Commons Bill [HL] 15:08:00 The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker) My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. commons amendments [The page and line references are to Bill 115 as first printed for the Commons.] 1: Clause 5, page 3, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) 2: Clause 7, page 3, line 37, after “land” insert “to which this Part applies” 3: Page 3, line 39, after first “land” insert “to which this Part applies” 4: Clause 15, page 7, line 23, after “land” insert “to which this Part applies” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4. Amendment No. 1 is consequential because of amendments to Schedule 2, to which we shall turn later. It has no immediate effect on the exempted commons, but we shall ensure that exempted commons may be brought into the registers under Schedule 2 and so help to ensure that registers of what is and is not common land are comprehensive. Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 13 are minor amendments to clarify references to “land” in Part 1. Amendment No. 14 is minor and technical. Amendment No. 15 enables registers to be updated to take account of natural variations in the boundary alongside rivers, lakes and tidal waters. Amendment No. 16 clarifies powers to correct mistakes in the register under Clause 19. Amendment No. 18 clarifies applications under various provisions in Part 1. Amendment No. 20 relates to the power in Clause 24 to make regulations about applications under Part 1. Subsection (7)(a) already enables regulations to make provision for appointment of persons from a panel to deal with particular applications. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4.—(Lord Rooker.) On Question, Motion agreed to. 5: Page 7, line 24, leave out “or (3)” and insert “, (3) or (3A)” 6: Page 7, line 26, leave out “local inhabitants” and insert “the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality,” 7: Page 7, line 31, leave out “local inhabitants” and insert “the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality,” 8: Page 7, line 33, after “application” insert “but after the commencement of this section” 9: Page 7, line 34, leave out “the relevant period” and insert “the period of two years beginning with the cessation referred to in paragraph (b)” 10: Page 7, line 34, at end insert- “(3A) This subsection applies (subject to subsection (3B)) where- (a) a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years; (b) they ceased to do so before the commencement of this section; and (c) the application is made within the period of five years beginning with the cessation referred to in paragraph (b). (3B) Subsection (3A) does not apply in relation to any land where- (a) planning permission was granted before 23 June 2006 in respect of the land; (b) construction works were commenced before that date in accordance with that planning permission on the land or any other land in respect of which the permission was granted; and (c) the land- (i) has by reason of any works carried out in accordance with that planning permission become permanently unusable by members of the public for the purposes of lawful sports and pastimes; or (ii) will by reason of any works proposed to be carried out in accordance with that planning permission become permanently unusable by members of the public for those purposes.” 11: Page 7, line 35, leave out “and (3)(a)” and insert “, (3)(a) and (3A)(a)” 12: Page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (6) Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 12. Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 to 12 respond to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, at Third Reading that land on which houses had recently been built might nevertheless meet the criteria for registration as a green under Clause 15. The situation might arise if land had already been used by local inhabitants, as of right, for lawful sports and pastimes for at least 20 years but development then took place. We amended the Bill in another place to deal with this point, but colleagues in another place then argued that it was also necessary to rule out registration of land that is still to be developed under a significant building project that has already begun. Again we listened, and although we have not been given any real-life examples these amendments deal with those concerns. If construction works had begun before the date in Amendment No. 10—23 June 2006, when we tabled it—it would not be possible to register any part of the land where works under the same planning permission would in due course make the land unusable for public recreation. We intend “construction works” to mean actual building works, not initial site-preparation works such as perimeter fencing, site clearance or levelling, waste removal or exploratory work. It will be for the authorities and courts to decide, based on the particular circumstances of each case. The amendments are a substantial change from where we started. They are an even bigger departure from the old principles of customary law on which the greens registration law was based. They would more likely have made the development unlawful than protect it, so is a good example of flexibility to change the Bill to address practical difficulties. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 respond to a recent House of Lords judgment on the Trap Grounds case, which considered the effect of the words originally used in the Bill to describe the type of inhabitants whose use of land might warrant its registration as a green. The original words, taken directly from the current definition in the Commons Registration Act 1965, were, “the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, spelt out in Trap Grounds that “within a locality” should be taken, if appropriate, to mean “within a locality or localities”, therefore resolving an earlier concern on this which had led to an amendment in this House to simplify the wording to refer instead just to “local inhabitants”. The doubts are now resolved about original formulation, so we need to revert to it to ensure that the intended meaning is clearly understood. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 12.—(Lord Rooker.) Baroness Byford My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this batch of amendments. Taking them in reverse order, we had a long debate about “rural inhabitants”, which was the crux of the matter at that stage. I am happy to accept the wording before us today, which will include urban inhabitants locally as much as rural inhabitants. I am grateful for that. In another place, my honourable friend Jim Paice raised the issue covered in Amendment No. 10, and the wording we have before us should cover his concerns. It would have been a shame not to have clarified how far a development must have gone to be established as a development. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of these amendments and we are happy to support them. Lord Livsey of Talgarth My Lords, we are also happy with these amendments, particularly those relating to the definition of local inhabitants and inserting, “the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality”. We are satisfied with that wording and thank the Minister for bringing these amendments forward. On Question, Motion agreed to. 15:15:00 13: Clause 16, page 8, line 39, at end insert- “(aa) the replacement land must be land to which this Part applies;” 14: Clause 17, page 10, line 26, leave out “Part 1 of” 15: Clause 19, page 11, line 19, at end insert- “(e) updating any entry in the register relating to land registered as common land or as a town or village green to take account of accretion or diluvion.” 16: Page 11, line 22, at end insert “and it is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether a mistake was made before or after the commencement of this section” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 16. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. 