I understand there are plans afoot for amendments as well at this late stage.

Hope Mullin goes ok

On a serious note I see that the Govt cancelled Third Reading of the PPEB a day before it was scheduled. I have an idea why but have you heard anything on the grapevine?

I should add that I know that Matthew Oliver is well aware of the value of holdings meetings sustained by tea!

Lord Norton: I seem to remember reading of another peer was(is?) also a col. in one of the US state militias but it escapes me for the moment. With your connection with Hull perhaps Admiral would have been a better match – though the image does rather require a peg leg and a parrot

Croft: I think your assumption about both front benches is correct; indeed, Lord Bates more or less admitted as such from the Opposition Front Bench. I agree with you on the Data Protection Act. There is a problem not only with the holding of data by the state but also with the security of that data. As to Alabama, I happened to be visiting and, as I was apparently deemed to be a distinguished guest, I was made an honorary lieutenant-colonel ADC to the Governor (then George Wallace!) in the Alabama State Militia. Apparently, if I had asked, I could have been made an Admiral instead.

David Mery: I am conscious of the implication of extending access. My ideal situation is a purist one, very much along the lines you mention. However, I think we may have to accept as a compromise distinguishing between allowing access in relation to what may be deemed matters of civic responsibility and denying access where it is nothing to do with civic responsibility.

Matthew Oliver: I plan to circulate details of the consultation once it gets under way. I shall be pursuing the Government on the issue.

stephenpaterson: I rather share your views, both in terms of a return to the old ways and also in restricting access to the register.

skistar123: One of the problems is that we don’t know if people do realise that. The information provided about the edited register is not as prominent as I believe it should be and, as electors have to opt out, it is not clear that they are aware of the implications.

I concur entirely with the view that the ‘edited version’ should be done away with. It seems to me, though, that the publication of the register and its availability to all is (was) an important part of our democracy, but that what is needed is regulation of the uses of the register, coupled perhaps with restrictions on its distribution in electronic format.