Common Land Forum Report (Hansard, 7 June 1990)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)
My Lords, it remains the Government's intention to introduce comprehensive legislation, based broadly on the Common Land Forum's recommendations, at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that rather disappointing reply. Does he recall that it is now two-and-a-half years since the Government promised early legislation? In their manifesto of 1987 they said that legislation on the Common Land Forum Report would be forthcoming. A Green Paper was published in May of that year. Is the Minister aware that during the long interval of time that has elapsed many hundreds of commons have been lost through deregistration? Now that the court case concerning Hazely Heath in Hampshire has been settled by a ruling of your Lordships' Judicial Committee, and notwithstanding some reservations on the part of the Moorlands Association, does the Minister not agree that it is high time that we had a Bill? Further, can we hope that repeated ministerial statements that the forthcoming legislation will appear soon really mean soon?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, it is my understanding that there has been little loss of registered common land in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made reference to the recent decision of your Lordships' House. I understand that the loophole that was considered a risk has been greatly reduced. It is important to remember that in order to achieve a satisfactory result in this matter consensus is all-important. That is why my right honourable friend Che Secretary of State is listening to all the recommendations and appeals that have been made to him.

§ Baroness White
My Lords, is the Minister not aware that it was precisely because there was a remarkable consensus following very long discussions between the various organisations concerned that we hoped that the Government would at last take some action?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, alluded earlier to the Moorlands Association which has an important interest in this matter. The noble Baroness will be aware that the association was not a party to the discussions as it did not exist at the time of the Common Land Forum. I remind your Lordships that the Farmers' Union of Wales also did not concur with the Common Land Forum at that time.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, does the Minister recall that in December 1989 the Countryside Commission said in its pamphlet Common Knowledge that doing nothing was no longer an option? Can he say whether the Government concur with that view? If they do, can he say how far his department has gone with drafting a Bill concerning the rest of the proposals leaving, if necessary, the problems of the Moorlands Association out of it? Can the Minister say whether any progress has been made at all in drafting legislation to meet any of the proposals from the forum?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness of my earlier Answer. It is the Government's intention to produce such a Bill and, responsibly, we believe that that depends on consensus. What matters is preservation in the longer term which would be impossible to achieve by following the example given and producing the wrong legislation.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, there is a great deal of the Common Land Forum Report which is outside the present dispute with the Moorlands Association. I am asking whether any progress has been made on drafting legislation for that.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I am sure that a great deal of work has been done by the Civil Service over a considerable period of time. I remind your Lordships' House that the Royal Commission originally discussed this matter in 1953.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, as regards access, is my noble friend aware that in the recent North Yorkshire Moors' plan it was discovered that no less than 85 per cent, of walkers actually wish to walk on footpaths only? In view of the fact that every sport has to limit its activities and not interfere with other people's interests, does my noble friend not agree that it is selfish of many of the walking interests to insist on 100 per cent, access regardless of the detrimental effect on flora, fauna and other people's interests?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, my noble friend correctly points out that the successful achievement of legislation in this matter will depend on goodwill, balance and common sense.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, will the Minister—perhaps in collaboration with the Leader of the House—confirm that if such legislation were brought forward it would be within the scope of the Salisbury rules? Therefore, we would not seek to overturn it at Second Reading. Will the Minister 1507 think again about the second part of his supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt? It really is not good enough for the Government to go on saying that this matter needs to be part of comprehensive legislation. Further, does the Minister not agree that this issue could be the subject of discreet legislation which could go through on its own? On that basis, does he agree that it should have a higher place in the Government's legislative programme?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, from all that I have seen of the prospective legislation, if one can describe it as such, there are a large number of technicalities which will involve not so much a discreet and small Bill but quite a lengthy one.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, why does the noble Lord insist on goodwill, balance and common sense as prerequisites for this Bill when the Government have not taken those factors into account concerning any other single Bill they have introduced?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, because the birds do not have votes.