Commons Bill [Lords]

The previous group of amendments dealt with unauthorised works on the commons and the current group covers unauthorised activities, which the Bill defines as unauthorised agricultural activities. For consistency, there should be another amendment to remove ““agricultural”” from the clause heading. It is interesting that subsection (8) on page 27, which defines unauthorised activities, does not include the word ““agricultural””. That is the point that the amendments try to make. Activities, which are not necessarily agricultural, that are detrimental to the qualities that we want to conserve sometimes take place on the common or the village green. If unauthorised or unwise agricultural activities take place, of course the national authority should have the power to intervene. However, activities that are not agricultural could be equally detrimental. When we entered into those discussions previously, the Under-Secretary’s predecessor said, ““Oh well, those activities are illegal anyway.”” I have tried to find examples of activities that might be detrimental to people’s enjoyment of access or biodiversity that are not illegal but will not be helpful in managing the commons or village greens. They include informal dog racing and other informal sports and activities, which might be acceptable but, if they expanded or their frequency increased, would be unacceptable to people who want to enjoy other informal activities or wish to use commons for grazing and agricultural purposes. The amendments would therefore remove the word ““agricultural”” and thus cover more than simply activities that are associated with agriculture. I believe that the farming community would welcome them because, if they were accepted, the Bill would be perceived to deal even-handedly with everyone who has the interests and well-being of commons at heart. I look forward to the Under-Secretary’s response to those simple amendments, which would add something to the Bill.