Commons Bill [HL]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I am not sure whether I ought not simply to hand over my amendments and ask the Government to tick them. I could then go away and spend the afternoon doing something more productive, but perhaps not. However, I am grateful for the Minister’s words and the assurance will slightly shorten what I want to say. The Commons Registration Act 1965 referred to ““localities””, although I shall not go into the detail. When five years ago we considered the CROW Bill, my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer raised the matter because the problems attached to the word ““locality”” was causing difficulties. It was being defined by the courts in different ways and thus was preventing the registration of town and village greens where it appeared, on the basis of all the other facts and information available, they should have been registered. As a result the Government brought forward their own amendment to that Bill which introduced the slightly interesting concept of ““neighbourhoods within localities””. It was hoped that that would sort out this problem and prevent registrations being refused simply because people were confused. The registration process was being delayed by the difficulties attached to the definition of ““locality””. In practice, that has turned out not to be the case. I have before me a list of applications to register village greens that have failed as a result of locality and neighbourhood issues over the past two years. These include wonderfully named places such as Hogshaw Wood, Buxton; Magpie Bottom, Bristol; Painters Corner, Chelmsford and Norman Way, Pretty Gate, Colchester. While I do not have the details of these applications and it may be that there may be other issues, it is absolutely clear that the ““neighbourhood within locality”” point is still causing problems. It ought not to do so. It should be made very clear what Parliament wants in the legislation so that we know which village green applications for registration can be granted and which not. I should observe that the list I have just repeated sounds like something from the Pickwick Papers. In my view, they ought to have been granted their registrations without further ado simply because of their wonderful names. But perhaps that is a rather simplistic view. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, but the genuine and legitimate attempt on the part of the Government to resolve the issue five years ago when they recognised the problem has not worked. However, if the Minister says that they are going to look at this again and try to come up with something which will work in practice, that is much to be welcomed. Should any other noble Lord wish to speak, I shall not withdraw the amendment just yet.