Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I wish to respond to the Minister’s advocacy of his Amendment No. 20 and also, as he has anticipated, to refer to Amendment No. 21, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend. I and my colleagues welcome the way in which the Minister has responded to our anxiety, which we expressed at various stages during the passage of the Bill, but notably on Report. We welcome the movement by the Government. Nothing that I shall now say in any way undermines that. However, perhaps I may say that the Minister protests too much about the difficulties that might arise from our amendment. I shall speak briefly in these terms, but I hope that the Minister will take it from me that brevity in this case should be no indication of any lack of sincerity about our amendment or the severity of the problems currently facing highland and upland livestock farmers in the south-west, Wales and right up through the Pennines. They are on the brink of economic collapse in many cases and require every sort of encouragement to participate in the funding schemes to which we specifically refer. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships’ attention to the specifics of our amendment. It does not, as the Minister suggested, tie funding to agri-environment schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, is right to talk about the long term. I have been involved enough in working with farmers to know that they think about the long term. If the Minister thinks that agri-environment will not be on the agenda of farmers in 40 or 50 years’ time, he is a brave man. I think that it is with us semi-permanently or permanently. But even if he is right, we have also used a similar phrase to his amendment to ensure that should the phrase ““agri-environment”” disappear from the lexicon, we can still make sure that these ancillary powers are there. I should also say in passing that we accept that this is the right place in the Bill and that the Minister is right to put it here. Making specific reference to agri-environment scheme funding is important for four reasons. The real danger for this legislation is not that it will be too powerful and influential, but that it will simply wither on the vine—unless we provide a specific encouragement to those responsible for commons to set up statutory commons associations. It will be abortive. I am pleased to note that in its briefing on today’s debate, the National Farmers’ Union supports our initiative. It recognises the importance of this provision. That brings me to my second point. There should be an explicit advantage to those who wish to form a statutory association, otherwise they simply will not bother. Highland and upland farmers are busy people and do not have time to sit in committees or on association boards unless they can see a specific advantage in so doing. In the context of the new version of the CAP, let alone what will come after 2012 when I am sure it will move even further in this direction, we believe that as much emphasis as possible must be placed on agri-environment schemes in the Bill itself. The noble Lord has just said that in addressing legislation it is important to do so with certain principles in mind. One of those principles is that we should say what we mean and mean what we say. In emphasising the real initiative behind this legislation, it is critical to indicate that explicit funding will be easily available. We should not be mealy-mouthed about it. Finally, and again I echo the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, we must take the long view. Surely if this Bill is itself to be sustainable and still in place in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, we have to ensure that it provides effective encouragement to those concerned enough to go to the trouble of setting up a statutory association. There has been much discussion during our deliberations this afternoon about how in the past people have given their time, effort and energy to the creation of voluntary associations. That will not transfer into statutory associations unless there is a clear advantage in financial terms. That is what we propose in the amendment.