UK Parliament / Open data

Commons Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Lord Bach (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Commons Bill [HL].
My Lords, the amendment would require the Government to fund the costs of commons registration authorities in meeting the additional burdens imposed by Part 1. Our position on funding the costs of Part 1 is quite clear, but let me briefly repeat our case. The Government are committed to funding new burdens placed on local authorities. So it is that local authorities will be provided with funding from the Government for any new burdens arising under this Bill, including those relating to updating the registers, in so far as they are not met by funding from other sources, such as fees. Funding for Welsh local authorities will of course be a matter for the National Assembly. When the Bill merely retains existing duties on commons registration authorities, arising under the Commons Registration Act 1965, we will not be providing additional funding. In particular, that includes the requirement on authorities to keep commons registers. But Defra will provide additional funding to authorities for new or enhanced duties that arise from the Bill. Once the registers are up to date, it will be incumbent on both authorities and those with an interest in common land to fulfil their statutory responsibilities. People will generally need to pay fees for amendments to the registers, and authorities must keep the registers up to date. Funding will not be provided for those activities that are funded through fees, nor for applications to register new town or village greens which are already funded other than to the extent that new regulations may place new burdens on registration authorities. Where fees are waived or reduced in the public interest, then that too will need to be taken into account. The costs of bringing the registers up to date are expected to vary greatly between local authorities, but the overall costs are not expected to be high. The regulatory impact assessment contains estimates of new costs and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The assessment will be updated in the usual way at Royal Assent. We expect to roll out the implementation of Part 1 by beginning with a pilot scheme in a small number of registration authority areas. The identification of those pilot areas, and the amount of the required funding, will be considered as part of that pilot programme and in association with the Local Government Association. We propose to target resources initially, so that additional funding hits the mark. The pilot programme will also enable us to refine the question of   costs, and seek agreement on a formula which can be applied across English commons registration authorities. Finally, we will also be working with registration authorities over the months ahead to establish the new association of commons registration officers on a sound footing. That will provide an important medium for communication between officers, Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government, and I am pleased to report that there is already real enthusiasm among registration officers to take this project forward. I see a valuable role for the association in helping us to implement the Bill in a practical and cost-effective manner. I was asked why the taxpayer should have to pay. The Bill reflects the fact that there is a public interest in the management of common land and in ensuring that the registers are brought up to date. As I say, the cost arising from any new aspects of the Bill will be met from both user fees and public funding.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

677 c667-8 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top