HL Deb 06 March 1990 vol 516 cc1115-27

7.30 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if your Lordships agree, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to the other draft regulations on the Order Paper. They all make amendments to the relevant 1986 regulations, which together govern the registration of electors, absent voting and the conduct of parliamentary, European parliamentary and local government elections throughout the United Kingdom. The draft regulations before the House are supplemented by various rules and orders which are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The amendments made by these draft regulations fall into three distinct categories. First, they make the necessary arrangements for implementing the new provisions for overseas electors in Sections 1 to 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1989. Secondly, they introduce revised and simplified procedures for some aspects of domestic absent voting. Thirdly, they make a number of minor amendments which are either consequential or are designed to rectify errors or clarify provisions in the 1986 regulations.

I shall deal briefly with each of these areas in turn. For convenience I shall refer to the text of the draft regulations applying to England and Wales. The draft Scottish regulations make corresponding provision, as appropriate, for Scotland. The provisions in the draft regulations for Northern Ireland are also broadly the same, apart from one exception which I shall mention in due course.

Regulations 10 to 16 deal with the new arrangements for overseas electors. It may be of assistance if I remind your Lordships briefly of the main provisions of the 1989 Act in this respect. Sections 1 to 4 of that Act, which will come into force on 1st April, extend the right to vote for British citizens living abroad by increasing from five to 20 years the period during which they may apply to be registered to vote at United Kingdom parliamentary and European parliamentary elections. The Act also extends the right to vote to those who left the United Kingdom before they were old enough to be included on the register of electors. It simplifies the qualifications by abolishing the requirement for overseas electors to declare that they do not intend to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom and relaxes the attestation requirement for first-time applicants.

Regulation 10, therefore, removes any reference to a declaration of intent about future residence and brings young people, who were unable to register in the UK before leaving by virtue of their age, within the ambit of the regulations. Regulation 12 replaces the existing provisions requiring the consular attestation of overseas electors' initial declarations, with one requiring attestation by a holder of a British citizen's passport. The attestor must know the declarant but should not be a close relative. This simplification of the attestation requirement has been widely welcomed, though there are those who think it goes a little too far and others who hold that it does not go far enough. That suggests to me that we have pitched the new requirement just right. Regulation 15 ensures that electoral registration officers will send a reminder about registration to all overseas electors who appear to continue to be eligible, every June or July, in good time before the qualifying date of 10th October.

Taken together these regulations give effect to the extended overseas franchise provided by the 1989 Act and simplify the procedures for registering as an overseas elector.

I turn now to absent voting in Great Britain. I think your Lordships may be aware that the provisions for absent voting at a particular election contained in the Representation of the People Act 1985 were subject to considerable criticism following the 1987 general election. Complaints centred on the requirement for certain applications to be attested. Having consulted interested parties on the matter the Government undertook to drop the attestation requirement. Regulations 21 and 22 therefore abolish the requirement that applications for a postal or proxy vote for a particular parliamentary or local government election must be attested. There are only two exceptions to that. Attestation will still be required where a late application for an absent vote is made on medical grounds, where the relevant circumstances could not reasonably have been foreseen earlier; or where someone's employment, either as a constable or by the returning officer in connection with the election on the day of the poll, will prevent him from getting to his allotted polling station.

The remainder of the draft regulations cover a variety of comparatively minor matters. Some are technical changes consequential on the 1989 Act; others correct minor errors or omissions in the existing regulations.

The draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations make broadly corresponding changes to the law in Northern Ireland. The main difference is that applications or an absent vote for a particular election will still need to be attested. The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations make certain changes to the 1986 European regulations, which cover Scotland as well as England and Wales. These are either consequential on the main 1990 amendment regulations or make minor changes in order to bring the 1986 European regulations up to date. The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations perform the same function for Northern Ireland.

I should perhaps say a word about the commencement of the various provisions in these regulations. Those relating to overseas electors will come into force on 1st April, at the same time as the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act 1989. The forms by which overseas electors may apply for registration will also be available in April from posts abroad, ensuring that British citizens overseas have ample opportunity to make their declarations in good time before the qualifying date of 10th October. The changes in domestic absent voting procedures will come into force on 1st July.

