Commons Bill [HL]

I am not quite sure what the legal position would be. I should like to take advice on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. I hope I shall be able to answer the points raised by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. We believe that a sort of pro tem ownership in the case of unclaimed land, which I accept he is concerned about, is not practicable for the reasons given in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on Clause 43. However, we accept that there is a difference between the role of the local authority where land is unclaimed and where it is in separate ownership with a commons association working on it. That is my understanding of the position. My noble friend also referred to whether Clause 43(2)(b) obliges the local authority to pursue offenders using vehicles such as motorbikes and 4x4s. The provision does not oblige local authorities to pursue offenders; it just gives them the power to do so. It may sometimes be more appropriate to leave enforcement to the police. The local authority may enforce against motor vehicles on unclaimed common land under Clause 43, as it may now under Section 9 of the 1965 Act. Indeed, any person may prosecute for such an offence. We have provided powers in Clause 44 for certain bodies to have powers of last resort to deal with unlawful agricultural activities on any commons land. These powers will not be available to local authorities because they do not have the expertise or skills to deal with such issues. I hope that my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel will accept that that is the difference between the role and the power of local authorities to act in respect of owned land and unclaimed land. My noble friend has commended to us the prospect of local authorities taking on the management of unclaimed commons. They can already do this in the majority of cases by schemes of management under the Commons Act 1899. To the best of our knowledge, the existing powers work perfectly well. My noble friend Lord Williams said in debate on Amendment No. 2 that graziers, commoners and those who own common rights on common land should know who owns the land instead of their having to go to the Land Registry and acting through expensive lawyers. He was unhappy to wait until 2012 or 2024 but he will know that that is how the law in this country works. We cannot give him or commoners the sort of instant assurance sought because, for the reasons that I gave earlier, the state cannot be allowed to remove land simply because it has not been claimed. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked whether the waiting period would have to run its course before the land was deemed unclaimed. No, it is a matter of whether the owner is recorded on either the land register or the common land register. That was the only point that I made. My noble friend Lord Williams may not sympathise with our disinclination to deliver on vesting but we have considered the matter very carefully and conclude that, taken with existing measures, the Bill goes sufficiently far to deal with those problems that exist. Further provision could be counterproductive and would probably be unnecessary. I am very conscious that this is a complex area. I will read carefully all the contributions made by noble Lords. If I have failed to cover any of the technical details or points raised, I shall write to the noble Lord concerned, with copies to all Members of the Committee who have taken part. Clause 43 agreed to. Clause 44 [Powers relating to unauthorised agricultural activities]: