I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of some of these amendments. We took it that Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 were part of a tidying-up process, but we would be glad to study with more depth what he has said. It seemed to me to be quite meaningful.
It appears that Amendment No. 41, the main amendment, is the Government’s response to our Amendment No. 44 on removing the effects of common law. It seems sensible, but what do they intend under the proposed new subsection (5)? I was interested to hear the Minister say that they hoped to define ““agricultural purposes”” and we would be happy to get a definition in the Bill. I am advised that certain agricultural activities are prohibited on commons, so the definition could be an issue. Could the owners be allowed to conduct such activities on common land and could it be likely to happen through the back door if the wrong definition of ““agricultural purposes”” were included?
Commons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Duke of Montrose
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 25 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Commons Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c295GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:09:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269664
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269664
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269664