These regulations are lengthy and rather technical. I have not dealt with them in detail but I will of course address any particular points your Lordships may wish to raise. The regulations have been the subject of widespread consultation covering most of the details with the major political parties, returning officers and electoral registration officers, and they have been carefully scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am certain that your Lordships are grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation of these draft regulations and order, and for detailing the main points so clearly. The noble Viscount said that the orders had been the subject of wide consultation, including consultation with political parties. I should like to ask whether the parties agreed to the changes or whether there were queries.

At the outset I wish to deal with one very important matter which is common in the main RPA regulations for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I refer to the important change regarding the sale of registers. This provides that the registration officer shall supply, on payment, copies of any part or parts of the register to any person who satisfies the conditions set out in the regulations. The main condition is that the person shall have informed the registration officer by 1st November in any year as to the number of copies he requires of the register to be published by 15th February in the following year.

The present position is set out clearly in Regulation 54 of the 1986 regulations. That regulation provides these very important words: So long as there are sufficient copies available after meeting the needs of the election". Those noble Lords who are conversant with the running of an election will recognise that there are registers which must be used for the needs of an election; namely, for the use of the returning officer, the presiding officer of the polling station and for the candidates connected with the running of the election. Many local authorities have held that the 1986 Regulations make the sale of registers discretionary in the light of the words to which I have referred.

The new regulations will make the sale mandatory so long as advance notice of the number of copies required is given, as I say, by 1st November. Why is this change made? In the Standing Committee of another place which considered these regulations, the Minister, Mr. Peter Lloyd, said that the action taken by some of the local authorities was an inconvenience to industry. Has account been taken of the inconvenience, annoyance and objection of the electors when the sale of the registers—which was thought to be on a discretionary basis—was first introduced? The measure was so unpopular that in a Gallup poll 79 per cent. of the respondents disagreed with the sale of election registers.

We know that there has been intensive lobbying by advertising interests for this particular change. If approved, this regulation will provide that copies of the register must be available for sale to interests such as advertisers, direct-mail companies and similar bodies. Therefore, electors must look forward to a great increase in junk mail, and we are all aware of the amount of such mail that conies through our letter boxes at the moment.

Is not this provision a misuse of the purposes for which the register is compiled and of the basis on which the householder completes Form A? That is a very important question. In bringing forward this regulation, are not the Government disregarding personal privacy? For instance, this change will give information regarding women who live alone, because they can now be identified. The poll tax register is to be confidential. Why should there be this difference concerning the electoral register?

I know that the register for a particular electoral area has to be available for inspection in a public place, but that is totally different from the sale of a register for the purposes which I have mentioned, involving commercial and advertising interests. Most people will object to the annual register being so readily available for those purposes. Most people have a very strong objection to this provision. I also wonder how this measure fits in with the Data Protection Act 1984, under which information must be used only for the purpose for which it was obtained. This information was obtained solely to include a person on the electoral register.

If the Government insist that this measure must go through, should not electors be given the opportunity, when the householder completes Form A, to indicate that he does not wish the details to be supplied for advertising purposes? In other words, the sale of the register should be restricted to certain interests. I also ask the Minister, under what primary legislation is this important change to the three sets of regulations provision brought forward? I should like the Government to have second thoughts on this matter and withdraw this set of regulations in the light of what I am certain is the wholesale objection on the part of the great majority of electors.

It will be recalled that when the 1989 Bill was before the House I objected to certain provisions, particularly the extension for overseas electors to 20 years and particularly the situation of the young person who might leave the country at the very young age of 18 and who may know nothing about the constituency in which he will be allowed to vote. Yet I accept that the 1989 Bill has now become law and therefore I am not objecting to the fact that these measures are included.

