---

However, I have one question, which was also asked by my honourable friend in another place, the Member for Argyll and Bute. Today, the Minister addressed the issue of there being no retrospective provision for information gathered before these regulations. However, under the present provision, the authorities can respond to a request from the CEO, first, to provide the information; secondly, to inform the registration officer that the information is not held; and, thirdly, to request further time. My honourable friend asked whether there should not be a fourth option to say that the authorities have the information, but are not giving it because it was acquired before the regulations came into effect. It seems to me that that is a logical addition to the other three responses, and it would have been tidier if that provision had been made. Can the Minister say why it has not been included? However, we support the regulations.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith of Clifton, for welcoming this order. I confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is correct about the 10-year period. Both noble Lords made some very interesting points about the electoral process in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that they will be noted.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, we judged that the fourth option was not necessary. The powers are permissive, and it would not have added anything to include that fourth option.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007

5.17 pm

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 February be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Boundary Commission for England announced the beginning of its fifth general review of English parliamentary constituencies in February 2000. The Secretary of State received the Boundary Commission’s resulting report on 31 October 2006.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the now Ministry of Justice laid the report and the draft order before Parliament on 26 February 2007. This fulfilled the Secretary of State’s obligation under Section 3(5) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to lay the order and report before Parliament as soon as may be after receipt of the report. The order will give effect, without modification, to the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for England in its report.

Before turning to the details of the order, I thank the Boundary Commission for England—the deputy chairman, the honourable Mr Justice Sullivan, and his fellow commissioners, Mr Michael Lewer and Mr Robin Gray—and its expert secretariat for their work in delivering the report.

Under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the Boundary Commission for England is required to keep English parliamentary boundaries under constant review and to conduct a general review every eight to 12 years. In reaching its conclusions, the Boundary Commission for England seeks, in line with the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to create constituencies that, as far as practicable, are contained within and respect county and London borough boundaries and that adhere as closely as possible to the electoral quota, which is a figure calculated by dividing the total electorate in England by the number of English seats in the House of Commons at that time. The figures used in that calculation are taken from the electoral register in force at the time that the commission announces the beginning of its review, which is referred to in the Act as the “enumeration date”. On that basis, the electoral quota for this review was set at 69,935.

Accordingly, the Boundary Commission for England attempted to create constituencies with a parliamentary electorate as close as possible to that number. However, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 also requires other factors to be taken into account to mitigate the rather arbitrary splitting of natural communities that may result from the application of a mathematical formula alone. These other rules include special geographical, community and transport considerations. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that the Boundary Commission for England, in devising the new constituency boundaries, has had to strike a balance to achieve the best possible outcome.

I am aware that there may be opposition to individual recommendations in the report. Frankly, given the nature of the work, it would be amazing if there were not at least some disagreements during the process. However, in the absence of any evidence of political bias or failure to observe the statutory requirements by the commission, the Government have not seen sufficient reason to alter its recommendations. That is particularly so, given the Boundary Commission for England’s status as an independent, apolitical and impartial body that formulates its recommendations following a lengthy and detailed process of consultation and research within the terms of its remit.

Provisional recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England are publicised locally, and interested parties are invited to give their views. If there was a sufficient objection to a recommendation of the Boundary Commission, public inquiries were held in the local area, where interested parties could submit counterproposals. Independent legal experts chaired these inquiries, considered each objection and counterproposal, and produced a full report, which was then considered by the Boundary Commission for England in formulating revised recommendations. These were again publicised, with a further opportunity for representations to be made on them and considered by the commission before its recommendations were finalised.

In conclusion, the Government are satisfied that the Boundary Commission for England has followed all due procedures in reaching its conclusions and in making its recommendations. We now need to complete the parliamentary process to implement the recommendations. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 February be approved. 11th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee and 14th Report from the Merits Committee.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for describing this order. I join him in acknowledging the work that has been done by the Boundary Commission for England over what is now a very long period. It started its work well prior to the last election and the new boundaries will not take effect until the next election, so there is a long space between the enumeration date and the actual implementation of the boundaries, by which time I am sure that all the population figures will have gone completely haywire again. No doubt that will be dealt with at some stage.

I recognise that a lot of work has gone into not only drawing up these boundaries but ensuring that public inquiries were held where appropriate. The result of the order before us today probably has taken a great deal of detailed investigation.

