Commons Bill [Lords]

Most of the issues to do with off-roading are covered by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, so although that is a relevant point, it is not covered by this Bill. The hon. Member for Bridgend suggested that the Bill be reviewed after five years and then after 10 years. I thought that that was an interesting and important suggestion but not one that inspired a great deal of confidence. We should try to get the Bill right here and now. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy talked about the Bill’s importance to Wales. He mentioned the problems of complexity in the old rules. His contribution was extremely helpful, because he has been involved in the legal side of this for a long time. He referred to enclosed common land up a mountain, with registered commoners who cannot access their rights yet have a claim should that common land ever be sold. The nub of his argument is that if we can unlock the complexities of this legislation, it will have a knock-on benefit for everybody who enjoys, lives off or uses common land. He talked about severance of grazing rights and welcomed the ending of that practice. He rightly referred to the balance that is essential as regards over-grazing or under-grazing, and the resulting gorse that may grow if that is got wrong. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) also made some important points. It is frustrating to speak last when many matters have already been covered by other Members. I am concerned about the cost of the legislation, the brunt of which will fall on local authorities and is estimated at between £5 million and £9.5 million. The Government have talked about extra funding, but I do not think that it was that much. If I am wrong, I am more than happy to give way to the Minister so that he can tell us how much he is going to give. I can foresee potential pitfalls with the electronic register; I have already mentioned the Government’s track record on that. On the substance of the Bill, there are several concerns regarding the roles of the statutory commons associations that will be established under clause 26. As we have heard, situations may arise whereby voluntary bodies such as the Dartmoor commoners council could find its activities curtailed by the presence of a commons association. The National Farmers Union has expressed concerns over the confusion that could arise from statutory commons associations and non-statutory and voluntary groups wanting to care for common land. It is not clear how the membership of those statutory commons associations is to be constituted. No one would want certain interest groups or charities to dominate such groups at the expense of others. We must get that balance right. When looking at the role of statutory commons associations, we must also consider the rights of the landowners. This seems to be a fairly inflammatory matter for some Members of the House, but 80 per cent. of common land is owned privately, and it does not rest well with human rights legislation for a statutory body to be able to impose on a landowner certain designs and plans on that land with which the owner, or other interested parties, may not be comfortable. We must have a fair resolution mechanism whereby conflicts between the landowner and statutory commons associations over the use of the land can be dealt with within the framework of the Bill. The issue of executive powers has already been taken up, but it is worth reiterating with regard to commons associations. The National Trust has expressed concerns that under clauses 36(2)(e) and 44(2), a future Government may take away some of its powers and hand them over by ministerial order to a statutory commons association without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Another concern is the retrospective nature of clause 15. As has been said here and in the other place, that could affect planning decisions and often much-needed planning developments. It is also unclear what constitutes a"““significant number of local inhabitants””" and, for that matter, who counts as a ““local inhabitant””. Would two people walking their dogs on the same patch of grass every day for 20 years be able to prevent a housing development by having it designated as a ““town green””? Those are important matters of definition and clarity that the Bill does not fully address at the moment. However, we are in favour of the Bill and will work throughout the Committee stage to make it much better.