In particular I recognise the necessity for a copy of the birth certificate to be made available for overseas persons when they reach the age of 18. I also recognise that there will be a substantial increase in the number of overseas electors by virtue of the extension to 20 years. A Minister in another place said that there could be as many as 1.5 million additional eligible overseas electors. If that is so, then by simple arithmetic that works out at an average of 2,300 additional electors per constituency, which is a very important matter.

Nevertheless, I recognise that with this large number there has to be some change of the attestation of the declaration. Having said that, the noble Viscount indicated that there were differences of opinion. He said that there were some people who thought that this measure was going too far. It will be very interesting for me to know whether some political parties were among those who thought that.

I also know the requirements which an attesting person must record in the overseas elector's declaration, which are set out in paragraph 4 of the new Regulation 12. This regulation substitutes completely for Regulation 25 of the 1986 Regulations. Therefore there is nothing left of the old Regulation 25. There appears to be no requirement for the person attesting to attest that the declarant did reside at the address which he or she gives as being the last address in the United Kingdom at which he or she resided in the previous period of 20 years, nor in the case of a person who has reached the age of 18 does the attestant have to declare that he has seen the birth certificate.

The noble Viscount may say that as the applicant has to transmit the birth certificate with his declaration, that is sufficient. The importance of this matter is reflected in the number to which I referred; that is to say, there may be as many as 2,300 additional overseas electors coming on to a constituency register. As the noble Viscount said, Regulation 15 provides that a reminder be sent to overseas electors to make the new declaration for each register. That is a further task which will fall on the registration officers.

I understand that there will be the necessary recompense to the registration officers of the cost involved in carrying out this work. I recognise that this was a provision in the 1989 Act. However, I wonder whether consideration has been given to a similar facility being granted to those on the absent voters' list in a particular election to receive a reminder that if they still require an absent vote, they should make application.

The noble Viscount referred to the abolition of the need for absent vote applications for a particular election to be attested. I wish to know under what legislation that change is being introduced, because I believe it is generally agreed that no order can be introduced unless there is some primary legislation which permits it. It was certainly not in the 1989 Act. Can the Minister say whether there is some general enabling clause in the principal 1983 Act which enables the Secretary of State to introduce regulations of this kind? Is there primary legislation somewhere which covers this provision?

The last point I wish to raise concerns Northern Ireland. There is one difference regarding the main new RPA regulations and those for local elections in Northern Ireland. An application for an indefinite postal or proxy vote must be attested to by the medical practitioner or Christian Science practitioner from whom the applicant is receiving treatment. That is totally different from the situation which applies in Great Britain. So far as I can see, it is a change from the provisions of the 1986 regulations. There may be a sensible reason for the change which has to do with the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland. I should like the Minister to give the reason for the Government's introduction of this change.

The noble Viscount may not be able to answer my next question. If that is so, I look forward to receiving a letter from him. It concerns the regulations for European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland. I have looked carefully at the provisions in Regulation 4 but I do not know what they mean. There are many references to changes but there is no indication of what they may mean. I leave that point to the noble Viscount. If he cannot deal with it tonight, perhaps he will write to me about it.

I have no other points of difference on the regulations. My main concern is over the sale of registers. I hope that the Government will take a second look at it because it is something to which the people of this country strongly object.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked some pertinent questions to which we all look forward to answers. I should like to reinforce his main point which concerned the sale of electoral registers. When I give my name voluntarily in order to supply information, I for one act on the assumption that my name will be used for the purpose for which it was given and not for some other purpose. If it is used for some other purpose, particularly if that purpose is a commercial one, I regard it as a breach of my privacy. Like the noble Lord, I thought that the purpose of the Data Protection Act 1984 was to protect individual citizens precisely from this invasion of their privacy and the exploitation of their name for purposes other than those for which it is given.

