Representation of the People (England and Wales) and the Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007

I want to strike a more positive note about the regulations than the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, did. They bring about the things that we talked about at length during passage of the Electoral Administration Bill, now the Electoral Administration Act 2006, and bring about new things with which some of us who are concerned with electoral administration issues have been concerned for many years. I am therefore delighted to see most of the provisions. But I would have liked them to go further. Now is not the time to reopen the debate on matters such as individual voter registration, but I would hope that the Minister noted the comments of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on that. That committee was unduly harsh and unfair to the Electoral Commission on this issue, because the commission argued strongly for individual voter registration, as did a number of us. However, I very much welcome these regulations because they provide for a requirement for a signature and date of birth on applications to vote by post, and it will be possible to check afterwards that the person returning the postal vote is more likely to be the person to whom the postal vote has been allocated. That is very welcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, pointed out, it is more than regrettable that we have failed properly to enact the provision for signing for ballot papers at polling stations. I do not believe that the problem of personation is widespread in Great Britain—the position may be different in Northern Ireland—but it does happen in some places. I recall fighting the Militant Tendency in the 1980s in Liverpool, where personation was a common tactic used at polling stations. Requiring a signature in return for the ballot paper would prevent that sort of abuse—which might be much more widespread in this country if only people knew how easy it was to go to a polling station and impersonate someone. In general, people do not know how easy it is to do that. I welcome other aspects of the regulations—updating the electoral expense limits is long overdue. But perhaps the Minister will consider an annual system whereby parties would know further in advance whether there might be an increase in electoral expenditure limits. Perhaps in time the commission should be given the job of proposing something formally—say, every December, in line with the RPI, rather than waiting for regulations close to an election. People might then know what the limits will be. I particularly welcome the provision ensuring that when you apply for a postal vote, you will receive a confirmatory note from the returning officer saying that you have applied for a postal vote from a specific address. That was the subject of fierce debate in this House two years ago. I shall not rehearse all the arguments made in 2004, but some of us felt then that such provision would be an important measure against fraud. I am glad that the Government accepted it in the 2006 legislation and that it is now being implemented. Finally, it is welcome that the measures required in the Act are to be financed by central government. I understand that there will be an extra £12 million or so for local authorities in England and Wales. It is an important principle that local authorities should not have to choose between the costs of efficient electoral administration and perhaps more popular services. I simply note that £21 million is a small price to pay for proper democracy. It also indicates that democracy costs money. In the wider debates which we will have over the year ahead we should note that we are spending a significant amount on electoral administration and that resources could also be found in the system for paying the other costs of democracy.