Commons Bill [HL]

I, too, am grateful to the Minister for bringing the amendment forward and for the way in which he has explained it. I also thank him for the letter he has written to Members of the Committee, which is very helpful. The consent section justified a completely separate clause and the way in which the matter is set out deals not only with the technical issues to which the Minister referred—and I hope that it will satisfy others—but it is much easier to explain to those outside this place. That must be an important part of our function. I have one question which I hope the Minister can answer. In the Bill as printed at Clause 31(5)(a), (b) and (c), a distinction is drawn between those who are entitled to exercise a right of common over land and those entitled to exercise any other rights over land in the context of those who may be required to give consent. In the revised new clause, that is set out differently. Subsection (9) of the new clause refers to the person who,"““owns the land; or . . . is entitled to exercise any right over the land””." Will the Minister explain what other rights he has in mind, other than the right of common. For example, if we are now straying to rights of access, this would cause considerable confusion in the Bill. With that one qualification and concern, the general principle is that a commons association should be able to undertake anything that a commoner was able to undertake. It will be able to act without consent if that is currently common practice, but if that consent is currently necessary for a commoner, it will be necessary for a commons association in the future. I hope that I am right because that seems a practical approach. Perhaps the Minister will explain the difference between the two approaches.