interest. Many commons are neglected and overgrown and are crying out for positive management in the interest of public enjoyment, biodiversity, nature conservation, archaeology and so on. The amendment would enable a local authority to assume ownership of the land as though it had been acting as owner for the period required under the law of adverse possession. It is a relatively simple procedure that would ensure that all those neglected commons were properly cared for. Amendment No. 235C concerns a more technical matter. It recognises that some commons are managed by district councils under the Commons Act 1899 and would ensure that if a parish or community council wished to assume ownership, it could do so only if the district had delegated powers of management to it, thereby avoiding a clash of interest. The crucial point underlying this group of amendments is the fundamental question of what is to happen regarding commons that are unclaimed. I look forward to the Minister’s response setting out how the Government see this working in practice and explaining why the further powers suggested in the amendments that I have tabled are not required. At this stage, it seems to me that either they or provisions very much like them are necessary. On that basis, I beg to move.