---

Commons Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, and I thought that the bracken debate was interesting and worth while. I thank him for clarifying that the functions that I had asked for could be introduced under Clause 31 with no further amendments. However, between now and Report, perhaps the Minister would give further consideration to, and perhaps write to me about, the issue of the holding that claims a single farm payment. The holding has rights of common and has animals on the common. It also has its own farmland. What would happen if it continued to have too many animals on the common but the commons association also tried to claim a payment, as the noble Lord said it would be entitled to do? Under the scheme as it stands, if someone does not cross-comply on his entire holding, he forfeits his payment. In this case, would the commons association have to forfeit its payment because of one rogue commoner, for example? Can the Minister explore in writing what would happen with the cross-compliance measures in such a scenario?