I raise only one matter with the Minister. The order draws attention to the 11th report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It has now decided that the Boundary Commission for England should not be given to the Electoral Commission as a boundary committee. I have no difficulty with that; I was just wondering whether there was a reason behind it, because I have not found the 11th report of the standards committee. Somebody will smile and produce it for the noble Lord before the end.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, I also welcome sight of the order today. For those of us involved in the organisation of election campaigns, it helps to have some certainty that we will be on new boundaries. I think I am right in saying that no Government have ever actually altered or tried to modify the recommendations of any Boundary Commission report, although a number of times different Governments have tried to speed up the process or delay implementation of the Boundary Commission’s proposals, perhaps according to their advantage at the time. I wondered whether we would see the order today or whether the Prime Minister-elect might have a sneaky plan for a snap election based on the old boundaries. But with the order today, we and those organising the elections have certainty that we are selecting candidates and fighting on the basis of the new boundaries.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I have just one question about the Electoral Commission and its responsibility for future Boundary Commission processes. I have always thought that the Boundary Commission process at present is most unsatisfactory—inviting eminent lawyers to chair what is effectively a fight between political parties and other interested representatives as they try to argue about the continuity of constituencies, community links and so on. A number of those claims are often bogus but are then refereed by some senior judge.

When we discussed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we supported the principle that the Electoral Commission should consider the process in future. I know that that is now being revisited. Perhaps rightly, the Committee on Standards in Public Life said that the Electoral Commission should focus its attention on a narrower range of subjects, rather than having such a wide remit as we gave it in 2000. I would welcome something like the continuity of the proposal in 2000 that the Electoral Commission should take lead responsibility in considering the process, rather than as in the current Boundary Commission proposals. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us a little on the timing or current thinking about the issue.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful to the two noble Lords for their welcome of the order. When I was reading it, I thought that nobody could argue that there was any possibility of political interference in the process, because there are so many safeguards written into it.

On the question of transfer to the Electoral Commission, the view is that the matter does not fit with the core functions of the Electoral Commission, on which it should focus. We are considering the timing of the response to the recommendations, and hope to respond by the summer—which is a short time away. Given the answer to those two questions, I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Corresponding Amendments) Order 2007

5.27 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28 March be approved.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order makes a series of technical amendments to certain compulsory purchase powers, so bringing them into line with existing mainstream compulsory purchase legislation. In effect, it tidies up loose ends from 2004. It ensures that all people who are affected by compulsory purchase are treated the same, irrespective of the powers under which the order is made.

The drafting of the order may appear complex, but the effect of the amendments is quite straightforward. It may, however, be helpful to the House if I provide a bit of further background to the order—the chronology and so on. Noble Lords will be aware that the order was passed by a resolution of the Delegated Legislation Committee of the other place on 9 May.

Before the implementation of Part 8 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, in October of that year, tenants for a month or less were not entitled to be notified of a compulsory purchase order affecting the relevant property, nor were they entitled to be heard at any public inquiry. The 2004 Act amended the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to require that such tenants were to be notified of a compulsory purchase order and would be entitled to appear at an inquiry.

Almost all compulsory purchase orders are governed by the 1981 Act, but there are a few, made under the Acts listed in the schedule to the order, which are not. Our proposal is simply that the gap should be closed, so that tenants with tenancies of a month or less who are affected by compulsory purchase orders made under the powers conferred by those Acts should also benefit from being notified and being heard at an inquiry. In practice, such tenants would almost certainly hear about the compulsory purchase orders, and would almost certainly be given a hearing at an inquiry, but this was not their right.

We believe that very few people will be affected. Compulsory purchase orders made under the Gas Act and other Acts in the schedule will mostly be in rural areas, where monthly or weekly tenancies are not common. However, it is obviously proper that all tenants who could be affected should have the same rights to be notified and to be heard.

The legislation that we are proposing to amend is set out in the Schedule to the order. They are the Military Lands Act 1892, the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act 1945, the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958, the Pipe-lines Act 1962, the Harbours Act 1964, the Gas Act 1965, the Forestry Act 1967, the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991. The relevant departments have been consulted and have agreed to the terms of the order.

I shall briefly take noble Lords through the chronology. The legislation set out in the schedule to the order contains compulsory purchase powers used by certain government departments and statutory undertakers that do not, as I have indicated, depend on the 1981 Act for the procedure to make compulsory purchase orders and certain other orders. As I said, they include such things as compulsory rights orders under the Pipe-lines Act or storage authorisation orders under the Gas Act. Consequentially, that means that the amendments made in 2004 to the 1981 Act do not apply to these powers.

Before the 2004 amendments came into force, the 1981 Act provided for people who own or occupy the land that is to be acquired to be notified of the proposed compulsory acquisition and of their right to object and to appear at an inquiry. This was limited to the owner, lessee or occupier, but did not include people whose tenancy period was for a month or less. That meant that the right of notification did not include monthly or weekly tenants, even though they may have had security of tenure and may have lived in the property on that basis for a number of years.

