Commons Bill [HL]

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 142, Amendment No. 142A:"Line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—" ““(a)   the maintenance of good agricultural and environmental condition;”” The noble Earl said: I thank the Minister for Amendment No. 142. We touched on this earlier in Committee. It is a vast improvement on what is in the Bill. I am delighted to get rid of the dreadful phrase ““sustainable agriculture””. He has my support for the amendment. The purpose of Amendment No. 142A is to try to improve the wording a little. I have proposed the words,"““the maintenance of good agricultural and environmental condition””." Surely, that is what we want the commons associations to do. We want them to maintain the commons in that state. I chose those words because they are the words that the Minister used in col. GC 294 on 25 October. I felt that those were better words than are contained in his subsections (a) and (b). However, I am still concerned about both his and my amendments with regard to the word ““agricultural””. The Minister will recall that at Second Reading I used the words ““good husbandry and land management””. I still like the idea of ““good husbandry””. It is a little outdated as a phrase, but, as a land agent, I believe that everyone knows what good husbandry is; we have worked with it, we understand it and it covers more than the word ““agriculture””. I did not use the word ““husbandry”” because I believe that some commons might have been improved by ploughing. They might be improved grasslands and might need to be ploughed at some time in the future. Therefore, the word ““husbandry”” might be too tight a definition. On why I am concerned about ““agricultural””, which occurs in the Minister’s amendment and in mine, I believe I am right in saying that agriculture does not include the grazing of horses. I remember that from when I was active as a land agent. We come back to the rights of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on his common, on which he has horses. Then I read Amendment No. 153, which the Minister tabled. I wondered whether its purpose was to include horses, because once you get rid of ““livestock””, you include them because horses are not necessarily livestock. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that. If that is the case, I am happier with ““agricultural”” and hope that he will be able to consider whether my wording is better than his. I beg to move.