Commons Bill [HL]

Both the amendments that we are debating are related to the type of support required to determine whether the criterion of ““substantial support”” for the establishment of a commons association is met. The noble Duke’s Amendment No. 127 would require a defined level of support from the local community for the establishment of an association. Rather than assessing whether there is a substantial level of support from the interests most closely involved in the management of a common, the support of the majority of those living in the local area would be required before an association could be set up. On the other hand, Amendment No. 128, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, will require the appropriate national authority to be satisfied only that there was substantial support from common rights holders for the establishment of an association. We do not see why it should be necessary for those in the local community to show majority support for an organisation that will have functions related only to managing agricultural activities, vegetation and rights of common on common land. Even so, the views of everyone who makes representations about the establishment of a commons association will be taken into account, including those received from local residents. On the other hand, we think that a narrowing of the support criterion to take account only of those entitled to rights of common does not reflect the broader interests in most commons. In many cases commons associations will consist of more than just commoners. The views of owners, holders of sporting rights and other persons or bodies with statutory duties on commons should be heard and taken into consideration when setting up a commons association. Clause 26(5) deliberately emphasises the views of some more than others. We think it right that ““particular regard””—that is the expression used—should be given to those people who either have an interest in the common, such as commoners and owners, those engaged in agricultural activities and those who are involved in its management. That is why we think we have got this provision right. I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. The noble Duke asked whether the local authority has to support the proposed commons association. If that was his question, the answer is that there is no particular reason for a local authority to become involved. It would be to help commons associations with a legal interest in managing the land to get their management of it right. Before I sit down, I shall do my best to respond to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. He asked, by way of example, about Natural England asking for a commons association and expressed his concern about minorities overturning majority views. I remind him that substantial support will be required to form an association. That might be considered if the other common rights holders support Natural England’s bid for an establishment order. It depends on the case. If other key interests, such as owners and rights holders did not support the bid, such an association would clearly not work. I emphasise that there is no question of Natural England overriding the wishes of the majority of the legal interests. I hope he may gain some comfort from what I have said.