Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 109. I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 113 and 115 to 118. Amendment No. 109 deals with a small flaw in the drafting of Schedule 1. Amendment No. 113 responds to a point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, at Third Reading. There was concern that Dartmoor Commoners Council, established under the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, would have less power than a statutory commons council for the purposes of Schedule 1. We agreed with that view, and Amendment No. 113 will ensure that the national authority can prescribe in an order that a statutory body charged with the management of a common—such as the Dartmoor Commoners Council—is to have the same power as commons councils in two respects: to veto the severance of rights of common to Natural England or to the Countryside Council for Wales; and itself to acquire rights by severance. Amendments Nos. 116 to 118 revisit the provision in Schedule 1(3) about the permanent severance of rights of common. Our starting position is that most grazing rights would never have been severable were it not for the unintended effect of registration under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Clause 9 reinstates the general prohibition on severance, but Schedule 1 gives effect to some exceptions. As the House will recall, at Third Reading we responded to calls from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others to introduce a power for the national authority to enable permanent severance on a designated common by order. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that the powers were, "““a reserve power only … That does not mean we intend to use them, and … we have no plans to do so””.—[Official Report, 18/1/06; col. 683.]" The amendment agreed on Third Reading included a provision requiring that any act of severance authorised under that amendment would require the consent of the owner of the common. That requirement was present to protect the interests of the common owner and to enable the owner to act in the best interests of the overall management of the common. But we accept the arguments that were put to us by James Paice MP in another place that an owner might exercise a veto for the wrong reasons; for example, to secure a financial inducement. Amendments Nos. 116 to 118 enable us to provide by order that consent must not be unreasonably withheld. Amendment No. 115 goes further than that and gives the national authority discretion in whether to include a requirement for the owner’s consent in any particular order. This reflects our acceptance that severance of common rights in some areas, particularly parts of Cumbria, is not a recent innovation. Where, as is often the case in some parts, rights of common have always been quantified, the law has always recognised that those rights may be severed. If we were to make an order to permit continued severance in such areas, we would certainly want to have a discretion not to require the consent of the owner. That discretion is not available to us as the Bill stands, but would be conferred by Amendment No. 115. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 109.—(Lord Rooker.)