Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I cannot pretend that I am not very disappointed by the noble Baroness’s response. I am disappointed too that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has not stirred her conscience to be more positive, because he was extremely positive in previous discussions on the whole issue of agri-environment schemes. I refer to the expressions of support given by my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. They both emphasised that we already have a number of comparatively minor issues illustrated under Clause 31(3)(a) to (f), including,"““establishing and maintaining boundaries . . . removing unlawful boundaries and other encroachments . . . removing animals unlawfully permitted to graze””." If those are the key illustrations of what a statutory commons association seeks to pursue, there will not be a great motive to set up the associations. The main motive for doing so all over the country will be to make the area eligible for agri-environment schemes. I therefore find it difficult to understand why the noble Baroness is ruling out the amendment on those grounds. However, I understand the way in which this place works, and I hope very much that she and her colleagues will think carefully—perhaps in respect of the representations from farming and other interests that I am sure that they will receive during the further stages of the Bill, both here and in the other place—and look at the issue again. It should be absolutely explicit, and I detect that there is support in other parts of the House. Nevertheless, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 39 not moved.] Clause 32 [Ancillary powers]: