Commons Bill [Lords]

Unusually, I am going to cross swords slightly with my right hon. Friend. He well knows that the current phrasing of the Bill is the result of a lot of discussion in the other place, where the Bill started its proceedings, and stemmed from concern that—picking up on the point that he made—those who have sporting interests on the moors, and particularly on the Yorkshire moors, would find them seriously damaged if the rights were sold or transferred in a way that was not helpful overall. There was a lot of discussion in the other place and that is how the current words came to be included. I fully recognise—as I am sure that he will acknowledge that I did in Committee—that to give the landowner the absolute right of veto is wrong. That is why, in Committee, I proposed moving forward on the basis that, if the landowner unreasonably withheld consent, the Minister should be able to override that. I remain of that view, so I welcome Government amendments Nos. 92 to 94. The question is whether we need to go a step further, as my right hon. Friend proposes. As I read the Government amendments, they say that if a Minister feels that a landowner has unreasonably withheld consent, that can be overridden. I should point out to my right hon. Friend that we will be considering few such cases in the future because the Bill is designed to end the principle of severance, rather than to allow severance. The Minister would be required to issue an order before severance could take place. Under the Government amendments, he would then have to consider whether consent had been unreasonably withheld. The Bill already requires the Minister to consult everyone, including the owners of the land or their representatives. My right hon. Friend’s amendment relates to the measure that says that the Minister ““must”” make provision for whether the landowner has given consent. I am not sure whether the extra step of changing the word ““must”” to ““may”” is really necessary. I take the view—this is in some ways where my right hon. Friend and I slightly disagree—that a landowner is a property owner with certain rights. Yes, he would get consulted, but he should have a bit more say than that. I was happy with the compromise that was agreed among the different views in another place, which is represented by the Government amendments, but I am not entirely convinced that the Government would be right to accept the word ““may”” instead of ““must””. If the Minister were to accept my right hon. Friend’s amendment, he would obviously take account of the geographical location of the individual common in question when making an order, and of where the rights to the common pertained. He would also take account of whether the location was an area such as Cumbria, where the landowner’s consent would not be especially relevant, an area on the other side of the Pennines, or a place such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). However, my right hon. Friend’s amendment would give the Minister more discretion than the Government amendments. My right hon. Friend has expressed concern in conversations with us about giving the Minister discretion to decide what unreasonably withheld consent is. However, his amendment would give the Minister even more discretion, not less. It is for that reason that I have yet to be convinced of it. I am sure that the Minister will make his views clear. I do not for a moment suggest that we will divide the House if he wishes to accept the amendment, but I am certainly not convinced that everyone in the other place will be happy with it. If the amendment goes forward to the other place, we will have to see what it decides. It would be a pity if the huge degree of consensus on the Bill overall, to which we will refer on Third Reading, was lost on this matter, but I fear that that could be the case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and finding out how he will respond to a tricky situation.