Changes were made to the compulsory purchase procedures set out in the 1981 Act by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, so that any person who is a tenant, whatever the tenancy period, will be entitled to receive notification of a compulsory purchase order affecting the property or land that they occupy, and they have a right to object to the order and to appear at a public inquiry into the order. Changes were also made to the 1981 Act so that notice would have to be given to all persons who had sufficient interest in the land being acquired, and the acquiring authority would be required to serve on them a notice to treat—a notice to open compensation negotiations— if it was proceeding to acquire the land under Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Notice would also have to be given to persons who are likely to be entitled to make a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

Let me reassure noble Lords that the powers identified in the order are very rarely used. Typically, they are used less than once a year, so my department’s Regulatory Impact Unit is satisfied that the order does not require a regulatory impact assessment. The issue was addressed in the Commons committee that considered the amendment to the 1981 Act. The opposition spokesman made it clear that he welcomed the clarification of the categories of people, which included tenants with whatever tenancy period, to be notified. That was on 16 October 2003. The Government therefore recognise that it would be unfair that tenants with monthly or weekly tenancies who are occupying land and are affected by compulsory purchase orders would not be entitled to receive notification of that order just because the particular enabling powers being exercised were not governed by the 1981 Act.

Section 110 of the 2004 Act therefore gives the Secretary of State a power to amend corresponding enactments in connection with the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land. I am sure that the noble Baroness will remember that that provision was introduced in Committee in the Lords when we considered the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill on 5 February 2004. The amendment was accepted without discussion. This is the first time that this power has been exercised and, if we have got it right, it will be the last.

The effect of the order on the different enactments that it covers varies slightly so as to take account of differences in the respective primary legislation. Perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to paragraph 4(4) of the schedule, which provides a reasonably clear example of its effect. It deals with an amendment to Schedule 2 to the Pipe-lines Act 1962 in relation to an application for a compulsory purchase order.

Paragraph 4(4)(a)(i) identifies the current formulation in Schedule 2 to the Pipe-lines Act, which refers to the serving of a notice about the proposed compulsory purchase order on,

“every owner, lessee and occupier (excepting tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of any land to be ... comprised in the order”.

The order goes on to replace this phrase with the words,

“every person ... who is an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of any land proposed to be comprised in the order”.

The order continues in paragraph 4(4)(a)(ii) and (iii) to specify that notification must also be given to every person who had a sufficient interest in the land being acquired for the acquiring authority to be required to serve on them a notice to treat—as I have said, a notice to open compensation negotiations—if it was proceeding to acquire the land under Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, or to persons who are likely to be entitled to make a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

I should emphasise that the order has no effect on entitlements to compensation or the amount that can be claimed. I know that the order is complex. In the light of what I said about tidying up loose ends and ensuring that people receive equal treatment, I hope that noble Lords will accept why the order is needed and the context in which it is made. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28 March be approved. 15th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Baroness Andrews.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there is clearly nothing one can say to object to this order. It is eminently sensible. I can see why it has taken some time to come around to this: a number of Acts have to be amended in order to introduce it. It seems equitable in every term and perfectly proper. The Minister has forestalled the one question that I had buried in the back of my mind, which was whether this would extend the right of compensation. She said that the order has nothing to do with that, and one assumes that anything to do with compensation will come in under other provisions. I am very happy to accept that the order is appropriate.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very clear and full explanation of the order. While much of it is clearly technical, as the Minister has said, it is very necessary and welcome. It seems only fair that all tenants should have rights in relation to compulsory purchase orders. On that basis, I welcome the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces: Steven Roberts Inquiry

5.38 pm

Lord Astor of Hever rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government what lessons have been learnt from the comments made by the coroner in the case of Sergeant Steven Roberts.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate. Many of the events in Iraq since British forces were first deployed there in early 2003 have been distressing to those directly affected and give more general cause for public concern. These two elements, personal distress and shortcomings in public policy, come together in the case of Sergeant Steven Roberts.

Although certain facts were initially withheld or disputed, it would finally appear that more or less the whole story has now emerged. That that is now the case is due to the determination of the young widow of Sergeants Roberts and to the systematic persistence of the coroner. From that whole story it is evident that there were lessons to be learnt and to be applied. Noble Lords will remember that Sergeant Roberts commanded one of the tanks sent to form a road block in the very earliest days of the campaign. In the proper course of his duty, he dismounted from his vehicle. Shots were fired—I put that in neutral terms—and he was killed. It was more or less immediately apparent that if he had been wearing body armour, the shots might not have been fatal. But he was not wearing it, and that was because the set issued to him had been deliberately called back from him to be reissued to someone else because of severe shortages in the number of sets available. He was sent into battle, as the coroner observed, without,

“the most basic piece of equipment”.

We know this because he told his wife that this had happened.

As early as September 2001, a key equipment issues list had identified that, if enhanced combat body armour were to be required for a military campaign, there was no way that the holdings as they then stood could be sufficient. A year later, in September 2002, an urgent operational requirement was directed to the Secretary of State, but there followed an unacceptable eight-week delay between the request for the kit being made and authorisation being granted. At the time Sergeant Roberts was killed, 2,200 servicemen lacked ECBA kits.

---