Commons Bill [HL]

We do not believe that Amendment No. 197 is necessary. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. In our view, the use of the term ““access”” in Clause 36 should be interpreted to include any access, whether it arises under specific legislation, such as the CROW Act or the Law of Property Act, or under common law, such as the right of access enjoyed by commoners in order to exercise their rights of common. That is the effect of the provision as drafted therefore the noble Lord’s amendment is unnecessary. In response to Amendment No. 212, the primary objective behind Clause 36 is to protect existing rights and we believe that the drafting of subsection (2) is consistent with that. Where works are for the promotion of public access, it is difficult to see how they might be caught by the controls in Clause 36 anyway, which applies to works that prevent or impede access. But even if there is an element of promotion in particular works that otherwise prevent or impede access, we believe that that matter can be taken into account under the criteria already in the clause.