Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, deregulation would be even better than better regulation, but that is another matter. I have not read the noble Lord’s speech in full but I shall certainly do so. There is a serious problem with the current situation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for quoting again from his letter. I believe that he referred to an 1899 Act that applied to urban commons. However, in those days it was considered a mild march to travel five miles up the road to gain access to a common. Nowadays people are mobile, and those who are lucky enough to be able to do so can gain access to areas of the country they would never have dreamt of visiting in the past. We should introduce legislation that is relevant for today and for the future, rather than thinking about the past. I am slightly disappointed that on this occasion the noble Lord did not even try to meet us halfway. Disabled access was mentioned. We shall debate that matter on the NERC Bill. I refer to the issue of 4x4s in connection with that Bill. Clearly, there are disabled people who need to have access to be able to enjoy some parts of the countryside that they would not otherwise be able to enjoy; so there is a longer-term question. As I said earlier, the original Act was based on urban commons, and it was intended to make a far greater area of the land available to people as time went by. It is not relevant to us today. It is with a very heavy heart that I say to the Minister that he has not answered us. If we are not lucky enough tonight to win the Division, which I feel I must call, I hope that between now and when the Bill passes through another place the Government will give greater consideration to what I think is the crux of the Bill. I am disappointed with the noble Lord’s response, and I beg leave to take the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 137 [Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]