RESTRICTION ON SUPPLY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN REGISTER

HC Deb 13 January 2000 vol 342 cc437-77 1.17 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 10, leave out lines 22 to 35.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in page 10, line 32, after "which", insert both the full register and".

• No. 38, in page 10, line 36, leave out "full".
• No. 39, in page 10, line 41, leave out "full".
• No. 91, in page 10, line 42, at end insert—

(ab) to supply to any persons registered under the 1998 Data Protection Act copies of the full register and other documents, or prescribed parts of them, on payment of a prescribed fee and for exempt purposes only".

• No. 40, in page 10, leave out lines 43 and 44.
• No. 41, in page 11, line 7, leave out "full".
• No. 42, in page 11, line 10, leave out "full".
• No. 77, in page 11, line 14, after "any", insert "personal".
• No. 78, in page 11, line 15, leave out "information" and insert "names and addresses".
• No. 79, in page 11, line 17, at end insert—

(1A) Such provisions made whether in accordance with regulations made in pursuance of paragraph 10B above or in accordance with any other provision made by or under an Act shall only be made after the Secretary of State has declared that they are in the public interest and after an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.".

• No. 43, in page 11, line 18, leave out "full".
• No. 23, in page 11, line 25, at end add—

(10C).—

1. (1) In making provisions under paragraph 10B, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effect of those provisions on electors, and in particular to whether the interests of electors who request that their names and addresses are excluded from the edited register, and of other electors, would be prejudiced in any way, in particular by any provisions not enabling the supply of copies of the full register to any person, or to any class of person, to whom copies of the full register were previously supplied.
2. (2) In making provisions under paragraph 10B which do not enable the supply of copies of the full register to any person, or to any class of person, to whom such copies were previously supplied, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effect of those provisions on such persons or classes of persons, and in particular to whether the interests of those persons or classes of persons would be prejudiced in any way.
438
3. (3) The Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he thinks fit on the effect of any provisions which he proposes to make under paragraph 10B and shall have regard to any representations which may be made to him by such persons or any other interested parties.
4. (4) No provisions shall be made under paragraph 10B which adversely affect the interests of electors.
5. (5) In this paragraph "interest"' shall include, but not exclusively—
1. (a) in respect of electors, access to financial services, and in particular to loans, credit accounts and bank accounts, and the amount of direct mail that is likely to be received by electors;
2. (b) in respect of persons or classes of persons to whom copies of the full register were previously supplied, the employment of workers by such persons, the costs incurred by such persons, and the level of competition between such persons.".

New clause 5—Supply of information: report to Parliament— .—The Secretary of State shall compile and lay before Parliament annually a report on the workings of section 9 of this Act.".

Mr. Barnes

In addition to speaking to my amendments, I shall also speak in support of amendment No. 77, in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), to which I have added my name.

My amendments would end the commercial sale of electoral registers. Electoral registers exist for electoral purposes. Nothing should interfere with their being able to fulfil their fundamental purpose. That is why the poll tax was wrong in using the interface between the poll tax and electoral registers. It probably deterred 1 million people from registering for the vote, especially young attainers who would have appeared on registers for the first time.

A number of people are deterred from registering by the thought that their names and addresses will be used for commercial purposes. Similarly, some people prefer their telephone numbers to be ex-directory, partly because they are unhappy about their names and addresses appearing in a public document.

The Government are seeking to accommodate the problem with a two-tier register which allows people to opt out of the edition that will be for sale for commercial purposes. The Conservative response is that those who opt out will be at a disadvantage, as commercial interests will not be able to confirm people's home addresses. If we ban the sale of registers for commercial purposes, credit agencies and others will have to find different ways to check people's addresses. That might inconvenience those commercial interests, but it will not inconvenience the electorate; nor will it deter people from registering.

I realise that charities could be placed in a difficult position unless amendment No. 77 is accepted. Charities, such as the Stroke Association, Marie Curie Cancer Care and the National Asthma Campaign, use information from electoral registers to run street collections for money or jumble. There are 50 such national charities, plus some local hospices, which collect more than £180 million a year in that way. They need street names and house numbers, but they do not need the names of individuals. For example, they need to know that in Acacia avenue, the odd numbers run from one to 37, and the even numbers from two to 36—that is how they base their operations.

Amendment No. 77 provides for the needs of such charities; in no way does it inhibit electoral registration, unlike the sale of registers, which may tend to deter people from placing their names on the register. There is no reason why the required information cannot be passed to charities without cost. Amendment No. 77 would work either with my amendments or with only the Government's proposals, because what is needed is the full list of addresses—not the names of individuals. I recommend upholding the sanctity of the names and addresses on electoral registers, but passing street numbers on to charities.

My amendments stress that electoral registers are established for the fundamental democratic right to vote in elections. Only if that purpose is protected should anyone outside the electoral system be allowed to have ownership or general use of the registers. The commercial use of registers deters some people from registering.

Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East)

My hon. Friend referred to the loss of names from the register after the introduction of the poll tax; he is absolutely right. However, commercial companies were using the electoral roll before the poll tax and there did not appear to be many problems. Does he agree that such use of the register was valid at that time?

Mr. Barnes

It is invalid to use the register for commercial sale at any time. I know of no research as to the number of people who refuse to register because of such commercial use; all I know is that each Member of the House will have been in touch with constituents who are not on the electoral register, and who say that the reason is because they do not want the register to be used for commercial purposes. They do not want to be inundated with material from outside organisations. When constituents tell us that they want those organisations to stop bombarding them with literature, they point out that one of the means used to target them is the electoral register.

That is an important consideration, even if it affects only a small number of constituents. The Bill is to ensure the maximum possible registration. We have introduced a rolling register in order to help with that, so we should examine carefully each deterrent to registration and try to remove it. The Government have tackled the problem by proposing two registers, one of which will be edited, with an opt-out provision. Some might argue that there should be an opt-in provision instead—that would considerably reduce the number of names in the edited register.

However, the Opposition will presumably argue strongly that the sale of registers is needed for commercial purposes, and that some constituents will be disadvantaged if their names are not included on those registers. My answer is that if we say that the commercial interests cannot have the register at all, nobody will be disadvantaged—although it could be argued that the full list will be disadvantaged—and the commercial organisations will have to discover other means by which they can contact people legitimately.

This is a very important measure. I hope that the Government, who are part of the way towards accepting the argument, will go a stage further.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

Out of courtesy, may I remind the Committee of my interest with the Institute of Sales Promotion and the incentive industry? The ISP has no interest in the Bill or this issue, but I would not want hon. Members to think that I am being uncharitable when I speak shortly about the Direct Marketing Association. The incentive industry fully understands the direct marketing industry, which is another part of the marketing world. That has helped me to appreciate the concerns expressed by a number of organisations about clause 9.

I wish to refer to amendments Nos. 37 to 43, which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has just mentioned. To be accurate, the amendments would need to include the deletion of line 21, as well as lines 22 to 35, but our reading of the matter is that, effectively, amendment No. 37 sends a signal to the Government to delete the concept of the opt-out box altogether. For that reason, we must tell the Minister that that is one of the clear options available to the Committee.

I appreciate entirely that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire has a rather different purpose—to delete the commercial sale of the register. If, having listened to the arguments, we concluded that we would seek to support the amendment, it would be to indicate support for one option, which would be to delete the opt-out box altogether.

It is clear that this idea has not been thought through properly, and there has not been a proper regulatory impact assessment. That may explain why the CBI has estimated a minimum cost of £500 million to commercial organisations if the clause is implemented as drafted. That is why, in addition, many charities throughout the country—some of which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire mentioned—have expressed serious reservations about restricting the use of the commercially available full register.

I stress that I am referring to the full register, as I understand that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, may suggest that his party's thinking is that only a full register should be available and that there should not be an edited version at all. That is another point of view.

We are concerned that industry has not had a proper chance for consultation. In reality, its views were canvassed only after it was clear that the working party had made a recommendation that there should be an opt-out box for consumer protection purposes, and that the Government were determined to go ahead. And many charities will find it impossible to hold house-to-house collections or to send direct mail to the many people who are likely to subscribe to them.

1.30 pm

Equally, the direct marketing industry will not be able to use the register to edit the data that it has obtained from other sources—that process controls the amount of unsolicited mail that consumers receive—but will send more unsolicited mail under a scatter-gun approach until it recognises that that is not a profitable way forward. It will then cease to use direct mail at all. That will have a serious impact on postal services. I note from business questions that, early next week, the House will be given the opportunity to debate the future of rural post offices. In its concern for the future of the Post Office and rural post offices, it must pay regard to the effect that this clause will have on them.

Industry and the Conservative party recognise that an issue must be addressed. Whatever we do in support of the amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire to send out a signal, and whatever we do with our own amendment, we recognise that there is a problem. Industry has proposed an alternative scheme with which the Minister is familiar because representatives of the Direct Marketing Association, the CBI and the Advertising Association have described it to him. It suggests that there should be no opt-out box, but that a leaflet should be prepared at industry's expense to explain all the uses to which the register might be put. That might include direct mail, financial services and its use by credit reference agencies, which is a major factor that the Government have considered.

