Commons Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for speaking to his various amendments, and am particularly grateful that the Government have recognised that commons associations should be included. That is right. When one is putting amendments together, particularly when one does so before government amendments appear, the difficulty is always that the Government are likely to have had negotiations. We feel that that is worth doing if it nudges the system a little longer along the line. I am happy to accept their words—they are shorter than mine—so I obviously shall not press Amendment No. 32. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, apologises for not being able to be in Committee—he has already spoken to the Minister about it—and I have two of his amendments to speak to. They are to Clause 9, which is on severance. The proposed complete prohibition on severance and the non-pro rata apportionment is an overreaction to Bettison v Langton, which will potentially have devastating implications for the management of commons. The noble Lord believes strongly that the local link between the rights and the enclosed land must be retained. His first amendment will allow common rights to be bought by those who already own common rights on the same common. Then they will be re-attached to the purchaser’s dominant tenement. In effect, it allows a local transfer of rights. I hope that that is clear to the Minister. Farmers will not be able to deliver the biodiversity benefits we seek as exercising common rights becomes unprofitable. That will occur as the rights are divided into smaller and smaller parcels when holdings are sold in lots. Those small parcels of rights will not support a viable fell flock. The Government’s proposals will sterilise some of those rights, hence the amendment. The other amendment is about one farmer buying up all the rights. Instead of the sheep being hefted across the common, local over-grazing can occur. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has been advised by the Federation of Cumbria Commoners that there will not be a problem as sheep naturally spread themselves out across the common; that view is not necessarily shared by other commons associations, as the Minister is aware. Sheep abhor a vacuum so, if one farmer ends up with all the rights, he would have a shepherd on the fell all day to prevent the sheep making best use of all the grazing. Localised over-grazing is usually a result of unsuitable supplementary feeding. Enforcement of cross-compliance and agri-environment schemes are better tools to prevent that. The noble Lord has given much more detail but, as he has already spoken to the Minister, I hope that the Minister will accept that I am making no further observation and am waiting to hear what he has to say. I turn to Amendments Nos. 29 and 30. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, will not be surprised that I still have a problem with his use of ““agricultural sustainability””. I mark that up before I sit down. I have sympathy with his Amendment No. 30 and I look forward to what the Minister says.