Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Norton of Louth

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

I was enormously impressed with the noble Lord’s very dramatic introduction of his amendment. Perhaps he has been over-Mantelled recently and has been watching too much “Wolf Hall”. However, in these circumstances, he has a perfectly valid point.

My questions follow on from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. Who advised Ministers that it should be eight weeks? Most significantly, there is the very important cross-reference with the number of signing places, which my noble friend Lord Norton and I referred to in Committee. If there are only two signing places, perhaps you do need longer; but if there are 10, you should obviously review that situation. Has whoever gave advice to Ministers on the number of weeks, on the original basis of a maximum of four signing places, been asked to review that advice in the light of the Government’s now much more flexible attitude? That is something we need to be told now, otherwise it seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has huge merit, at least in making the Government think again about the very new circumstances that their own flexibility has now created.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment for the reasons we discussed in Committee. I argued then that the number of signing places should be expanded and the period of time in which you can sign reduced. The Government have got half way there, so I hope that they will now go the rest of the way as well, for the reasons that have been well advanced.

Like other noble Lords, I cannot understand the rationale for eight weeks. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, it is much longer than an election campaign. In the case of one election, the Prime Minister announced it and it took place four weeks to the day after that. However, here we are saying that twice as long should be available for people to reflect on whether they should sign a petition—eight weeks. Why on earth should anyone take eight weeks to think about whether they should sign a petition or not? The news about the Member being eligible will be out quickly. It will be in the news and, as has been touched on, it will then cease to be newsworthy after a matter of days, if that. Why are we going to linger for weeks with people sat at polling stations twiddling their thumbs waiting for people to turn up and sign? I can see no argument for that length of time. It is not even as if we are still in the period where it took days for news to reach people and they then had to rely on some slow means of transport to get somewhere to actually sign something. Even if we were in that period, they could do it in less than eight weeks. Why nowadays, with instant communication and the ability to get to one of potentially 10 places to sign fairly quickly, do we need as long as eight weeks? It may be an arbitrary figure, but why eight rather than, say, six?

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said that he is flexible and that it could be four or five weeks. I thought he was, if anything, generous in saying three weeks. Why on earth would you need three weeks to reflect? Are you going to call the family together to hold great deliberations about whether you should sign it or not? Once you know about it, you think about it and then you decide whether you are going to make the effort to go and sign the petition—you go and sign and that is it. That could be quite easily achieved within a period of three weeks and, to be honest, one could achieve it with a much shorter period.

As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is being quite generous in putting down that figure. Had he not put down his amendment, I would have put one down to reduce the period and would probably have chosen an even shorter period. The argument for his amendment is eminently rational. It does not raise any serious issue of principle in terms of recall per se, so I see no reason why the Government, having moved on the number of places where signing can take place, could not be moved just as easily on this. It makes perfect sense. There is also the practical point that was touched on about people having to staff the places at which signing can take place. There is a cost to the public purse, and we should not lose sight of that.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Norton of Louth

Monday 19th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soley, made a persuasive case. However, I am particularly drawn to the alternative that he identified, which is to provide for a review of the Act after, say, five years. The precedent already exists in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. We have already written into that Act that it will be subject to review.

The Minister may say that this Act will in any case be subject to post-legislative review by the relevant department three to five years after enactment, but I think there may be a case with such a significant constitutional measure for the review to be post-legislative scrutiny and for it to be included in the measure. I commend that review proposal as an alternative to what the noble Lord is putting forward. It is something to which we may wish to return on Report.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, not for the first time I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. However, I want to make one more substantial point about the Bill and say why I think that some form of review is necessary, whether it is a sunset clause or a review of the kind that my noble friend has suggested.