We welcome the intimation in the letters that the Minister has sent out in the past couple of days—I presume that he will refer to them later—that the Government are persuaded that there is a legitimate credit referencing use that they would wish to continue. They have already agreed that the money laundering use could also continue. All those points could be explained in a leaflet, and the widespread and legitimate use of the register by charities and Government Departments could also continue.

The leaflet would also point out that the raw material in the electoral list would not be used as the sole basis for sending direct mail or making any contact with an individual, but would be used purely to enable those with existing mailing lists to validate the names on the lists. In other words, they would clean their lists to save unnecessary costs and to prevent individuals from receiving unsolicited mail—and those who have moved into a new house from being bombarded with unsolicited mail to former occupants. The industry recognises that that is a nuisance.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

Has my hon. Friend, like me, received the letter from Help the Aged, which came up with a relatively simple solution? It suggested that the word "information" should be changed to "names and addresses".

Mr. Greenway

I have received many letters from charities, including from Help the Aged. We are not entirely clear that its suggestion meets the requirements, and I shall explain in a moment that we have another scheme that would allow the opt-out box to continue. At the moment, I am simply exploring what would occur if the opt-out box were stopped altogether, which would be one of the amendment's consequences.

Under the industry's alternative scheme the leaflet would be paid for by industry and distributed by local authorities at a cost to be borne by industry. The scheme would include a freepost system for individuals who wanted an element of privacy or restriction on the use of the electoral register, particularly to prevent its use as raw data, which would involve the register being used as the sole source of information that an organisation would act upon.

Turning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the scheme would enable charities to verify how many people live in a particular street so that they could plan their house-to-house collections accordingly. It would enable charities that write to individuals, as direct marketing and direct mail organisations do, to use the list to clean their data and to save unnecessary cost and expense. It cannot be sensible for charities to have to spend money on postage and printing to write to people who are no longer at an address. The use of the electoral register is very valuable to such charities.

I can tell that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department acknowledges that the scheme has considerable merit, and we hope that his mind is still receptive to it.

I turn now to another perspective on the matter. The Conservative party recognises that the Government are unlikely to be persuaded of the working party's recommendation that there should not be an opt-out box, which we understand has the support of the Data Protection Registrar, and that they fully intend to proceed with an opt-out box. With that in mind, and despite all that I have said about what might have been a preferred option, we have tried hard to produce amendments that would allow the Government to continue with an opt-out box and avoid damaging the interests of voters and those of industry, financial organisations and charities.

On the interests of constituents, there is no question but that restricted availability of the list would be damaging for credit reference purposes. It appears that the Government acknowledge that, but they seem unpersuaded that there is a legitimate use for the register in debt recovery. That seems to us an illogical distinction. It will have the same consequence for credit availability because if organisations such as banks are not able to use the electoral register to trace the whereabouts of people to whom credit has been extended, they will be reluctant to extend credit to those people in the first place. If the efficiency of debt recovery is impeded, that will have a clear consequence not only for credit availability but, in the long run, for the cost of credit.

On debt recovery, I should like the Minister to consider what happens to people who have not, for example, paid the television licence fee or vehicle excise duty. Presumably the BBC and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency currently chase up people who have not paid by checking on the electoral register. Whether or not the effect is intended, some organisations are considered to have a legitimate use because they may in some respects be seen as part of the public sector, whereas commercial organisations and banks would have that legitimate use restricted.

We do not have as yet any form of identity card system. As a result, over many years the electoral register has become the chief source of information as to where people may or may not be found. We are entirely at one with those who say that it should not be used against the interests or preferences of individuals. However, we urge the Minister to consider the matter completely in the round and to recognise that there is not a one-way street. All of us benefit in some way from the fact that organisations have access to the register and use it properly. We accept that its commercial use needs to be supervised, licensed and controlled in a more sensible way.

Amendment No. 21 asks the Government to recognise that there are legitimate purposes for the use of the full register, but that these should be explained properly to voters. The amendment comes with amendment No. 22, which we are likely to discuss when dealing with a subsequent group of amendments. Amendment No. 23 is of much greater importance. If accepted, it would have the effect of placing an obligation on the Secretary of State to have regard to certain interests and to consult before making any regulations under paragraph 10B. Those interests are those of electors and constituents as well as the interests of business. I have already detained the Committee long enough on what those interests are.

Amendment No. 23 is crucial. As drafted, the Bill gives far too much discretion to the Secretary of State in the making of regulations under the new provisions. If the Minister intends making soothing noises in response to the barrage of criticism that he has already received—I suspect it will be articulated further during the debate—we think that the best response would be for him to accept the amendment or to indicate that on Report, which will be on Wednesday of next week, the House will be asked to consider a further amendment. Through amendment No. 23, we are asking that a provision be put into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the interests of electors and businesses, and to consult before he makes any regulations under the new provisions contained in paragraph 10B.

There is an alternative. Amendments Nos. 91, 87, 88—unfortunately, No. 89 was not selected—and 90 are consequential. However, amendment No. 23 would provide for any organisation registered with the Data Protection Registrar, under licence and on payment of a proper fee, to have full access to the commercial register. Banks and large sections of the direct marketing industry have always envisaged that there would need to be a licensing system to underpin any opt-out box arrangements. I understand that discussion about licensing has taken place between those organisations and officials in the Under-Secretary of State's Department.

The Bill sets out a requirement for provisions to which I have already referred. However, we have had no sign thus far of what form the provisions will take. How will they be structured? Who will be responsible for supervising them? What fees will be charged? How will the person responsible for supervision prescribe who can or cannot have the register? How will it be possible to stop the unofficial use of the register by spurious organisations?

As matters stand, the system is open to abuse and anomaly. At one extreme, banks and major international companies in the direct marketing sector will be denied the bona fide use of the register. I have already referred to the absurd fact that the Government remain unpersuaded that there should be no use of the full register for debt recovery.

1.45 pm

At the other extreme, as at present, anyone will be able to go down to the library and copy the full register. That may be illegal, but what is to stop people doing it? In that way, a spurious organisation could make full use of the register without anyone knowing. Doubtless such an organisation would not be registered with the Data Protection Registrar, so presumably the organisation would be committing offences under the Data Protection Acts in any event.

That adds further to the argument that to provide a role for the Data Protection Registrar or Commissioner in supervising the use of the register only for those organisations registered with the registrar would be a sensible and practical way of progressing the issue.

Mr. Fabricant

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Greenway

Before I give way to my hon. Friend, I shall make another telling point.

The local Labour party, or the Liberal Democrats, or the Conservative party—I am happy to admit this—or any fringe party yet to be established could use the register, ostensibly to canvass voters, and having canvassed voters, to recruit members, sell them raffle tickets and generally raise money.

Whatever the intention may be, that is the practical effect, yet every major charity in the land, all of which have expressed anger and frustration at the Government's proposal, will be denied the same legitimate use of the register, by virtue of the opt-out box. They will be denied the legitimate use of what is and has always been regarded as a public document.

We say that the arrangements set out in clause 9 are unsatisfactory and should not be acceptable to the Committee in their current form. Reassurances from the Minister will not be sufficient. We need something more written into the Bill.

Amendment No. 91 and the supporting amendments would provide a means of ensuring that dialogue with industry and charities continues after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We entirely understand the Minister's anxiety to get the Bill on the statute book quickly, which is why we have co-operated in the progress of the Bill and why, even last night, I said that I was prepared for Report stage to take place on Monday, if necessary. We know now that it will take place on Wednesday.

We understand the sense of urgency, but we need to know that there is some guarantee that dialogue will continue. Even in the letter that the Minister kindly sent me by fax yesterday, he mentioned continuing to consult industry about the regulatory framework. That suggests to me that there should be no difficulty in his accepting that safeguards should be written into the Bill.

Accepting amendment No. 91 would leave everything in play and provide the prospect of a sensible and practical implementation of the changes in clause 9 by an independent body that was recognised by and answerable to Parliament. We believe that that is a responsible approach. We urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam)

I have sympathy for some of the arguments that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) presented, and we have joined him in tabling the amendment. However, we approach the matter from a fundamentally different angle. We do not propose that there should be a separate, edited version of the register because we do not believe that such a document would be useful. The point of the electoral register is that it is comprehensive, and carries some authority because it has been assembled by government in a detailed manner. That is different from any other register of names and addresses. Such a comprehensive register should be available for some of the purposes that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned. There is a point in making the register widely available for credit referencing, for example.

We are worried that the proposed opt-out will be widely misunderstood by the public and that people will believe that they are opting out of junk mail. The right way of doing that is through services such as a mailing preference service. There should be a system—similar to the current telephone and fax preference services—whereby people can state that they do not wish to receive a specific sort of mailing. Preventing the circulation of the electoral register will not stop junk mail. We need a system whereby people who carry out direct marketing license themselves and are required to check the names of individuals who have chosen not to receive such material.

We understand why the working group reached its conclusions. We should take a stroll through the Data Protection Act 1998—a fascinating document, which doubtless kept us all awake as we prepared for the debate. We should examine schedule 1 and the principles of data protection. It becomes clear through reading the schedule that there is a problem with the use of the electoral register in recent years. It states: Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. Data have been collected for one purpose and used for others, but that should not prevent us from reconsidering whether there should be a national register of names and addresses that is available for specific, tightly controlled purposes within the framework of data protection legislation.

Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act makes it clear that exceptions can be made and that the use of data can be justified when doing that is necessary to protect the vital interests of the subject of the data. There is a problem with the use of data, but the legislation suggests possible solutions.

We want to consider whether the details for the electoral register should be collected openly as data that will be used for other purposes. That gets round the problem of collecting data for one purpose and using it for another. The form that people fill in could make clear the range of purposes for which the data will be used. We should maintain a comprehensive document that carries some authority and can be used for specific, critical applications.

The credit and banking industry needs secure name and address data. It is unpleasant to write to Experian or Equifax and send them £2 when they send back a thick file that says more about one's financial standing than perhaps one would like them to know. However, when someone buys a car and wants to drive out in it immediately, the finance can be organised there and then if the data is available. In today's society, such data has to be available to enable us to be spontaneous and irresponsible consumers and rack up huge amounts of debt.

Most people, including hon. Members, would take advantage of such a system. We all need to declare an interest on credit. The credit and banking industry needs secure data. I have no fundamental problem with the data being used in the way in which I described if controls exist and the data are not abused. There is currently a good framework for managing that. If the Government move from their current position, they should do more to regulate the data rather than trying to prevent the data from being accessible.

Direct marketing companies mainly use other information. They send surveys out to people, in which one respondent in a thousand can win a free holiday, or collect names and addresses when people go into shops. The electoral register is used for cleaning such data up. That is a public interest use because it prevents junk mail from being delivered for years after someone has left a house. Companies do not want to send such mail out and people do not want to receive it, and the electoral register is the annual census against which they can run their other information and achieve a clean list. That is in everybody's interest.

The direct marketing issue is critical and we should not allow it to distract us into saying, "We need to have this opt-out for direct marketing purposes." We should look at the positive ways of making improvements in respect of direct mail and intrusive direct mail. That involves having better rather than less data and giving people options such as preference services so that they can say what they want and do not want to receive. The working group considered that, and said that, ideally, people should be given the chance to say what sort of information they do not want to receive. It wanted a multiple choice opt-out, but accepted that that could not be achieved through the electoral register. Such an opt-out could be achieved through the other services that I mentioned. People would be better served by that rather than the blunt instrument of an opt-out from the electoral register, because they could say that they do not want this or that information sent to them.

The other element is charities. I hope that the Government will look closely at our amendments Nos. 77 and 78. The Data Protection Act is clear about not handing out personal data, but I suggest that there is no problem at all in handing out lists of address points. They can be obtained in other ways—through the post office address file, for example—but the numbers of people in households are not available. If names were not being given out, I would have no problem with allowing charities in particular and other organisations that use such data to have lists of address points and numbers of occupants, which is what they need to know. That information should not necessarily be excluded, even accepting the concerns of the Data Protection Registrar, which do not relate to such anonymous data.

We suggest possible solutions in amendments Nos. 77 and 78. The first is to include the word "personal" to make it clear that other data, such as address points, can be given out and the second is to be more explicit, using the words "names and addresses" instead of "information" in respect of the restricted categories of data. I hope that the Minister may be able to inform the Committee that such anonymous data can be given out on a comprehensive basis anyway; if not, I hope that he will seriously consider whether it was his intention and that of the working group to exclude such anonymous data, rather than personal lists of names and addresses, from being handed out.

I accept that there are individuals who, for specific purposes, do not want to have themselves or their addresses identified, but we need to revisit the whole issue of a comprehensive list that carries authority. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, we do not have identity cards in this country. I support that, but whether we have identity cards makes a difference. Other countries operate in a different way because they use such cards. The electoral register has become a de facto system that is equivalent to identity cards in another country and we ought to consider whether that should become a de jure system and whether we need to authorise it and bring it within the data protection framework. However, we would not necessarily be in a better position and nor would the public interest necessarily be served by simply abandoning the idea of having a register against which people could check information.

Another key point is that other people will fill the gap and other sources of data will be obtained. People will fax paper electoral registers across the globe and type them up. Mistakes will inevitably be made and those sources will be inaccurate. We need to consider that because another key principle of data protection is that data should be accurate. That is in the public interest; data subjects want data to be accurate. As a public body, we should seek to obtain accuracy at all times and more problems will be caused to individuals if other sources of data become the standard. People will find, for example, that they have a bad credit rating because someone has miskeyed a name and they have been matched against an inappropriate person. The chances of that happening with the electoral register, which is generally of better quality, are less.

2 pm

The Data Protection Registrar has referred to the growth in the use of CD-ROM and internet sources of personal data checking. People are concerned about that. Some of those sources are of very poor quality, although some are reasonable. Many are outside the framework of our legislation: they are produced abroad and shipped in. I believe that the removal of the register, rather than calming things down, would encourage the use of sources of that kind. It occurs to me that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire may achieve his objective if the words that he wishes to remove are allowed to remain: it is possible that so many people will choose to opt out of the register that it will no longer have a useful purpose.

Mr. Barnes

Can it be said that the register has any use commercially at present? It is notoriously inefficient and inaccurate for such purposes, and commercial bodies attempting to use it presumably find themselves in a hopeless position. The Bill may improve things, but my amendments would improve them further.

Mr. Allan

The electoral register, unlike other sources, is checked annually, and a reasonable amount of canvassing goes into it. We politicians bemoan inaccuracy because we do not want to lose a single vote, and we do not like to find that a household is not properly registered. In my constituency, 20 people may be registered as living in a certain property, but when we knock on the door we find that only four people are living there, and that none of them are those whose names are on the register.

Mr. Barnes

Millions of people are missing from electoral registers. Some are registered to vote in the wrong area, and some are dead. I know that the Bill deals with some of the problems by suggesting change, but this argument seems to be based on the desirability of continuing the present situation.

Mr. Allan

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the inaccuracies, but I think that the register is more accurate than many other sources of data.

Mr. Greenway

The intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was timely, but I think that the opposite of what he said is the case. As I understand it, he wants to restrict the commercial sale of the electoral register because he believes that it discourages people from registering. However, a great many people who are not currently registered are seriously disadvantaged for that reason. That is why it is crucial for them to understand the importance of any opt-out provisions, or, better still, to be given an explanatory leaflet.

Mr. Allan

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire is right about the disincentive to register, and I think that there are many others. I agree that the poll tax was one, and that mistake should not be repeated, but I am not sure that the proposals that we are discussing constitute a positive discouragement.

The working group had anecdotal evidence in the form of complaints sent to the Home Office, and to individual Members of Parliament. I am not persuaded. I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is a large-scale failure to register for the reasons that I have mentioned. I can see that the poll tax, or a similar move to link tax or similar burdens to electoral rights, might constitute a discouragement, but I do not think that this proposal, as it stands, constitutes such a discouragement. Nevertheless, I think that people will be misled in other respects: in particular, I think they will assume that the issue is connected with direct marketing. People who try to obtain credit on the telephone—perhaps to buy the car to which I referred earlier—will be told that they cannot have credit because they are not on the system, and that that is because they did not register with a credit reference agency via the electoral register. Only then will they discover where the problem originated.

Amendment No. 79 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State examines the matter again to verify for his purposes and those of the House that any proposals that he makes are in the public interest. The aim is to return the issue of public interest to the debate about data protection principles. We have moved quite a long way, without necessarily considering all the public interest implications. The amendment is intended to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that any changes are subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. We think that that is a positive move, and I am sure that the Minister will accept it, as I know from earlier debates that he is the kind of Minister who likes to say yes if he possibly can. We are offering him an opportunity to say yes to both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that he would look forward to that. It is an important point.

I hope that the Minister will say how he originally envisaged introducing the regulations and that, given the argument that it is a significant change with wide impact, he is now persuaded that he should take a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that parliamentarians get a good chance to scrutinise the regulations in detail.

Mr. Fabricant

I apologise to the Committee for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I was at an Engineering Council meeting, from which I could not get away.

Members of Parliament have probably received more letters on this clause than on any other aspect of the Bill. The letters come from a wide range of interested parties, ranging from the Consumer Credit Trade Association to the National Blind Childrens Society, all of which will be affected by clause 9.

As I was not here at the beginning to hear the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who always makes worthwhile contributions, I will not speak at length on the amendment, but I should like to describe the sort of people who wrote to me and what they said. I mentioned in an intervention that Help the Aged had contacted me and suggested that "information" be substituted by "names and addresses". However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has pointed out that that would not have the effect that Help the Aged wants.

Interestingly, the National Blind Childrens Society points out that clause 9 will be costly. May I put in a little politics? It has highlighted another stealth tax. It says: I would remind you that although it is the government policy to help charities and the voluntary sector a tax of £7,000 per annum has recently been imposed on most charities"— by the Government— through the telephone preference system. Sadly, it is one of the most awful of the stealth taxes in that it directly affects charities such as the NBCS.

Marie Curie Cancer Care has written to criticise aspects of clause 9. Barclays bank has said that it will create real difficulty as it has the potential to exacerbate financial exclusion, as the electoral register is presently used as part of the credit checking process, especially where no other data is held on that individual". That is a problem that the Government have to address in any event.

