Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, connected with this series of government amendments are our Amendments Nos. 29 to 35. We are particularly anxious that this series of government amendments—we need to make it clear that our amendments amend the government amendments—come under a section in the Bill dealing with the right of common being severed permanently, which also needs to be made clear. We are quite satisfied with sub-paragraph (1) in Amendment No. 28, which indicates that the right of common that,"““applies . . . on or after the day on which this Schedule comes into force be severed permanently from the land to which it is attached by being transferred on its own to—""(a) any commons association established for the land””." We are happy with that, but not with rights of common being severed permanently in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to Natural England, and in sub-paragraph (1)(c) to the Countryside Council for Wales. We need to ask why the schedule proposed by the Minister allows the rights of common to be severed permanently to these bodies. Sub-paragraph (1)(a), as I have said, is surely correct, and perhaps would have been better still if it had said ““the relevant commons association””, because that is probably the right place for rights of common to be transferred to. Our consequential amendments therefore seek to remove both Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales from the Government’s new schedule. All evidence points to both Natural England’s predecessor and the Countryside Council for Wales obtaining common rights only to, in some cases, extinguish them. That is a significant thing which is happening now, and could happen much more in the future. As an agriculturalist, I worry that the economic viability of many hill and upland family farms is dependent on the common rights for grazing on the adjoining common. This is very common in Wales, the south-west, the Pennines and the north of England. An 80 to 150-acre holding, for example, could easily have anything from 250 to 500 ewes on the common. For some rights to be extinguished on that common could easily make some family farm units economically unviable. The subsequent loss of income could be terminal for those agricultural businesses. As a consequence, depopulation could occur as young family members leave the land. That is the road to destroying the social infrastructure of the uplands. I am putting just one side of the argument at the moment, and I shall come to the other side in a minute. There may be good environmental reasons why government bodies—that is, Natural England and CCW—would wish to extinguish grazing rights, but that must never be at the cost of families being forced, perhaps inadvertently, to leave the land. In most places, overgrazing is receding and, as we agreed in Committee, undergrazing is a more likely scenario in the next 20 years, particularly with the introduction of single farm payments. Indeed, taking account of the fact that in most of these areas—certainly it is true in Wales—the average age of an upland farmer is 55, such people are not likely to be striving hard to alter their farming systems radically. In these circumstances, the commons association must surely be the best custodian to which to transfer the common rights, as it has a key role in securing the balance of grazing rights in relation to the local community’s interests and its economic well-being. It is also very important that the commons association is able to secure a balance of environmental management agreements—very often made with Natural England, as it will be in future, and the Countryside Council for Wales—giving advice which, by agreement, can be carried out without those two bodies having permanently severed grazing rights to do with what they wish. Our amendments are constructive to the well-being of the uplands. We do not want to see holdings broken up and farmhouses possibly sold off. That is not in the interest of rural areas.