Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1985 (Hansard, 23 January 1986)

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his clear explanation of the three sets of regulations. As he said, they are rather technical. I am pleased to note that there has been thorough consultation with the political parties, which are in agreement with the general provisions.
We naturally welcome the regulations that deal with the election of members of ILEA when the elections are at the same time as elections for a London borough. They are common sense. I note the increased charges for additional copies over and above the free issue. I might have questioned whether the charges were over and above the rate of inflation, but as there appears to be no dissent from the political parties, I presume that they have no objection.
The important regulations are those regarding the supply of tape data and labels. The advantage of tape data is that a constituency organisation which has its own computer facility will be able to run off as many copies of the register as it desires. May I have the noble Viscount's assurance that where a registration officer compiles his register on a computer, that will in no way affect the supply of free copies of the register under existing regulations, which are carried forward to the new regulations?
I note the reasons given why a tape of a computer-ised register cannot be supplied to other than a full constituency in Scotland. That is regrettable, and I note that that was discussed in the Commons Standing Committee. I understand the reasons, but it is regrettable that the request cannot be complied with.
I welcome in particular the new regulation for the supply of addressed labels. As the noble Viscount will know, many registration officers have supplied labels to constituency agents for election purposes for quite a time. It is good to have that put in statutory form. I regret that the supply of labels, even to interested parties—candidates, election agents and so on—is to be discretionary. Where a register is computerised that should be mandatory if requested. In the Standing Committee in the other place on 21st January the Minister said, at col. 5: That is an extra service which, though useful to the parties, is not in the same category of importance to them as the supply of the register. That is why it is not obligatory but discretionary". Frankly, I cannot accept that.
388 The supply of the register is vital; indeed, free copies of the register are vital. The supply of tape data to prepare one's own register may be useful to many constituencies, but it is not essential. It is the supply of labels that many agents regard as essential. I personally have welcomed the supply of addressed labels, rather than having the effort of writing out envelopes to some 60,000 individual electors. The only problem is that registration officers can supply labels only for individual electors and not for families. Therefore, the cost of envelopes and election addresses is something that the agent has to consider.
But if the supply is discretionary, will guidance notes be given to registration agents, stating that notice should be given to interested parties well in advance? The plans of an election agent could be thrown completely out of gear if he is working on the basis of the new regulations and he believes that he will be able to get the labels, and the registration agent has computerised registers?
On the other hand, I accept the provision in two of the orders for the discretionary supply of labels other than to interested parties—that is, to commercial users. I thought that the noble Viscount said that in another order there was provision for Northern Ireland. This is not in the Northern Ireland order. Perhaps the noble Viscount could confirm that point for me.
I question whether the charge of £20 for 1,000 labels for commercial users is on the low side. Surely we ought to be doing all that we can to avoid the use of registration data to be used for mail order business and matters of that kind. I know that we can do nothing about that—it is in the regulations now—but I should have thought that it would be desirable to limit the use to which registration data is put by commercial users. Apart from those points, we welcome the three orders.

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in congratulating the noble Viscount the Minister on explaining these regulations so clearly.
I note that there has been full consultation on the subject matter of all three regulations and that the fees have been agreed with the political parties. I suppose it was inevitable that the Data Protection Act should be cited in these regulations. I note that in Regulation 29A, which has the title "Supply of data", in paragraph (3) there is a restriction on what the registration officer can do about supplying data. There is a proviso in that paragraph. I am not quite clear why it is necessary to put that in, but it is not a very important question.
The proviso says: Provided that this restriction shall not apply to the supply of data to the returning officer for the constituency". I wonder whether there is a restriction in these regulations on what the returning officer can do when he has from the registration officer full information which the registration officer cannot supply.
We welcome these regulations, but I should be interested to know the answers to the three questions that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked. Apart from that, we support the regulations.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for their welcome for these regulations.
I can answer the questions by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as follows. On the question about the free supply of the printed register, I can confirm that the supply of the electoral register in computer-compatible form under Regulation 29A would not affect any present entitlement to free copies of the printed register. The noble Lord asked at what stage the fee would be paid for data. Regulation 29A(6) requires a fee to be paid before the registration officer complies with a request for data. It will be for the applicant to establish before paying the fee that the computer system used by the registration officer is compatible with his own.
Regulation 29B leaves the supply of labels to the discretion of the registration officer in all cases. We did not think it right to impose an obligation on registration officers which could detract from their ability to get on with their main job of preparing the register. We acknowledge the usefulness of labels to the parties and we are sure that registration officers will do all that they can to meet requests for their supply. Provision for discretionary rather than mandatory supply was made after full consultation with the political parties. Local authorities are well aware that consistent refusal to supply labels will only lead to demands for their supply to become mandatory.
In regard to the fee for the supply of labels, the demand for labels from non-electoral users is uncertain. The fee of £20 per 1,000 labels will more than enable local authorities to recoup the cost of subsidised supply to the parties. If the level of the fee to commercial users is set too high it will deter potential purchasers and so defeat the Government's aim on fees, which has been to ensure, so far as we can, that, overall, local authorities recover their costs.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I am informed that some of the data gives information which is not publicly available but is useful to the acting returning officer. I hope that these answers will satisfy both noble Lords. I beg to move.