As we have seen on programmes such as "Watchdog", some people suddenly find that they are unable to borrow money because it turns out that they have a bad credit reference. When they try to find out why, they are unable to do so. The position will not be helped by clause 9 as it stands. A similar letter has been received from the British Bankers Association. I have already mentioned the Consumer Credit Trade Association.

We have also heard from the Direct Marketing Association. One individual—let me give him a plug—Trevor Oxborrow, wrote an interesting letter from Campbeltown, Argyll. Mrs. Jefkins from Croydon, Surrey feels strongly about the issue, as does John Lovell. The WWAV Rapp Collins Group have written.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)

Name a constituent.

Mr. Fabricant

Sadly, of all the representations that I have received from all parts of the country, none has come from Lichfield. That is untypical of my constituents, who follow in the footsteps of one Lichfield's great sons, Dr. Samuel Johnson, a great letter writer.

I have also heard from Andy Watkins of Willingdon, Eastbourne—which is near where I was born—and from Prostaff Funding Ltd., in Chester-le-Street, in County Durham.

Clearly, there is dissatisfaction with clause 9. I hope that the Minister—like Lloyds TSB, which also is unhappy with the Bill's provisions—is in listening mode. If he wants to buy himself a larger house, I am sure that, in the tradition of one of his very senior colleagues, he will want to borrow not from a friend, but from a building society, and to know that his credit rating will enable him to borrow the necessary sum. It is therefore in his interests, and those of all hon. Members, that clause 9 be amended. Most importantly, however, it is in the interests of charities and our constituents that it be amended as they require.

Mr. Howarth

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has the privilege of representing a part of the country that I once represented, I have to own up and apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate. Unlike him, however, I have taken advantage of technology and was able to see the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on my television screen and to follow some of the points that he made.

I should first declare an interest, as I am a parliamentary consultant to the Consumer Credit Association, which—like the many other financial organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield; I shall not repeat them all—has a very clear interest in the Government's proposals. The Consumer Credit Association represents the home credit industry, which has about 4 million customers. The point, however, is that the entire credit industry will be affected by the Government's proposals, and my hon. Friend has described only some of those who are greatly concerned about them.

In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire—who is the authentic voice of old Labour, not many of whom, unlike him, put their head above the parapet nowadays—said that electoral register availability was part of a ghastly plot to enable commercial interests to flourish, make profits and take money from people. However, I think that the boot is very much on the other foot, as availability of such information is at least of mutual interest to both consumers and lenders. I submit, moreover, that availability is principally in consumers' interest.

2.15 pm

I profoundly agreed with most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), which may come as more of a shock to him than to me, and believe that he was absolutely right to say that consumers will suffer if electoral information is not available. Consumers who go into Currys or a car dealership to buy something but are unable to obtain credit will wonder why that has happened. Consumers will not realise the risks that they run by using the proposed provisions and removing their name from the electoral register.

Consumers are the ones who will be embarrassed at the check-out desk and irritated when they are unable to buy a product that they had every intention of buying. Financial institutions are not necessarily the ones that will be disadvantaged by the proposals.

It is no good encouraging prudent lending if we deny lenders some of the means by which they may exercise that prudence in lending. As most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate accept, the electoral register provides a very important basis for prudent lending.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made the valid point that Britain does not operate a system of identity cards. I do not support the introduction of such a system in Britain. The Government also do not support introducing such a system, as the absence of one here provides one of the few bases on which we are able to argue with some of our European partners that we must maintain border controls. Regardless, I believe that it would be impossible to persuade Parliament to pass such a system, as, quite rightly, the British people would resist having to produce an Ausweis—as they are called in Germany—at the behest of a police officer or anyone else. We are somewhat truculent as a people about that sort of thing.

Mr. Fabricant

I remind my hon. Friend and the Committee that Belgium has just withdrawn from the Schengen agreement.

Mr. Howarth

I am grateful for that information—which I, too, had spotted in the pages of The Daily Telegraph, the newspaper that one can trust. That act, with Belgian chocolates, is one of the few advantages of Belgium.

Another aspect of the electoral register's financial role is its impact on social exclusion, which has already been mentioned in the debate. Although obtaining credit is not that difficult for most of us—although, as Members of Parliament, we are perhaps not in the most financially sound condition—banks are increasingly unwilling to lend to people who do not score well on computer checks. For those people, availability of electoral register information is even more important. Therefore, the Government's proposals to provide for an edited electoral register will increase rather than decrease social exclusion.

I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which very carefully considered those issues. It is worth reminding the Committee that, at paragraph 50 of our report, the Committee took the view that because of the importance of openness in the electoral process, and so that political parties are able properly to check the lists and to canvass voters, we see no alternative to the general principle that copies of the register should be generally available, at least for electoral purposes. I know that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire believes that those are the only purposes for which copies should be made available, but—as not only I but many other hon. Members have made clear—there are other good reasons why electors benefit from wider electoral register availability. If the electoral register is mutilated, electors are the ones who will suffer.

The Committee, in considering whether people should be able to opt out of the register, decided that they should be able to do so only in exceptional circumstances. In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—I was not able to attend the debate, but I have read his remarks—listed those exceptional circumstances.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman dealt with how to judge whether circumstances are exceptional, but the Committee drew attention to the fact that the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors has suggested that the decision might be made only on the recommendation of the chief constable for the area, a responsible person who would be able to check whether someone had a truly justifiable reason to opt out—such as in the case of Jill Dando, who was generally at risk, or of a battered woman being pursued by an ex-husband. I believe that a chief constable would be a good arbiter of who should be excluded.

I believe that the Government's proposals put us in grave danger of doing something for the best of reasons—to provide electors with a choice, and to allow people, for good reason, to exclude their name from the electoral register—that we should not do. As people see the impact of the new arrangements on their daily lives, those good reasons will lead to irritation and frustration that Parliament, having had the deficiencies drawn to its attention, failed to take them into account and steamrollered on to produce a system that does not benefit the electorate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield mentioned WWAV Rapp Collins, which, I am told, is not a pop group but the largest direct marketing mail company in Europe, accounting for 11 per cent. of the Royal Mail's business in the direct mail sector. The company puts 200 million items in the post every year on behalf of its clients, so it is a major player and a major contributor to the Royal Mail's coffers and is not to be trifled with. When I met representatives of the company yesterday, they expressed their disappointment that the business community was not well represented on the working party. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale made that point in his criticisms of the consultation process. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the commercial world is acting not only in its own interests, but in the interests of the wider electorate. Its views need to be listened to.

A mail order catalogue customer who is off the electoral register will find not just that their credit rating cannot be checked, but that the company will not be able to deliver the goods. If a customer comes from an area where fraud tends to be prevalent, the company will go to the register and ask, for example, "Does Mr. Pound live here in Ealing?"

Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North)

That is what my wife wants to know.

Mr. Howarth

If the hon. Gentleman's wife has ordered a wonderful dress through a mail order catalogue to go to the Blairite ball of the millennium and her part of Ealing does not have a good reputation, the company will wish to verify her status. If she is not on the electoral register, the company will conclude that the order is fraudulent. That is a practical example of how the arrangement could impact on our constituents. As we all know, we will be the first to be criticised. People will write to their Member of Parliament to know what is going on and why they cannot get credit for their mail order products. We shall only be adding to our own mailbags. In the interests of the Minister's peace of mind and easing the pressure that I know he is under, I ask him not to add to his burdens or ours.

Mail order companies try to target their mailshots. If the register is not comprehensive—that word was used by the hon. Member for Hallam, and I entirely agree—they will not be able to target their mailshots so well. I accept that the register can never be as comprehensive as we would like, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire pointed out, but it is the most comprehensive Bible that we have. If companies cannot target their mailshots so well, the result will be more junk mail, more irritated consumers and more irritated constituents for us. It is unfortunate that we are risking that.

When I was out of the House, I worked for a company called Prime Response in Brentford. It had a fantastic idea for dealing with junk mail, called OVS—occupation verification system. It was to deal with people who had gone away or were deceased, not people who did not want to be on the list. The company wanted to use the monthly records of the utilities, because when we move house the first thing that we do is stop the gas bills in one place and start them at the new place. That is instantaneous recognition of moving house. That information would be provided monthly by the utilities, and the company wanted to run it encrypted against its data lists. Anyone who had been on a list to receive direct marketing material but had moved house would have been removed and the new occupant would not have received the previous occupant's junk mail. That was monstrously stopped by the Data Protection Registrar, who stood in the way.

Mr. Pound

It is illegal.

Mr. Howarth

I know that it is illegal, but for goodness sake, we are in practical politics to try to help our constituents. The information would have been entirely encrypted. Instead, we continue to chop down trees and irritate people for no good purpose when computerisation could have prevented that.

Mr. Greenway

Does my hon. Friend think that the Data Protection Registrar would be a suitable person to oversee the provisions envisaged in the clause? That is central to our amendment No. 91.

Mr. Howarth

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend when he spoke to amendment No. 91. I agree with him, subject to my remarks about the Data Protection Registrar and the way in which she dealt with the issue that I am talking about. She needs to be practical. My hon. Friend's suggestion in amendment No. 91 would go some way to meeting problems that have been raised on both sides of the Committee. It would meet the problem raised by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire about only people registered with the Data Protection Registrar having access to the register.

