Commons Bill [HL]

Before I turn to the noble Earl’s amendment, I shall return briefly to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on fencing, which relates to establishing and maintaining boundaries under Clause 30(3)(d). The power to establish and maintain fences is, on balance, needed. There may, in some areas, be a custom that owners adjoining a common should fence against it, but that is probably not always a hard-and-fast rule. An association may need to manage fences where the owner of the adjoining land is not maintaining an effective fence, which is why that is in subsection (3). Amendment No. 142A, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would remove the capacity for the national authority to grant any functions relating to the management of vegetation and agricultural activities to commons associations. They would be replaced with functions relating to,"““the maintenance of good agricultural and environmental condition””." Our feeling is that the amendment would have the effect of narrowing the range of functions that could be granted to a commons association. It would allow an association to engage in functions relating only to the management of common rights, and,"““the maintenance of good agricultural and environmental condition””." Where active agriculture is taking place the majority of farmers are in receipt of single farm payment money. That already requires them to comply with a range of regulations—the noble Lord knows them well—to keep the land in good agricultural and environmental condition. They also apply to common land. We wish commons associations to be able to go further than that and manage the exercise of the rights of all those who are engaged in agricultural activity on the common. It is not clear that the noble Lord’s carefully worded amendment would allow this. In particular, by way of example, it would not permit the management of the vegetation of common land for purposes other than agriculture. That is one of the prime reasons for our amendment, as it does allow commons associations to be established to manage lowland commons where no agriculture activity is currently occurring. If I was in any doubt about whether the Government were right in their Amendment No. 142, the support on this occasion of both the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, makes me more confident than I would otherwise have been that we must be right. The remaining matter is the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. There is no preference between (a), (b) and (c) in subsection (1) of our amendment. We can pick and choose between all three.