When this point was raised in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in effect that as it is a public document, which we all agree a register is, it is impossible to ensure that it does not fall into commercial hands. That is true. It is impossible to ensure that a public document does not fall into commercial hands. That is slightly different from ensuring that it does. That is what the present regulation has provided for. That being the case, I doubt, given the Government's propensity to put everything on a commercial basis, that we shall move them on this matter, despite the protests which I have received from the AMA listing no fewer than 22 authorities which have refused to supply the 1990 electoral register to commercial firms. Given that they are very unlikely to go along with any measures to protect the privacy of individuals on the lines which the noble Lord and I have suggested, what they might do, and what I believe it was suggested in another place they would consider, is to give people an opportunity to say that they do not wish their name to be sold in this fashion and to ensure that if it is used in this fashion it is in breach of the agreement with the commercial firm which bought the list.

It is those two questions among others to which I hope we shall have a satisfactory and clear answer during the course of the debate. It is monstrous that in putting down one's name on an electoral register, which it is a civic obligation to do, one should be exploited in this way.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Underhill and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, particularly in relation to the sale of registers. I note the point about the ability of people who have left this country for 20 years to be able to vote in British elections. This is a case of representation without taxation. I have always been against it, and I continue to be against it, particularly when one bears in mind that these people who have forsaken their country are in a better position than people who have remained in their country. There is no obligation on people resident abroad to register to vote. They have the choice. They do not have to put their names on a register which will be saleable to all and sundry. But that is not the case with British citizens. British citizens resident in this country have an obligation, a legal obligation, to register. If they do not register they can be hauled before the magistrates' court and fined £25. It may be more now. The figure may have been updated. But certainly they can be fined for failing to fill in the registration form.

It goes even wider than that. They are under a duty not only to supply information about themselves; the householder does not merely have to say that he would be on the register. He has to give information about other people who are living in the household. Therefore he is giving to the authorities the names of people who may be pestered in the future by junk mail. It is quite intolerable that people who are under a statutory duty to give information about themselves and others living in their household should not be able to say to the authorities, "I perfectly understand that for the purposes of elections it is necessary to have my name on the electoral register. But it is for that purpose, and that purpose only". It is quite wrong that the Government should give permission for that information to be sold to other people for commercial purposes and perhaps for other purposes less worthy as well. The Government must take this point much more seriously than they have up to now.

My noble friend Lord Underhill referred to the Data Protection Act. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, will have been advised on this. As I understand it, the electoral register is now merely a print-out of information held on computer. Pratically every electoral register is compiled by computer. The computer takes in data and prints information out. That print-out is the electoral register. I hope that we shall have an answer to that point or the Government may find themselves in breach of the law. And we would not want that, would we?

I do not wish to delay the House any further except to recommend to the noble Viscount and to the Government the legitimate and serious suggestion put forward by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for some means by which electors can prevent the information about themselves being sold on to a commercial organisation or any other organisation that does not have a legal right to it. In my view that suggestion ought to be taken seriously. Perhaps electors could have an asterisk placed against their names if they do not wish them to be sold on to commercial companies or others.

I hope that the noble Viscount will understand that there is a good deal of feeling about the matter. In this country we are getting rather fed up, frankly, as individuals—that is, it is to be hoped, private individuals—at having information about ourselves given to all and sundry by government departments which are supposed to use that information only for the purpose for which it is required.

8 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for the general welcome which has basically been given to the regulations. It would be useful if I started by addressing a few remarks to the sale of the register, which was a point mentioned by all speakers. The electoral registration officer has a duty to prepare and publish in each year a register of electors for the area in which he acts. To do so he relies upon the information provided by householders in the electoral registration form, Form A. He is obliged to make a copy of the electoral register available for inspection in each electoral area. That is to enable members of the public to check that their names are included and, if they so wish, to ensure that any names about which they have doubts are not included. It is a procedure fairly fundamental to the democratic process. The ERO must also provide free copies of the register to the local Member of Parliament, parliamentary candidates and local councillors. If there are any copies remaining, he is required to supply a part or the whole of the register to any person upon payment of a prescribed fee. Those provisions reflect the fact that the electoral register is a public document in wide circulation for electoral purposes.

The Government have considered the possibility of withdrawing the right of non-electoral users to buy copies of the register. A consultation paper issued by the Home Office in 1984–85 reviewed that whole area of the law, including proposals now implemented for the supply of the register in computer-compatible form. The outcome of that consultation indicated a fair measure of consensus among political parties on the continuing need for public availability of the register.