17: Clause 24, page 13, line 29, after “Schedule 1” insert- “(ba) paragraph 1A or 1B of Schedule 2” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 119 to 131. Amendment No. 17 is essentially a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 119, which enables additions to the register of land which Parliament has recognised as common land or town or village greens, but which was not registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965. It responds to amendments tabled in Standing Committee in the other place. It also enables the registration of land which was statutorily allotted as recreation grounds under 19th-century enclosure awards. Amendments Nos. 124 and 128 provide alternative mechanisms to enable the deregistration of buildings and the curtilage of buildings where those buildings were present before the land was registered under the 1965 Act. Amendments Nos. 19, 120 to 123, 125 to 127 and 129 to 131 enable changes to the register under Schedule 2 on initiative of the commons registration authority, rather than in response to an application. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.—(Lord Rooker.) On Question, Motion agreed to. 18: Page 13, line 32, at end insert- “( ) An application made for the purposes of any of- (a) sections 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15, and (b) paragraph 1 or 3 of Schedule 1, shall, subject to any provision made by or under this Part, be granted.” 19: Page 13, line 38, after “section 19” insert “, Schedule 2” 20: Page 14, line 14, leave out “particular” and insert “description of” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 20. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. 21: Clause 26, page 15, line 5, leave out “association” and insert “council” 22: Page 15, line 6, leave out “association” and insert “council” 23: Page 15, line 7, leave out “association” and insert “council” 24: Page 15, line 8, leave out “association” and insert “council” 25: Page 15, line 9, leave out “association” and insert “council” 26: Clause 27, page 15, line 12, leave out “association” and insert “council” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 26. I shall speak to them and to Amendments Nos. 28 to 79, 100 and 101, 106, 108, 110 to 112, 114 and 132. These amendments change the name of commons associations to commons councils. There is widespread support from stakeholders for this change and there were calls for it from all parts of both Houses. There could not be a better reason. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 26.—(Lord Rooker.) Baroness Byford My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for coming back on this matter. We had long discussions on it at earlier stages of the Bill, but it was only at Third Reading that the difficulty of commons associations was raised in full, so I am very pleased to note the redefinition of the commons “association” to “council”. We welcome that change, as will my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who raised the matter again at Third Reading. This issue was originally drawn to our attention by Professor Ian Mercer from the Dartmoor Commoners Council, for which we are grateful. The difficulty was that if the body was an association then members could not be part of it. It is slightly technical and we are very pleased to see the amendment. Lord Livsey of Talgarth We too are very grateful. We brought forward an amendment on Third Reading with this in mind. The matter has been clarified by the description as councils. It is a considerable move forward and a tribute to the ministerial team and its advisers that they have seen the wisdom of such a move. Professor Mercer has had practical experience of this on Dartmoor Common, and its application is obviously very wide indeed. We are only slightly concerned that commons associations in accessing councils are able to exercise the powers to obtain, for example, agri-environment grants and so on, but we believe that these amendments ensure that they can. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. Lord Rooker I can. I can also say that it was the former ministerial team who should be thanked for all this good work. On Question, Motion agreed to. 27: Page 15, line 27, after “common” insert “(and in particular persons exercising rights of common)” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House does agree with the Commons in the said amendment. Amendment No. 27 addresses concerns that less weight might be given to representations from commoners actively exercising their rights where they are fewer than those who are not exercising their rights. That led to concern that opposition from inactive commoners might be enough to prevent a council being established. The views of the people actively exercising rights of common are extremely important as they are able to influence the management of the common, and their livelihoods may be dependent on continued use of the common. The amendment will require the national authority to attach more weight to the views of active commoners when considering representations from those with common rights. It does not alter the requirement for the national authority also to consider representations from landowners and other interests in the common, nor, indeed, the weighting to be attached to their views compared to commoners’ views. The views expressed by inactive commoners will still be considered during the establishment process; they will just be given less weight than active commoners. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.—(Lord Rooker.) Lord Livsey of Talgarth My Lords, some members of the commons associations will be disappointed that this amendment is being rejected as there is cohesion among active commoners on how matters can be considered, especially in establishing new commons councils. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is unable to be here this afternoon, but wishes to point out that the functions of the Welsh Assembly in this are important. I agree with him, particularly as regards the views of active commoners. The Minister has given reasons for the decision. I hope that I have understood it correctly. I am slightly disappointed that the views of active commoners cannot be taken more into account. Baroness Byford My Lords, before I say more, perhaps the Minister could tell us what he said. I thought he said that we were disagreeing, not agreeing with the amendment. Lord Rooker My Lords, on Amendment No. 27, I said, “I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in the said amendment”. Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton My Lords, the Minister said “does agree” but it sounded like “disagree”. Lord Rooker Oh, it is my accent, my Lords. I am sorry. Baroness Byford No, no, my Lords, it is not the Minister’s accent, I just had not quite heard what he said. I think that the noble Lord and I both heard the same and were getting slightly alarmed, because we were going to thank the Government for what they are doing. That puts another emphasis on it. We raised the issue in Committee and we are very pleased that it will make its way on to the statute book thanks to the efforts of Members in this House and another place. As the Minister told us, the amendment gives greater weight to the views of active commoners, while still taking into account those of inactive commoners. Having clarified that, we are very happy to support it. Lord Livsey of Talgarth My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for clarifying the situation. My ear is not quite attuned, but many people from the Midlands come to Wales in August, so by September I might have been able to interpret what he said. We entirely agree that this is an excellent amendment. I think that I have already described why. On Question, Motion agreed to. 28: Clause 28, page 15, line 33, leave out “association” and insert “council” 29: Page 15, line 35, leave out “association” and insert “council” 30: Page 15, line 37, leave out “association” and insert “council” 31: Clause 29, page 16, line 3, leave out “associations” and insert “councils” 32: Page 16, line 5, leave out “association” and insert “council” 33: Page 16, line 8, leave out “association” and insert “council” 34: Page 16, line 13, leave out “association” and insert “council” 35: Clause 30, page 16, line 25, leave out “association” and insert “council” 36: Page 16, line 29, leave