Commons Bill [HL]

Amendment No. 89 would require the correction of mistakes in the register under the provisions of Schedule 1 to be concluded by 28 June 2015. Amendments Nos. 91, 97, 99 and 102 would therefore remove the power in Schedule 1 to specify a cut-off date for application and regulations. The Committee knows by now that the registers drawn up under the 1965 Act contain many inaccuracies. Where these inaccuracies relate to the extent of registered common land or greens—that is, to the boundaries of registered land—provision is made in Schedule 1 for corrections to be made in limited circumstances. Regulations will be able to prescribe a cut-off date for applications under Schedule 1. After that date has passed we believe that registers should become final and conclusive of such matters, right or wrong. We expect to consult on fixing a cut-off date, but our present view is that in setting the date we should not repeat the difficulties that were met after the passing of the 1965 Act in rushing the application process and denying adequate opportunities for consultation and publicity. We have in mind a substantial period of time, maybe 10 years or even considerably longer. We are also considering whether it would be sensible to roll out the implementation of the Bill on a phased basis, commencing with a pilot in a particular county or region. That would enable us to refine regulations, guidance and practice in the light of experience. We do not want to make the same mistakes that were made after 1965. I feel sure the National Assembly will also wish to retain discretion in terms of the timetable for implementation in Wales. Noble Lords will know of the Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Act 1989, which provided a time-limited opportunity to remove wrongly-registered houses and gardens from the registers and expired three years later. Yet many homeowners who could have applied under the Act were simply unaware of their opportunity to do so. So we believe that it would be best to avoid arbitrary cut-off dates and to maintain the flexibility afforded by the regulation-making powers in Schedule 1. The noble Duke asked about the number of qualifying events, but we cannot say how many events are outstanding, precisely because they have not been brought forward for registration. We expect the number of events to be significantly higher in areas where commoning remains important because of transfers of rights. We expect that progress can be made in establishing commons associations under Part 2, without waiting for full reform under Part 1. So the achievements of the PSA target need not be affected by the potential programme for rolling out Part 1. Amendment No. 109 would require the transitional period for bringing the registers up to date in Schedule 2 to be concluded by 28 June 2012. Amendment No. 112 would consequentially remove the power to make regulations prescribing the duration of the transitional period. Amendment No. 113, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would have a similar effect to Amendment No. 109: it would require the transitional period to be concluded by no later than 10 years from the date of commencement of the Act. We believe that a period of only six years, or even 10 years, from Royal Assent to enable the updating of the registers throughout England and Wales is perhaps too ambitious. We already know that it is going to be a big job, but as I have said, we are considering a phased implementation of Part 1 of the Bill. That means that it would be inappropriate to impose a fixed cut-off date in relation to the conclusion of the transitional period. Moreover, we wish to learn from experience in deciding how long we should allow for the transitional period in any particular area. Our view is that three years is about right, but we are more than willing to listen to advice and to learn from experience, and we may find that three years is quite insufficient. Our argument is that we should not impose rigid timetables in the Bill but should retain the flexibility to adapt as our understanding of the requirements of implementation improves.