Commons Bill [HL]

Perhaps I may say a few words on my noble friend Lord Inglewood’s amendment, which was moved by my noble friend Lady Byford. The question of the severance of registered common rights from in-bye land—or the dominant tenement as it is known legally—is difficult. I appreciate that the Government have given it a great deal of thought. There are arguments on both sides. In my view, the Government are absolutely right to have taken the position that they have. Over the years, my experience has told me that the practice of selling common rights to what I might loosely describe as outsiders has been in many cases very counterproductive and has led to the introduction of rights being exercised by some who, quite frankly, do not have the best interests of the common in mind. While on that subject, I am bound to say that ““flying flocks”” is becoming a real concern, particularly now with the escalation of tick and Louping ill virus attached to those flocks. Anything that can keep the common managed in the way that it has been traditionally must be welcome. The grazing practices on most commons have evolved over a very long period and usually involve what are called ““hefts””, which are areas on the hill where certain flocks have become established. I have great sympathy for the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. I acknowledge that in some cases, hefts are small in number and are therefore not viable. The opportunity to enlarge such hefts into more viable units is tempting. The difficulty is that such a process often results in a disruption of the existing arrangements, which can cause inconvenience to the other graziers and can lead to over-grazing. I have seen many examples of that. We must not forget that a heft is only a gentleman’s agreement. It has no legal standing in law. So those people who have hefts on commons, who have those hefts disrupted by the introduction of additional sheep in the wrong place, can create difficulties and they have no recourse to law in which to try to solve the problem. That is particularly prevalent in winter when the flocks are fed supplementary feed and the sheep concentrate in areas where they are given hay. A further point is that if you suddenly find additional sheep rights being attached to a dominant tenement, the relationship between the grazing and what that particular farm is able to support in the way of sheep through grazing and the production of hay goes out of sync. That in itself will lead to additional supplementary feeding and further over-grazing. Having given the matter considerable thought, I think that the Government are right. The problem can best be solved through the creation of commoners associations and the ability of the commoners association to buy the rights and to distribute them in a way across the common that would not disrupt the system of management that has been in place for some time. In addition, there is nothing to stop the owner of the common from buying the rights, which, of course, would no longer cease to be rights because they would be part of the surplus and there would be nothing to prevent him from letting those rights if he so wished. If the Government accept my noble friend’s amendment, it would severely compromise the whole basis of the non-severance of rights from the in-bye land, which is such an integral part. I apologise for not being here at Second Reading, but if I had been, I would have said that, by and large, I very much welcome the Bill.