Political Parties and Elections Bill

I will speak also to Amendment 124. The two amendments complement one another. It is logical to start with the argument for Amendment 124 and then lead in to Amendment 122. When we discussed the electoral register during the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000, I argued that completing the electoral registration form was an essential exercise in civic duty, and one imposed by statute. The electoral register is core to our parliamentary democracy. It is essential that it is as full and accurate as possible. It should not be affected by incidental activities that have no bearing on compiling an accurate register. I made the case in 2001 for not permitting the electoral register to be sold to commercial and other bodies not connected to the electoral process. The Government failed to accept that argument, instead making provision for the edited register in due time, enabling electors to opt out of having their names included on the register that is sold to anybody who wishes to purchase it. My starting point is that the edited version of the register should be abolished. In arguing that case, I am in good company. The Association of Electoral Administrators wants to see it scrapped; so too does the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner. That was recommendation 19 of the Thomas-Walport report on data sharing published last year. Indeed, I can do no better than repeat the words of the report: ""We feel that selling the edited register is an unsatisfactory way for local authorities to treat personal information. It sends a particularly poor message to the public that personal information collected for something as vital as participation in the democratic process can be sold to ‘anyone for any purpose’. And there is a belief that the sale of the electoral register deters some people from registering at all. We are sympathetic to the strong arguments made by the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Electoral Commission that the primary purpose of the electoral register is for electoral purposes"." There is no compelling case for retaining the edited version. I have not seen any such case. I have read an article arguing the case for retaining it, but it fell short of being compelling. One argument was that it would help people in tracing their family trees. The edited version is sold to anyone who wishes to purchase it. It is sold at cost and there is no benefit to the local authority. It imposes a significant burden on electoral registration officers. They have to compile it, even though—and this is the fundamental point—it has no relevance to their role as electoral registration officers. It gets in the way of fulfilling their role of compiling the electoral register, which is the basis of elections in this country. Electoral registration officers are core to the electoral process in this country. They are under tremendous pressure when compiling the register. Compiling the edited version adds a totally unnecessary burden. In essence, it gets in the way of our democratic system. There is thus a practical argument against retaining it. I see no principled reason for retaining it; rather, the reverse. Why should citizens be required by law to complete a registration form for the purpose of being able to exercise their right to vote and at the same time be required to decide whether they wish to have their names included on a register that is to be sold to junk-mail companies and any other body that is keen to get hold of the valuable dataset? That is the argument. I can anticipate the Minister’s response to how the amendment is drafted. I suspect he will point out that the powers embodied in the new clause already exist. However, at this stage I am keen to get a statement of the Government’s position on the future of the edited register. The Government propose to consult on the recommendation of the Thomas-Walport report. As far as I am aware, the consultation has not taken place. Given the passage of time since the report was published, this suggests that the Government are not treating it with any great urgency. In my view, there may be a case for taking action now to end publication of the edited register. There is an important issue of principle which will not be affected by consultation, and Bills dealing with electoral law are relatively rare. It is clear that they do not have the status of criminal justice Bills, so it may be several years before we have a chance to return to the issue. Given that, I believe there is merit in getting a Government commitment to scrapping the edited register or, failing that, making provision in this Bill to bring the edited register to an end. My preferred option is to get rid of the edited register, ideally as soon as possible. However, so long as it remains, there needs to be a switch from providing for electors to opt out to providing for them to opt in to the edited register. The present provision means that one cannot demonstrate that electors have given informed consent to their names appearing in the edited register. When the edited version of the register was introduced, practice appeared to vary between local authorities as to how much publicity was given to the new register and the procedure for opting out. It is not clear that electors are well informed about what is entailed in allowing their names to appear on the edited register. Something like 40 per cent of electors opt out, but we do not know how many of the 60 per cent who do appear on the register are aware that they have given their consent to their names appearing on it. I raised the issue of opting in some years ago with the Minister’s predecessor. I was told in conversation that the department had looked at the idea, but that there were practical problems to moving from opting out to opting in. I was promised a letter explaining what the problems were, but that was a few years ago and I am still waiting. It may be that today the Minister will tell me what those practical difficulties are. If there are practical difficulties, to my mind there are two options. The first is to overcome them and the second is simple: if the practical obstacles cannot be overcome, then get rid of the edited register. The present situation is simply not acceptable. The Government would have saved themselves a great deal of trouble had they accepted the argument eight years ago for prohibiting the sale of the electoral register. If they are to persevere with an edited register, it must be on the basis of electors giving their informed consent to the inclusion of their names. However, in my view, the existence of such a register is simply not compatible with the core stipulated purpose of the electoral registration form. The ideal situation is to get rid of the edited register. I beg to move.