house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1109 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1110<br />
a year turnover, £1.7 billion represents delivering and<br />
advertising mail to the Royal Mail. This might be<br />
impacted. Those are powerful arguments, particularly<br />
in the economic times we are living in.<br />
Having said all that, we accept that there are strong<br />
principled arguments in favour <strong>of</strong> abolishing the edited<br />
register. We are sympathetic to those who argue on<br />
principle, as does the noble Lord who moved the<br />
amendment, that data collected for electoral purposes<br />
should not be sold on for commercial purposes. We<br />
are also concerned that the existence <strong>of</strong> the edited<br />
register may put some people <strong>of</strong>f registering to vote.<br />
That runs contrary to our programme <strong>of</strong> work to<br />
bolster registration ahead <strong>of</strong> the introduction <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
registration. It is something we wish to consider carefully.<br />
While we have collected some evidence to date, a<br />
full consultation would allow us to go out to a wider<br />
audience, including businesses, charities and the public.<br />
We feel that this would enable us to build up a firmer<br />
evidence base and better understand the nature <strong>of</strong> the<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> abolishing the edited register. It is our<br />
intention to conduct a consultation before the Summer<br />
Recess in order to build a firmer evidence base about<br />
the advantages and disadvantages <strong>of</strong> the edited register<br />
and to consider the way forward on the basis <strong>of</strong> the<br />
responses received.<br />
I should like to emphasise that an amendment to<br />
this Bill is not the only legislative mechanism, in our<br />
view, by which the provisions for the edited register<br />
may be removed. The edited register exists because <strong>of</strong><br />
provision in secondary legislation, made under paragraph<br />
10(1) <strong>of</strong> Schedule 2 to the Representation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
People Act 1983. There is no requirement that secondary<br />
legislation should include provision about an edited<br />
register. Accordingly, our argument is that it would be<br />
possible to remove the provision for the edited register<br />
by using existing powers to amend secondary legislation,<br />
if that was deemed appropriate.<br />
Therefore, it would be open to the Government to<br />
use this mechanism to remove the edited register if,<br />
following consultation, it became evident that that<br />
was the best way forward. That would still leave the<br />
power to create the edited register again on the statute<br />
book. Nevertheless, it might achieve the benefits that<br />
noble Lords describe and would be a more flexible<br />
approach. This would allow us to have the benefit <strong>of</strong><br />
fully considering the outcome <strong>of</strong> the consultation<br />
before taking further steps. Notwithstanding our sympathy<br />
for the arguments against the edited register, this<br />
should be the preferred approach and proper process<br />
for making this informed policy decision about changes<br />
to our system <strong>of</strong> electoral administration. I am not<br />
making any commitments on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Government,<br />
as I would not wish to pre-empt the outcome <strong>of</strong> any<br />
consultation. I mention this solely to emphasise that<br />
this Bill may not be the only mechanism by which the<br />
provisions relating to the edited register may be amended.<br />
I hope that those who support the amendment<br />
might give careful consideration to the impact <strong>of</strong><br />
accepting it. I repeat that, in principle, we understand<br />
the motivation behind the amendment, but we argue<br />
that it would not be appropriate to abolish the edited<br />
register via an amendment to this Bill before we had<br />
conducted a public consultation in full. The noble<br />
Lord will take whatever course he thinks best. However,<br />
I hope that some <strong>of</strong> the arguments that I have tried to<br />
employ might gave him some food for thought.<br />
Lord Norton <strong>of</strong> Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to<br />
all those who have spoken. In addition to the bodies I<br />
mentioned that support abolition, there was cross-party<br />
support for it in Grand Committee. I am very grateful<br />
for this afternoon’s expression <strong>of</strong> support from my<br />
noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Brooke and the<br />
noble Lord, Lord Tyler.<br />
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. It came<br />
more towards meeting the point <strong>of</strong> principle this time<br />
rather than relying solely on the practical point. I have<br />
two concerns about what he said. He has repeated the<br />
point that the Government propose to consult. They<br />
have been proposing to consult for some time. The<br />
Government could have already had the consultation<br />
exercise and got the responses by now. There does not<br />
appear to be any great urgency on the part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Government.<br />
That brings me to the second point. The Minister<br />
has said, quite rightly, that one could get rid <strong>of</strong> edited<br />
registers through existing legislation; the provisions<br />
are there. He said that that is the more flexible approach.<br />
My concern is that it is flexibility in favour <strong>of</strong> doing<br />
nothing; that would be my worry. I feel that there is a<br />
need for something to be locked in to ensure that there<br />
is action. I think ultimately the issue <strong>of</strong> principle is<br />
paramount.<br />
I will reflect on what the Minister has said. However,<br />
my greatest concern is, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson<br />
said, the concern expressed by the Electoral Commission<br />
in relation to drafting. I want to reflect on that.<br />
However, I will reflect on what the Minister has said<br />
and consider whether to return to the issue at Third<br />
Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the<br />
amendment.<br />
Amendment 74 withdrawn.<br />
Amendment 75 not moved.<br />
Amendment 76<br />
Moved by Lord Tyler<br />
76: Clause 21, leave out Clause 21<br />
Lord Tyler: My Lords, this is an important issue<br />
not least because, as yet, Members <strong>of</strong> the other place<br />
have had no debate on it. Those who were present at<br />
Second Reading, as well as those who have taken part<br />
in the discussions in Grand Committee, will recall that<br />
this is the question <strong>of</strong> the exclusion from the ballot<br />
paper <strong>of</strong> the candidates’ addresses. By some special<br />
arrangement, this was put to the other place without<br />
any debate, out <strong>of</strong> sequence and not in the group to<br />
which it related. I need go no further.<br />
There is an important principle here, which is similar<br />
to the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-<br />
Savours, enunciated on Monday, in relation to the<br />
amendment that we had both put before the House.<br />
This is an issue that the House <strong>of</strong> Commons should