Commons Bill [HL]

Before I discuss Amendment No. 147, I refer to the Animals Act 1971 in view of the discussion that has taken place on livestock, animals, horses and so on. That Act defines ““livestock”” as farm animals. Cats and dogs are included in the definition of ““animals””. We must be very careful about these definitions. I advise that some of the definitions in the Animals Act should be looked at in relation to this Bill. I go no further than that. My Amendment No. 147 states:"““Where non-agricultural activity occurs or is proposed for a common, the relevant commons association must be consulted on whether such developments will interfere with sustainable agriculture””." As my noble friend Lord Tyler said, things have moved on. I shall discuss Amendment No. 142 in a moment. My Amendment No. 147 would ensure that where non-agricultural activity occurs, the relevant commons associations have a right to be consulted. Commons associations are sometimes ignored in that respect, as are individual commoners where no commons association exists. That certainly occurred as regards a case I mentioned on an earlier Committee day where a golf course was constructed on common land without consultation. The matter took five years to resolve. So there are very live issues here. I turn to the government Amendment No. 142, which strikes out the subsections that refer to agricultural activities and the promotion of sustainable agriculture. I would prefer the concept of sustainable agriculture to remain in the Bill provided it is properly defined. However, it is not, and that matter has been commented on. Instead the Government have tabled Amendment No. 142, which is a worthy inclusion. The only query I have concerns paragraph (b) of government Amendment No. 142, which refers to,"““the management of vegetation on the land””." Does that change the commons association’s functions in that it would involve management advice on aspects which are non-agricultural? There is a circle here that has to be squared as between what constitutes competent agricultural management, for example, regarding stocking rates, and the whole issue of conservation. We need to examine whether a conflict arises in that regard or whether the spirit of Amendment No. 146 tabled by my noble friend Lady Miller—which concerns the sustainable management of common land—encapsulates the issues in Amendment No. 142 which I am discussing. The amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler are worthy of support. The insertion of the words,"““conservation of the natural environment and the avoidance of disruption by legal access””," is desirable in the case of temporary situations, such as the breeding and lambing seasons. We must remember that much of the uplands comprises very high land where the only available enterprise is sheep farming unlike in the lowlands where a number of alternatives can be pursued. I commend Amendment No. 147 to the Committee.