I have followed the course of these proposals from the very early days of the draft Bill in the other place. I have attended debates there and have watched and listened and have been involved in a number of discussions with Members of both Houses. We should recognise that a feature of this Bill which has been very evident from our discussions in your Lordships’ House is that Members of the other place were for understandable reasons very inhibited when they examined the details of the Bill. They felt that it was self-serving to some extent and they were embarrassed at looking at it in great detail and finding fault with it because they felt that, in so doing, they were somehow putting themselves in an invidious position. Indeed, some were also influenced by pressures from outside not to say anything, not to question, not to challenge and not to query. For that reason, the Bill, as it now stands, will satisfy no one.

In those circumstances, we should bear in mind very carefully what was said by noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships’ House—that they hope that the Bill will never be used. It was said most recently by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. He said that he hoped it would never be used or used very infrequently. In those circumstances, it would be irresponsible of Parliament not to set out some sort of review procedure to determine the timescale for looking at the Bill again. The proof of the pudding will be in its eating. If nobody eats it, is satisfied with it or finds it digestible in any form whatever, Parliament has a responsibility to go back and look at it again.

We have all discussed in various fora the advantages of post-legislative scrutiny, and I know that my noble friend is a protagonist for that. Of course, we should do that more often but in this particular case it is important that Ministers think very carefully between now and Report about what mechanism they would prefer for doing that. I do not mind which it is, whether it is a review or a sunset clause. This is an unusual Bill in the way it has been treated in the other place and the considerable concerns and anxieties that have been expressed throughout the House. I make no bones about it: I think it is still capable of being improved. Some think that it is beyond improvement. I have put forward some proposals and am still hopeful that Ministers will meet me and other colleagues from all sides of the House to look at the concerns and criticisms of the Constitution Committee to see whether we can meet them in a more effective way. However, as things stand, I believe that it would be simply irresponsible for Parliament to leave this Bill in its current state without including some mechanism for proper review in a prescribed way and at a prescribed time.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Norton of Louth

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I want to reinforce the contributions that have been made on these two amendments, particularly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, about the relationship between a constituency Member of Parliament and any representatives of any interests in that constituency. As I understand it—as I recall, this was reinforced in the other place on Report—there is nothing in the Bill that in any way impedes the opportunity and the responsibility of representing the people of one’s constituency in any way that may be appropriate. It is very important that we reiterate that principle now. I am very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Martin, make that point again.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I will be very interested to see whether anyone reports the words of the noble Lord, Lord Martin, about the Press Gallery.

I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because he makes a very important point—I am surprised that it has not come up more in our discussions on the Bill—and that is this point about a kitemark for lobbying firms. Lobbying has always been a contentious activity. When I was writing about lobbying in the 1980s I made the point then that quite often the problem is not in the relationship between the lobbyist and the parliamentarian. Parliamentarians know perfectly well when they are being lobbied and essentially where it is coming from and can assess what is happening; if you like, they know the quality of the lobbying. The real problem, I argued, was between the client and the lobbyist, because clients would not necessarily know the quality of the firms they were employing to make representations. Lobbying firms are very good at making grand claims for their success rates.

Therefore, there is an issue of lobbying firms wanting to portray themselves in a certain way. My concern here is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours: you will get firms on the register using that to promote their interests to potential clients—putting on the notepaper something such as “Registered lobbyist, regulated by the Registrar of Lobbying Companies”, as a way of giving themselves the seal of approval. I fully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is trying to do in his amendment but I think that it raises that broader issue which he has touched on and which we need to be very much aware of. I am surprised that we have not considered that to a greater extent. It is just one of the problems if you go down this particular route of having a formal register, especially if there is no code attached to it.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Norton of Louth

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

I referred specifically to the non-ministerial government departments, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a very valid point, because they are not within the hierarchy of departments responsible to the Permanent Secretary, in the same way as other civil servants. So I do not accept that. The addition to which he specifically referred would have considerable merit. I would look at that very carefully, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will, as well.

