Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that long explanation on important issues that took up quite a lot of time in Grand Committee, for listening and for putting forward amendments which certainly satisfy the points of issue and principle that a number of us raised in Grand Committee with our amendments. The Minister said that he would look at this carefully. He has done so and has come back with amendments which, largely, satisfy many of the points that we made. Once again, I thank the Minister and the Government for that and, as the Minister said earlier, for improving the Bill. My Amendment No. 18 would amend a government amendment. As the Minister said, Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would clear up the incredibly confused position about neighbourhoods and localities. The amendment is as good as any might be in terms of local inhabitants. We will no doubt get another series of applications which have to be determined on the basis of local inhabitants. Like all of those things, we will see whether it works. But the changes that my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, tried to sort out during the passage of the CROW Act five and a half years ago did not work. Let us hope that these do work. So I cheer the Government on for these amendments. Government Amendment No. 19 responds to amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who is not here today, and myself in Grand Committee. If you own land and want it to be a green, and the local people want it to be a green, it can now become a green without waiting for 20 years. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, explained how he had donated land to his local parish council. It was being managed as a green, but it could not be legally a green until that situation had happened for 20 years. That is clearly unsatisfactory. This amendment should sort that out. In the ward that I represent on my local council in Pendle, we have the Millennium Green. It was industrial land that was reclaimed as a green under a millennium funding project. It is run by an independent trust which, no doubt, will now be able to get it turned into a town green without waiting another 15 years. This is good stuff for which I thank the Government. Amendment No. 16 sorts out what we call the ““foot and mouth”” problem, but, obviously, there could be other reasons why statutory closures take place. This amendment should sort that out and end uncertainty. Once again, I thank the Government for responding to the amendment that I moved previously. My amendment probes what,"““by reason of any enactment””," means in new subsection (4) of government Amendment No. 16. The government amendment says that,"““there is to be disregarded any period during which access to the land was prohibited to members of the public by reason of any enactment””." It seems to me that it is not the enactment which is the problem, it is the actions which people quite legitimately take under that enactment. I propose that the subsection should read,"““action taken under any enactment””." I will listen with interest to what the Government have to say. Perhaps they will assure me that my concerns are of no real concern and that their amendment means exactly what I want it to mean. Once again, I thank the Government for these three amendments which substantially improve the legislation.