Commons Bill [HL]

My Amendment No. 79A is in this group. It is probably time that we got onto ““may”” or ““shall”” amendments, and here we are. The purpose of the amendment is to make it a duty of the commons registration authority to correct errors in the register as set out in the clause, rather than allowing it to do so when it feels like getting round to it. When I look at the purposes set out in subsection (2) of the corrections—which are very much corrections of fact or changes, for example, which update the details of a name and address referred to in a entry—it is not clear under what circumstances the common registration authority might decide not to bother to do that, other than perhaps not getting around to it. Subsection (2), refers to,"““correcting a mistake made by the commons registration authority in making or amending an entry””—" that is, correcting its own mistake—and,"““correcting any other mistake””," but not where the amendment would affect the extent of the land or the extent of the rights of common. It does not enter into matters of dispute over substantive issues but would involve,"““removing a duplicate entry””," and,"““updating the details of any name or address””." It would do this either because the commons registration authority had discovered that such was the case,““on its own initiative”” under subsection (4), or because someone else had told it that the details were wrong—that is,"““on the application of any person””." Clearly the authority would have to satisfy itself in those circumstances that the information was correct. These are all technical and factual matters and it seems ridiculous that, if and when the commons registration authority discovers such mistakes, it should not have a duty to put the register right, rather than simply being able to do it or not do it, as the case may be. There really should be a duty to change an entry, not merely a power to do so. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in relation to that. I was particularly interested in Amendment No. 82, which was spoken to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, which seeks to delete subsection (5). I have read the subsection several times and it seems to be the sort of vague waffly law that might be good for the lawyers who will be employed to decide what it means, but it is really quite extraordinary. It states:"““A mistake in a register may not be corrected under this section if the authority considers that, by reason of reliance reasonably placed on the register””—" it is probably OK up to that point—"““by any person or for any other reason””—" perhaps the Minister can give examples of what this might involve—"““it would in all the circumstances be unfair to do so””." I could understand it if people had suffered loss or harm as a result, but ““unfair”” does not seem to be the kind of word that belongs in legislation. It is certainly the kind of word that belongs in political discourse, but what does it mean? The words,"““for any other reason, it would . . . be unfair””" seem vague and waffly. The wording of the legislation should be crisper than that. I support the noble Duke in his amendment to delete subsection (5), at least until the Government come up with better wording.