Unlike others, I accept that we are making a limited addition to the transparency of the whole process with the register. Far more important is to make sure that the meetings that take place with whoever is lobbying are as transparent, timely and accessible as we can make them. What surely should not be limited should be the encounter with such critical political decision-makers and their advisers as the special advisers attached to senior Ministers. Therefore, I hope that my amendment will find favour with the House and with my noble friend the Minister.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I have amendments in the grouping as well. My amendments have similar aims to those of the noble Lords, Lord Hardie and Lord Rooker, and of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Hayter. I was very attracted by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because of the breadth of what it covers. However, I also noticed an omission; it does not encompass senior members of the Civil Service but confines itself to Permanent Secretaries. I think that there is a problem there.

When this Bill was considered in the other place, the point was well made that it appears to have been written by people who do not understand lobbying—clearly people who have not read the book by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. If it helps, I have a copy of his book on my shelf.

There are a number of problems but, as has been identified, Clause 2(3) is particularly problematic as it is so narrow. If you are going to lobby, the target is normally the Minister, and you therefore have to focus on the channels for reaching the Minister. The Permanent Secretary is not a significant channel for this purpose. Other officials will deal with that particular policy area—or a special adviser or the parliamentary private secretary. In saying that, I have nothing against special advisers; they play an extraordinarily valuable role from which Ministers and civil servants benefit. Parliamentary private secretaries also play a valuable role, so both should be included in the measure.

I know the objection as regards PPSs will be that they are private members, but increasingly they have been drawn within government. They are now mentioned in the Ministerial Code and are subject to certain requirements under it. Therefore, they are particularly good channels for reaching Ministers. We should encompass within the Bill’s remit all those who are being lobbied for the purposes of affecting public policy. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, does a valuable job in that regard, but one could add to it. I suspect that between now and Report we could come up with an amendment that brings together the various points that have been made and ensures that if we are to go down this route—and I am not persuaded that we should—those who are lobbied with a view to affecting public policy will be included in the Bill.

As it stands, Clause 2 is too narrow and, as I say, Permanent Secretaries should not feature significantly in it. I commend the various amendments that seek to widen the provision, so that if the Government go down this route at least they will do so effectively.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Norton of Louth

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I will not detain the House long as I made our position clear in Committee and it has not changed. As I said then, we believe that my noble friend Lord Lexden has hit on a very interesting and important issue about nationality and representation. There is clearly a strong case for some rationalisation and, indeed, for a careful look at the way in which our EU partners handle this issue, as was again said today. At the same time, we must note that the majority of them have a very different electoral system from our own. Here in the UK, we have a system of single-Member constituencies with a special link between an MP and his or her constituents. It is irrational to have people who used to live in my old constituency in north Cornwall, for example, still on the electoral roll 15 years or more after they have left for possibly sunnier climes.

Let me clear up any misunderstanding: every UK election, with the notable exception of European parliamentary elections, is in a sense a local election. Voters in a particular locality decide which local representative would in their judgment best represent their interests and those of that specific locality. It is also true that many local issues, from development threats in that locality to the level of council tax more generally, can be major factors even in a UK parliamentary election. For those who have left that locality 15 or more years ago to have a potentially decisive voice in such an election is illogical. I still remember the occasion when I was elected with a majority of nine. For all I know, that majority of nine came from many thousands of miles away and had no direct interest in that locality and that local parliamentary election.

Last week my noble friend Lord Deben, who is not in his usual place this afternoon, attacked me on this issue in a splendidly enjoyable diatribe. I make it clear: I do not defend or, indeed, reject the single-Member constituency that we have at present in the UK, but it is a fact of political life. Therefore, anything we do on this issue has to take that into the reckoning. If he or anybody else is now expecting a change to a multi-Member or list electoral system for the House of Commons, I am as surprised as I am delighted. However, I do not think that he is.