out “association” and insert “council” 37: Page 16, line 30, leave out “association” and insert “council” 38: Page 16, line 31, leave out “association” and insert “council” 39: Page 16, line 33, leave out “association” and insert “council” 40: Page 17, line 11, leave out “association” and insert “council” 41: Clause 31, page 17, line 14, leave out “association” and insert “council” 42: Page 17, line 17, leave out “association” and insert “council” 43: Page 17, line 20, leave out “an association” and insert “a commons council” 44: Page 17, line 22, leave out “association” and insert “council” 45: Page 17, line 23, leave out “association” and insert “council” 46: Page 17, line 27, leave out “association” and insert “council” 47: Page 17, line 36, leave out “association” and insert “council” 48: Page 17, line 37, leave out “association” and insert “council” 49: Page 17, line 40, leave out “association” and insert “council” 50: Page 18, line 1, leave out “association” and insert “council” 51: Clause 32, page 18, line 12, leave out “association” and insert “council” 52: Page 18, line 20, leave out “association” and insert “council” 53: Page 18, line 23, leave out “association” and insert “council” 54: Page 18, line 24, leave out “association” and insert “council” 55: Page 18, line 25, leave out “association” and insert “council” 56: Clause 33, page 18, line 28, leave out “association” and insert “council” 57: Page 18, line 31, leave out “association” and insert “council” 58: Page 18, line 34, leave out “association” and insert “council” 59: Page 18, line 38, leave out “association” and insert “council” 60: Page 18, line 39, leave out “association” and insert “council” 61: Page 18, line 42, leave out “association” and insert “council” 62: Page 19, line 7, leave out “association” and insert “council” 63: Page 19, line 10, leave out “association” and insert “council” 64: Clause 34, page 19, line 25, leave out “association” and insert “council” 65: Page 19, line 34, leave out “association” and insert “council” 66: Page 19, line 37, leave out “association” and insert “council” 67: Page 19, line 40, leave out “association” and insert “council” 68: Clause 35, page 20, line 4, leave out “association” and insert “council” 69: Page 20, line 5, leave out “association” and insert “council” 70: Page 20, line 11, leave out “association” and insert “council” 71: Page 20, line 16, leave out “association” and insert “council” 72: Clause 36, page 20, line 22, leave out “association” and insert “council” 73: Clause 37, page 21, line 3, leave out “association” and insert “council” 74: Page 21, line 5, leave out “association” and insert “council” 75: Page 21, line 6, leave out “association” and insert “council” 76: Page 21, line 8, leave out “association” and insert “council” 77: Page 21, line 13, leave out “association” and insert “council” 78: Page 21, line 15, leave out “association” and insert “council” 79: Page 21, line 18, leave out “association” and insert “council” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 to 79. Moved, accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to. 80: Clause 38, page 22, line 7, leave out from “are” to end of line 8 and insert “carried out under a power conferred in relation to that particular land by or under any enactment;” 81: Page 22, line 9, leave out from “where” to end of line 11 and insert “the works are carried out under a power conferred by or under any enactment applying to common land;” 82: Page 22, line 13, leave out “the appropriate national authority” and insert “any person” 83: Page 22, line 17, leave out subsection (7) and insert- “(7) In subsection (6)(a) the reference to an enactment does not include Part 2 of this Act.” 84: Page 22, line 29, leave out from “under” to end of line 31 and insert “subsection (1) of this section constitutes consent for the purposes of that subsection only.” 85: Clause 39, page 23, line 12, leave out “the person to whom the consent is given” and insert “any person carrying out or proposing to carry out works in accordance with the consent” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80 to 85. I shall speak also Amendments Nos. 87 to 89, 95 and 96, 102 and 103. On Amendments Nos. 80 to 84, normally, under Clause 38, proposed works that would impede access to or over common land need the prior consent of the national authority. Such works may for example include fencing, building, surfacing or earthworks. Subsection (6)(a) and (b) automatically exempt a particular type of works from that requirement. Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 emphasise that to be exempt in this way, works must be carried out under a power conferred by or under an enactment—for example, those undertaken by a statutory board of conservators. It was never intended that works achieve such exemption if they are carried out under a landowner’s ordinary powers at common law, just because they happen also to require statutory authority in particular circumstances—such as listed building consent or planning consent. The amendments make that position clear. Amendment No. 83 is consequential. Amendment No. 82 relates to commons management schemes made under the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 or the Commons Act 1899. Those schemes allow conservators or district councils to manage commons for public benefit. The amendment makes clear that works under such schemes are exempt from Part 3 consent only if the scheme does not require anyone’s approval for the works. Amendment No. 84 is a technical amendment. Amendment No. 85 relates to Clause 39(3), which allows the national authority to consent to a works proposal with modifications or conditions. That is an important step forward, because in the past it has sometimes proved necessary for applicants to reapply to get an application into an acceptable form. Where the national authority imposes such modifications or conditions, subsection (5) as drafted would only have let the person to whom the consent is given apply to vary or revoke the modification or condition. Amendment No. 85 is a technical amendment to make sure that whoever is carrying out or proposing to carry out works for which a consent has been given will be eligible to apply in that way, even if they are not the person to whom the consent was given. This might arise, for example, where the land changes hands after consent is applied for, or just after it is given. 15:30:00 Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 deal with the contravention of the controls on works in Clause 38, which opens the way to enforcement action through a county court. Under Clause 41(2), county courts will have the discretion to make an order, which they will exercise, as now, according to how serious the consequences of the contravention may be. The county courts may order the removal of the unlawful works and the restoration of the land to its former condition. Where consent was given but the works did not comply with it, the county courts may order compliance with the terms of the consent. The amendments are technical and ensure that any enforcement order can require action by the most appropriate person. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 reflect similar provisions in Clause 43(5), and enable an order to be made by the national authority exempting certain land from the controls on works in Clause 38. In making the amendments, we have in mind the Warcop military training area in Cumbria. The controls on works there ceased to apply when the rights of common were acquired in 2003 following a public inquiry. I confirm that the Government will consult in due course on how best to maintain the status quo so that there is no interference with the delivery of our armed forces’ training needs. We are not aware of any other site where the circumstances would enable an order to be made using the powers conferred by the amendments. On Amendments Nos. 102 and 133, Section 31 of the Commons Act 1876 requires anyone intending to enclose or approve part of a common to publish that intention in a prescribed way at least three months before so that commoners or others can object. This protection was superseded by Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Any action that would be sufficient to constitute an enclosure or approval would certainly impede the commoners’ access over the land in question, and would therefore require consent from the Secretary of State under Section 194. We know of no case where the action required by Section 31 of the 1876 Act has been taken. Equally, when Part 3 replaces Section 194, it will require consent for works that impede the access of commoners or indeed anyone else over the land. That is why we are repealing these three measures. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80 to 85.—(Lord Rooker.) Baroness Byford My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I shall ask him about one part of it. I still have a concern about Clause 38(1) in that the amendments do not provide for the freedom of a landowner to carry out works on land with rights of common attached without the Secretary of State’s consent—I shall come to the issue of landowners and owners with rights of common in a minute. I fully acknowledge that both types of owner have a separate right of freehold that must be respected. My concern is that where a landowner wants to carry out reparation work on his land—that is, common land—but the rights of the common holders are inactive, he will be as good as prevented from doing that work unless he can get the Secretary of State to take time to assess his case, by which time it may be too late to undertake the remedial work. Can the Minister reassure me that, where this might happen, there is at the very least a quick and effective way of ensuring that landowners are not restricted from carrying out that necessary work where it does not conflict with the exercising of rights of common? Lord Rooker My Lords, I can confirm that. I shall put another couple of paragraphs on the record, which may help the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 81 amends Clause 38(6)(b), which provides that works do not need consent under Clause 38 if the works are carried out under a, “power conferred by or under any enactment applying to common land”. Several criteria need to be met. The works must be carried out under a power. It is not enough that they are merely authorised or approved under an enactment relating to common land, as the present drafting implies. The enactment must empower a person to carry out the works where that person would not otherwise have that power. Section 82 of the Highways Act 1980, for example, enables a highway authority to construct a cattle-grid on common land adjoining the highway, in which case the highway authority does not need consent for the cattle-grid under Clause 38. The power must be confirmed by or under an enactment. The Highways Act example clearly qualifies, but a power under common law would not. The enactment must apply to common land. Again, the power to construct a cattle-grid on common land qualifies. However, by way of a contrary example, the power to widen a highway in Section 71 of the Highways Act, which makes no special mention of common land, could not be exercised over common land without seeking consent to the proposed works under Clause 38, or otherwise by powers of compulsory purchase. This provision is intended to replicate the same exemption currently available under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act. The remedial works do not require consent if they are pure maintenance or do not interfere with access. I hope that that gives greater clarification to the amendments for the noble Baroness. On Question, Motion agreed to. 86: Page 23, line 13, at end insert— “(5A) Regulations may specify a time limit for the making of applications under subsection (5).” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House agrees with the Commons in the said amendment. As already discussed, Clause 39 allows the national authority to grant consent for works on common land, subject to specific modifications or conditions. As amended by Amendment No. 85, the clause allows the person carrying out the works to apply to vary or revoke any such modification or condition. The amendment would enable regulations to set a time limit for making such an application. We do not intend this clause to provide an indefinite opportunity for challenging the national authority’s determination. It is important to achieve clarity as soon as possible about the terms on which a consent is given. We plan to make regulations allowing six weeks for an application to be made, which is in line with statutory precedents in cases of this type. That will bring to an end promptly any uncertainty about the terms of a consent, so it is highly desirable. If the consent holder is unhappy about consent terms, he should challenge at the outset, not later on. If further works were proposed beyond the scope of the existing consent, a fresh application for consent would be needed. I have notes on Amendment No. 86A which of course I will not move or speak to. However, I will have to resist it in due course. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86.—(Lord Rooker.) Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 86, Amendment No. 86A: 86A: Clause 39, line 1, after “limit” insert “and timetable” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that works do not occur at the last minute, although the Minister went some way to ensure that that does not happen. Those of us who have watched works commence, followed by inactivity for great lengths of time, have been extremely frustrated by that. If a timetable had to be submitted when the application for the original consent was made, perhaps that problem could be overcome. This is our only amendment to the entire Bill and it would ensure that the procedure would be a bit more businesslike. I beg to move. Lord Rooker My Lords, the amendment would change the formulation in Amendment No. 86 so that regulations would specify the timetable. We understand the aim of the amendment, which reflects points made by the noble Lord and others in Grand Committee, but I will simply reiterate what was said by my noble friend Lord Bach. Currently, there is no formal timetable for determining applications under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which the new Part 3 consent regime will replace. A key determinant of actual time taken is the time third parties take to respond when we ask for information, such as details missing from the application. It is not simply a matter of how long it takes the national authority’s part of the process to be completed. Equally, an important part of each application is consultation with other parties, which does take time. We need to allow a reasonable period for comment. People with a potential interest may be busy—they could be commoners lambing or local residents busy at work, as well as other reasons. However, we accept that at times the process can become unduly protracted. We will streamline it and ensure that it is proportionate to the potential impact of the proposed works to drive down the length of time it typically takes to secure consent. We will consult in detail about how best to achieve this. We are cautious about adopting fixed timetables, but if we decide that it is appropriate for regulations to use this approach, that is already possible under the provisions of Clause 40(2). This response is meant to be reassuring to the noble Lord, while at the same time not being overly prescriptive. Lord Livsey of Talgarth My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, although I anticipated that he would say that this can be sorted out in regulations. It is desirable that the process should be at least a degree more finite than it has been in the past. I think the Minister quoted an Act from 1922 or 1925. That is quite some time ago and the world has moved on. Perhaps he will take account of what I said in ensuring that this is taken care of in regulations. I therefore wish to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. On Question, Motion agreed to. 87: Clause 41, page 23, line 41, leave out from “order” to end of line 42 88: Page 23, line 43, leave out “to remove the works and restore” and insert “for removal of the works and restoration of” 89: Page 24, line 3, leave out “to carry out the works” and insert “for the works to be carried out” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 to 89. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. 90: Clause 42, page 24, line 9, leave out “at the commencement of this section” 91: Page 24, line 11, after “Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 (c. 122)” insert “which is in force at the commencement of this section” 92: Page 24, line 12, at end insert “which is in force at the commencement of this section” 93: Page 24, line 20, at end insert “and of any owner of the land (if not the person carrying out the works)” 94: Page 24, line 20, at end insert - “( ) Regulations may make provision as to the procedure to be followed in obtaining the consent of an owner under subsection (3) (and may include provision for the consent of an owner to be regarded as having been given where he has not objected within a period of time specified in the regulations).” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 90 to 94. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 and 134 to 135. Amendments Nos. 90 to 94 relate to Clause 42, which tackles the difficulty that some statutory management schemes on commons effectively prohibit certain works even if they are of a type that the national authority might otherwise consider authorising. Clause 42(3) removes such a prohibition if the national authority gives its consent to the works. On reflection, we concluded that this change potentially disadvantages the landowner because such works, in theory at least, could still go ahead even if the owner is opposed to them. We think it only fair that the owner should have a right of veto on new works that are currently prohibited under a scheme. Government Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 give effect to this principle while allowing regulations to prescribe the deemed consent procedure. It is also worth saying that if the owner cannot be traced or raises no objections within the prescribed period, the council will be able to proceed on the basis of national authority consent for the works. Government Amendments Nos. 90 to 92 also make it clear that Clause 42 has effect only where schemes were in force on the date of its commencement. Our intention is that any new schemes made after the clause comes into force should be freestanding and have effect according to their own terms. Government Amendment No. 103 is a new clause amending the Commons Act 1899. That Act gives local authorities power to make schemes of management over particular commons. These amendments update this power, making it fit for purpose in the 21st century. The power of veto for the owner of the common and for persons representing at least one-third of the value of interests such as common rights remains in place. If one or both do not want a new scheme to go ahead, it cannot. I can go into more detail if required. Amendment No. 104 repeals Section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act in line with the debate in the other place. Section 68 was enacted to deal with a problem that had arisen through case law for householders who access their homes by vehicles over areas such as commons or greens. Section 68 has now become redundant and repealing it will avoid any mistaken impression that the section has a residual role. We consulted publicly about this and we will publish a report in due course on our website about the findings of that consultation. Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are consequential on Amendments Nos. 103 and 104. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 90 to 94.—(Lord Rooker.) 15:45:00 Baroness Byford My Lords, perhaps I may take a little time to question the Minister further on Amendment No. 104, which deals with the repeal of Section 68. I have been contacted about this over the weekend and I shall try to explain in simple language—it is a very complex matter—where I think we stand. I am sure that noble Lords will be aware that we spent a great deal of time debating Section 68 of CROW in 2000, when the issue was brought up late in the proceedings in your Lordships’ House and was included in the Bill. Section 68 provided for regulations to be passed to deal with the practical problems created by the judgment in the Hanning case. In effect, Section 68 gave householders the option to pay a fee for a statutory easement to the owner of the common land so that they would be legally entitled to a right of way to their home. If they did not pay the fee, they would not be granted the easement. This position was consistently government policy between at least 2000 and 2002. On 11 October 2000, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, stated that the Government had, “been at pains to point out that it would not be right for the property owner to pay nothing to secure an undoubtedly valuable right”.—[Official Report, 11/10/00; col. 432.] On 1 July 2002, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated: “It has therefore always been our intention that landowners should receive some compensation in return for rights coming into existence by statute over their land”.—[Official Report, 1/7/02; col. 75.] However, since the enactment of CROW, the judgment of Bakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others has driven a coach and horses through the policy expressed in Section 68. It has been brought to my attention that in the Bakewell case a judicial committee of the House of Lords may have approached the issue without due regard to the policy expressed in Section 68. The policy expressed in CROW clearly stated, as I have just quoted, that a criminal driving over a common was never to be rewarded by free easement. Therefore, as I understand it, our problem is rather one of the cart going before the horse. So rather than setting itself the task of judgment based on government policy, the committee in Bakewell asked itself whether 20 years’ criminal driving should be rewarded by nothing at all, as in Hanning, or be a free easement. It has been suggested to me that it should have asked itself, given the Government’s policy, as agreed in Parliament, that 20 years’ criminal driving over a common is never to be rewarded by a free easement, whether it is open to the courts to effect a judicial repeal of that and hold that it is always to be rewarded by free easement. I accept that this is a very complex issue. I have struggled with it over the weekend and should like to go a little further. I understand that the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House has held that landowners who have driven criminally over the common for at least 20 years are entitled to a free easement in common law. Are those who have paid for the easements under the statutory provision in Section 68 and the 2002 regulations now entitled to a refund from the owner of that common? That could be a private individual or a charity. Where does that leave them? If Section 68 is repealed, as we are suggesting, will those who have paid for an easement be entitled to a refund? What effect will that have on those who received payment and spent some or all of it in good faith? This stands to affect commons across the country, notably the Horsell common near Woking, which is vested in charity trustees. Finally, it has come to my attention that the respondents to the consultation document to which the Minister referred had been given an assurance that his representations regarding these issues within Section 68 would be considered by parliamentary counsel. Yet in subsequent responses from Defra, there has been no confirmation that these representations were passed on to parliamentary counsel. That could have saved noble Lords much time this afternoon. I am looking to the Minister for clarification. If he is not able to provide it, because we are at the end of the Bill, perhaps he could write to me. Lord Rooker My Lords, not only are we at the end of the Bill, but I do not think I am in a position to query the judgment of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House and neither is any other court, as far as I am aware. However, I have some further comments