Commons Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for her response. To take the easy bit first, which is our Amendment No. 172, the Minister assures me that there is no problem with access for people to their own homes. She mentioned the Bakewell judgment, which, as we know, had implications for the CROW Act—both of us having worked on the CROW Act at some length. Has that yet been rectified in law or is it still outstanding? It seems a shame when we have the opportunity with a Bill before us not to address that and rectify it. I am not expecting a response to that now, but if it is evolving that far, perhaps it should be written into the Bill on Report. Otherwise, it is left to whether the person knows that the judgment exists. That is the easy part, as far as I am concerned, and I can give the noble Baroness time to think about that. Although I listened to the Minister carefully, I am still concerned about where the public interest comes. The functions in the clause are for the management of agricultural activities on the land for which the association is established. It then lists those functions. Then subsection (6) states:"““A commons association must discharge its functions for the purposes specified in subsection (2) having regard to . . . (b) the public interest in relation to the land for which it is established””." I do not understand. What happens if the public interest does not agree with what the commoners are doing? Where is the public interest? Is it restricted merely to the commoners, or can members of the public be critical of what the commons association is trying to do? Who is defined in the public interest? I did not fully understand the Minister’s response.