In the absence of any such reform, we urge my noble friend Lord Lexden to think again about his strategy. If he is to address the anomalies that he has rightly identified, he must take up the issue of an additional constituency for overseas voters. Several contributors to last week’s debate in Committee, including my noble friend Lord Lexden, referred to the French arrangement for overseas voters. Indeed, again, he made very important reference to the experience of French overseas voters. However, the significant point is that they have a separate constituency; they do not interfere with the individual constituencies in mainland France. In those circumstances, we believe that this amendment puts the cart before the horse. We believe that the creation of a separate constituency on the French model—or, indeed, constituencies, if the numbers justify something beyond one constituency—would be a much more appropriate way to make this injustice less of a problem in future. Surely that is the right and only way for the interests of former UK residents to be represented without diluting those of the people who still live in this country.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Lexden. It is a novel amendment but a modest one. In Committee, there were essentially two objections to the proposal to extend the 15-year limit on British nationals who live abroad having the vote. A third objection was to the mechanism proposed by my noble friend, which is again before us today.

One objection to extending the 15-year limit was that citizens who have retired to live abroad and enjoy the sunshine of foreign climes had effectively fled the United Kingdom and therefore should not be able to vote—certainly not for any great length of time. My noble friend Lord Tyler referred in Committee to the fact that some people may deem them to have deserted these shores. That is to misunderstand the situation of British nationals living abroad. Most emigrants from this country live abroad for work-related purposes. Some will be moving around the globe for their companies, which may well be UK companies. The fact of living abroad for some years is no proof of leaving the UK on a permanent basis.

My noble friend Lord Tyler raised a second objection, to which he referred again today. He argued that citizens living abroad do not have a clear constituency link, and he queried how an MP could represent,

“people who live perhaps thousands of miles away in a very different economic and social context”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 481.]

Well, I presume that they can do it in the same way in which they currently represent those who live abroad but have not yet done so for 15 years and are registered to vote. It is perhaps also worth reminding ourselves that the MEPs for the south-west of England also represent Gibraltar, where people live some way away in a different economic and social context.

The other objection was raised by my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble in respect of this particular amendment, on the grounds that it would be unusual to make such a change in secondary legislation. I note that he said “unusual” and not “unique”. In any event, what is involved here is not a new right but an extension of an existing right. Far greater changes affecting individuals are made through secondary legislation than is being envisaged here. What the amendment does is provide some flexibility. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Gardiner said that the question of extending the time limit,

“remains under consideration within government”.

The amendment provides the means to move forward, should that consideration result in recognition that the time limit should be extended.

The grounds for extending the time limit were made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lexden. As I stressed in that debate, we need to recognise the contribution made to the United Kingdom by citizens living abroad. They are a major source of soft power for the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Gardiner acknowledged,

“the continuing loyalty to the United Kingdom of so many who have lived and worked overseas for many years”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 489.]

We should look upon our citizens around the globe as a continuing asset and not as a body of people to be cast aside and treated as having deserted these shores. If they wish to demonstrate a continuing commitment to the United Kingdom, they should be enabled to do so.

My noble friend’s amendment provides the means for doing so but, at this stage, without commitment. It enables the Government to complete their consideration of the issue. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, in Committee I raised the issue of the edited version of the electoral register. I return to it in this amendment because of the Government’s unsatisfactory response. The edited version of the electoral register engages important principles regarding personal data. The edited version is generated as a by-product—essentially a commercial by-product—of a citizen’s duty to supply personal data in order to be registered to vote.

I made the case in Committee for the edited register to be abolished. I had argued the case before and, in making the case in Committee, I was able to pray in aid the Electoral Commission, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons and the Association of Electoral Administrators. Each has argued the case for abolition. In Committee, I quoted an editorial of the Guardian in December 2011, which argued that the edited register,

“lingers on, a travesty of the democratic process that sullies the relationship between voters and state, and illustrates just how casually politicians think about democracy”.

In its briefing for Committee stage, the Electoral Commission contended that prohibiting the publishing of the edited version was,

“particularly important, given the need to maintain people’s confidence in the security of their personal details”.

In responding, my noble friend the Minister said that, on balance, the Government had decided to retain the edited register because of what was seen as a greater principle—that of commercial gain. There was no engagement with the argument beyond that. The Government’s stance would presumably justify reverting to the sale of the full register to any organisation that wished to purchase it.

