Commons Bill [HL]

The noble Lord interrupted at exactly the right moment. That is perhaps the result of years of practice in another place. Our view is that the commons association is unrepresentative as far as the CROW Act is concerned. To manage access fairly, it would need representation from local authorities, the users groups and others, which would complicate the arrangements greatly. Commons owners can apply under CROW for restrictions where necessary and it would not be the intention not to allow commons associations to be consulted. They would have a say, but their role in decisions under CROW would be limited. I think that is the best I can do on that topic for the moment. I came to Amendment No. 145, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness. It would give the purposes of commons associations precedence over all other enactments relating to common land. Our position is that common land is a shared resource. It is important for different reasons to a range of people. There may be multiple uses by different interests based on a range of rights in the common. Our concern is to ensure that a commons association can manage the vegetation, common rights and agricultural activity on common land while acknowledging the rights of other interests. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that I have already changed around paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), which is probably an answer to his question, but I shall come to it in moment. The users of a common need to continue to rub along together as they always have. Generally speaking, that works well. We do not want to tamper with that balance. For that reason we resist Amendment No. 145. I am very glad to repeat, on the record, that I believe, as do the Government, that commercial productive agriculture is a very significant and important aspect of the countryside. I now turn to Amendment No. 146 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Sustainable management is a very broad concept and could encompass a large number of activities on a common. Examples range from recreational activities to nature conservation and landscape management. That creates the potential for too much conflict as interests may vary in what is understood to constitute ““sustainable management””. It is also true that in many cases members of the association may not have the skills or the resources to manage commons for purposes other than those related to management of agriculture and vegetation. After much thought, we decided to limit the management functions that can be granted to an association. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, spoke to Amendment No. 147. Most commons are used by a variety of people for different purposes. The resources are shared between different owners, interests and rights holders. Non-agricultural activities often take place on commons as a result of those different interests which have to live together. It would be unfair on both parties—the commons association and the interest engaged in a non-agricultural activity—to require a consultation process each time some non-agricultural activity is to occur.