Commons Bill [HL]

Amendment No. 110 removes the powers in Schedule 2 for regulations to make provision for a transitional period to enable the updating of the commons registers, but my noble friend wants the answer to two questions. His is very much a probing amendment. I know that he will forgive me if I come back to him in due course. Amendment No. 114 removes paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which provides for the extinguishment of rights of common which remain unregistered at the conclusion of the transitional period. Amendment No. 114 would cause any unregistered but otherwise valid rights to remain in existence but off the registers. Our aim is to ensure that the commons registers are updated to reflect the many events which have taken place since they were drawn up in the late 1960s, but which were not reflected in amendments to the register. During the transitional period, people will have an opportunity to apply to register events which affect the interests in the registers. Indeed, we hope and expect that they will pursue any necessary amendments. But there must be a sanction—I believe he was addressing the Committee on this issue—to be applied where the amendments are not made, and paragraph 3 therefore provides that rights which exist, but are unregistered at the cut-off date, will be extinguished. In the same way, rights which were previously extinguished but remain registered at the cut-off date will be revived, by virtue of Clause 17. The main effect of paragraph 3 will be to extinguish any right which has been created over land since 1970, but which is left unregistered. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there are very few such rights. The most likely source is where land has been acquired by compulsory purchase, and substitute land given in exchange: it will be essential that the rights vested in the exchange land are registered, if they are not to be extinguished. There is provision in paragraph 4 of the schedule for regulations to enable qualifying amendments to be made after the cut-off date, but we expect that such regulations would permit an amendment only if it were fair—I use that word ““fair”” with some hesitation—having regard to the effect which it would have on other interests in the right or land; so an out-of-time amendment would be discretionary, not an entitlement. Therefore, the amendment would remove the sanctions that are intended to help ensure engagement by stakeholders in the whole review process and leave people with no reason to bother applying for amendments to the register. That of course would mean that we would be unable to achieve our objective of current, up-to-date registers which are fit for purpose. Amendment No. 111 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the registration during the transitional period of qualifying events, whereas at present that power is discretionary. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that it will be very necessary to make regulations to set out a procedure for updating the commons registers under Schedule 2. It would be impossible to achieve our objective of an up-to-date register without a period of review during which qualifying events are captured in the registers. The amendment is unnecessary—I know that the noble Baroness is probing us on this—because it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly will not make regulations. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that we seek some flexibility in the way in which the transitional period is implemented in different areas, and the imposition of the word ““shall”” could constrain that flexibility. At the moment, paragraph 2 ensures that we may make provision for registers to be amended in consequence of qualifying events, so that we could in principle make regulations for some qualifying events but not others. If we change ““may”” to ““must”” we will lose that flexibility. The possibility of registration of all ““qualifying events”” would no longer be a concession, but a right, and we would have to make regulations to cater for all qualifying events. Last but certainly not least, I turn to Amendment No. 110, which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. As regards the timing issue and transitional arrangements, my answer is as follows. I said yesterday in debate on Amendment No. 89 that we envisage a period of three years or more for the transitional period in any particular area, although that period may be phased in in its implementation across the country. I know that that is a slightly vague answer to my noble friend’s question, but three years is the period. My noble friend asked a question about rights attached to farm business tenancies. It may be that neither I nor those advising me heard his question clearly. We may need to write with an answer. Indeed, my note says that we trust the noble Lord will forgive us. He has raised a very interesting point on the rights attached. We will write on that issue.