Commons Bill [HL]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments—which are, as the noble Baroness said, related to an important part of the Bill. It is tempting to speak to every one of them, but I wish to concentrate on one or two. First, Amendment No. 159, to which the noble Duke has spoken, leaves me in a quandary. I think I understand its purpose—indeed, it reflects a concern I expressed at the previous sitting of the Committee about the role of the commons associations in relation to some important issues of access—but I do not know what animals have rights of access. An ““animal”” with a right of access would be a new creature. If the amendment is referring to persons who have rights of access and are accompanied by animals—I gave the example of dogs at the previous sitting—it is an issue of considerable importance. I hope the Minister will respond to that. Amendment No. 161B, which is also in this group, has been tabled by my noble friends Lord Livsey and Baroness Miller. There is a mistake in the printed version of the amendment—I expect the Minister is aware of it—in that it should read,"““Page 16, line 25””." The amendment has been tabled in an attempt to tease out the role of the new associations as consultees on extremely important issues. The Committee will recall that there has been considerable discussion about this issue and that at our last sitting the Minister said:"““Commons owners can apply under CROW for restrictions where necessary and it would not be the intention not to allow commons associations to be consulted””.—[Official Report, 2/11/05; col. GC 125.]" This is less than clear. The Minister has a considerable reputation for clarity and I hope that he will be able to improve on that double negative, which is far from satisfactory. The same applied to further discussions we had at that sitting about the natural habitat. Again, we surely need to spell out in words of few syllables precisely what the role of the associations will be when important issues such as access under the CROW Act, biodiversity and the natural environment and its protection arise in the future. As has been said more than once, both at Second Reading and in Grand Committee, we hope that the Bill, when enacted, will last for a long time. No doubt there will be other changes in legislation during the period which will touch on these important aspects, and it surely would be quite ridiculous if, having by statute given new form and new substance to commons associations, we did not state very specifically that they must be consulted on such issues. They may not wish to be consulted in all circumstances—they may not wish to take up the invitation—but effectively to neglect that right and responsibility would be entirely wrong. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee on those points.