| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Byford: My Lords, it is my fault. I missed a point. The noble Baroness referred to those who employ dog wardens. I gather that 94 per cent of councils employ at least one dog warden. In 25 per cent of cases no fines are issued when people are caught and
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1456
are known to be contravening the law. Why? That is a high percentage. My question need not be answered now. The Minister can certainly respond in writing.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can only answer anecdotally. My experience in local government is that people attempt to give people a warning, but watch very carefully. Those who are not fined on the first occasion but given a warning may well find therefore that they are watched most carefully. If there is anything I can add more generally I will write, but that is my experience.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Restricted Byways (Application and Consequential Amendment of Provisions) Regulations 2006
6.05 pm
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16 February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Motion deals with the Restricted Byways (Application and Consequential Amendment of Provisions) Regulations 2006. Restricted byways are a new category of highway introduced by the CROW Act, and again I compliment both noble Baronesses, who worked very hard to ensure that that piece of legislation was as effective as it could possibly be. Restricted byways have a right of way on foot, on horseback or leading a horse, and for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles, including pedal cycles.
Restricted byways will deal with the long-standing problem of some local authorities failing to fulfil their statutory duty to reclassify all their RUPPs. The CROW Act provides instead for all RUPPs to become restricted byways on commencement of Section 47 of that Act. These regulations simply amend existing highways legislation to ensure that restricted byways operate sensibly within the existing framework of relevant legislation.
There is nothing controversial about the content. This is a technical exercise. Most amendments simply add or substitute the words "restricted byway" into existing provisions. The regulations provide for restricted byways to be created from scratch. In addition, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill—and here we all get a sense of déjà vu—provides for restricted byways to be recorded on the definitive map and statement on the basis of either historic evidence or evidence of a qualifying period of use. So in future, where rights for mechanically propelled vehicles are extinguished by the Bill's provision but the route carries historic vehicular rights, it will be possible to record that route as a restricted byway rather than a BOAT.
I am aware that many Members of this House are keen to see the rights of way provisions in Part 6 of the NERC Bill commenced as soon as possible. These
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1457
regulations are both complementary and essential to the Bill's rights of way provisions. I commend these regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16 February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations before us. I have to say I smiled when I saw what was on the Statutory Instrument, and thought "Yes, come next Monday, we will actually be at that part of the Bill, dealing with this very issue". She is quite right; my understanding is that this is a technical draft Statutory Instrument. Part 1 alters and amends 14 Acts; Part 2, 12 pieces of subordinate legislation. They will then come into force once the NERC Bill is enacted. I understand that the Minister, Jim Knight, has signed this to the effect that the provisions are compatible with the Convention on Human Rights, so I accept that, and I also accept that they are complementary and essential if we are going to push ahead with the changes we are dealing with.
My one question concerns the fact that disability is not mentioned in this at all. I want to make sure when we are dealing with the Bill on Monday that people who have disabled needs will still be able to have access, and will not find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing these regulations. I do not want to rehearse any of the interesting debate that I am sure we will have on Monday with the NERC Bill.
However, these regulations apply to the CROW Act, and six years seems quite a long time to introduce them. Having said that, I welcome them, and I am tempted to suggest that the three of us should found a club based on those who took part in consideration of the CROW Act. With respect to both noble Baronesses, I would have to call it the old crows club.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not a little offended by that, but the noble Baroness's noble friend from Lancashire may not be happy if I greet him as an old crow. I shall therefore be careful.
These regulations contain an amendment to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which ensures that no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of byways will affect invalid carriages. I hope that that reassures the noble
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1458
Baroness, Lady Byford. If she has any further concerns, I have no doubt that they will occur again on Monday.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the time taken. The redesignation of roads used as public paths to restricted byways has been an ambitious task and has involved scrutiny of more than 40,000 references to primary and secondary legislation, and detailed consideration of around 100 pieces of legislation, to ensure that this new category will operate as intended. The new rights of way legislation in the NERC Bill builds on the category of restricted byways by enabling rights acquired by non-mechanically propelled vehicles to be recorded as restricted byways rather than byways open to all traffic.
Before commencing the restricted byways provision, we needed to ensure that the final terms of the new provisions were compatible. We are now confident that that is the case. I thank both noble Baronesses for their support on all three sets of regulations tonight. I commend the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Identity Cards Bill
The Bill was returned from the Commons with the Commons disagreement to certain Lords amendments insisted on and with amendments proposed in lieu; and with a Commons amendment to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
Terrorism Bill
The Bill was returned from the Commons with the Commons disagreement to certain Lords amendments insisted on and with an amendment proposed in lieu; with a Commons amendment to which the Lords have disagreed insisted on; and with the Commons disagreement to the remaining Lords amendment not insisted on; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past six o'clock.