I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that there are some practical problems with the Government's proposals. The electors and consumers of Britain will be more disadvantaged than the commercial world unless we take action to remedy the idea of having an edited register. We should not pursue that idea. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, particularly about the concerns of the financial world.

Mr. Pound

I shall speak briefly, because I have already made many of my points. I should like to follow up some of the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who referred to a sophisticated screening system for dealing with junk mail. In my part of west London, we have a cruder, if not more earthy method of screening junk mail. I have in my garden a piece of equipment called the little rotter, which is a home composter that produces an excellent tilth to spread on the garden.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) as the authentic voice of old Labour and said that few such Members were prepared to put their heads above the parapet. Although I see myself as new old Labour, or even old new Labour—maybe even past-it Labour—I am normally only too proud and pleased to associate myself with my hon. Friend's comments, because his analyses and views are always comprehensive and well researched and usually worthy of support. Sadly, on this occasion I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with my hon. Friend and, even more worryingly, having considerable sympathy with the arguments expressed by the hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Aldershot and, sad to say, for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan).

The hon. Member for Aldershot has spent a fair amount of time in Dartmoor prison with me. We had many conversations and I have come to have almost a grudging respect for him. I have to say that when one is locked up with a Conservative Member for any length of time, there is not much else one can do. They would not allow anything else—of course, Mr. Aitken had his poetry.

2.30 pm

Hon. Members have made a range of points around a central nexus. None of them implied anything other than that the Government's intentions in this matter, as in all matters, are good. This is not a partisan Bill. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) apologised, as he often does, for bringing in crude party politics. There is wide recognition that something needs to be done; I hope that the Bill is worthy of amendment and will be far better for it.

We talked about the accuracy of the electoral register. There are two strands of argument. Many people consider that the existing electoral register is one of the most accurate databases of its type. There are obvious problems as it is updated in November and published in February. I moved into a property in the mid-1970s and found that the previous occupant had subscribed to a large number of esoteric gentleman's publications.

Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)

From the Conservative Association.

Mr. Pound

Conservative Newsline was by far the most offensive of them. For several months they arrived on my doorstep in plain brown envelopes. It is often difficult to get credit for the first year after one moves. Although the electoral register is not totally accurate, it is certainly more than 90 per cent. accurate. Local authorities that I have known—as a citizen and as an elected representative—put a great deal of effort into it. It is as accurate as it can be. If the hon. Member for Hallam manages to get 20 names on the electoral register where there should be only four, that only confirms all my prejudices about Liberal Democrats—or most of them, anyway.

The two major credit reference companies—Experion and Equifax—were mentioned. Like a number of hon. Members, I have spoken to them, particularly to Equifax. Equifax is not a charity; it is a business seeking to perform a service in exchange for recompense. Making a profit is certainly not illegal and is likely to become even less illegal, and those companies provide an important service.

We have to recognise that we live in an imperfect world and a society in which many people are denied access to credit by the mechanisms that give most of us access to credit although we are on short-term contracts—except the hon. Member for Aldershot who seems to come back no matter what the electors do. There will always be an informal mechanism for gaining credit, or at least cash to spend. We all know from working people in our constituencies about Christmas clubs and other savings schemes. Those mechanisms are immensely expensive to people with no access to credit and normal methods of saving and all the advantages of deferred payments and interest-free payments, but they have to use something. Surely it is better if they are included in the financial mainstream. If the springboard into that mainstream is having their name on the electoral register, so be it. If nothing else is around, let us keep it that way.

More important, the electoral register is almost a membership list of civic society. If one is on the electoral register, one is part of the civitas—one is a member of society. One can take one's part in society and one can vote. Some people on the electoral register do not have the right to vote. For example, citizens of non-European countries cannot vote in European elections. Some people on the electoral register cannot vote in local authority elections. Peers cannot vote, but they are on the electoral register. However, the fact that they are on the electoral register means that they are part of the community. They are on the membership list. It may seem an almost intangible point, but it is important to be recognised as part of society.

The point has been made about people who wish to avoid being traced. When we discussed the issue previously, the Minister said quite rightly that in a world where one can buy a round piece of plastic for a few pounds and get the names of everyone in the country, and some woman fleeing from her husband can be in fear of being relocated by technological advances, clearly something must be done. Surely the right not to have one's address shown—one's name can appear without an address—should be retained. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, let us try not to damage people unintentionally while seeking to do good to people who deserve it.

I shall conclude as the point has been made. I shall resist the temptation succumbed to by the hon. Member for Lichfield who read out his daily correspondence. I have received most of the letters. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire made an important point about charities. We cannot and must not discourage charities, particularly in view of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week about further Government support for the charitable world.

Like everyone who has spoken today, I have every confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that we can cut this Gordian knot and achieve a resolution. I fervently hope that it will not disadvantage some of the weakest, poorest and most excluded people in society whom we have an absolute duty to represent. I hope that we can show that we are worthy of their trust in us.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

I should like to put a different angle on the matter. Broadly speaking, I understand exactly why clause 9 was introduced; I can see the thrust behind it and the desire to provide a measure of protection to those who do not wish the electoral register to serve as a way of publicising their details so that they receive a lot of information that they do not want.

I turn to the matter not so much as an issue of principle, but with a lawyer's eye. What strikes me about clause 9 is that lawyers will make a lot of money out of it. It is an enormously complex clause. While I fully understand that the Government cannot provide the detailed provisions that will subsequently be made in regulations, there is quite enough here to make me think that it will all be unworkable. Are we not simply adopting the tactics of King Canute? The material will be in the public domain. Whether or not we seek to regulate it in the way that clause 9 suggests, people will undoubtedly make use of it. I am sure that they will be sufficiently creative to deny that the information comes from the electoral register.

I have a niggling feeling that, despite our having gone through all this paraphernalia, people will still make use of the full register while denying that the information comes from that register, and very little will be able to be done about it.

The debate—which has been very interesting—has gone through various possible permutations about how the system should be regulated. It may be the chief constable who says that certain people can be excluded from the edited and the main register. A little bell rings in my mind saying that there will be lawyers' fees on judicial review. Let us face it: countless people will want to challenge it and disagree with the verdict. Unless the Minister produces provisions that are so remarkable that I shall stand up and admit that I have got it all wrong, I think that we are making a rod for our backs when there has always been widespread acceptance that the electoral register is a public document and people may make use of it. It is one of the burdens of citizenship that we were discussing yesterday.

In supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I see it not as the be-all and end-all of the matter, but as just possibly a step in the right direction. Generally speaking, I am troubled by clause 9. That is not because it is ill-intended—the Government clearly have proper intentions—but because it is unworkable. It is a great merit in legislation to keep things simple. Anybody reading clause 9 would know at once that it was complex and difficult. We may regret what we have done when the consequences start to seep through, although members of my profession will probably be delighted.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)

We have had a good debate, and I welcome you, Mrs. Dunwoody, to the Chair. Important points were made by all the hon. Members who participated, mostly in non-partisan fashion. Despite sterling efforts, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) failed to be partisan and, in fact, sounded very reasonable and balanced.

In many ways, the debate followed yesterday's interesting and important debate on the way in which modern technology, especially the search facilities that CD-ROM provides, enables people to identify the address of anyone who is registered to vote within a short time by pressing a few computer keys. That could enable someone searching for a battered spouse—or a stalker searching for his victim—to use the electoral register to find the person, a purpose for which it was never intended. We discussed the possibility of having what I called secret voters and others called anonymous voters. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made some important points and touched on that proposal. The House considered that yesterday and took the view that the proposal would cause so many difficulties that it should not be adopted at this stage.

The essence of the Government's position—and that of the working party—is that people should not be obliged by law to register to vote and then have their whereabouts passed, without consent, to someone else who may intend to use the information for purely commercial purposes, requests for charitable donations or more sinister reasons. At the moment, it is possible for someone to obtain the information without the consent of the person who is registered, but that person is obliged by law to register and must pay a penalty if he or she does not. That raises a serious issue about the right to privacy and begs the question of what we are using the sanction of the law, including the ability to fine people, to achieve, when they may have reasons for wishing not to disclose their whereabouts.

The ability of commercial companies to use the register for sending junk mail is one of the main sources of complaints to returning officers and the Home Office. People are sick of junk mail and they want something to be done. Individuals have a right to privacy and should be able to consent to the release of information about them. The current position may also trespass on some areas covered by the European convention on human rights, but that may be an issue for the courts at a later stage. We have also touched on issues of data protection and the way in which information is used. I assure the Committee that the Data Protection Registrar was consulted throughout the formulation of our policy.

2.45 pm

Mr. Allan

I agree that the debate raises data protection issues. Did the Government consider the other option of trying to ensure that the compilation of the register complied with data protection principles while still allowing its use for wider purposes? Was that considered or was the only response to try to limit the use of electoral register?

Mr. O'Brien

The working party formulated the strategy that we have sought to implement. That working party included a representative from both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party, and they united behind the view that has been put forward. The Data Protection Registrar was also fully involved in considering the issues.

If the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) were to be accepted, there would continue to be only a single version of the electoral register listing the names of all electors in the relevant area, but its availability would be severely limited. Only those people who had been prescribed in regulations would be able to obtain it and they could use it only for certain prescribed purposes. There would be no edited version that could be bought freely and used for wider purposes.

