Commons Bill [HL]

My Lords, this amendment would introduce a definition of the word ““access”” by reference to a number of previous Acts. When the noble Lord tabled an amendment on this subject in Grand Committee, his concern was to ensure clarity about the type of public access referred to at various points in the Bill. At that stage he had in mind to refer in his definition only to CROW access, but he has now suggested a more broadly framed definition. In my letter to noble Lords dated 24 November, I explained why we do not favour this approach and I shall run briefly through the reasons. Essentially, our difficulty is that we disagree that a generic definition would be helpful. In fact, we think it would be positively unhelpful. The reason for this is that each time we use the word ““access”” in the Bill—and currently it has eight separate mentions in the Bill as amended so far—we use a formulation to fit that particular context. Where they are different, they are different for a reason. Four references form part of the identical inclusive definitions of the phrase ““the public interest”” that appear in Clauses 16, 31, 39 and 46, which we have just amended to include this definition. The fifth reference avoids impacts on existing access rights by any order we may make under Clause 36 to amend local measures relating to management of common land. Two references relate to works on common land. One helps to set the scope of the works control system under Clause 38, while the other reference forms one of the grounds on which an order under Clause 43 may give an exemption from the requirement for approval for works. We dealt with the last reference when we considered Amendment No. 58 earlier. As I say, these formulations are different for a reason. To take the example that best makes the point, the reference in Clause 38 to works preventing or impeding access is not a reference just to rights of public access, it is a reference to access of any description whatever—by statute, by custom or tradition, by commoners for the purposes of exercising their grazing or other rights, and so on. It also includes access to the subsoil of the common, so that any new artificial surfacing is also likely to be caught. This was the formulation used in the Law of Property Act 1925 and we intend it to have the same meaning in the Bill. It would be unfortunate if we were inadvertently to alter the focus of the works control system through a desire to introduce a generic definition of ““access”” into this general interpretation clause. We believe that it would constrain the meaning of the word in a way which I know is neither intended nor would be helpful. That is why I welcome our short debate on the question of definition, but on this occasion I believe that the Government are right.