Political Parties and Elections Bill

I might agree to do the latter, but I do not agree with the former observation. I am very grateful for the support from all parts of the Committee for the amendments. I am gratified that the weight of opinion was in favour of getting rid of the register. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, to the logical conclusion that, in principle, opting in is necessary, just for the protection of data. The principle is compelling, but then you run up against the practical problem, which the noble Baroness has identified, that probably very few people will register, in which case what is the point of having the register at all? I think that that leads logically to getting rid of it. I am very grateful for the weight of opinion in the Committee on that, and very much take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made about the burden on electoral registration officers. It is already considerable; we shall be placing an even more significant burden on them for the purpose of individual registration, which is necessary because of the principle underpinning that particular change. Let us get rid of a burden that they should not be fulfilling anyway, because it has no relevance to their role as electoral registration officers. That brings me to the Minister’s response—not so much what he said but what he never said. At no point did he address the fundamental issue of principle. His argument was addressed solely in terms of practical benefit to junk mail companies and others, which might derive some sort of economic benefit. I am sorry, but there are two responses to that. If it is wrong to have the edited version of the register, it is simply wrong on principle, and the fact that it may benefit some of us out there does not get round that fundamental point. The actual practical point was touched on by my noble friend Lord Bates; there are other bodies that can go out and compile these datasets that will be useful to junk mail companies and others. The Minister has not addressed that point at all. I mentioned a recommendation from the Thomas-Walport report, which was not that there should be consultation on the issue, but was to get rid of the edited version. It is wrong to have the consultation and I am not sure how it will generate some of the data that the Minister thinks it will. I am not persuaded at all by that. If the Government were that keen on consultation, it should have been completed by now, considering when the report was published. The Government are dragging their heels. If we are going to act, this is the time. We may well come to this matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 122 withdrawn.