Correction
In col. 1222 of yesterday's Official Report, Lord Tyler's supplementary question was inadvertently attributed to Lord Soley.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 533
Thursday, 16 March 2006.
Grand Committee
The House met at two of the clock
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (BARONESS TURNER OF CAMDEN) in the Chair.]
Electoral Administration Bill
(Second Day)
Links to other Grand Committee Sittings on the Bill
Clause 9 [Registration officers: duty to take necessary steps]:
Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 42:
"( ) The duty to maintain the registers under section 9 above shall include the objective that the registers shall be as accurate as practicable, and in particular that—
(a) all persons who are entitled to be registered are so registered;
(b) no persons are registered who are not entitled to be registered; and
(c) the information on the registers about the elections in which registered persons are entitled to vote is accurate."
The noble Lord said: We convene again and move on to an extremely important part of the Bill: Part 2, which concerns registration. Part 3 concerns the extremely important matter of personal indicators—personal identifiers, I should say; I will get it right once I get going. Part 2 introduces some interesting measures to reform present law about electoral registration. In particular, it introduces duties on registration officers in more detail than presently exists.
The amendment would set a framework of policy and general duty for the specific duties set out in the Bill. The whole system of electoral registers is fundamental; it is the bedrock on which fair, open and honest democratic elections are based. That is why it is so important that we discuss it here today. The accuracy of the register is therefore also fundamental. My amendment is similar in some ways to an amendment moved by my honourable friend David Heath at Third Reading in the House of Commons, although his amendment also included proposals adequately to resource electoral registration officers to do their work. The Government were right to say that that did not belong in this part of the Bill and needed to be tackled in other ways, although it is a fundamental matter, which I hope we shall have time to discuss at some stage during Grand Committee.
I propose in the amendment that,
general objectives: first, to ensure that everyone who should be on the register is on the register; secondly, to ensure that people who are not entitled to be on the register are not on the register; and, thirdly, as is
16 Mar 2006 : Column GC534
increasingly important as more and more categories of people can vote in specific elections, to ensure that the information is accurate.
On Second Reading, the Minister accepted that the present state of accuracy of the electoral registers is not as it should be. In some areas, it is really quite good; in others, it is a shambles. We all accept that. As far as I can see, nowhere in the Bill and nowhere in the extremely complicated legislation that now governs elections—from Acts of Parliament to secondary legislation, which is an absolute nightmare to find your way through—is it a clear duty to aim for the maximum possible accuracy in the register. During the debate on David Heath's amendment, the Minister in the Commons said that it was all implied—that electoral registration officers are supposed to do this, that and the other—but nowhere is it stated that that is what it is all about. I think that it should be stated.
We had some discussion on Second Reading here about whether there is a tension between the integrity of the electoral system and getting maximum participation in it. I had some disagreements with the Minister but, when it comes to registration, there is no tension whatever. It is a win-win situation. The more effort and proper investigation that go into making sure that the electoral register is as accurate as it should be, the greater the integrity of the register, because the people who should not be there will not be on it, and the greater the potential participation, because more people who should be on it will be on it. There is no disagreement about that.
At the moment, however, the system is not working effectively in all sorts of areas. We have all come across instances in which people who ought to be on the register are not on it. The Electoral Commission's research suggests that 3.5 million—at least, between 3 million and 4 million—people in the UK should be on the register but are not. That is a democratic disgrace—there are 500,000 such people in Greater London alone. Wherever we are, we all come across these people when we go out canvassing for elections—at least, those of us who still do those things do.
Equally, there is an increasing amount of evidence that, in many places, there are people on the register who ought not to be there. I recently had a communication from a councillor colleague in Manchester, who writes:
"I've noticed a flat in my Ward which although I know to be a one-bedroomed flat has no less than 7 electors registered there of which 6 have apparently applied to vote as permanent postal voters at that address".
She goes on to say that, when she made inquiries to the city treasurer, it turned out that the elector who had not applied for postal votes there is claiming a single person discount on the council tax. In inner-city and certain other areas, that kind of experience is not unusual. I could give lots of examples from my part of the world, although I will not detain the Committee with them today.
It is very important that we should set out on the face of the Bill a clear requirement that the electoral register must be as accurate as possible. I believe that that will help enormously in all instances where
16 Mar 2006 : Column GC535
electoral registration officers do not do that as much as they should do, perhaps because councils are underfunding them. I understand that the Government will lay down criteria, standards, objectives and targets, so that electoral registration officers will be under the same sort of regime as everybody else is under nowadays. That is fair enough, but I suggest that the amendment provides the very basis for setting such standards and targets and for getting our electoral registers into a much better condition than they are now in many places. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |