---

Commons Councils (Standard Constitution) (England) Regulations 2010

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. The very slimline statutory instrument presents an interesting contrast with a highly substantial Explanatory Memorandum, but I suspect that that it is inevitable given the complexity of the issue. I understand the Government’s strategy of trying to present a framework that can then be adapted to meet the individual circumstances of particular commons. A lot of the complexity comes from the fact that commons are occupied in a number of different ways and usually have grazing rights, and the relationship between the commoner or grazier and landowner is often complex. That is particularly so in respect of stewardship schemes; I would be interested in the Minister’s view on the way in which environmental stewardship schemes and commons work together. There are circumstances in which landowners have been obstructive on commoners getting involved in stewardship schemes. There have also been situations in which landowners have sought to retain the benefits of the stewardship schemes for themselves, in which case what benefit is there for the commoner? Getting the balance right is difficult. I understand the concerns. The CLA has written to me, pointing out a number of issues on which it is concerned. It believes that there is a risk in setting up the commons councils, and that the rights of the commoners and landowners can become confused. There is an important distinction between what a commoner and a landowner can do on common land. While all parties will often run their businesses alongside each other in a holistic manner, the lack of understanding of commons law by statutory government agencies has often led to commoners being encouraged to adopt management schemes through agri-environment schemes that the landowner should in fact be involved in adopting or delegating as he thinks fit. That brings us back to the issue that I mentioned. Therefore, it is imperative that landowners are properly represented on commons councils where the landowner is known. Indeed, the Minister will understand that in certain cases the landowners of commons are not identified as such. There should be no bar to setting up a commons council where that might be the case. There can be a considerable difference in the dynamics of a commons council where the commoners are local and active as opposed to distant and remote. Similar is the case for those with an active landowner—the landowner may be non-existent, as I said, or largely absentee. However, I accept the Government’s general premise that the complexity should not prevent the creation of commons councils where they are desired and there is a general belief that they can improve the management of common land. I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. Two things indicate the challenge of the statutory instrument—the time lag from 2006 to now in getting the regulations tabled, and the sheer thickness of the Explanatory Memorandum. I draw one point in particular to the Minister’s attention, because it shows that the Explanatory Memorandum may have multiple sources and have been put together in a hurry. If he turned to page 28 he would see draft accounts, carefully notated—note 1, note 1b, note 2 and what have you—but there are no notes. I have looked through the Explanatory Memorandum and I find them not. I suspect this is indicative of the fact that several documents have been put together to provide an Explanatory Memorandum. I will not labour that point but I have some direct questions for the Minister. On page 6—of the Explanatory Memorandum, rather than the regulations—paragraph 4.1 says: ""Statutory councils will be formed only where there is substantial local support"." How will this be judged? For example, will support or opposition from the National Farmers’ Union, of which I am a member, or the CLA, of which I am not, outweigh that of tenant farmers? Also on page 6, paragraph 5.1 says that, ""we plan to establish commons councils at a steady pace, so that we cannot achieve our target number overnight"." Does this mean that the Secretary of State will hold back on approvals if there is a great rush of requests, even if demand is considerable? Does it also mean that the Government, having passed the legislation, have a hidden agenda not to achieve the target? In other words, do the Government really want to play this softly, or are they prepared to respond to demand if local opinion produces a large number of applications? Turning to page 7, I see that paragraphs 5.2 and 5.4 seem to suggest that the Government may be planning to support the creation of councils in certain areas. In other words, they already feel that a commons council might be useful for particular areas. If this is the case, what criteria have the Government set themselves in saying that these areas are ones which ought to be looked at? I move on to page 10 and paragraph 5.13, which says: ""Benefits have not been monetised due to a lack of available evidence … it is expected that the principal benefits … will be substantially greater than costs. Work has been commissioned … This is expected to report in early 2010"." Do we have that report? Where is it? Has it shown the expected benefits or not? I hope that, in asking these questions, I am not probing the Minister too far. It is useful if we have explanations on the record. Finally, what happens when a commons council runs out of steam? The motivation for setting them up is the enthusiasm and thrust of local people who want to see a commons council in operation. Have the Government a strategy for circumstances in which the people who have engaged in running a commons council find that they do not have the time or interest to support the momentum that originally led to it being set up?