However, given that the Government have decided in favour of retaining the edited register—and we will doubtless return to that issue in the future—I have decided to pursue the issue of the opt-out. In Committee, I argued the case for electors to opt in to the edited version of the register, rather than—as now—opt out. This is, to my mind, crucial in the use of personal data. If electors are to have their personal data sold to third parties, then they should have to give their consent to it being sold in this way. As I said in Committee, consent must be given rather than assumed. That need for consent is reinforced by the Minister’s reminder in Committee that under individual electoral registration, an individual’s choice—or rather, in many cases, assumptions made about an individual’s choice—will automatically be carried forward.

The Electoral Commission, in its briefing on today’s amendments, has made clear that it supports this amendment. It states:

“We believe that, if individuals are required by law to provide personal information for the purpose of electoral administration, they should be asked clearly if they also want their personal information to be sold. Their personal information should only be sold if they have explicitly given their consent”.

In Committee, the Minister’s line of argument was essentially that the situation had improved since the days when the full register could be sold—rather ignoring the circumstances leading to the creation of an edited register—and that the existing situation provided appropriate protection and control. That was asserted rather than justified. Where personal data are concerned, we need to apply a higher threshold than that which is being applied. The present arrangements rest on assumptions about electors’ wishes rather than their explicit consent and what appears to be implicitly the view that changing to an opt-in provision would be too much trouble. Perhaps in reply my noble friend will explain what precisely the obstacle is to moving to an opt-in provision. Surely the principle of consent must outweigh the claim of convenience.

I will raise a general point deriving from this amendment and from others moved in Committee, not only by me but by other noble Lords. The Government appeared unwilling to engage with points of principle relating to the franchise and to the protection of personal data. Their response was couched essentially in terms of convenience and practicality. This bears out the concern expressed by the Constitution Committee in its report of the previous Session on the process of constitutional change. More than a decade ago, when I chaired it, the committee expressed concern at the lack of a culture within government of dealing with constitutional issues. As the committee noted in its report of last Session:

“The evidence we have received points to this lack of coherence remaining a serious problem”.

The Government need to demonstrate that they are able to engage in debate about the principles underpinning our constitution and the way in which we conduct elections. My amendment raises important questions that take us beyond matters of administrative convenience. If the Government are not willing to accept the amendment, they must give a compelling argument for their stance. We need to do whatever is necessary to protect personal data and the integrity of the registration process. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made a compelling case. However, it would be wrong to suggest that the current situation is in place not because of a very long, very careful, very extensive and very thoughtful process. The edited register is the result not just of some quick legal judgment but of a long political process, started by the previous Labour Administration.

The electoral register has been available for sale in one form or another since 1832. In 1999, Labour rightly recognised—before the register was challenged in the courts—that there was a case for changing the Victorian arrangements. In 1999 a Home Office working group recommended, first, that electors should be allowed to decide whether their personal details should be included in a register that was made commercially available and, secondly, that the full register should continue to be available to electoral users, while a licensing arrangement should be agreed to ensure that its use was restricted to electoral purposes only.

As far as I am aware, that recommendation was by broad agreement across the parties. The situation resulted in Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which created the so-called “edited register”. It was only when the Government consulted on how to implement the new principle that they were challenged in court about the old system. In 2001, Brian Robertson from Pontefract won his case when the judge concluded that the compulsory disclosure to commercial organisations of data given for electoral purposes was in breach of the Data Protection Act and of the newly passed Human Rights Act. He won the legal point in court, but it appears that the political and moral point had already been acknowledged by the Labour Government in 1999, and here in Parliament in 2000. The edited register was finally implemented in regulations in 2002. The problem that the amendment before your Lordships seeks to solve is one that has already been dealt with in the 2000 Act and the 2002 regulations.