I am aware that my hon. Friend is not alone in believing that much tighter controls should be placed on the availability of the electoral register. It was because of this that the working party on electoral procedures devoted considerable time to the issue. Its conclusion, which was supported by all of its members—including Liberal Democrat and Conservative—was that: the arguments for retaining a commercially available register are strong". Nevertheless, the working party recommended that people should be able to opt out of being included in the register that was made available for sale. The working party suggested that there should be two versions of the register—a full one that could be used for electoral and law enforcement purposes and an edited version, which would be freely available for sale, containing only the names of those who have not exercised their right to be excluded from it. Clause 9 allows for regulations to that effect to be made. As we explained on Second Reading, we are still considering exactly what form those regulations should take.

I assure the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that we will fully consult the various industries involved, the charities and others, as part of the process of bringing forward regulations. Indeed, no doubt the House will wish to discuss in due course the impact that the regulations would have.

Few things in life are simple and few things are more difficult than trying to balance competing interests. This is a classic case where different interests are pulling in different ways. On the one hand, the working party on electoral procedures was very clear that, as a matter of principle, information that individuals are required by law to provide for one purpose should not be available for use for other purposes without their consent.

We must also take very careful consideration of the European convention on human rights and data protection principles, as well as the more general notion of a right to privacy. We know that the public resent the delivery of junk mail, some of which they receive as a result of their names appearing on the electoral register. More worryingly, we know of cases where abusive spouses have traced their former partners through the register.

Mr. Greenway

What research has the Department undertaken into how often the electoral register is used as the raw data and sole source for the sending out of unsolicited mail?

Mr. O'Brien

I shall come to the question of unsolicited mail in a moment. However, for the companies who send out such mail, the register is only one of a number of sources of raw data. The factors that arouse concern in all members of the Committee need to be balanced by recognition that this country has flourishing credit and direct marketing industries. They make extensive use of the electoral register, and we would like to avoid doing undue harm to them—or to the charities that also use the register. We are considering how best to achieve that balance.

I can assure the Committee that we are in touch with the industries concerned. Home Office officials held a meeting with representatives of the credit industry just before Christmas to see whether a way could be found to accommodate the industry's needs within the constraints imposed by the EU data protection directive and the European convention on human rights.

Those discussions will inform any regulations that we introduce. Such regulations—which I assure the Committee will be accompanied by a full regulatory impact assessment—will be fully debated in the House. I can also tell the Committee that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That answers one of the points raised in amendment No. 79.

Amendment No. 23 is unnecessary and, because it would tilt the scales firmly in one direction, prejudicial.

I can deal briefly with amendment No. 21, as I do not object to it.

It might be helpful to the Committee if I were to say a little about the arrangements for introducing the new system with two versions of the electoral register. The public will obviously be unfamiliar with the new opt-out box on the electoral registration form and will need to be given an explanation of its purpose and effect. We propose that the form should be accompanied by an explanatory leaflet. We have already discussed this with the credit and marketing industries, as the hon. Member for Ryedale noted, and we believe that they will want to play their part in helping to settle the content of the leaflet. They have already indicated that they would be willing to pay some or all of the costs involved, as the leaflet would clearly bring some direct benefit to them.

The leaflet would need to explain the uses to which the edited register may be put. The key point is that people will be able to make an informed decision about exercising their right to opt out. They will have that choice, and it will be up to them to make it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth

In his consultations with the credit industry, has the Minister accepted that the paramount need is that the leaflet points out—in words of one syllable and in the boldest possible fashion—the risk to electors, as consumers, if their names are removed from the main register?

Mr. O'Brien

There would be no point in having a leaflet if it did not say in clear terms what the impact of opting out would be. We believe that people considering opting out should be clear about what the effect would be. We want the leaflet to tell people that opting out might affect their ability to get credit or other services that they might want. If they were to decide to opt out of the edited register, they should know what the consequences would be. No doubt, some people will choose to opt out, and that will be their right.

However, I point out that opting out is a physical action: people who do it will have to tick a box. It may not be much, but it would require a positive decision. After reading the leaflet, many people will make an informed decision not to tick the box. In that way, for most practical purposes, the register will remain much as it is now. Some people, however, will decide—for their own, very good, reasons, such as personal safety—that it is right to opt out.

Mr. Greenway

The Minister said that the Government did not object to amendment No. 21. It deals with the matter of the leaflet, as does another group of amendments that we shall come to later. I am grateful for what the Minister said about the importance of the leaflet's contents, and I hope that we will be able to debate that further in a moment.

However, will the Minister tackle the question of the organisations to which the full register will be available? The letter to Colin Lloyd, chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, made it clear that the full register would not be available for direct marketing purposes. If that is so, many hon. Members from all parties will remain deeply unhappy.

Mr. O'Brien

During the consultations, we want to ensure that all interests are taken into account. We also want to ensure that the leaflet informs the public about the possible uses to which both the full and edited versions of the register may be used for. I am therefore happy to advise the Committee to accept amendment No. 21.

Mr. Pound

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien

This will be the last time, as I want to make some progress.

Mr. Pound

I thank my hon. Friend. Is the opt-out to be a rollover? Will people opt out once and for ever, or will they have to do so every year, as the register is renewed? Is the leaflet to be amended every year, or will it stay the same for, say, five, 10 or 15 years?

Mr. O'Brien

People will fill in a form each year, and so, in effect, will be able not to opt out each year. The Government, with the industry, are studying how people, even though they have read the leaflet, might want to opt back in when they discover the implications of opting out. Because there will be a rolling register, we will be able to make new versions of the register available. People may choose to opt into that, thus preventing a delay until the next year.

For example, people who discover that they need credit will want to opt into the edited register. They may well be able to do that. We shall have to determine how that might be facilitated and the burden that doing so might place on electoral registration officers. I am not giving an undertaking that we will be able to do it, but we will be happy to explore, with the industry, how that might happen.

Mr. Greenway

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien

I said that I would not give way again, but I shall do so for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Greenway

I repeat my earlier question. Will the direct marketing industry be among those for whom the full register will be available? The hon. Gentleman's letter of 12 January to the chief executive of the Direct Market Association makes it abundantly clear that the full version will be made available only for electoral purposes, law enforcement, crime prevention, and in connection with applications for credit. That is being interpreted as meaning that organisations involved in direct marketing and even debt recovery will not be able to have the full register.

Mr. O'Brien

We are discussing the detail of that with the industry. It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry. However, we are examining with the industry ways in which credit issues can be better resolved. Direct marketers will not receive the full register because that would conflict with the European Union data protection directive.

3 pm

Mr. Gerald Howarth

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way, but I have said that I want to make progress.

I see very little point to amendment No. 91. I do not think that it serves any real purpose, and it also introduces a new and undefined concept of exempt purposes. Clause 9 replaces paragraphs 10 and 11 of schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 with four new paragraphs. Those paragraphs govern the regulations that may be made under that Act.

New paragraphs 10B(1) and 11(1) are quite clear. They allow for regulations to be made requiring or authorising electoral registration officers to supply copies of their full electoral register to specified people for specified purposes. But—this is the crucial point—we believe that the Bill is flexible enough to accommodate whatever regulations the House chooses to make. Anyone whom it is decided should be entitled to a copy of the full register will be able to receive it, and it will be possible to limit that person's use of it to prescribed purposes.

The suggestion in the amendment that access to the full register should be granted to those registered under the Data Protection Act does not take us any further forward. Anyone may be registered under that Act, and the test should be whether a person or organisation has a good case for having access to the full register rather than whether they are so registered.

I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the hon. Member for Ryedale will realise that the amendment is unnecessary and will withdraw it.

I must admit to being somewhat confused by the Liberal Democrats' amendments Nos. 77 and 78. They would substitute for the word "information" the words "personal names and addresses". It is not clear what that is intended to achieve, although I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said. The only information on the register is personal and consists of names and addresses, plus ages of young people who will attain voting age during the currency of the register. That information would not be much use without their names and addresses, although I understand the point that removing the names is one way of approaching the matter.

I appreciate that some charities use untargeted mailshots and simply need to know how many households there are in a street rather than the names of the occupants. Direct mailings resulting from the electoral register, however worthy the originators, are one of the main sources of complaints to the Home Office and electoral administrators. We would need to be very careful not to undermine any new regime relating to access to the full electoral register by creating too many exemptions. In any event, the edited register will normally be sufficient for ascertaining how many households are in a particular location. There has been confusion on the part of charities about knowing how many people were registered. In fact, there is no reason why the edited version of the register should not say how many people are registered, without identifying their names or addresses.

Amendment No. 79 is quite simply unnecessary. As I have already explained, regulations on this matter are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The requirement to issue a declaration that regulations are "in the public interest" is therefore unnecessary. The Home Secretary would never bring forward regulations which he did not believe were in the public interest—nor, I hope, would any Home Secretary—and Parliament would not endorse them if it did not hold the same belief.

Finally, let me say that I have sympathy with the spirit behind new clause 5. The Bill will make significant improvements to our electoral procedures, and it would be quite wrong if, having introduced the changes, we sat back and ignored their operation, but that will not happen. Too many people are interested in the operation of our electoral procedures to allow problems and weaknesses to go unaddressed. The working party on electoral procedures, whose report has given birth to the Bill, is an example of the constant review process. Reference has also been made to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which published its report on electoral law and administration a year ago. That is a further illustration that our electoral procedures are the subject of continuing scrutiny.

