Commons Bill [HL]

I shall speak to Amendment No. 145, which is in this group. I also thank the Minister for listening to what was said at Second Reading. Seeing some of the amendments that have been tabled, I suspect that that helped to clarify the Government’s thinking on this section of the Bill. We are grateful to the Minister because we have had great difficulties over the weeks trying to describe ““sustainable agriculture””, and I think ““agricultural activities”” is acceptable. With regard to horses, my understanding is that they are not agricultural animals and therefore they were not considered in that way. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that. Amendment No. 145 adds,"““and will take precedence over all other enactments affecting the use of common land””." to the end of Clause 30(2). I shall enlarge upon that. I raised this matter at Second Reading but, so far, I do not think it has been resolved. An order under Section 25 will give the commons association a legal duty to manage agricultural activities, vegetation and the rights of common on the land for which they act. Prior to Amendment No. 142, the duty laid down in the Bill was to protect and promote sustainable agriculture. While I welcome the noble Lord’s Amendment No. 142, as I have said already, I am still concerned and I hope that it does not water down any responsibility for making sure that we have sustainable agriculture within those agricultural activities. If he will enlighten me on that, I will be very glad. We are concerned that the Government, in general terms, do not put as much weight behind agricultural productivity as we would. With self-sufficiency in food down to 63 per cent, I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government are full square behind the need to have commercial agriculture—food and farming—in this country. In fairness, I heard him say that at the conference this morning. I turn to the other side of the matter, which is how we value and equate leisure pursuits and leisure activities and the rights of some with the equal concerns of those who earn their living from the common that supports them and their families. Two noble Lords are from a part of Wales that I visited when I was on holiday in the Brecon Beacons this summer. I talked to some farmers there, and they were extremely concerned that access had brought additional problems for them. Whereas in the past the general public were not able to walk freely within the Brecon Beacons, apart from on the defined paths, farmers are now finding that people are walking through with dogs not on leads. That is bad at lambing time, and raises problems when it is not lambing time because sheep are being scattered. There is a constant passage in ““hot spot”” areas, rather than farther afield. I wonder about the balance of other enactments with what the Government are trying to do in Amendment No. 142. I do not know whether the Government have given thought to that; I hope that they have. That is the starting point of Amendment No. 145. I am not belittling what the Government have done in Amendment No. 142, but I do not want it to weaken the commercial activity of farming, which must continue in the commons, nor do I want to find that the rights of others act in a preferential way that is detrimental to those objects being achieved. I will look forward to what other noble Lords have to say on their amendments.