Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves that the movement of the words ““the erection of fencing”” from subsection (3)(a) to what would be subsection (2)(c) poses a question which I hope those who tabled the amendment can clarify. However, the general thrust of the amendment is to be welcomed. The appropriate national authority would not have to get involved unless the works proposed for the common were substantial. Amendment No. 46 would insert the word ““materially””. I have no inhibitions about that word and think it improves the Bill. It would ensure that minor works are allowed. I was a farm manager on an estate in Scotland which had a grouse shoot. We had very strict rules about the number of ewes we could keep to ensure there was enough cover. There are many small things that need doing to improve the environment and to have to go to the appropriate national authority for permission all the time is over the top. There is no question about that. These works are often needed to improve the biodiversity of the commons. Where we are trying to establish the grouse living in the Black Mountains area, which is becoming more successful, the spin-off for other wild birds is considerable. The whole question of fencing in Amendment No. 47 relates to the extent of the fencing and for what purpose. One can envisage small enclosures for temporary gathering of livestock, which can be very important for animal welfare. I am sure that the fencing would not block access except in extreme circumstances, such as foot and mouth. Defra was involved in the last outbreak and insisted that fencing was erected to divide hefts between different hills of sheep to avoid the spread of the disease. In some circumstances fencing is necessary on common land to avoid the sort of matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred. Certainly, in the Brecon Beacons in the days of the Welsh Office, there was an agreement, because of the carnage of sheep being killed, for the main road between north and south Wales to be fenced on both sides. Access to rights of way was not impeded, but improved. Many more people now go to the Beacons through these access points than previously. We can see the evidence of that every weekend. However, that was a special circumstance. Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 do not seek completely to fence off an area or impede access. Management of conservation or routine livestock operations might be affected if the appropriate national authority were involved in making slow decisions because it would take a lot longer to achieve what are often routine operations. I support the amendments.