that I hope will clarify the situation. Until 1993, the legal assumption was that where people had driven to their homes over such areas as commons or greens for at least 20 years as of right, they had established by prescription a legal right to continue doing so. In 1993 the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Hanning v Top Deck Travel held that this was not so. It ruled that national statutory bans on driving across such areas without lawful authority, which were introduced in 1925 and 1930, meant that thereafter no such rights could be acquired by prescription. Suddenly, therefore, householders around the country were asked to pay large sums to continue to drive to their own property, as they had always done. Faced with this completely unacceptable situation, Parliament enacted Section 68 very late in the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, as it was then, to allow regulations to cap the payments that had to be made in this situation. However, what the courts can take away they can sometimes give back. As the noble Baroness said, the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House came to the rescue of homeowners in 2004, when it overruled the Hanning judgment in the Bakewell Management case. This confirmed that in circumstances where it would have been lawful for the owner of land to grant permission for the vehicle access, there is no bar on householders relying on their actual use without such permission to show that a prescriptive right of access has been earned. That has removed the need for Section 68, which we would never have enacted in the first place but for the decision in Hanning. The noble Baroness spoke about people who have paid fees to get access to their home. It is unfortunate that the error in case law has caused this to happen. The biggest losers were those who paid out before Section 68 imposed the ceiling on the payment that could be sought in return for the right. Those who paid out under Section 68 would have had to pay very much more to secure the same easement by non-statutory means. There is no proposal for a refund in this legislation. The noble Baroness referred to my noble friend Lord McIntosh. What he said was based on the presumption, correct at that time, that no right to drive over a common could be acquired in common law. In the light of the Bakewell Management judgment, that presumption was mistaken and the noble Lord’s statement was therefore inoperative. Baroness Byford My Lords, I am not sure whether I am allowed simply to thank the Minister for explaining that. We were merely seeking clarification. On Question, Motion agreed to. 95: Clause 43, page 25, line 4, at end insert- “(4A) Where- (a) any land was at any time before the commencement of this section land to which section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20) applied, but (b) at any such time that section ceased to apply to the land by virtue of subsection (3)(a) of that section, the appropriate national authority may by order provide that section 38 is not to apply to the carrying out of works, or works of a description specified in the order, on that land.” 96: Page 25, line 10, leave out “subsection (1) or (5)” and insert “this section” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 95 and 96. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. 97: Clause 44, page 25, line 17, leave out subsection (2) and insert- “(2) A national authority may for any purpose specified in subsection (2A) by order amend- (a) any local or personal Act passed before this Act which contains provision for that authority to consent to works on land which is common land; and (b) any Act made under the Commons Act 1876 (c. 56) confirming a provisional order of the Inclosure Commissioners which contains provision for that authority to consent to works on land to which the Act applies. (2A) The purposes referred to in subsection (2) are- (a) that of securing that sections 39 and 40 apply to an application for the consent referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) as they apply to an application for consent under section 38(1); (b) that of securing that section 41 applies in relation to the carrying out of works in contravention of the provision referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) as it applies to works carried out in contravention of section 38(1).” 98: Page 25, line 20, after “subsection (2)” insert- ““national authority” means- (a) the Secretary of State; and (b) the National Assembly for Wales;” 99: Page 25, line 25, leave out subsections (4) and (5) Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 97 to 99. Noble Lords will recall from earlier debates that the National Trust had some concerns about the impact of the Bill on its interests. We gave various assurances in both Houses, and directly to the trust, that substantially resolved its initial concerns. However, one particular issue was still troubling the National Trust while the Bill was in the other place, and Amendments Nos. 97 to 99 responded to that. The trust argued that the power we were taking in Clause 44 to amend works provisions in local Acts was simply too broad, and could allow us to interfere unduly in the powers available to an organisation such as itself that had promoted its own legislation. On reflection, we agreed with this point and amended the Bill to limit the scope of the power. The amendments make it clear that apart from giving effect to Schedule 4, the sole purpose of Clause 44 is to enable any existing consent criteria or procedures for works done under local or personal legislation, or under provisional order confirmation Acts, to be made consistent with the criteria and procedures set out in Part 3. I understand that as a result of these amendments, the trust is content that its interests will not be prejudiced. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 97 to 99.—(Lord Rooker.) Baroness Byford My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the amendments. I am glad to have them in the Bill, as I raised this matter on the second day in Committee. The National Trust had stated the real importance of ensuring that the powers under Clause 16 to alter local legislation did not affect the special National Trust Acts as they stood. I understand that the trust is assured that they will not. I am pleased that after the efforts on these Benches and in another place the Government have accepted the points that we were trying to raise. I understand that the National Trust is content with the reassurances given by the Government on the provisions and is pleased to note the inclusion of Amendment No. 97, which will ensure that Clause 44 cannot be used as a tool to amend the National Trust Acts to limit the powers to undertake works under their provisions. Lord Livsey of Talgarth My Lords, a number of points were made from these Benches on this matter, too. We welcome the explanation that the Minister has given and are well satisfied by it. On Question, Motion agreed to. 100: Clause 46, page 26, line 40, leave out “association” and insert “council” 101: Page 27, line 5, leave out “association” and insert “council” 102: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause— “Notice of inclosure (1) Section 31 of the Commons Act 1876 (c. 56) (three months’ notice of claim to inclose to be given in local papers) shall cease to have effect. (2) In section 3 of the Metropolitan Commons Act 1878 (c. 71), for “Sections thirty and thirty-one” substitute “Section 30”.” 