Commons Bill [HL]

I listened with great interest to the debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on having embarked on this rather interesting discussion. To my way of thinking it involves a dilemma that one can never really solve. The key to any management prescription is having an absolutely clear idea of what you want to achieve. Trying to balance agriculture with environmental benefits is extremely difficult. I have tried to do that for many years. I have tried to reach a balance in the conflict between maintaining heather moorland for grouse shooting and the contrary interests of sheep farming. It is extremely difficult. The only way one can achieve that is by having a clear definition of what one wants to do and a management prescription which fits that. Having said that and having looked at the various amendments, I believe that on balance the Minister has the matter right. Government Amendment No. 142 is sufficiently flexible to be able to respond to whatever management prescription is ultimately decided is best for the common in question. When I first looked at the amendment I was a little concerned by the wording of paragraph (a) which states,"““the management of agricultural activities on the land for which the association is established””." I thought that was a little too prescriptive. However, paragraph (b), which refers to,"““the management of vegetation on the land””," embraces the concept of flexibility, which is the name of the game. On balance, that is probably the right way forward. However, this is a difficult matter on which I will never reach a firm conclusion.