Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. It should be acknowledged, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was good enough to do, that the Government have moved quite a long way to try to meet the concerns expressed in Committee. I have spoken to those amendments, but I will come back to that in a moment. Various amendments have been spoken to. As regards Amendment No. 9, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked us to impose an obligation on Natural England to have regard to representations received in response to a notice published under Amendment No. 7. That would not be much more than Natural England and the council would be obliged to do anyway, but I am happy to see and to consider whether we can make the requirement plain in the Bill and, if possible, make such an amendment at Third Reading. I cannot promise that, but we are sympathetic to the noble Lord’s proposal under Amendment No. 9. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked whether the owner of common land can acquire those rights too. The owner will remain able to buy rights of common, but the effect is to extinguish those rights rather than to sever them from the land in question. The status quo is maintained. Amendment No. 8, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would require Natural England or the council, having given notice of its intention to acquire a right, to enable the owner of a common to negotiate to acquire the right instead. I think they understand that Natural England is not in a position to enable negotiations between the owner and the commoner. I hope they will also accept, however, that one of the purposes of our amendment is to provide a breathing space during which such negotiations can take place. But we cannot practicably provide for that in legislation. Perhaps I may have a second go at the earlier question of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. Only the commons association will be able to veto an acquisition by Natural England. For our part, we do not see any reason why the owner should be able to stop Natural England acquiring rights which will not be exercised. Why should the owner wish to stop that happening? That is the difference between the rights that we intend to give to a statutory commons association and the rights that an owner will have in any event, if he wants to buy. Amendment No. 10 was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. The amendment would give the first option to acquire severed rights of common to the association. The noble Baroness described it as a softer version of Amendment No. 4. Even though it may be softer, we still do not like it very much. As I have said, the purpose of those bodies acquiring rights by severance is to reduce grazing pressure on common land. The rights, once acquired, will be held in abeyance. A commons association could have no purpose in acquiring such rights other than to exercise them in some way, which we believe would be completely counterproductive to the use of public money in having acquired the rights in the first place. The powers available under Clause 9(3) are just one piece in the armoury available to Natural England. It will also be able to offer management agreements to commoners to induce reduced grazing levels and promote the formation of a statutory commons association. These alternative approaches rely on the co-operation of at least a majority of active commoners. Sometimes that co-operation is not, and will not be, forthcoming. The power to acquire rights by severance is a practical alternative tool in such a situation, as well as a useful supplement where management agreements are already in place. If we are prepared to relinquish those powers, then we must also be prepared to accept that there may be little or nothing that the Government can do to achieve sustainable grazing levels on commons where majority co-operation is lacking. I stress that that would be an unfortunate position in our view. There would be little or nothing the Government could do unless Natural England had the right to buy these rights. That is the fact of the matter. It is not a question of Natural England interfering in commoners’ affairs or sacrificing farmers’ livelihoods. It is about a power to reduce unsustainable grazing on a targeted basis—sometimes when every other attempt has failed. I hope that our amendments to this clause show that we are ready to listen to criticism. I have already signalled a willingness to go beyond that on Amendment No. 9. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked whether the ban will affect rights that have already been severed. Severed rights—rights held in gross—will be unaffected. Clause 10 enables such rights to be voluntarily reattached to land at a later date. The noble Earl asked what I meant by saying that Natural England would transfer severed rights it has acquired to a ““sympathetic”” holding. He asked where this was in the Bill, knowing, I think, that those words are not in the Bill. I think that the noble Earl was getting at how it will work in practice. Clause 10 provides for severed rights held in gross to be attached to a new farm holding. Natural England could do that, where the holding was, for example, occupied by a wildlife trust, so that the rights acquired would be exercised responsibly. The term ““over-grazing”” is not used either. The phrase used is ““management of agricultural activities””. That term covers the over-grazing issue. I have done my best to respond to each of the amendments. I have spoken already to my amendments. I hope that the House will realise that the Government have moved a long way in response to proper points made in Committee and will not press the amendments today.