| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2004
7 48 p.m.
Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18 March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these regulations make general provision for the conduct of the European parliamentary elections due to be held on 10 June and revoke and replace the previous regulations, the European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1986. They also allow citizens of the 10 new member states to vote at and stand as a candidate at European parliamentary elections.
These regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They are generally being made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. The measures relating to the rights of citizens of the European Union to vote at and stand as a candidate at European parliamentary elections, however, are being made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
The regulations, which were laid on 18 March and taken through Standing Committee in another place on 22 April, are the first full revision of European parliamentary elections regulations since 1986 and effectively incorporate and consolidate the major changes to electoral legislation since then. The regulations will codify certain provisions from the Representation of the People Act 2000, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, the Electoral Fraud Act 2002 and associated subordinate legislation. The regulations also modify legislation to take account of citizens of those states joining the European Union on 1 May 2004, the accession states. The regulations are broadly in line with those that are now in place for Great Britain.
This is a technical piece of legislation and I do not intend to go into the detail of each individual part of it. However, two points caused a degree of confusion in the debate in another place. First, there was the issue of postal voting. The debate in another place referred to a three-week period for a postal vote. This, I think, stems from the fact that an application for a postal vote must be returned before 20 May, three weeks before polling day. The actual postal vote, however, must be returned by 10 p.m. on 10 June, which is of course polling day.
The second point of confusion related to the details that need to be included on the election publications with which Part 2 of these regulations deal. On billboards, placards and other literature the name and address of the printer, the promoter and the candidate must be included. However, it is not necessary to include details of the publisher if he or she is different from the printer. I hope that that clarifies matters. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18 March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2004
7.52 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22 March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2004 amend certain rules governing the operation of the transition schemes established to phase in the effects of the 1995 and 2000 revaluations.
Under the Local Government Finance Act 1988, revaluations must be carried out every five years, with the rateable values of all properties being updated in line with changes in their market rental values. The purpose of a revaluation is not to increase the amount of rates paid nationally. In fact, the legislation expressly prevents this from being done. The purpose of a revaluation is to adjust individual bills in line with relative movements in the property market. That means that at a revaluation many ratepayers benefit, with their rate bills being reduced. However, others see their bills increase.
The transition scheme phasing in the effects of the last revaluation, that of 2000, is estimated to have benefited more than 600,000 properties in England; that is, 40 per cent of the total. To pay for the phasing in of increases, other rate bills that were decreasing as a result of the revaluation had to have their decreases phased in to avoid a loss in rate income for local government.
The regulations governing the 1995 and 2000 schemes are lengthy, nearly four dozen pages each. They therefore need to be kept under review to ensure that they continue to work fairly. It is as a result of both discussions with representatives of the rating professionals and the impact of new rating legislation that we have decided on amendments to some provisions in the regulations. The Explanatory Memorandum provided with these draft regulations explains their purpose and effect.
First, there is a move to a standard one year in which ratepayers can appeal against the value of a certificate issued by a valuation officer for the calculation of a transition bill. As mentioned in the memorandum, when a new property, such as a suite of offices, is created from merging adjoining offices on the first day of a new rating list, to calculate the transition bill for the new office suite it is necessary to have values for the old offices on the assumption that they have survived until the first day of the new list. These values are certified by the valuation officer.
All ratepayers will now be guaranteed a minimum time in which to lodge an appeal against the certified values. If, following the making of an appeal the ratepayer and valuation officer cannot agree on the value, the matter is transferred to an independent valuation tribunal for decision. This move to standardisation in the time allowed to make an appeal will not adversely affect any ratepayer: all those on whom it will impact will benefit from more time in which to appeal.
Secondly, and happily, under Section 64 of the Local Government Act 2003, community amateur sports clubs which are registered under the Finance Act 2002 are now entitled to 80 per cent mandatory rate relief—that is, rate relief on a par with the relief that charities receive. This reflects the fact that these clubs play a valuable and influential role in promoting the health, welfare and cohesion of their local communities.
These amending regulations will ensure that the transition scheme will interact with this new rate relief for sports clubs in the same way in which it interacts with charity relief. First, the effects of transition on the rate bill will be taken account of, and then the resulting bill will be reduced by 80 per cent.
Finally, we will be holding a public consultation exercise later this year on the transition scheme to accompany the 2005 revaluation. The new scheme will of course take full account of the experience gained in the working of the current and past schemes, experience reflected in these new regulations. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22 March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. Anything to do with raising appeals is something most of us would avoid like the plague if we possibly could, but because of their complexity, not their desirability.
The regulations are now greatly overdue; they were originally promised in 2002. Indeed, some of the sister regulations which were promised in March were introduced in April. Can the Minister say at the outset why two years have passed before the regulations have come to light? They are not very controversial. Indeed, they are extremely desirable because anything that lengthens the time, first for the certification and then for the appeal, from six months to a year is bound to be welcome.
The Minister also mentioned that there will be consultation on the 2005 regulations; presumably they will cover the new rating system for 2005–10. We are, of course, almost at the end of the 2000–05 period. Are there any proposals for consolidation of the regulations? This was suggested in the Green Paper, Modernising Local Government Finance, in 2002 but so far there has been complete silence on the subject. Perhaps the Minister will give me a clear view on that
as well. We do not oppose the regulations. They are entirely sensible but require a little explanation on the matters I have raised.Finally, we welcome the appearance of the mandatory relief for amateur sports clubs. The matter was introduced into the House by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. Unfortunately, he cannot be in his place today, but I know that he will be dancing up and down with glee because his initiative has seen the light of day.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we, too, welcome the regulations, although it has taken a little while for me to work out that I do. The noble Baroness referred to their complexity. When I looked at the regulations I thought, "This is a surveyor's heaven really". I was not surprised, nor did I castigate myself too much, when I discovered that this is the thousandth regulation since the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Perhaps it is no wonder that we are running out of things to say on this subject.
I shall not repeat the questions asked by the noble Baroness. I was very relieved to see paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Note, which states,
- "These regulations will ensure that the 1995 and 2000 schemes will apply relief as intended".
I welcome the provisions for community amateur sports clubs. The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and another noble Lord whose name I am ashamed I cannot remember, formed a very active group of Peers which pushed the matter during primary legislation. I am sure that the clubs will be delighted that their pressure is now bearing fruit.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page