Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Whitty: Despite the slight misunderstandings, we are all agreed on this. There is no requirement on the landowner to meet the cost of the facilities. At one point the noble Baroness became confused when I used the term "access authorities". By that, generally speaking, I meant the local authority or the parks authority. I did not mean the agencies. Most of the expenditure would be through the access authorities. The landowner would contribute if there was an extra over and above the access benefit and that would only be by agreement with the local authority to make that contribution.

We are agreed also that we do not want to place an obligation on local authorities to provide those facilities all over the place. They must make a judgment. It is probable that there are some areas

3 Oct 2000 : Column 1508

where there will be a large increase in visitors. There might have to be some provision but that is a matter for the local authorities' judgment.

On the funding, I gave an indication as regards the funding during our discussions on the purpose clause. Although we referred to a figure of £2.3 million, that is for the period of the current CSR. Those costs will arise from the point when the mapping has been completed and, therefore, are well beyond the present CSR period. Therefore, I must protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer's position in relation to that matter to some extent.

However, the figures which the local authorities have been briefing us on is that it will cost them roughly £5.5 million per year to provide those facilities and the general back-up. The figure I quoted for the totality of all this on the purpose clause was that it might be four or five times the £2.3 million in the current three-year period. I hope that that clarifies that funding is available as well.

I totally endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, as we all do, that we do not want that funding to lead to signs, car parks and toilets all over the countryside. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept those reassurances and will accept also that the Bill already provides what he is looking for.

Lord Northbrook: I thank the Minister for his thorough response to my amendment. I shall read carefully what he said in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the next amendment begins a whole new subject, a discrete grouping, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

        House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page