Your Lordships’ House is always rightly concerned about the unintended consequences of legislation that we scrutinise. We should be particularly alert to the unintended consequences of this amendment. The edited register does not just have a commercial purpose; it is also used by a great many charitable organisations. The suggestion from my noble friend that it was only commercial reasons that the government Front Bench advanced last week may or may not be true, but those reasons certainly are not my concern. My concern is that a large number of highly reputable, very public-spirited actions by very public-spirited organisations could be impeded by the removal of the edited register, or by it becoming ineffective. For example, the Salvation Army is a particular advocate for its retention. Each year it finds and reunites some 3,000 families by using the edited register. That is as much an issue of principle as of practice. The edited register underpins efforts to locate and connect organ donors—which, again, is very important—and even bone marrow donors.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Norton of Louth

Monday 14th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 55, I shall speak also to Amendments 56 and 57. As I would hope would be fairly obvious, Amendments 56 and 57 are alternatives should Amendment 55 not find favour. The amendments address the issue of the edited version of the electoral register. My starting point is that the current position in respect of personal data supplied by electors is not sustainable. Some electors find that they are included in the edited version, even though they have no wish to be included. Some find their personal data being made available through organisations selling data taken from the register, on occasion apparently even though they have opted out of being included in the edited version.

By introducing individual electoral registration, the Bill goes some way to addressing the problem. It means that each elector has to make a decision as to whether they wish to opt out of the edited version of the register, whereas at present the head of the household may make that decision, which could mean a decision taken, for instance, by an official on behalf of students residing in college. The Bill, however, does not go far enough. The retention of the edited version raises a fundamental issue of principle. It entails the harvesting and sale of personal data as a by-product of a civic duty imposed on citizens.

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons, as well as the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators have argued that the edited register should be abolished. As the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has argued:

“Whatever benefit it might bring, we cannot justify the sale to commercial organisations of personal details gathered by the Government for electoral purposes”.

The Electoral Commission has reiterated its support for abolition of the edited version in its briefing notes on this Bill. As it notes, prohibiting the production and sale of the register is particularly important, given the need to maintain people’s confidence in the security of their personal details. In December 2011, the Guardian editorialised that the edited register,

“lingers on, a travesty of the democratic process that sullies the relationship between voter and state, and illustrates just how casually politicians think about democracy”.

There are then objections of principle to having an edited register. There are problems with the mechanism by which the names of electors are included. When the sale of the full electoral register was deemed illegal, the edited version was introduced with an opt-out provision. If one does not opt out of having one’s name included, it is assumed that one wants one’s name included in the edited register. The Government cannot be certain that those whose names appear in the edited version of the register want their names to be included. The extent to which the opt-out provisions are explained to electors appears to differ, but even if it was explained on a consistent and prominent basis, we still cannot be sure that the edited version comprises the names solely of those who wish their names to appear.

There are thus significant problems arising from the generation and publication of an edited register. At the heart of it, however, is an issue of principle. I am familiar with the arguments for its retention which are, essentially, practical arguments and are variously advanced in the magazine Parliamentary Brief and in the other place by Dan Rogerson. They do not engage with the issue of principle. The argument is that the edited version brings economic benefits because of the use made of it by commercial organisations. I understand that the Government were considering abolishing the register but have now been swayed by this argument. One would have thought that it was obvious why commercial organisations bought the edited register but this seems only now to have dawned on the Government.

There is a separate argument—essentially a public good argument—that some bodies use the edited version for altruistic reasons or for purposes that have a public benefit, such as tracing lost family members. I would have thought that the benefit is limited, given the scale of electors opting out of the edited register, and that there is a case for allowing bodies access to the full register where they can meet a public benefit test.

In response to the report of the Constitutional and Political Reform Committee, the Government said the arguments were “finely balanced”. In terms of principle, I am not sure that they are. I think principle trumps any commercial benefit. There is no public benefit in selling the edited register, other than a broad and incidental benefit in that it helps commercial organisations to trade, but that benefit would apply in all sorts of contexts where firms could operate in a way that conflicts with basic principles, be they in relation to the franchise or, say, working practices.

