Commons Bill [HL]

I nearly hesitate even to speak to this, because I am sure that if the Minister does not wish to accept it—which I am sure he will not—there is no point in my moving it at all. In Grand Committee, there is nothing that I can do about it, which is the slight disappointment of operating in Grand Committee at this stage, but I will proceed. At Second Reading I highlighted the fact that the Bill poses as many question as it answers. Noble Lords will realise that we are disappointed that the Bill before us is so skeletal and leaves so much to regulation. Having said, that, I would also like to record our thanks for the statutory instruments that were put forward and for the Government’s response to the Committee that an amendment that we will debate later should have the affirmative resolution attached. The draft regulations to Clause 28 have tried to address some of the questions that I have posed, such as eligibility, selection, length of term, re-election to a commons association. As such, I welcome the suggested three-year term and further clarification as to how associations will make decisions. However, I am not wholly satisfied. For example, the draft regulations in paragraph 8 state that except where specified elsewhere, all decisions will be taken by a vote with the majority of the vote deciding the outcome. It states that those present at the meeting may participate in the vote. Did the Minister consider enabling proxy voting or votes in absence for such proceedings? I see later that the association may appoint members to committees to deliver certain functions. Will their decision-making process happen in the same way? Could a committee have a meeting and a vote on a decision without consulting the rest of the association? Similarly, could a meeting called by a third of the association membership vote on issues against those that they may have failed to invite? I am sure that is not meant. I am referring there to paragraph 11. However, the clause not only provides for regulations to set up a standard constitution but for the provisions to be altered. While we on these Benches understand the need for flexibility to meet the needs of different commons, I question the degree of flexibility to make changes to the standard constitution and beyond that to the establishment. What good is a standard constitution or the draft regulations that we have been given if in theory they could all be altered? For example, the draft sample that we have been given with regard to Clause 25 states that the membership of the commons association must be more than 10 but less than 12. Will the provisions in Clause 28(3) enable that to be altered? I also understand that a number of commoners may vary from common to common, but what if only three commoners wish to set up an association and were a minority compared to those with rights on that particular common? It is surely not a very democratic option, especially when they can then dictate the rules to other commoners who are not in the association. As the discussions throughout the clause have suggested, there are still some outstanding questions.