Once new regulations governing access to the full electoral register are in place, we can expect the public and any industries which are affected to make their views known about the impact of those regulations. Political parties and electoral administrators will doubtless also have a view. If I may be so bold, I suggest that the electorate, political parties and candidates, industry and the electoral administrators will, between them, provide a far better impression of the effectiveness of our electoral procedures than a report compiled in Whitehall.

I have no doubt that hon. Members will continue to raise points of concern and, where appropriate, changes will be made to accommodate them. A good example of this is the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. There was concern on both sides of the House about spoiler candidates, although I know that the party of the hon. Member for Hallam had particular reason to feel aggrieved, and we introduced legislation to deal with the problem.

I apologise for having spoken at such length, Mrs. Dunwoody, but it is important to deal with these crucial issues. I should like to deal with a couple of other points raised in the debate. I was asked whether the electoral register will continue to be used for dealing with issues such as money laundering checks. The full register will be available for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes, which include money laundering and fraud prevention checks. We have invited the financial industry to consider the best way in which to facilitate that.

We are considering the extent to which the full register will be available for financial institutions for credit reference checks, as I have already said. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked whether the provisions would harm the socially excluded. There is an argument that people on the margins of society would be less likely to be given credit if they were given the right to opt out of the commercially available register. As the socially excluded are the group least likely to register, we do not believe that that is the case. Indeed, the Bill will make it easier for the homeless and those who change their accommodation frequently to get on the electoral register. They are not obliged to opt out, in which case their chances of getting credit are increased. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about people not being able to obtain credit. No doubt, people will take that factor into account when they read the leaflet.

The hon. Member for Ryedale referred to the claim of the Confederation of British Industry that the changes would cost business £500 million, and asked how that could be justified. The figure of £500 million that the credit industry produced represents, by its own admission, the cost to the industry rather than to the economy as a whole. We suspect that much of the effect will be offset by displacement. A person who is refused credit when trying to buy a video recorder will go elsewhere for it or will spend the money on something else.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extent of consultation with the credit industry during the working party. I assure him that there were many representations from charities and businesses, and they were taken fully into account during the course of the working party's deliberations.

We do not propose to make the full register available for the purposes of debt recovery. We have agreed that with the Data Protection Registrar. Her view is that to allow the register to be used for debt recovery would breach the data protection directive.

We propose that people should be able to make an informed choice. Through this measure, we are enabling them to do so. The way in which the measure will operate will give individuals some protection of their privacy and will offer some limited protection to those who may, for perfectly legitimate reasons—perhaps for their personal safety—not want their names and addresses to be widely disseminated. We believe that we have struck a balance in the legislation, which will achieve some safeguards for the industry and will ensure that individuals are taken into account, and that their privacy is not sacrificed for commercial gain. I hope that we have been able to get the balance right.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out that the legislation was complex. His view seemed to be that we were adopting the tactics of King Canute. In effect, he was almost arguing that we should give up any idea of having individual choice and privacy and not try to protect them. He suggested that that would cause—horror of horrors—some judicial reviews. As the Minister who has probably been the most judicially reviewed of all members of the Government during the past three years, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that judicial reviews can be properly dealt with; indeed, they can enhance the law. In relation to the distribution of the burdens of citizenship, I want to give a little more strength to the individual, rather than to the collective. As a Conservative, the hon. Gentleman might see some advantage in doing so.

Mr. Greenway

I have a few comments in response to the Minister's remarks. Anyone who has been watching our proceedings during the past two hours could only conclude that the Committee of the Whole House has been displayed at its best in this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made strong and convincing arguments to which the Minister has responded in considerable detail.

However, we can only offer the Minister one and a half cheers for his response.

Mr. O'Brien

Why not two cheers?

Mr. Greenway

No, I think it should be one and a half. We are grateful to the Minister for suggesting that he would accept amendment No. 21. I hope to catch your eye, Mrs. Dunwoody, when we come to the next-but-one group of amendments, so that the Committee can briefly discuss leaflets. I am grateful for the Minister's acceptance of the fact that the leaflet explaining to households the consequences of ticking an opt-out box is still a matter for debate, and for his recognition of the importance of such a leaflet in enabling voters to understand the matter. That is the reason for the one and a half cheers.

However, the Minister has not convinced the Committee that the full register should not be available more widely than it would be under his proposals. It is completely illogical that the data protection directive permits the full register to be used for credit referencing—we are grateful for the Minister's confirmation that the Government agree with that—but not for debt recovery. Similarly, the full register will not be made available, through whatever limited, licensed and regulated means—all yet to be determined—for the direct market industry and many other companies that have a legitimate use for it.

Clause 9 will provide for regulations, which are yet to be laid—I appreciate that they will be subject to further discussion—but the effect will be to supply copies of the full register only to prescribed people. However, we are not 100 per cent. sure who those people will be and, more important, about the mechanism whereby they will be included in the list for the full register, or not put on the list and told that they cannot have the register.

3.15 pm

Mr. Gerald Howarth

In relation to the credit industry, is my hon. Friend clear as to whether the Government intend to make the full register available only to the major credit reference agencies, or to the wider credit industry—the banks and other finance houses?

Mr. Greenway

My interpretation of the Minister's remarks is that the register would be available to the credit reference industry, but not to the banks—hence my point as to the illogicality of the measure. There is no way that the data protection directive can grant consent to give the list to one and not to the other. Perhaps, we shall have the opportunity to debate the matter again on Report next week.

I hear what the Minister says about amendment No. 91, but the fact is—

Mr. O'Brien

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope that I can clarify the point. Certainly, the full register will be available to political parties, but it would not be available, in an uncontrolled way, to everyone in the direct marketing or the various credit industries. However, we are discussing with the industries whether we might devise with them properly controlled and safeguarded mechanisms so that individual privacy would be protected, while allowing for some checking.

Mr. Greenway

Perhaps that gets us to two cheers, but we are still missing one. We are still not satisfied that the Committee has a sufficient idea of how prescription under these new regulations will differentiate between one organisation and another. The real reason that we tabled amendment No. 91 and that we ask the Committee to support it—despite the fact that the Minister has given way on some points—is because it is the only measure that gives us a clue as to whom the full register might be made available: organisations registered under the Data Protection Acts. Those will all be bona fide organisations. The Minister's point as regards continuing discussion relates to the way in which organisations use the full register. That is valid; we understand that those regulations will be equally important.

However, I ask the Committee to reflect on the fact that we are talking about two quite separate stages of the process. The first is the prescription of those to whom the full register will be available—to which organisations. The second is the prescription of what those organisations can do with the full register. Before Report, the Minister needs to do a little more work on the first stage. For that reason, I ask the Committee to support amendment No. 91 in a Division, not because the amendment is perfect, but to show the Minister that we are still dissatisfied about the availability of the full register to bona fide organisations.

Mr. Barnes

The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) apologised for missing my speech moving the amendment. He is now missing the great opportunity to hear my second speech on the matter. I am not sure whether it is a criticism of the hon. Gentleman, or of me. He wanted the register to be available widely for commercial use and by charities. I am in favour of charities having addresses for collections of jumble and so on, which is why I support amendment No. 77. I am trying also to block the commercial usage of electoral registers.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) described me as old Labour, yet if he looks at many of my amendments, he will see that I am an arch-moderniser. In fact, I am such a moderniser that I am ahead of Government Front Benchers on these matters. Modernisation is supposed to be the main element of the third way philosophy, which has gripped the Labour party, so it is not easy to define my position as old or new Labour.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to the register as if it were accurate and reasonable. My hon. Friend waxed lyrical about the register, which he regarded as a sign of citizenship upon which everybody was established. It is not because masses of people are missing from it, and there are some whom we do not allow to register.

In earlier amendments, I proposed to enfranchise 680,000 overseas residents in this country who are not entitled to be on a register and are not part of our civic list. How will they get credit facilities in this country if the electoral register is used for this key service for our citizens? I bet that many of those 680,000 will manage well the arrangements within society in terms of credit and other companies.

The hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Hallam are cherry-picking my amendments. There is nothing wrong with that—I am a cherry-picker in terms of the Patten report on Northern Ireland. However, their cherry-picking is wrong, and the Opposition are attempting to turn my amendments into the exact opposite of what I propose by latching on to a particular amendment.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

Would the hon. Gentleman prefer the Opposition to agree with him some of the time, or never?

Mr. Barnes

I prefer hon. Members to listen to what I have to say, understand it and support absolutely everything that I say.

The hon. Member for Hallam argued for the need for a national register containing everyone's address. If there is a case for that, it would seem to be a matter for an entirely different Bill. To try to subvert the electoral register and to make it a second best national list of names and addresses is inadequate.

I have sympathy for the notion that there should be a national register, tightly controlled by the data protection and other provisions. If there was such a register, it would be a marvellous device to ensure that the electoral register was a proper one, containing everyone's name. However, we do not have that. Neither do we have identity cards, for which the hon. Member for Ryedale argued. I support identity cards but, again, I do so because I see them as a marvellous means of assisting full electoral registration.

