REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE REGULATIONS 1974 (Hansard, 28 March 1974)

§ LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH
My Lords, I beg to move, That the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, be approved. My Lords, you may imagine how relieved I am at being able to follow the tradition of your Lordships' House by making my maiden speech on an uncontroversial matter. I am fully aware that my departmental responsibilities are such that I may not be able to follow up this auspicious start by remaining non-controversial, but I think that on the Representation of the People Regulations I shall at least be able to carry noble Lords opposite with me as the Regulations were made by the right honourable gentleman the last Home Secretary the day before the last General Election was announced.
These are important Regulations: they deal with the registration of electors and the arrangements for absent voting but they are chiefly a matter of consolidation. In the main, they continue the provisions of the Regulations of 1969 and 1973 which they replace. Most of the changes that are made arise as a consequence of local government reorganisation. As these were so numerous, it seemed advisable to make new Regulations rather than to make extensive amendments to the existing ones. I am sure that this decision will commend itself to all who have to use the Regulations.
It may be helpful if I summarise the new provisions. The most important are 748 in Regulation 5. These arise from the provision in the Local Government Act 1972 that each district and London borough council shall appoint one of its officers to be electoral registration officer. However, where a constituency cuts across district boundaries, one registration officer has to be designated to be acting returning officer for the constituency. The effect of Regulation 5 is that, in such a constituency, there is consistency as to how the register is prepared and also how absent voting applications are dealt with.
The 1973 Regulations provided for a Member of Parliament to receive a free copy of the register for his constituency, and Regulation 22(3) now provides for every member of a local authority also to receive a free copy of the register for the area he or she represents.
Regulation 29(2)(b)(ii) deals with applications for absent voting facilities on the grounds of physical incapacity. Although no substantial change has been made in the Regulation itself, in advance of the consideration which the Speaker's Conference is expected to give to the whole question of absent voting, the related Form Q in the Schedule has been changed. The first change is that the certificate is now to be signed only by a registered medical practitioner. This is because only a doctor should sign what is essentially a medical certificate. The second change is the addition of a declaration which may be signed by anyone else. Note 2 to the form makes it plain that the application will be accepted if the certificate is signed by a doctor and that it may be accepted if the declaration is signed by someone else. I should explain that the application does not have to be signed by anyone else, but the registration officer must be satisfied that the applicant is entitled, and this may be difficult if no one has signed the declaration. These provisions are all those of the existing law. The form simply clarifies the position. I believe that the new form is an improvement on the old. If we can simplify it still further later, we shall do so.
For the rest, the Regulations contain only minor, consequential and technical changes. The Regulations are the outcome of thorough consultations which my Department has had during the last year with local government officials concerned with their operation and with the political 749 parties. The Regulations have been approved in another place, and if approved here will come into operation on April 1, when the new local authorities take over in England and Wales. My Lords, I beg to move.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
My Lords, I am glad that it falls to me, as the noble Lord's immediate predecessor in Office to congratulate him on his maiden speech. It was, as he indicated it would be, uncontroversial, the more so in that it had the rather unusual feature of being to some extent déjà vu, from the fact that some of its content I recognise from a speech made in another place when similar Regulations were introduced there the other day. His speech was also admirably short and the noble Lord will, I hope, continue to take that course, as I attempted to do before him. I have often heard it said when maiden speakers are being congratulated and welcomed in this House that we all very much hope that they will again soon take part in debates, and I think that this is no pious wish in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. If his experience is the same as mine, he will be amazed by the number of times he will take part in the proceedings of your Lordships' House. The variety and diversity, and indeed in some cases the strangeness, of the subject matter will be matched only by the amazing variety of expertise and wisdom which noble Lords in all quarters of the House can put forward on almost any subject that even the Home Office can give to the Minister of State there. We look forward with enthusiasm to the noble Lord's subsequent speeches—indeed, we are to have another one this afternoon. We wish him very well indeed, and I am sure he will find this a pleasant House in which to work, and one where he will enjoy himself a good deal, even if there are a few sticky patches from time to time.
I go back to the substance of these Regulations, and I need say very little. The noble Lord has explained them quite admirably, and I have no questions to ask. Moreover, the Regulations concern what is almost entirely a matter for another place and for the local authorities; and Members of another place, as 750 I noted from the OFFICIAL REPORT, had no questions to ask either. My honourable friend the Member for Cambridge asked some questions about other matters to do with voting, which are of course of concern to a number of people, and a promise was given that they would be looked at. They do not arise under the Order. I am all for consolidation and simplification, and the noble Lord's Regulations go in for both. So I am happy to welcome them, as I do him.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord opposite upon his maiden speech, which I thought was quite excellent and entirely non-controversial, which I think was very clever of him on this particular subject. I should like to ask him one question about Regulation 27. The Explanatory Note at the end of this Order says: Regulation 27 no longer requires the proper officer of a local authority, who has to make out a corrupt and illegal practices list for his area in accordance with section 40(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1949, to send a copy to the registration officer. Indeed, I cannot find in Regulation 27 any provision that he should, which is what I should expect. It also says that the registration officer shall do this, that, and the next thing about the corrupt and illegal practices list. How is the registration officer to do this if he has not been sent a list? It seems to me that it would be simpler if he were sent a list, and I was wondering whether the Speaker's Conference had approved the fact that he should not be sent a list. I apologise for not having given warning to the noble Lord that I proposed to raise this question. I hope that sooner or later he will be able to provide an answer, but I shall understand if he cannot do it right away.

§ LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH
My Lords, may I first say how grateful I am to both the noble Viscount and the noble Duke for the generous words that they have expressed on the occasion of my maiden speech. If I may say so to the noble Duke, he will not be completely taken by surprise by the fact that I am totally incapable of answering his question, but I will do my best to find out the answer and send it to him in writing.