Commons Bill [HL]

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. I must immediately tell the Committee that they were tabled at a very early stage, long before I saw the Minister’s Amendment No. 142, let alone the noble Earl’s Amendment No. 142A, or my noble friends’ Amendment No. 146. As a considerable novice in this place, I think that wiser counsels may come before the Committee. However, this gives me an opportunity to say a couple of words about my amendments. Members of the Committee may have a problem with my reference to ““access””. I had a particular circumstance in mind. Clearly the Countryside and Rights of Way Act covers problems of access to a large extent, but there are special occasions when an association will have to think a little about ways in which, on a temporary basis, it may have to consider access questions. For example, I have in mind in the lambing season that the commoners may well wish to see whether they need to do something—by way of publicity more than anything else—to ensure that dogs are not left unattended on common land. That is a familiar problem in the uplands. I have to accept that, from the way in which the discussion has developed, Amendment No. 142 goes a long way to meeting my concerns at Second Reading, and obviously those of many other noble Lords. This is a very important part of the Bill. I note that some of the provisions in Clause 30 do not seem to appear precisely in the regulations as drafted. Perhaps that is appropriate and necessary or perhaps it is a slip of the tongue, as it were. However, I notice in the West Barsetshire Commons Association Establishment Order 2006 that there is a much wider definition of a function of the association—that of,"““maintaining and renewing fences or other boundaries between the Commons and adjoining land””—" than in Clause 30. It is that sort of mismatch that may cause concern if we pass the Bill in its present form and do not have some clear definition. Incidentally, Professor Ian Mercer from the Dartmoor Commoners Council, to which I referred earlier, tells me that it is normally,"““the custom on upland commons at least that the owner of adjacent in-bye land must fence against the common, so there is no need for an association to have this function””." That is clearly relevant to the discussion on the amendments. The function may not need to be put in such terms, but left more open. The Minister has responded very pragmatically. The amendment is much more flexible than the original provision, and I took comfort from his comment that the range of purposes must withstand the test of time. We do not seem to be able to deal with commons legislation more than once in a lifetime—possibly once in a century—so it is extremely important that we do it well this time. I endorse the comment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that it would be a vast improvement on the Bill as originally intended if Amendment No. 142 went into statute in the end. On that basis, this is an important discussion, but I do not feel that my amendments will be that much better than that already tabled by the Minister. As a footnote, I wait with interest to hear what my noble friends have to say about Amendment No. 146, which seems to contain a very convenient expression of what we all seek to establish—the sustainable management of common land.