Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 78:"After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—"    ““CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OF COMMON LAND (1)   Each commons registration authority shall inform Her Majesty’s Land Registry of all common land in its area. (2)   The land registry shall notify the relevant commons association of any proposal to exchange ownership of common land. (3)   Regulations shall provide for— (a)   a statutory period of objection of no less than six weeks; and (b)   a requirement on the vendor of common land to declare any evidence of common grazing rights.”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 78 would insert a new clause in regard to changes in ownership of common land. I shall refer to it as the ““Land Registry”” clause””. It has been reported to me by a number of people that there is poor communication between the Land Registry, the commons registration authorities and the commoners associations. Land has been sold and registered by the Land Registry but not everyone knows that this has taken place. This causes a great deal of heated response, particularly from commons associations which do not realise that they have a new landlord. The amendment seeks to open up a method of communication all round. This is because, under subsection (1),"““Each commons registration authority shall inform Her Majesty’s Land Registry of all common land in its area””." This may perhaps occur already—I have not researched the issue; it could be the case—but the amendment would at least ensure that the Land Registry is informed. Subsection (2) requires that,"““The land registry shall notify the relevant commons association of any proposal to exchange ownership of common land””." Clearly the commons registration authority will also be involved, particularly where there is any proposal to exchange ownership of common land. This is important. Subsection (3) contains a requirement for regulations to be made because, if it is known that the ownership of common land is to be exchanged, people and organisations such as the commons associations should at least be given a statutory period of objection. I have suggested in the amendment that that period should be six weeks. Secondly, there is a requirement on the vendor of common land to declare any evidence of common grazing rights. The present situation is that some land has been sold but the owner of the land, the vendor, has not declared the fact that there are common grazing rights on the land. I describe such people as ““rogue owners””—although I should make it quite clear that there are certainly no such people in this room. The odd person appears to be taking advantage of the situation by not declaring the grazing rights and, because of that, the value of the land sold may be higher. That is only a suggestion or an implication of what might be the reason for doing so. Common land graziers have asked me to raise this issue with the Committee and to table the amendment because, in a number of instances, the ownership of common land has changed and they have not known a thing about it. The Land Registry has not been prepared to inform people—it will not co-operate, as I understand it—that that has taken place. We do not quite understand why this should be, but we suspect there is a technological reason: the Land Registry has state-of-the-art electronic means of registration whereas the poor old commons associations are still working on, shall we say, rather more traditional ways of keeping records. We feel that this is a rounded amendment which will ensure better communications so that at least everyone will know what is going on. I beg to move.