---

Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 59A:"Page 7, line 37, leave out from beginning to second ““the””" The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 61A and 71A, which are also in my name and which are part and parcel. My noble friend Lord Livsey has tabled an amendment to reduce the minimum size from 200 to 50 hectares. I suggest that there should be no lower limit. We are here talking about deregistration of common land or of town and village greens or of exchange. I move the amendment to test the Government on why they think that 200 is the right figure. It is an arbitrary figure; any figure is arbitrary. The figure suggested by my noble friend is better, because it is smaller, but why is there a lower limit at all? The value of a piece of land, especially a green in a village, does not necessarily relate to its size. Small pieces of land may perform a valuable local function of recreational amenity, and so on. It would be best not to have a limit. If there is to be a limit, I probe the Government about subsection (8), which states:"““In a case where the release land is not more than 200 square metres””—" I beg the Committee’s pardon; I was wrong to mention hectares, we are talking about square metres. That is why I was hesitating because what I was saying did not seem sensible. The subsection continues:"““in area, the appropriate national authority shall in determining the application have particular regard to whether it includes a proposal under subsection (3)””." That wording is vague. It clearly means that they must consider it, but can the Minister explain what those words mean, how that will work in practice and what guarantees can be given, if the Government are to insist on a limit—whether 200 or 50 square metres—that valuable pieces of land will not be allowed to disappear without proper replacement? I look forward to the debate and the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.