| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
{**fn9**} Lord Rotherwick: I heard the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, explaining his amendments and I hope that when I have explained mine he will see that they are less ambiguous and give a better description and more clarity. These amendments would remove the term "sustainable agriculture" and replace it with a prescriptive description, as drawn up by the Government's Amendment No. 142, something which has already happened once.
14 Nov 2005 : Column GC285
Clause 44 enables the relevant authorities—defined in subsection (8) as the appropriate national authority, Natural England, as it will be, the Countryside Council for Wales or a national park authority—to step in and stop unauthorised agricultural activity which is detrimental to the protection and promotion of sustainable agriculture from taking place on registered common land. The Government's welcome Amendment No. 142 removes the term "sustainable agriculture" from Clause 30 of the Bill and replaces it with a prescriptive description. However, the phrase "sustainable agriculture" still remains in Clause 44 and I am interested to learn why it has been removed from one clause and yet left in another.
The use of the term "sustainable agriculture" within the Commons Bill was ambiguous and would have left individual commons associations to interpret what they believed to be sustainable agriculture. This could have been at the expense of common land and its future viability. These amendments would enable the relevant authority to stop an unauthorised agricultural activity where it is shown to be detrimental to either the management of the agricultural activities on the land, the management of vegetation on the land or the management of rights of common on the land. This new drafting is much clearer than the original ambiguous,
Unauthorised agricultural activities are detrimental to the long-term viability of the common. The most common agricultural activity to which this might apply is where one person is overgrazing on common land without the right to do so. A balance needs to be achieved between economic sustainability and sustaining the natural environment through biodiversity. These amendments will achieve this.
The phrase "sustainable agriculture" can be defined in many ways. A rigid definition would restrict the ways in which individual commons associations could function on different commons. Activities that are appropriate for a large, privately owned upland common might not be suitable on one owned by the National Trust, for example, which must balance agricultural use with providing for public enjoyment, or on a common designated as an SSSI, where nature conservation might be of paramount importance.
Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend Lord Rotherwick in bringing forward these two groups of very important amendments. I hope the Government will feel sympathetic towards them. My noble friend has explained clearly the reasons why he has brought them forward. It would greatly improve the Bill if they were added to it. My noble friend referred to over-grazing but, in some cases, under-grazing also takes place. He has also highlighted the difficulty in balancing economic stability and the needs of tourism and visitors.
The amendments reinforce the debate we had earlier in regard to the importance of commons associations being flexible. In some areas, one set of precedents might be important but not so important in others. I support my noble friend's amendments.
14 Nov 2005 : Column GC286
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall speak first to Amendment No. 236. The power in this clause is intended as a power of last resort to deal with intractable problems that cannot be solved by other means. The focus of the power is on unauthorised agricultural activities that are having a damaging effect on the common. We do not propose to widen the power beyond unauthorised agricultural activities as this would overlap with existing powers provided in other legislation that can deal with a wide range of problems found on commons. We are therefore not able to favour Amendment No. 236.
We will, however, consider the issues raised by Amendments Nos. 236A, 237 and 237B tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Rotherwick, and spoken to in support by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. All four amendments in this grouping have caused us to reconsider the scope of the clause. We will look again at the criteria for applying the powers in subsections (1) and (2) and come back with amendments on Report. In the light of this, I hope that they will not wish to press their amendments.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support the Minister in what she said about agricultural activity. I have tabled Amendment No. 238—I do not wish to speak to it now; it is not the right time to do so—but I think that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, are helpful. The key issue is that of agricultural activity and how best that is professionally judged.
Lord Greaves: I will respond to the Minister's comments in a minute. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, invited me to consider that his amendments were better than mine. I am quite attracted by the clarity of his amendments. The one thing that is missing from them is reference to the rights of any other people who are not exercising rights of common and, in particular, the rights of access on the land. I am keen that the rights of access should be set out because otherwise it will be a recipe for confusion. Apart from that, I am attracted by the clarity of his amendments.
I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful reply to the amendments in this group. I look forward to seeing what the Government come up with later. No doubt, as with other amendments where the Government have been helpful, we will receive some written communication before Report so that we can look at them carefully in advance, which would be extremely helpful. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 236.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 236A to 237D not moved.]
Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 238:
The noble Lord said: The amendment is a result of intensive discussions with commons associations, in particular, and seeks to leave out paragraphs (b) to (d). Those paragraphs refer to Natural England, the
14 Nov 2005 : Column GC287
Countryside Council for Wales and a national park authority. This would leave in place the appropriate national authority in paragraph (a), which is the Secretary of State in England and a Minister in the National Assembly for Wales.
6.45 pm
They are the only departments with agricultural expertise that can judge whether agricultural activities are unauthorised. There could be situations where the authorities listed in paragraphs (b) to (d) might use criteria other than agricultural ones to judge whether an activity is unauthorised. There is confidence, certainly among commons associations, that the Secretary of State and the Minister in the National Assembly are by far best placed to make that judgment.
Certainly in Wales the agricultural capacity to carry sufficient livestock to sustain the occupants of a dominant holding is important for the economic viability of that farm and the farming family, which may have been sustained over many generations by their grazing rights on common land. It is very difficult to generalise because in some areas the in-bye land of the dominant holding is quite small whereas it may be larger in other parts of the United Kingdom. Where I come from, the relationship between the rather small amount of land on a dominant holding and the larger amount of grazing capacity on commons is crucial to keeping family farms going.
A balance must be struck between ensuring the agricultural viability of a holding in relation to grazing on common land and upholding environmental considerations, for which the Secretary of State and the Minister in the National Assembly for Wales have responsibility. They have overall responsibility for those matters and are regarded as the best placed to judge in those situations. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose: Our Amendment No. 239 is grouped with Amendment No. 238. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has made some interesting arguments about what should be included as a "relevant authority". I am very conscious that the Minister has said that she will redraft the whole area, so I will merely follow up on what our amendment contains. If all those different bodies were listed as relevant authorities, in our view a local authority could equally be classified as such. In many areas the countryside recreation teams may be the bodies to spot activity that is not appropriate because their role includes improving access, signage and general maintenance. Would it not be logical to classify those organisations as relevant authorities for the purposes of the section? At the same time, the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, also has a sound base. Perhaps we will see what the Government bring back.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |