Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 252: "Page 28, line 6, at end insert—" "““““right of access”” means a right of access as defined by section 2 of and Schedule 2 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c. 37);””" The noble Lord said: It is my privilege to propose the last amendment. I have degrouped the amendment because it is particularly important. On page 28, line 6, there are a number of interpretations of phrases and words relating to the Bill. The amendment inserts into that list the interpretation of ““right of access””. The amendment states: "““‘right of access’ means a right of access as defined by section 2 of and Schedule 2 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000””." The purpose of the amendment is to get an agreed definition of ““right of access””, as appears in previous similar legislation which is respected. Section 2 of the CROW Act states: "““Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation””." A number of conditions are rightly imposed: "““(a) he does so without breaking or damaging any wall, fence, hedge, style or gate, and" " (b) he observes the general restrictions in Schedule 2 and any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II””," and so on. In Schedule 2, one comes across a number of desirable conditions; for example, the ability to manage agricultural land. Sub-paragraph (n) states: "““without reasonable excuse, interfere with any fence, barrier or other device designed to prevent accidents to people or to enclosed livestock””." Sub-paragraph (o) states: "““neglects to shut any gate or to fasten it where any means of doing so is provided, except where it is reasonable to assume that a gate is intended to be left open””." It is full of such conditions. The Committee will be glad to hear that in all my recent discussions with representatives of the commons associations, the NFU and the Farmers Union of Wales this definition was respected—indeed, in some cases, one or two dissidents have come to terms with Section 2 and Schedule 2 to the CROW Act 2000 as being a sensible piece of legislation—and, in relation to access, they want the same definition to be applied to the Commons Bill. They believe it is well understood by the hill-farming community and the majority of people who now have access to the countryside. So it is understood on both sides. I beg to move.