Examination of witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
TUESDAY 9 MAY 2000
MR JOHN
BALLARD, MR
HENRY DERWENT,
MR MICHAEL
GAHAGAN and MR
MARK LAMBIRTH
80. The report says that from January 2001 the
RDAs will be responsible for the Structural Fund programmes. Could
you tell us exactly what that will mean in practice?
(Mr Ballard) What we are trying to do is to have a
clear transition from responsibilities passed from Government
Offices to RDAs. So we are making the transition in respect of
the post-2000 Structural Fund programmes, because that would seem
to be a convenient transition point. From that point, as we look
forward to post 2000, we are saying the RDAs in each region will
take up a key role in developing future Objective 1 and Objective
2 programmes. They will be responsible for consulting widely with
other partners and then representing those partners' views. Clearly,
we will need to work very closely with the Government Offices
that still remain the official conduit by which things get to
ministers and then to Brussels. They will work closely with the
Government Offices by taking part in negotiations with the European
Commission. In doing so they will advise on the strategic issues,
and they will make sure that what is being done in respect of
Objective 1 and Objective 2 ties in with their own strategic plans
for the regions, so there is no discontinuity in that. When they
have the programme, when the programme is achieved, they will
then be responsible for evaluating its delivery, both mid-term
evaluation and afterwards. So a very real role which ties in with
their existing responsibilities.
81. Will they chair the monitoring committee?
(Mr Ballard) No.
82. Who will chair it?
(Mr Ballard) That will still be the Government Office.
Mr Olner
83. A very quick one on match funding, which
Louise Ellman was trying to tease out of you. It has been well
documented that the Welsh Assembly are rather upset and want within
the current Spending Review a test of this Government's commitment
on devolution by ensuring that there is additional government
moneys going to that particular region so that they can secure
Objective 1. What I want to know is: is that going to be done
at the expense of the other English regions, or can we all expect
the same treatment?
(Mr Ballard) Certainly we would be representing that
view, that you have just put succinctly, within Government. We
would be arguing that there should be parity of treatment and,
indeed, I think that is clear Government policy and it is tied
in with what I said before, that what we are seeking to do is
to ensure that resources across England, Scotland and Wales are
available to match Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes. Where
part of the difficulty arose on the Welsh experience was perhaps
in the transition from single government to a devolved administration
and understanding the basis upon which the block allocations were
being made. One would not expect that to happen a second time
around.
Chairman
84. Can I move you on to the Ordnance Survey.
You screwed the Ordnance Survey as far as Government grant is
concerned, is that right?
(Mr Ballard) You have asked me about this once before.
Mr Olner
85. That was a very quiet response, you could
not speak up a bit, could you?
(Mr Ballard) I am sorry. I was just saying that the
Chairman had asked me about the Ordnance Survey previously. I
think the position, as you know, is that we have put the funding
of the Ordnance Survey on a new basis. Instead of giving them
a grant they are now a trading fund. For those services Government
wishes to buy we have a National Interest Mapping Services Agreement
and they have clear assured funding for the period of the current
CSR review which goes up to 2001-02. That has given them a much
firmer basis on which to plan for the future and one which they
have broadly welcomed.
Chairman
86. I think they did not welcome the actual
sum that was picked, did they? They were somewhat disappointed,
is that fair?
(Mr Ballard) They were certainly pleased in what they
said to us. If they said something contrary to anyone else I am
not aware. They seemed to be content with what we proposed.
87. The result is that the Ordnance Survey are
now charging very high fees through local authorities for access
to the large scale maps, is that right?
(Mr Ballard) The payment by local authorities to the
Ordnance Survey is £12 for the first copy, the royalty, and
then a sliding scale for any additional copies. So for an A4,
for example, it would be 42 pence. That charge, royalty if you
like, is set by the Ordnance Survey reflecting the cost to them
of producing the base information and has to be seen set alongside
the cost of getting the equivalent information from a survey agent
in the High Street where you would pay for a slightly different
package, you would pay £25 for getting six copies of the
site plan. I do not think the Ordnance Survey regard the £12
royalty as being extravagant, they simply regard it as being the
cost of producing this information and ensuring that you have
a good quality database available for the future, because if the
money is not there to continually fund the revision of it then
you will not have a decent database for the future.
88. Surely the database is something that the
Government is paying for in the grant? If we want to have a National
Planning System that is needed by the Government, is it not?
(Mr Ballard) This is not covered by NIMSA. This is
regarded as being a basic commercial operation and appropriate
to be funded in this way.
89. So you do not think that having a proper
set of maps in this country for planning purposes is a national
requirement?
(Mr Ballard) No, I did not say that. I think the way
in which NIMSA is drawn up is not actually to embrace everything
that the Ordnance Survey do. I think one could represent that
all they do is of value to the country and we wish to see it continue,
but for those things for which there is a good commercial market,
and which can be funded by the commercial market, policy is that
it should be done in that way. NIMSA is only intended to support
those activities which will not be funded by the market.
90. So what you are actually saying is that
the whole of the Ordnance Survey is geared now to serving the
big developers who can afford to pay £25 or the £13.66
without any difficulty, but our individual constituents who may
object to a planning application or want to put forward a small
planning application themselves to put on an extension to a dwelling,
those are the ones who will be stung by this policy, is that right?
(Mr Ballard) I would dispute whether £12 or something
of that order is a large payment in respect of the total cost
that would be undertaken even in a small development. If you have
an extension to your house you will know that it will rapidly
come up to quite a considerable sum. Even a small wall is quite
an expensive process. We do not think that these fees are set
at a level in such a way that they act as a deterrent.
91. That is all right even if you are the small
person doing the development, but if you are an objector to a
proposal, in the past you could go to a local authority and get
this information on a map, paying the cost of the photocopying
to the local authority, but you are now charged these very high
fees. Is that not outrageous?
(Mr Ballard) I do not think I can do more than simply
repeat what I said. I do not think that we would accept these
fees are outrageous at the level at which they are set. As I say,
they are £12 for the first copy but if you want more copies,
and indeed that may be a way forward certainly for groups, then
the additional cost of 42p is very small.
92. Are you aware that a group like Peak and
Northern who have for years tried to record public rights of way
on the maps in their area are now being charged very high fees
to get access to these maps?
(Mr Ballard) The policy would be applied consistently,
so to the extent that fees are being charged then they will be
charged to all users.
93. So if you want to just record on a map a
footpath that runs about five miles you could end up charging
someone like a voluntary group like that £100. Do you think
that is reasonable?
(Mr Ballard) I think we would always be prepared to
look at individual cases that you felt were inappropriate in this
way but, as I say, if the policy is there to charge in order to
fund the base data then one would have to look very carefully
at whether you made exceptions.
94. To what proportion do you think the Government
should be funding that base data as opposed to trying to sell
maps by Ordnance Survey?
(Mr Ballard) The base data that is the subject of
these copies is funded not by Government but by the commercial
market. It is not actually something that Government itself—
95. The cost is to do the survey, is it not,
it is not now printing it out because it comes off a computer,
there is no extra cost once you have actually collected the information?
The expensive part of the Ordnance Survey has been maintaining
the survey across the country, has it not?
(Mr Ballard) Obviously getting the initial database
is the prime cost. You have then got the cost of updating it,
which is considerable, you have to send somebody out to do it,
and then, because you are offering a map which is absolutely accurate
as of that morning, you are able to do that because the data is
coming from Southampton and there is a technology attached to
that which carries a cost.
Mr Olner
96. Can I just say, so that we are not complete
ogres, we are rather pleased that you are undertaking a survey
jointly with English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund to
address the information deficit on parks. Can you give us an indication
of when an initial report of the survey will be available?
(Mr Ballard) I think we would expect it to be published
and available to the Committee by about June I think.
97. Could I ask a follow-up to that, Mr Ballard.
What has been the response rate so far to the survey from local
authorities?
(Mr Ballard) We expect the total response rate to
be about 300.
98. Out of how many?
(Mr Ballard) Out of about 435.
99. So is your Department going to name and
shame those that have not responded? It is still an incomplete
report, is it not?
(Mr Ballard) In terms of it is not a 100 per cent
response one would have to look at it carefully to make sure that
the data was sufficiently representative, and that is partly what
the researchers at the Institute of Leisure Amenity Management
will need to do as part of writing up their report, to form a
view about the adequacy of the data. They have not intimated to
us so far that they have any worries on that score but that is
certainly a point that I can make sure is addressed in the report.
What we do not want to do is to produce a report which people
can then say is unreliable because the database is not adequate.
| 
