Commons Bill [Lords]

These amendments deal with commons that have been partially developed, and I tabled them for two reasons. First, we were concerned that there was a drafting error, but people who know far more about legal jargon than I do agree that there is no such error. Secondly, there is a point of principle. In Committee, in a debate on the apportionment of rights, we discussed carefully what happens when a dominant tenement is sold or split and is partially developed. Indeed, we discussed an example in which one piece of land is developed and lots of individual houses are built on it. The legislation, as drafted, would give all those houses an apportionment of the rights. On reflection, I question whether that is right, so the principal purpose of the amendments is to challenge the Government to explain why the right of common should endure if part of the dominant tenement is no longer used for an agricultural purpose. Commons rights were originally attached to agricultural land, as we discussed in Committee—I shall not repeat all those debates today. Former agricultural land could be completely developed and the rights apportioned so that, for example, there is one sheep per house in a new housing estate. Is that logical? The Minister may well respond that those people will clearly not exercise their right to own a single sheep, and I accept that that may be so, given all the bureaucracy that the Government have imposed on sheep owners. Rights can be transferred under schedule 1—we will come on to that later—but if the owner develops the dominant tenement and decides not to transfer the rights but to apportion them among the properties, difficulties could arise. As the Minister said, we will come on to discuss the establishment of statutory associations—I agree that they should become councils—which brings the issue of rights into play. The logic of the Bill is that all those individual owners, with perhaps one or two rights each, will all have a voice even though, in reality, they do not have any agricultural interest. We have discussed many times in the House—indeed, the Minister referred to it himself a few minutes ago—the issue of people who move into a rural area without understanding anything about it. In the example that I gave, however, they could have a significant voice, as they would have to be consulted on the establishment of an association and, indeed, they would become part of it. A welcome later amendment would give preferential treatment to people who utilise their rights but, nevertheless, the occupants of all those house in the example that I gave would have a say in the establishment of the association, its running and, of course, the management of the commons. I question whether that is right, which is why, despite clarification of the drafting, I tabled the amendments. It is a little late to ask the Minister to go away and think about the issue again, but I urge him at least to reflect on it, and tell the House how he will address the problem that I have identified. When rights are fragmented and many rights owners involved, how can that be dealt with by the management systems and the associations established by the latter part of the Bill? It would have been far better to use a de minimis arrangement to extinguish rights of common in those circumstances.