103: Before Clause 49, insert the following new Clause- “Schemes under the Commons Act 1899 (1) The Commons Act 1899 (c. 30) is amended as follows. (2) In section 1 (power of councils to make schemes for the regulation of commons)- (a) in subsection (1), for the words from “their district” to the end substitute “in the public interest”; (b) after that subsection insert- “(1A) In subsection (1), the reference to the public interest includes the public interest in- (a) nature conservation; (b) the conservation of the landscape; (c) the protection of public rights of access to any area of land; and (d) the protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interest.” (3) In that section, in subsection (3), omit the words from “, and for” to the end. (4) In that section, after subsection (3) insert- “(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may- (a) prescribe alternative forms; (b) permit exceptions or modifications to be made to any prescribed form.” (5) In section 2 (procedure for making scheme)- (a) for subsections (1) to (3) and the first paragraph of subsection (4) substitute- “(1) A council is to make and approve a scheme under this Part of this Act in the prescribed manner.”; (b) renumber the second paragraph of subsection (4) as subsection (2). (6) For section 9 (power to amend scheme) substitute- “9 Power to amend or revoke scheme (1) A scheme under this Part of this Act for any common may, in prescribed circumstances, be amended in the prescribed manner. (2) A scheme under this Part of this Act for any common may, where a new scheme is made under this Part of this Act for the whole of that common, be revoked in the prescribed manner.” (7) For section 10 (byelaws) substitute- “10 Byelaws (1) A council which has made a scheme under this Part of this Act in relation to any common may make byelaws for the prevention of nuisances and the preservation of order on the common. (2) Sections 236 to 238 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which relate to the procedure for making byelaws, authorise byelaws to impose fines not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale, and provide for the proof of byelaws in legal proceedings) apply to all byelaws under this section.”” 104: Insert the following new Clause- “Vehicular access Section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37) shall cease to have effect.” 105: Clause 55, page 30, line 15, leave out “1” and insert “1(4)” 106: Clause 58, page 31, line 6, leave out “association” in both places it occurs and insert “council” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 100 to 106. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. 107: Clause 60, page 31, line 35, leave out subsection (2) Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107. This is the standard privilege amendment that was inserted in the Bill when it went to the other place. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107.—(Lord Rooker.) On Question, Motion agreed to. 16:00:00 108: Schedule 1, page 32, line 8, leave out “association” and insert “council” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. 109: Page 32, line 8, at end insert “over which the right is exercisable” Lord Rooker 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.) Lord Inglewood My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed a few moments just to say a big thank you to the Minister, his predecessors and not least his officials, and to convey to them the appreciation of the Federation of Cumbria Commoners for having introduced in the other place a provision that permits but does not mandate transfer that I describe as “within the parish”. Across England, the law of common land and the common law in its manorial aspect developed differently from place to place. In Cumbria the smaller owner-occupier farmer—known as a “statesman”—was well known for his independence and indeed his stubbornness, as some of those who may have been involved in this debate will appreciate. They separated their rights emphatically from those of the owner of the soil very early on. There are well documented 17th century examples of manorial courts fining the manorial lord. After all, it may have been the lord of the manor’s court, but the law that was being applied in it was the common law of England in its manorial manifestation. Equally, very early on, rights were quantified and became severable by agreement. In the 19th century, statutory provisions were introduced from time to time making this possible. Therefore, I believe that the Government were absolutely right not to introduce with this legislation a move back towards feudalism in the fells. This provision runs with the grain of localism and subsidiarity. As the Minister has explained, while it is not currently the Government’s intention to utilise it, I predict that if the next Commons Bill is as long coming as this one is after its predecessor, it will be used quite a bit, but I do not suppose that any of us will be here to comment on it. Lord Livsey of Talgarth My Lords, I am sure that I speak for my noble friend Lord Tyler, who will be very pleased with Amendment No. 113, particularly as it relates to the situation on Dartmoor, about which he has made a number of telling points. We are very pleased that the Government have agreed with the gist of his argument. We were concerned that the situation in Cumbria is very different from that in other parts of the United Kingdom. We were concerned that accepting what happens in Cumbria with regard to severance as a generality vis-à-vis other parts of the United Kingdom would cause considerable problems with severance. Now that subsidiarity is very much to the fore, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said, it is clear that the situation in Cumbria can be accepted as a matter for Cumbria, and the situation in the rest of England and Wales can be treated slightly differently. We are very pleased that a clear statement was made at the beginning of the Bill that severance would be barred. We do not see that the exceptions made in these amendments will substantially alter the principles in the Bill. Therefore, we accept what is proposed. Baroness Byford My Lords, I will not repeat what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said. I am grateful to the Minister and his team for responding to the concerns expressed by David Maclean, Jim Paice and others in another place. As noble Lords will realise, including “may” rather than “must” has overcome the problems, for which we are grateful. Lord Rooker My Lords, I am most grateful for noble Lords’ responses to the amendments. However, I know nothing whatever about the Bill, having come late to Defra and the Bill. The process seems very satisfactory in that we have a solution to the problems. This area of legislation has a language of its own. I will make sure that noble Lords’ thanks are passed on to my ministerial colleagues who dealt with the Bill in considerable detail before the reshuffle, and, needless to say, to officials, to whom I am most grateful for the help I have received this afternoon. On Question, Motion agreed to. 110: Page 32, line 18, leave out “association” and insert “council” 111: Page 32, line 31, leave out “association” and insert “council” 112: Page 32, line 32, leave out “association” and insert “council” 113: Page 32, line 33, at end insert- “(4A) In a case where there is no commons council established for the land over which a right of common to which section 9 applies is exercisable, the appropriate national authority may by order provide that a person with functions of management conferred by any enactment in relation to that land is to be regarded, for any or all purposes of this paragraph, as a commons council established for the land.” 114: Page 33, line 9, leave out “association” and insert “council” 115: Page 33, line 43, leave out “must” and insert “may” 116: Page 34, line 1, after “include” insert “(a)” 117: Page 34, line 3, leave out “consent obtained” and insert- “(b) provision as to the circumstances in which consent may be regarded as having been obtained” 118: Page 34, line 3, at end insert- “( ) Provision referred to in sub-paragraph (5)(b) may include- (a) provision for consent to be regarded as having been obtained if it is withheld unreasonably; (b) provision for the circumstances in which consent is to be regarded as withheld unreasonably; (c) provision for the resolution of disputes.” 