Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in particular, for the way in which he put his points. But I still disagree with him and I shall tell him why in a moment. Dealing, first, with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Williams, I am sure that the commons associations would be well advised to apply to reputable sources, but my noble friend will forgive me if we do not provide for that on the face of the Bill. The point he makes is well understood. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, took some comfort from the approach of the National Farmers Union. I am not sure that we read its approach in quite the same way. Everyone always wants to be on the side of the National Farmers Union—certainly I do and I am sure the noble Lord does too. In its parliamentary briefing, the NFU said:"““We welcome Lord Bach’s amendment to clause 32””—" to which I have spoken—"““which makes it clear that in raising money commons associations can apply for funds from any source. We hope that in response to the amendment in the names of Lords Livsey and Tyler the minister will confirm that associations may apply, and will be eligible for, agri-environment scheme funding””." I happily confirm exactly that. I do not think that the National Farmers Union is saying that the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord has to be on the face of the Bill. Tempting though the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, may be, I would still argue the general principle that if a statute gives a body broad powers it is not sensible—however attractive it may seem pro tem—in the same breath to refer to one detailed example of such a power. That is the principle on which I will stick in this instance. Of course there are many examples of the way in which upland farmers are already using stewardship. I absolutely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said about the difficult times that upland farmers—and, indeed, other farmers in other parts of the country—are facing at the present time. I agree that they need every encouragement to enter into stewardship schemes. We will give them every encouragement—but that does not include putting it on the face of the Bill, where it does not really fit. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 21 not moved.]