Commons Bill [HL]

The exchange has been fascinating. Amendment No. 252 would introduce the phrase, "““‘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””." I want to put formally on the record what will become apparent very quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, may not be surprised to hear that I agree with almost everything he has said. I am unable to agree with all his remarks because I have not yet been able to confirm them in full. Clause 34(3) requires the national authority to ensure that provisions amending existing commons legislation in consequence of the establishment of a commons association preserve any existing rights of access conferred by that association. We think it would be positively unhelpful if ““right of access”” were defined in the way proposed by this amendment because, as the noble Lord Greaves, has pointed out, rights of access arising under existing commons legislation are not rights defined in Section 2 of the CROW Act. This amendment would mean that the national authority would not be able to preserve those existing rights. The phrase ““right of access”” appears in three different places in the Bill. Government Amendment No. 219 removes any reference to a ““right of access”” in Clause 39, so we do not think the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary in relation to that clause. As I said earlier, we have already agreed to look again at Clause 41 to see whether the powers to exempt certain classes of work from the requirement for consent should be amended. So while noble Lords may have some concerns about the definition of ““right of access”” in Clause 41(3)(a), I suggest that we may wish to revisit that paragraph in any amendments we bring forward on Report. I shall certainly ensure that we take account of the noble Lord’s concerns about the use of the expression and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We have said repeatedly that the CROW Act does not interfere with existing customary access. Where a landowner has been content in the past to tolerate customary access, there is no reason why that should not continue. Moreover, CROW Act restrictions do not interfere with such freedoms in that situation. I think that I have agreed almost entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I hope I have convinced other Members of the Committee that the noble Lord and the Government are right.