119: Schedule 2, page 34, line 25, at end insert- “Non-registration of common land 1A (1) If a commons registration authority is satisfied that any land not registered as common land or as a town or village green is land to which this paragraph applies, the authority shall, subject to this paragraph, register the land as common land in its register of common land. (2) This paragraph applies to any land which- (a) was not at any time finally registered as common land or as a town or village green under the 1965 Act; (b) is land which is- (i) regulated by an Act made under the Commons Act 1876 (c. 56) confirming a provisional order of the Inclosure Commissioners; (ii) subject to a scheme under the Metropolitan Commons Act 1866 (c. 122) or the Commons Act 1899 (c. 30); (iii) regulated as common land under a local or personal Act; or (iv) otherwise recognised or designated as common land by or under an enactment; (c) is land to which this Part applies; and (d) satisfies such other conditions as regulations may specify. (3) A commons registration authority may only register land under sub-paragraph (1) acting on- (a) the application of any person made before such date as regulations may specify; or (b) a proposal made and published by the authority before such date as regulations may specify.’ Non-registration of town or village green 1B (1) If a commons registration authority is satisfied that any land not registered as a town or village green or as common land is land to which this paragraph applies, the authority shall, subject to this paragraph, register the land as a town or village green in its register of town or village greens. (2) This paragraph applies to any land which- (a) on 31 July 1970 was land allotted by or under any Act for the exercise or recreation of the inhabitants of any locality; (b) was not at any time finally registered as a town or village green or as common land under the 1965 Act; (c) continues to be land allotted as specified in sub-paragraph (a); (d) is land to which this Part applies; and (e) satisfies such other conditions as regulations may specify. (3) A commons registration authority may only register land under sub-paragraph (1) acting on- (a) the application of any person made before such date as regulations may specify; or (b) a proposal made and published by the authority before such date as regulations may specify.” 120: Page 34, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert- “(1) If a commons registration authority is satisfied that any land not registered as common land or as a town or village green is land to which this paragraph applies, the authority shall, subject to this paragraph, register the land as common land in its register of common land.” 121: Page 35, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert- “(6) A commons registration authority may only register land under sub-paragraph (1) acting on- (a) the application of any person made before such date as regulations may specify; or (b) a proposal made and published by the authority before such date as regulations may specify.” 122: Page 35, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert- “(1) If a commons registration authority is satisfied that any land registered as common land is land to which this paragraph applies, the authority shall, subject to this paragraph, remove the land from its register of common land and register it in its register of town or village greens.” 123: Page 35, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert- “(3) A commons registration authority may only remove and register land under sub-paragraph (1) acting on- (a) the application of any person made before such date as regulations may specify; or (b) a proposal made and published by the authority before such date as regulations may specify.” 124: Page 35, line 42, at end insert- “Buildings registered as common land 3A (1) If a commons registration authority is satisfied that any land registered as common land is land to which this paragraph applies, the authority shall, subject to this paragraph, remove that land from its register of common land. (2) This paragraph applies to land where- (a) the land was provisionally registered as common land under section 4 of the 1965 Act; (b) on the date of the provisional registration the land was covered by a building or was within the curtilage of a building; (c) the provisional registration became final; and (d) since the date of the provisional registration the land has at all times been, and still is, covered by a building or within the curtilage of a building. (3) A commons registration authority may only remove land under sub-paragraph (1) acting on- (a) the application of any person made before such date as regulations may specify; or (b) a proposal made and published by the authority before such date as regulations may specify.” 125: Page 35, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert- “(1) If a commons registration authority is satisfied that any land registered as common land is land to which this paragraph applies, the authority shall, subject to this paragraph, remove the land from its register of common land. 126: Page 36, line 5, leave out from “was” to end of line 7 and insert “provisionally registered as common land under section 4 of the 1965 Act” 127: Page 36, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert- “(3) A commons registration authority may only remove land under sub-paragraph (1) acting on- (a) the application of any person made before such date as regulations may specify; or (b) a proposal made and published by the authority before such date as regulations may specify.” 128: Page 36, line 23, at end insert- “Buildings registered as town or village green 4A (1) If a commons registration authority is satisfied that any land registered as a town or village green is land to which this paragraph applies, the authority shall, subject to this paragraph, remove that land from its register of town or village greens. (2) This paragraph applies to land where- (a) the land was provisionally registered as a town or village green under section 4 of the 1965 Act; (b) on the date of the provisional registration the land was covered by a building or was within the curtilage of a building; (c) the provisional registration became final; and (d) since the date of the provisional registration the land has at all times been, and still is, covered by a building or within the curtilage of a building. (3) A commons registration authority may only remove land under sub-paragraph (1) acting on- (a) the application of any person made before such date as regulations may specify; or (b) a proposal made and published by the authority before such date as regulations may specify.” 129: Page 36, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert- “(1) If a commons registration authority is satisfied that any land registered as a town or village green is land to which this paragraph applies, the authority shall, subject to this paragraph, remove the land from its register of town or village greens.” 130: Page 36, line 32, leave out from “was” to end of line 34 and insert “provisionally registered as a town or village green under section 4 of the 1965 Act” 131: Page 37, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert- “(4) A commons registration authority may only remove land under sub-paragraph (1) acting on- (a) the application of any person made before such date as regulations may specify; or (b) a proposal made and published by the authority before such date as regulations may specify.” 132: Schedule 5, page 42, line 35, leave out “association” and insert “council” 133: Schedule 6, page 46, line 4, at end insert- ---------------------------------------- |“Commons Act 1876 (c. 56)|Section 31.”| ---------------------------------------- 134: Page 46, line 16, at end insert- “PART 4 REPEAL RELATING TO SCHEMES UNDER THE COMMONS ACT 1899 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Short title and chapter |Extent of repeal | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Commons Act 1899 (c. 30)|In section 1(3), the words from “, and for” to the end.| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART 5 REPEAL RELATING TO VEHICULAR ACCESS ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Short title and chapter |Extent of repeal| ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37)|Section 68.” | ----------------------------------------------------------------- 135: In the Title, line 1, at end insert “; and for connected purposes” Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 110 to 135. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.