Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 142:"Page 16, line 11, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—" ““(1)   An order under section 25 is to confer on a commons association functions relating to any one or more of the following— (a)   the management of agricultural activities on the land for which the association is established; (b)   the management of vegetation on the land; (c)   the management of rights of common on the land. (2)   The functions conferred on an association under subsection (1) must be those the appropriate national authority considers appropriate in the case of that association.”” The noble Lord said: We have already debated how a commons association may be established. Now it is time to address the reasons for establishing an association. This brings us to Clause 30, which was the subject of much lively discussion at Second Reading. That debate highlighted the many concerns people had with the way in which Clause 30 was drafted. Questions posed by, for example, by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, regarding management of vegetation, and by the noble Lord, Lord  Rotherwick, concerning protection of the broader public interest in common land, have helped—they will be pleased to hear—to direct our thinking towards the key elements in this clause requiring improvement. Over the summer months, we have had lengthy discussions with many people, including landowners and commoners, both those exercising and those not exercising their rights, and with organisations representing wider public interests in common land, such as recreation and nature conservation. The Government’s amendments before the Committee will go some considerable way towards satisfying a wide range of concerns while still achieving our primary aim, which is to have flexible associations that can be established for a range of purposes and that will stand the test of time. Clause 30 specifies the functions that can be given to a commons association. Amendment No. 142 removes subsection (2), which required all associations to have the purpose of,"““protecting and promoting sustainable agriculture””," and replaces it with a broader set of functions related to the management of common rights, management of vegetation, and management of agricultural activities. I shall explain the reasons for this change. First, there was a great deal of confusion and conflict over the meaning of the term ““sustainable agriculture””. We felt it better to ensure there was no future doubt about our intentions for commons associations. Secondly, we wished to ““future-proof”” associations to ensure that common land could be managed for reasons other than purely agricultural production. This is particularly important at a time of agricultural policy change and uncertainty over the future of farming in more marginal areas such as uplands, about which we heard earlier. Thirdly, we wanted to better enable associations to be established on lowland commons where there may be little or no agricultural activity and the pressures and management requirements of commons are very different. On consideration, we concluded that the clause as drafted would allow commons associations to manage common land only for agricultural production purposes. The changes brought about by Amendment No. 142 will enable associations to manage a broader range of commons, including those where no agricultural activity is currently taking place. They will also provide security against the effects of future changes in agricultural policy. I trust these changes to the purpose and functions of a commons association will ameliorate the concerns expressed at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, all pointed out to us quite strongly that the term ““sustainable agriculture”” was problematic in a number of ways. The strength of their arguments forced us to look again at this vital element and, after careful consideration, we were persuaded. We now agree that this is not the correct purpose for a commons association. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said—and we agree—that it is too narrow and constraining as a management purpose. The debate in July persuaded us to explore more widely, and to develop a set of functions that will enable commons associations to engage with a broader set of issues on commons through management of the vegetation, and of agricultural activities, without having to meet any predetermined sustainable agriculture purpose. In the stand part debate on Clause 26, we discussed the functions that could be conferred on any association. These amendments introduce greater flexibility, but do not require every association to acquire all the functions mentioned in Clause 30. For example, if a group of upland graziers simply want to manage grazing of the common by the commoners’ animals, they may just take functions relating to the management of common rights. If another association wanted to manage the grazing of others such as landowners as well, then they may also be granted functions relating to management of agricultural activities. For those commons where there is no grazing at all, but there is a desire to introduce vegetation management of another kind, that also may be achieved. The amendments in this group, Amendment No. 142 in particular, concern enabling commons associations to be established across the many different types of commons that exist today and are not about imposing a novel set of functions and obligations on upland commons. The decision about which functions should be granted will be made between the appropriate national authority and the local interests applying to establish an association. Amendments Nos. 148 and 168 are essentially consequential, and change the wording of subsequent subsections of this clause to bring it into line with the removal of the purpose for a commons association. There are other amendments in the group and, having spoken to my amendments, it is appropriate that I allow noble Lords to speak to their amendments. I beg to move.