Commons Bill [HL]

Whether it should be ““omission”” or ““admission”” in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is an interesting point, but, in any event, Amendment No. 81, standing in the name of my noble friend, refers to opening up the register again in connection with the 1965 Act. It seems to me that there are two issues here. It is one thing to consider an incorrect registration of the land itself, but it would be a very big mistake to consider reviewing the registration of rights of common land under the 1965 Act. It is 40 years now since that piece of legislation was passed and there is no doubt, in my view—I have witnessed it on many occasions in my capacity as an owner and manager of common land—that considerable mistakes were made. Very large increases in sheep and cattle numbers were registered on common land—unchallenged—and farmers ended up with many more rights than they should have had prior to the 1965 Act. I acknowledge that. It is tempting perhaps now to say, ““Can we go back and try to resolve those issues?”” But we cannot. Farming systems have evolved since then; farmers have established grazing regimes on commons; and a system of management is now in place. To go back would be ludicrous, quite frankly and counter productive. We must go forward—and the way forward, surely, is through, where necessary, commons associations dealing with this particular problem. In cases where there is considerable over-grazing on sites of special scientific interest, then English Nature or, in the case of Wales, CCW, have the powers to engage the farmers in agri-environment schemes to reduce that grazing, and the same will apply in the future. I briefly add my intervention to the debate in order to say, ““Let us go forward””. Let us not go back because, quite frankly, it would be totally impractical to do so.