We do not believe that it would be appropriate to impose a duty on registration authorities. We are firmly of the view that local authorities should have discretion on whether to take enforcement action, weighing up all the relevant factors and looking, on a case-by-case basis, at whether enforcement action is necessary or whether some other action might provide an appropriate and cost-effective remedy.
We understand that criticism has been levelled that local authorities are rarely inclined to take enforcement action save in the most clear-cut cases. I understand the concerns that the noble Lord has raised about alleged unlawful encroachment and works that have taken place over a period but we believe that the answer is not to impose a duty but to provide a power to take action. In that way, local authorities can consider all the circumstances of a case.
It could impose a very heavy burden on such authorities when they are dealing with a very minor transgression. Where more significant works are undertaken, the democratic process and the ability of local people and others to lobby local councils and their councillors should ensure that appropriate action is taken. Knowing the noble Lord’s long experience of local government, I am sure he will agree that local authorities can be lobbied.
We believe that the provisions in the Bill will provide a sound basis for the protection of common land in future. The package of measures we have brought forward, including the provisions in Clause 36 which clarify the kinds of works covered by the controls, and the powers we propose to take in Clause 41, which we shall get to in due course and which exempt from the controls certain kinds of specified works, gives greater clarity to the works which fall within the categories of needing or not needing consent. These improvements should not only reduce the likelihood of unlawful works being undertaken but should also remove some of the uncertainty as to which works are and are not permitted. We believe that that may be one of the reasons why local authorities have up to now been reluctant to take enforcement action.
This package of measures, when taken together, represents an appropriate, relevant and effective means to address the problems raised by the noble Lord and others in regard to unlawful works on commons. I commend the measures to the Committee and to the noble Lord. In the light of those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Commons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Commons Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c262GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:28:27 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276065
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276065
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276065