Commons Bill [HL]

Amendment No. 20 in this group stands in my name. I apologise to the Minister that I had to, as we used to say at school, ““leave the room”” for a couple of minutes while he was speaking and did not hear everything he said. So he may have covered something I am about to say. I shall not say very much. My amendment, like that of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has been overtaken by the Minister’s Amendment No. 13. The message clearly coming through from the Committee is that the days when the main problems in these areas were those of over-grazing may be coming to an end. The situation is now much more complex. Surely, we are talking about the proper management of the common as part of the proper management of the—often in my part of the world—upland area, of which it forms a part. That may involve in some future cases increasing grazing; it certainly may involve a change in the mix of grazing—for example, introducing cattle where they have not been seen for a long time—to provide a better balance in the vegetation on the common. So, it seems to me that the Minister’s amendment refers to whether the land can sustain the exercise of the rights. Having a balance should really concern whether the commoners can maintain an adequate use and management of the common, rather than whether the land can sustain the use that they want to put it to. It is a two-way thing and perhaps the Minister might consider some additional wording to reflect that matter better. We shall discuss this in more detail when we reach Part 2 of the Bill and the activities of commons associations. However, at this stage, the Minister might consider whether he has the wording right in the light of what I think is the very clear message coming from the Committee.