Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, my only fear in replying is that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will think that I am picking on him. I promise him that I am not. However, I shall try to argue successfully that Amendment No. 59, although very attractive—who can resist the call for animal welfare?—is inappropriate in this instance. I have already spoken to Amendment No. 58, and I am grateful to noble Lords around the House for their support on that. Let me see what I can do on Amendment No 59. It adds the expression,"““the promotion of animal welfare””" to the list of purposes for which an exemption may be issued. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made and the same points that were made by the noble Baroness in Committee. My concern about adding animal welfare to the list of purposes in Clause 43 is essentially as was explained in the letter to noble Lords following Grand Committee. The examples that I have been given for why certain works may be needed for the protection of animal welfare are not consistent with the reasons why we might issue an exemption from the controls on works. It seems to us that channelling animals away from recreational hotspots or keeping them from straying onto roads would require permanent works. Furthermore, such works could have a significant effect on the open and unenclosed nature of our commons in places where people congregate to enjoy the common, either on foot or in a vehicle. I ask the House: can we imagine the difference that it would make driving across Dartmoor, for example, with fences on either side of the road?