Amendment 55 thus prohibits the production and sale of the edited version of the register prior to the commencement of individual electoral registration in 2014. That is the clear-cut option. It gets rid of the edited register. That is my preferred option. If, however, the Government wish to persevere with an edited register—I would prefer that they did not—then Amendments 56 and 57 modify the existing arrangements. Amendment 56 is designed to get the Government thinking about who should have access to the edited register. It provides that only bodies designated by the Secretary of State as having a legitimate purpose for seeking access should be allowed to purchase it. My preference, as I have indicated, would be to abolish the edited version and introduce a public benefit test to allow bodies, other than presently permitted to do so, to have access to the full register. However, I put the amendment down to encourage reflection on the point.

Of the alternative options, Amendment 57 is the important one. This also engages an important principle. If—I stress if—the edited register is to be maintained, then it is essential that we move from an opt-out provision to an opt-in provision. In other words, electors should be included in the edited register only if they have explicitly given their consent to their inclusion. It is not sufficient to assume that they wish to be included if they do not opt out. Consent must be given rather than assumed.

The Government’s response may be that, although desirable in principle, there are practical difficulties, perhaps insurmountable problems, in introducing an opt-in provision. If that is the argument, then there is a clear alternative: get rid of the edited register. The choice is between Amendments 55 and 57. Either get rid of the edited register or introduce an opt-in provision. Leaving the situation as it is with the edited register is neither acceptable nor sustainable. I invite the Minister to indicate the Government’s preference. If he merely repeats the mantra that the arguments are finely balanced but things will remain as they are, we will be having this debate on further occasions. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is absolutely right to raise this issue in this context because the change to individual electoral registration provides a precise opportunity to think about this matter again. As he properly said, it already improves the situation and it is the right moment to be looking at this issue.

However, I confess that I am somewhat bemused. The most persuasive case for retaining the edited register has come from charities and credit agencies, both of which have a proper and natural interest that we should recognise. Theirs is a proper use of this data. It is rather unusual to hear a Conservative, of all people, apparently decrying that very proper interest of such organisations in accurate data of this sort.

It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is introducing a new idea, as he has done just now, by suggesting that some organisations of that sort should have access to the full register. That brings us to a very difficult problem of definition because under Amendment 56, he is apparently defining what a commercial purpose is. A credit agency would certainly be a commercial purpose. Is seeking to raise money for a charity not also a commercial purpose? I find it slightly bewitching at this time of night that a dedicated Conservative Peer appears to denigrate the idea of having a commercial purpose at all, as if it is somehow a disreputable activity. I therefore have a problem of definition under Amendment 56.

However, I return to my original point. It is perfectly right, proper and appropriate that we should ask the Government at this stage to be thinking about this matter. Amendment 57 is clearly the least objectionable option that the noble Lord has put forward, but I wonder whether, if electors had to opt into an edited register, many would do so and whether the whole exercise would become a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare. The opt-in option would, in that sense, be a red herring.

However, this is obviously the right moment to be asking Ministers to think again, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do just that. If he is unable to make progress in persuading the Committee in one direction or another, perhaps this is a matter that we will have to return to on Report.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Lord Norton of Louth

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

That is what happens under the present system. The present system is totally inadequate in that respect because you have to plump. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who undoubtedly understands the point I am making, I say that under the present system many people in this country feel that they are forced to vote in a very artificial way because their first preference is not likely to win. I am arguing that in many parts of the country people do not bother to register or to vote at all because they think that their first preference is not likely to win. The safer the seat—

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My noble friend’s argument is based on the premise that people are aware that under a different system—in this case AV—their votes will make more of a difference than under the present system. I should be interested to know what his empirical evidence is for that.

[Lord Tyler]

The empirical evidence, of course, is the way in which so many other elections, outwith elections to Parliament, operate. I think I am right in saying that all the parties now select their candidates through a form of AV and it is seen to be very effective. Many other professional organisations and trade unions use it and, as was pointed out earlier, the Lord Speaker was elected under that system. There are plenty of examples where people understand that by making a number of choices or preferences they can make a difference.