Commons Bill [HL]

I shall comment on the government amendments and on the amendment just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and at the same time speak to my amendment in this group. In putting forward his Amendment No. 11, the Minister made good sense, and I am grateful that he has listened to stakeholders’ concerns about the Bill and has addressed them in his amendment. Does the Minister think that the test that the land must be able,"““to sustain the exercise of . . . that right””," is a better approach than the test that a variation must not,"““increase the burden on the land””" as set out in Clause 7, on variation? That could rule out the exercise of more rights on the common even where they are needed because of under-grazing, which the Minister touched on earlier. Will the Minister enlarge and tell us what sort of advice will be given in considering this amendment? Who will the advice come from? It would need to be good, professional advice. I do not know whether the Government have yet addressed that or whether it is still in the melting pot. Does he see a role for Natural England once it is set up? Who will give advice on that? I do not have a particular comment to make on Amendment No. 12, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. It seems to make fairly straightforward, common sense, unless there are reasons why it cannot be done. Amendment No. 15 was put down before the Government’s amendment was tabled. It was intended to query the meaning of subsection (2) but the Minister has answered our queries, so I am not particularly bothered now about that amendment. I shall address the whole question of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, particularly when we come back to the question of ““agricultural sustainability””. At Second Reading, quite a few of us expressed our concerns about that, and yet here we are re-introducing it. I am not sure what is meant by ““agricultural sustainability””, because I have not found a definition, but maybe the noble Lord intends to define it later on. Who decides what it is? Is it someone such as Natural England in its new role once it has been established? If I am being blunt, to a certain extent ““agricultural sustainability”” should have in it profitability, without which nothing would be sustainable in the long term. If ““agricultural sustainability”” is to be included in the Bill, it needs to be defined. It also ought to recognise short-term competence but long-term sustainability. Sometimes the two are not the same. I speak as a farmer who has no commons interest at all. They will take a short-term look at things being fairly difficult, but if the long term looks completely unsustainable and unprofitable, there is no long-term sustainability. There is a whole argument around that, and I suspect that other colleagues may want to contribute to that debate. I have slight concerns and reservations, not with the thrust behind the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, but with the language that he has used. Those are just a few comments on the group. Our Amendment No. 15 has been overtaken by the amendment proposed by the Minister, so when it comes to my turn I will probably not move it.