Commons Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his comments. Given the fair way in which the Minister dealt with the previous amendment, I hope that he will consider Amendment No. 191 seriously. I am sure that we will be told that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is unnecessary, but the noble Lord is quite right to raise this important issue. Amendment No. 191 would delete subsection (4). It is not a very long subsection but, my goodness, the power it contains is amazing. It is the power under subsection (1), which includes the power to amend or appeal an enactment. I have looked at that fairly carefully, and while this is a probing amendment, Clause 34 reads as though the Government’s intention were to ensure that public access to common land could take priority over other uses to which that land has traditionally been put. If that is the intention, then the connotation to be placed on subsection (4) is surely that the Government may repeal any local Act under which a commons association was formed, thereby—and this could well happen—nearly eliminating the association, which I am sure is not the Government’s wish. The Minister may be able to assure me that no such local Act exists but, if not, can he assure me that the Government would not use the repeal of a local Act in this way? I need an explanation for why it is in the Bill if it will not be used. The commons associations were formed to protect the interests of those with an interest in the ownership and the use of the land. It is as vital a role today as ever it was. If our countryside is to be protected for the benefit of all our citizens, there must be a balance between those who use it and those who enjoy it. I hope that in explaining the amendment, I have clarified it for the Minister. As the Bill stands, Clause 4 has an overriding power over any other enactment that might already exist. I do not think that I have misread it.