Commons Bill [HL]

I started to address two particular problems that I have with Clause 43. In the light of what my noble friend said, I think that they are relevant. The first concerns where ownership of a common is doubtful; where it is not proved. That is the case in a number of places in Wales where ownership is claimed but not established by law. I mentioned that earlier. Doubtful ownership should be something that the local authority, as the registration authority, first of all, should try to prove or disprove. If disproved, we return to the question of vesting. The question is really whether a local authority should be able pro tempore, as it were, to take over a common before the registration authority—that is, the local authority in its capacity as a registration authority—has determined who owns the common and whether it should be on the Land Registry. My second difficulty with Clause 43 I also mentioned. It specifically states that on unclaimed land the local authority can do all sorts of things that it cannot do on claimed land or land in doubtful ownership. It can institute proceedings against any person for an offence committed in respect of the land. In other words, the local authority, with its resources, can take proceedings on unclaimed land against, say, motorbikes or 4x4s that travel across the land illegally. That is an offence in respect of the land. The local authority has no entitlement to do that at present on owned common land. My noble friend Lord Bach does not like the idea of a commons association enforcing it, but the clause provides a specific duty laid on a local authority to prosecute, effectively, unlawful interference and,"““any offence committed in respect of the land””." I am slightly baffled why local authorities have been given these very important and draconian powers when they have not been given to the owner of a common when a common is in normal ownership, or to the putative commons association. I should be most grateful if my noble friend could help me out.