Commons Bill [HL]

I put it on record that on balance I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has just said. I welcome government Amendment No. 142 for the reasons that the Minister and Members of the Committee set out. I make two points on the group of amendments that we are discussing. The first concerns the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler which refers to access. It was useful to raise that matter at this stage. One of the interesting things about this Bill is its almost complete lack of reference to access. One can only assume that the Government believe that the references to access and common land in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act are sufficient and that nothing further needs to be stated in this Bill in that regard. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that that is the Government’s view. The Minister kindly referred to me as an expert on the CROW Act earlier today. I have to say that the longer I am a Member of this House, the less time I have to be an expert on anything. We do our best with whatever comes before us. Perhaps we become experts after things have left us and the process is over, when it is too late. On the matter of access and common land, by definition, all common land is access land in the CROW Act, subject to exceptions and so on. Recreational users of access land clearly have rights and responsibilities as set out in the CROW Act, as do landowners and tenants. What is the position of rights holders—the commoners—on commons? Are they included in the CROW Act as users of the land for grazing purposes or whatever? Is that clearly set out? If it is not, that is an interesting question. If they have rights and responsibilities on a par with those of landowners and tenants, should the commons associations, which will comprise mainly of commoners in many cases, have, as part of their responsibilities, the management of the aspects of access which refer to the commoners as individuals? As I understand it, the purpose of commons associations is to get a collective operation going, instead of individual commoners having a right to graze their animals, or whatever else they do, in an individual way. Should not the management of access be part of the duties or the powers of commons associations?