Commons Bill [HL]

That is right and I do not dissent from that proposition. This is easy. However, I have not yet responded fully to the noble Duke. On his textual criticism, I am told that there is nothing wrong with the government amendment. I know that that statement will be accepted by the Committee. The fact that the word ““on”” is not repeated has no significance in terms of its meaning. But I congratulate the noble Duke on having spotted that detail. I hope that he is able to get out sometimes. On the noble Duke’s point about inserting the word ““grazing””, we think the government amendments demonstrate that there is no need for such an insertion. Our intention is to ensure that while the rules made by an association will be able to affect the grazing surplus, they will not have any effect on the ability of the owner to lease or license the use of that surplus. In other words, the owner will be free to manage the surplus as he sees fit. It is only when a person actually utilises the grazing that the rules will apply. Therefore we do not think that anyone could misread the word ““surplus”” so as to need the word ““grazing”” before it. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 163A to 164A not moved.]