Commons Bill [HL]

I support the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. As the Minister is aware—I mentioned it at Second Reading—I do not like statutory schemes at all—I prefer voluntary arrangements—so I do not like this part of the Bill very much. My intention, therefore, is to make it work in the best possible way for all those who, in my view, might be foolish enough to go down that route. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said in speaking to the previous amendment, the Minister said that what really matters, and what is most important, is that a commons association is locally initiated and locally controlled. If we cast our minds back to 25 October, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that commons associations could dictate terms to all those involved. I commented on that and then my noble friend Lord Peel said:"““And presumably it applies to the owner as well””?," to which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, replied,"““The noble Earl is right””.—[Official Report, 25/10/05; col. GC 292.]" So we have a situation where the commons association can dictate terms to all the commoners. We discovered that we also have the situation where Natural England can take an interest in a common by obtaining grazing rights. As I said, I am very suspicious of that. Would it not be a strong argument for Natural England, as a minority stakeholder—I hate that word—or rather a minority interest in a common, to say to the national authority, ““We ought to form a commons association””? The national authority could well say, ““Natural England is a significant interest””, and regardless of the wishes of the majority, a commons association would be formed. We will discuss the powers of the associations—the right to raise money and the right to sell land—but I fear that there is a potential here for a minority to overturn the will of the majority. That is something that we in this country need to be very careful of.