The local authority associations questioned whether it would be practical to restrict access to and use of the register to prevent it being used for commercial purposes. The various direct marketing and credit reference agencies which responded emphasised the benefits to the consumer of making electoral data available and the probable rise in the cost of credit if the right was withdrawn. The Consumers' Association and the Office of Fair Trading took the same line. In the light of that consultation, the Government's conclusion was that controls on the use of the register for commercial purposes were unlikely to be effective. Because the register is a public document and widely needed for electoral purposes, it would be difficult to prevent it from being used by other organisations. There is also the benefit to consumers to be considered. The Government therefore concluded that non-electoral users, who include researchers as well as commercial concerns, should continue to be able to obtain copies of the register and should pay the costs incurred for such a service.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked upon what the sale was based. I must point out that primary legislation requires the register to be available for public inspection and empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the provision and sale of copies.

The subject of junk mail was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I think that we should keep the problem in proportion. In the year from October 1988 to September 1989 the average British household received just five items of personally addressed direct mail advertising per month. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is smiling and I can understand the reason for his amusement. However, I should like to continue. There is a simple and effective remedy if people do not wish to receive such mail. They may write to the Mailing Preference Service, Freepost 22, London W1E 7EZ. It is a service funded by the direct mail organisations which will arrange for any names requested to be removed from mailing lists.

Noble Lords also asked me about the Data Protection Act—

Lord Underhill

My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether it is proposed that a statement to that effect will in future appear on Form A?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, the answer to that question is no. In designing a form it is necessary to strike a balance between essential guidance to complete the form properly and helpful information.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, would this not be helpful information? It is helpful for me not to receive piles of junk mail. Not being in an ordinary household—indeed, I think I must come from an extraordinary household—I receive five junk-mail letters a day. Why should it not be posible for people to mark on the electoral register the fact that they do not want to receive junk mail? The Mailing Preference Service could then act upon the information.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, it is up to the noble Lord to write to such people and ask them not to include his name on the register for junk mail. Obviously that option is open to any individual citizen.

In general, the Government feel that the less small print on Form A the better. A special note about junk mail could have the effect of deterring people from registering. That is precisely the opposite of what we all want. Further, such a note might give a misleading impression as to the purpose of the form, which is to obtain details of those eligible to vote. In the past we have received requests from local authorities wishing to attach or enclose additional information with Form A. We have always advised against that because it would tend to obscure the main purpose of the form. People who are concerned about receiving advertising mail will often contact the Home Office or their local council and thus they can receive information about the Mailing Preference Service.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, will the noble Viscount consider the point much more seriously? He has a prepared answer to this question and that I quite understand. However, we are shifting to a different position than has applied previously. Up until now it has not been very easy for these commercial organisations to get hold of electoral registers; it has been up to local authorities. But under these regulations we are giving them the right, provided they ask for them by 1st November, to have such registers supplied to them at a cost. Therefore the situation is much different. It calls for further information to be given to the electors who will be affected in the future to a greater extent than they have been in the past. They need some additional protection and this can be given to them—unless of course the regulations are dropped—in the way suggested by my noble friend.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, it has to be a question of balance. The Government have decided that the balance should be between what is in the interest of the consumer and what is not. The noble Lord may feel that being on a list to receive junk mail is not in the interest of the consumer, but there are other concerns for credit reference agencies which from the advice I have would be in the interests of the consumer. The Consumers' Association and the Office of Fair Trading have gone along with that idea. Therefore one needs to create a balance and that is what the Government have sought to do.

Perhaps I may turn now to the Data Protection Act and the questions put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The Act concerns data which are held in the computer. The electoral register is a printed document and therefore when it is made available effectively it is not in a computer format but is a hard copy. If it is then sold to another organisation, it is up to that organisation to fulfil all the conditions required by the Data Protection Act. Perhaps I may deal—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting the noble Viscount. What is this "computer format"? I am not an expert on computers but my young son has a computer at home. He puts data in and part of the system is a printer which prints the data out. That is one whole machine, it is not a separate machine. The printer is part of the computer hardware which will not work with anything other than the computer. Therefore the data go into the computer and come out in a computerised form.

