Commons Bill [HL]

I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, when he said that this part of the Bill is not adequate in its present form. The wording raises many questions. It would be a waste of parliamentary time to deal with them in a vast range of amendments. Between now and Report, I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on many of the concerns raised by several Members of the Committee. If he does not, we shall bring forward amendments again on Report in order to get clearer clarification. Subsection (1) is written in a way that makes it appear that the national authority would be breaking new ground, to say nothing of imposing superior knowledge, strength or wisdom on many parts of the countryside. I wonder how the commons associations that already abound—many of which are doing an excellent job—will feel about whether this subsection may jeopardise what they do and the way in which they currently work, and whether regulations due to come out will be appropriate. Subsection (2) deals with publishing draft orders and consulting on them. Once again, we will not know what those orders are until the Bill has passed through this House and, I suspect, another place. Subsection (3) allows for the holding of a public inquiry. What would prompt that? Would there always be one in circumstances where the Government seek to change the way in which an existing association works? Who would bear the cost? Where would it be heard? Our lengthy discussions today raise many questions. Subsection (4) constrains the national authority in setting up the commons associations unless representations are made as the result of any public inquiry to show substantial support. I still do not think that we have clarified ““substantial support””. Subsection (5) lays down three categories of persons whose representations must be taken into account. Unfortunately, the Bill makes no attempt to give those clauses any weighting. Would it be possible, for instance, that a person entitled to exercise the rights of common would be given a higher weighting than the occupiers or those with an interest in the land? Is it likely or even possible that people with an interest in the land and those with management duties for the land could out-vote those entitled to exercise rights of common? This clause is too vague and has raised many questions .