Commons Bill [HL]

I have three amendments in this group. In speaking to them, I also want to support Amendment No. 194 in the name of my noble friend Lord Livsey. Amendment No. 195 concerns access. I welcome the amendment on access, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, because it is useful to have these matters clarified. I hope that the Minister will give sensible and common-sense clarification in this case. The discussion that we have just had reminds me a little of the discussion on the CROW Bill five years ago. Then, many suggestions of this nature were put forward but, in the end, the fears turned out to be groundless. I hope that the Minister can satisfy the noble Baroness and the noble Earl on these issues because I think that they are all a matter of common sense. Amendment No. 195 suggests that the prohibition on works that prevent access should extend to land adjacent to a common. Substantial works of that nature could impede access to the common or from it to other access land. Clarification on that is required. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks on why the proposal should not be accepted. The amendment refers only to immediately adjacent structures as well as fences and other structures erected by landowners on the boundary of a common, or on a boundary between two commons, that could impede access. Amendments Nos. 200 and 200A seek to extend the definition of works that are prohibited unless consent is obtained. Amendment No. 200 would insert,"““ploughing or any operation affecting the surface””." Clause 44, which we will discuss later, refers to ““unauthorised agricultural activities””, but the regime and method of seeking consent from the appropriate national authority differ from those in Clause 36. It is not clear why activities, which could include ploughing or other agricultural operations, that might seriously affect the nature and character of the common are not included as potentially prohibited activities under Clause 36. Another difference is that any person can take action against the activities referred to in Clause 36, under subsequent provisions such as Clause 39, whereas that would not apply to Clause 44 activities. I hope that the Minister can assure me on those matters. I look forward to his views on these seemingly potential problems.