My guess is that although the machines that the local authorities have will be much bigger than that of my young son, the principle is the same. The data are put into the computer hardware at one end and they come out on another part of the computer hardware—namely, the printer—at the other end. What is the difference? They are in computer form.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I am not sure that 1 can go much further along this line. The printed copy of the register is not data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. The information recorded for that purpose is displayed in the hard copy which is made available to the public. That is the information which may be collected and processed by a word processor or computerised machinery. What is stored is printed as the printed copy and therefore it is not data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, if the noble Viscount will give way, I should be most grateful to him. This is very mysterious. Is he saying that information derived from the computer data is outside the Act because the form in which that information is presented is printed but not printed by a computer? Is he saying that information derived from computer records falls outside the Act if it is printed not by a computer but by some other means?

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I do not feel that I can go any further. I am advised that the printed copy of the register is not data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, will the noble Viscount

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I really feel that I ought to go on to other points.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will give way because this is most worrying. Perhaps I may put another position to him. Suppose a debt collecting agency puts into the computer at one end the names of all the people who are in debt. Having been printed by the computer printer, that comes out at the other end in the same form as an electoral register. Is the noble Viscount saying that it is not illegal to publish that information because it is not in the proper computer form? I find this most worrying. The noble Viscount's advice is his advice. I suppose that, like him, we shall have to take that advice, but I find it very worrying indeed.

8.15 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, perhaps I may help to clear the slightly muddy waters into which we have plunged. The law requires the register to be published. The register having been made public, it can no longer be treated as confidential under the Data Protection Act. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.

At long last, perhaps I may deal with one or two of the other points that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, brought up. He referred to the duties of the attestor abroad. He alluded to Regulation No. 12, which says that the attestor should to the best of his knowledge and belief, apply certain tests as to whether the applicant is a British citizen; that he is who he says he is. He does that perhaps by examining his passport. The effective test is that the applicant is not resident in the UK on the date of he declaration. That is the important provision.

The noble Lord asked whether the attestor needed to verify the past address in the UK. That is not really his duty, it is for the ERO to be satisfied on that matter. Similarly, the noble Lord made reference to the birth certificate for those who had not registered before but who have now become of age to register. Again that is matter about which the ERO should be satisfied when he receives the application.

The noble Lord also asked whether, as reminders will be sent to overseas electors, absent voters would have a reminder sent to them as well. The absent voters are resident in the United Kingdom. As such they are probably only absent for one election or perhaps in some cases a series of elections. Form A is sent out on an annual basis and is a reminder for all voters in this country. It is sent to households during the period from July to September, which should give them plenty of notification that they may need to register as absent voters for an election.

The noble Lord also asked me under what powers the change of rules for attestation was drawn. He is correct that under the primary legislation—I am advised that it is under paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983—the Secretary of State has power to make and to alter regulations as these regulations of 1990 amend the previous 1986 regulations.

Lastly the noble Lord drew attention to the different requirements for attestation in Northern Ireland. The retention and tightening of certain attestation requirements in the Northern Ireland regulations reflect our concern over the reported growing level of abuse of postal voting in Northern Ireland. In his last published annual report, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland said that over the previous three years an increasing number of forged or false applications had been identified. In view of the chief electoral officer's concern, the Government have felt unable to extend to Northern Ireland the relaxation of the attestation requirements. Indeed, we have sought to tighten the existing requirements so far as is practicable.

The noble Lord also asked me in regard to the European election regulations what Regulation No. 4 meant. I presume that he was talking about the Northern Ireland regulation. Regulation No. 4 is a technical provision, as I think the noble Lord understands from his reading of it. It ensures that provisions in the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations which have been applied for the purposes of European parliamentary elections will be those provisions as amended by the 1990 amending regulations. I hope that that entirely clears up the question asked by the noble Lord.

On Question, Motion agreed to.