Commons Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for introducing Amendment No. 71, which I believe will get support from around the Chamber. It is a very sensible move. It is difficult when amendments are all taken together, but I shall say two things. I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for his contribution; he and I are very anxious that the flexibility and the way in which it has worked in the past should be able to continue for everybody’s benefit. My noble friend mentioned diversification, and the Minister, although he is fairly new to his brief, will know well that farmers are increasingly being asked to diversify. The use of farmers’ buildings is becoming of prime importance; I am sure that is something that has been raised with the Minister. Perhaps at this stage I should declare an interest as president of the National Farm Attractions Network, which is a very good example of many farmers who have diversified in the ways that we are discussing, and who might well be affected by the provisions of this Bill. The noble Lord did not answer the question of whether the CROW Act, or any other Act, overlaps the section we are debating today, and I would be grateful if he did. I say to the Minister—in a reasonably charming fashion, I hope—that I am still very unhappy about the broad brush of the wording here and the fact that in Clause 15(7) no one thing takes precedence over another. We are in a nightmare situation. The phrase used was ““catch-all”” position. I totally agree. The problem with this Bill is that so much is catch-all, and a lot of it will be solved by regulations in which we have no say. It is important that we get these points clarified at this stage. The Government need to give further thought to where the public interest conflicts with that of the landowner or the common owner. If the public interest is to be taken into account, how will this be done? What system is there? Will a letter be put through everyone’s letterbox saying: ““We have it in mind””, and: ““Do you support it?””? What about local people’s views? This whole area is unclear, unless I have read it incorrectly. The other point I want to raise—although this may be dealt with later, and I apologise if it is—is what happens, when views have been taken, if people do not like the decision that has been arrived at. Is there any form of appeal? How does the Minister, or the person dealing with it, get feedback from the local community, or from those who have direct interests in it? As far as I am aware, that is not included in this subsection. If I am wrong, I apologise. We should not leave this part of the Bill in such a general, unsatisfactory manner at this stage. I would be grateful for a little more clarification.