Commons Bill [HL]

This is the first debate on Part 2 of the Bill. It has been a very good debate on an important topic. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I take his amendment to be a probing one, and that is how it has been debated. We have heard about the Second Reading of the Bill, and at that time I indicated that the third recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1958—I remind noble Lords that that was for the improved management of common land—remains unfulfilled. The first recommendation, which was registration, was begun by the 1965 Act and we hope that registration will be improved by the Bill. The second recommendation, which was for improved access, was fulfilled by the CROW Act 2000. We have consulted extensively on improved management since 2000 and the consensus in the stakeholder working group on the agricultural use and management of common land was that locally established, statutory commons associations are the most appropriate legislative option to achieve this aim. Part 2 of the Bill attempts to realise that recommendation. I hope that in the debates that we will have on Part 2 we will be able to answer many of the questions raised. Many noble Lords spoke at Second Reading on this part of the Bill. In particular, the amendments to Clauses 30 and 31 that I will move largely address the concerns noble Lords had on the functions and purpose of a commons association, including the now      notorious—or famous—term, ““sustainable agriculture””, as well as the relationship an association has with the owner of the land. I am very grateful for the discussion that we had at Second Reading. I hope that noble Lords will take some comfort from the fact that the comments made informed our opinion and we hope that, as we debate this part further, noble Lords may agree that, in some cases at least, we have listened and acted on genuine concerns. On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, we think it unlikely that associations will be formed for a single common, except perhaps for the largest commons. That is what we think will happen. It will be more likely that commoners and other interests on contiguous commons—the noble Lord mentioned contiguous commons—or groups of commons in a reasonably small area may well join together to form associations. Associations that cover more than a single common may well lead to more effective management of common land. I believe that was one of the points which the noble Lord made at the beginning of his speech. Indeed, I believe that approach was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on Second Reading. Associations will not be imposed from above, they will be locally initiated and locally controlled. That is the most important thing of all. A strong and effective association may be formed quickly and easily from only two or three agriculturally active commons in an area. However, a presumption in favour of requiring all neighbouring commons to be included in the association may ironically slow down or even prevent the establishment of an association if some interests are not supportive. We believe that the ““presumption in favour”” wording of the amendment would add an unnecessary level of inflexibility on the part of the appropriate national authority when considering the extent of any particular commons association. As I say, although there may well be circumstances where it would be right for an association to be established for a number of commons within a particular area, this will often not be the case. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, overcame his concerns about speaking from the opposition Front Bench. This Bill has nothing to do with party preference. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Williams have much more in common, coming, as they both do, from the Principality of Wales, than they have differences because they sit on different sides of the Chamber. That was indicated in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, on this matter. There may be some agriculturally active commons in an area for which an association could sensibly be established. To include other commons in that area just because they happen to be nearby would not be sensible if they have very different characteristics. For example, those neighbouring commons may have been ungrazed for many years, and of no interest to commoning hill farmers. So we need to retain flexibility—I believe that was what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, among others argued for—to determine which commons are to be covered by any particular association. The wording of the amendment is too rigid as a guideline for establishing these bodies. What matters is what the local interests want to happen. Some arrangements work very well and associations find that they have the powers they need, others find themselves needing more powers or more organisation to manage the land effectively. However, it is the next sentence that matters—it is their choice. That should be the basis of setting up statutory commons associations. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked some interesting questions regarding what our intentions were. In relation to England, Natural England as successor to the Rural Development Service will, indeed, have a key role in helping the associations to be formed where appropriate. We need that activity to be targeted by geographical need on the one hand and local preference on the other. Our view is that it would be quite wrong for the Act to set out a preference one way or the other. As the noble Viscount said, we want to enable commons associations to be set up and to flourish.