Full electoral registration is of overwhelming importance. We are discussing the basic building block of a democracy—the vote. Many other important matters flow from that, such as people's rights in society, their right to organise and so on—but having the vote is the first element. That is why we should ensure that everyone in society is on a register, which is what my amendments are about.

I believe that there is a deterrent effect, of which I have become aware through constituents who have not put their names on registers or are reluctant to have their names on them as they believe that they will be used for other purposes. If people want to engage in general mail shots, registers are not needed. They can use the Post Office to deliver to every house in an area.

One thing that worries me about the Government's position—what I see as the second-best position—is the opt-out box to be ticked if one does not want to be placed on the registers for commercial sale. This will be a great surprise to many of the electorate when they discover that the electoral register is already being used on such a wide basis. They will be astonished to discover that the register is used for more than just electoral purposes. They will be astonished to discover that it is available in libraries and post offices. When they discover that, they will be unhappy about the arrangements. They will be worried about their neighbours and others being able to check up those matters.

There is also to be a leaflet to alert people to the fact that that has been taking place all along, which will be quite a shock. People may tear up the registration form when they see all of the complexity involved.

My hon. Friend the Minister adopted a balanced position—it reminds me of the Erasmus principle; not too little, not too much, but just right. On one extreme, there is my proposal. On the other, there is the Conservative proposal—to give the register to everyone with money. Then we have the third way between the two extremes to try to get some balance.

The prime argument is the sanctity of the electoral register. If people want some of the other measures that are being talked about, they should turn to legislation in those areas. However, on the principle that I do not believe in banging my head against a brick wall, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Greenway

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 10, line 22, leave out a registration officer to prepare and insert "the preparation of".

The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 88, in page 10, line 23, after "which", leave out "he" and insert "the registration officer".

Mr. Greenway

It is our understanding, following discussions with some departmental officials, that both banks and financial institutions and the direct marketing industry have advanced the concept that it may well be advantageous to provide for a third party to prepare edited versions of the full register, rather than electoral registration officers. Depending on the outcome of the discussions and the position eventually taken by the Government, there could be quite a big work load for electoral registration officers in the preparation of edited registers and in supervising access to them.

3.30 pm

We understand that some encouragement to the concept in the amendments has been given in the discussions. However, the Bill will not allow for a third party to prepare the edited register or to have any role in preparing either the full or the edited register. So amendment No. 87 would at least provide for that eventuality. The register would not have to be prepared by the electoral registration officer, but could be prepared by a third party. Amendment No. 88 would have a similar effect.

To an extent, these are technical amendments, but they would be crucial to the involvement of a third party. However, they would not require the involvement of a third party if, at the end of the negotiations and discussions, Ministers were not satisfied that anyone other than electoral registration officers should prepare the registers. The change of wording would not commit the Government to accepting the involvement of a third party, but it would provide the opportunity for a third party to prepare the full or the edited register, or both.

I hope that I am in order if I say that amendment No. 89, which has not been selected for debate, would also be important to such a scheme. It would ensure that the Bill fully meets the requirement for the third-party preparation of registers.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what is an interesting idea. I do not think that the amendment is necessary, but I now see where he is coming from. I have sympathy with his aim of ensuring flexibility. However, I do not think that we need the amendment because the Bill already provides such flexibility.

Preparation of the electoral register is an important function, which is why it has the status of a statutory function and why every relevant local authority must appoint an electoral registration officer. The registration officer may, of course, employ other people to assist him in his duties, although the final responsibility must always rest with him.

The Bill contains provisions that will enable an electoral registration officer to employ another organisation or other individuals to assist him with the preparation of parts of the register. The Bill's wording already provides that flexibility. However, I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to see whether a change of wording might be useful. I should be able to do that within the next few days and we may be able return to the matter, if not on Report, then in another place. The hon. Gentleman has made a useful proposition and I will give further thought to it. However, at present, I do not think that the amendment is necessary.

Mr. Greenway

Can we be clear what the Minister is saying? Has he received advice that the preparation of the register does not preclude electoral registration officers sub-contracting work to someone else?

Mr. O'Brien

That is correct, providing that the final responsibility for what is done and how it is done remains with the electoral registration officer. That is my understanding, but I will take further advice to ensure that that is the position. I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman if anything changes.

Mr. Greenway

I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful response. I take it from what he said that we are correct in our assumption that the idea is being considered and that it is a question of whether the Bill allows for it. I am grateful for his promise to reconsider the issue. I hope that on Report next Wednesday we can reach a conclusion. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Greenway

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 10, line 26, leave out "or on behalf of".

The Temporary Chairman

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in page 10, line 32, leave out ", and".

No. 90, in page 10, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert explaining to persons registered or applying to be registered, or persons acting on behalf of such persons, the means by which they may secure the exclusion of their names and addresses from the edited register". No. 74, in page 10, line 35, at end insert— (c) confirming that personal approval has been given for the exclusion of their names and addresses from the register; (d) explaining fully the consequences of exclusion of their names and addresses from that register.". No. 75, in page 10, line 35, at end insert— (3) Provisions requiring that the excluded names and addresses be reinstated on the register in the event of the person registered so requesting.".

Mr. Greenway

The amendments deal with an important issue. When a householder completes the electoral registration form that he will be sent each year or which he requests when moving house so that he can be placed on the new rolling register, we understand that the householder alone will be responsible for ticking the opt-out box on the registration form. He will do so on behalf not only of himself, but of all the other voters at that address.

We are encouraged by what the Minister said earlier about the importance of the leaflet and of the explanation given to electors about the consequences of ticking the opt-out box. However, it is not acceptable for a householder to take responsibility for other adults, so that they do not receive mail or so that their names and addresses are not available to credit reference agencies.

I shall describe the best example that has been provided by industry. Dad fills in a form, but one, two or three of his children of voting age may be at university or college. Quite properly, they will be on the register for their home address, but dad might tick the opt-out box so that all the registered voters in that household go on the edited register. His daughter who, let us say, is at university in Durham—which is where one of my three children went—may go to a shop to buy a television on credit, but may suddenly discover that she cannot receive credit because dad ticked the opt-out box. Her name and address will not be on the list to which the supplier has access.

I know that you, Mrs. Dunwoody, are greatly interested in media matters and that is an interest that we share. However, I was astounded, when I went to the Comet store in Old Kent road to get an ONdigital package, to find that I was able to take it away because the young lady at the counter was able to tap into her computer and discover my address in Gilbert road, Kennington, owing to my being on the electoral register. I suspect that if I had not been on the electoral register, I would not have been allowed to take the item away, regardless of the fact that I am a Member of Parliament and the holder of God knows how many credit cards.

The point that we are stressing in the amendment is that it cannot be right for the householder alone to have responsibility for opting out of access to a whole range of services on behalf of other adults. Unless the Minister is going to give us cause for another cheer, we are not asking him to accept the amendment today, but we hope that on Report on Wednesday he will state whether the leaflet will make clear the consequences of opting out for all members of the household.

If possible, the leaflet, as well as the electoral registration form, should provide the opt-out box. Any member of the household who wanted to opt out could then do so by using the leaflet, rather than ticking the registration form, which of course most of us want to fill in and send off as quickly as possible, rather than leaving it lying around, particularly as it always comes with a prepaid envelope. Inadvertently, the householder may create a problem by simply ticking the opt-out box on the form.

We covered amendment No. 90 in an earlier debate. It would add to the Bill because it would make it clear that the leaflet provided for in clause 9 would have a specific task of explaining to persons registered or applying to be registered the means by which they may secure the exclusion of their name from the edited register. That would provide more opportunity precisely to spell out the consequences of ticking the opt-out box, which the Minister has acknowledged is important. Our earlier debate made clear those consequences, which every member of the Committee understands could be far reaching, so they should be properly explained.

Mr. Allan

I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 73 to 75, in the names of my colleagues. Amendment No. 74 covers some of the same ground as the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It is important that we consider who should be able to authorise the opt-out and the exclusion of someone's name from the edited register. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's speech will have persuaded masses of people not to opt out of the main register when they learn that they will be excluded from the delights of ONdigital if they do so.

There is a fundamental issue of principle here. Earlier the Minister was talking about the individual's choice, and if choice is a principle, to have someone deciding, on behalf of others, to opt out of the register, would be incompatible with the arguments advanced by the Minister. I was attracted by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Ryedale—that the opt-out should be included in the leaflet and be separate from the registration form. That would be a sensible way to ensure that we have a clear procedure for sending back the registration form and a second procedure for dealing with opt-out requests. That could be extended to enable people to opt in or out at various times of the year.

The second part of amendment No. 74, which relates to explaining the consequences of exclusion from the register, is to some extent covered by the Minister's arguments about preparing a leaflet. However, the Bill should include provision for explaining the consequences of opting out. Clause 9 makes provision for explaining what the edited register will be used for, but the Bill does not require the regulations to describe the consequences of opting out.

3.45 pm

Amendment No. 75 is important because it would allow people to opt back into the register. The Minister touched on that earlier, but we need clarification about the procedures for opting in. We also need a procedure for people to obtain their electoral register data, even though they have not been on the public register.

Problems frequently occur when people who have no credit status seek credit, because a credit company will want to know how many years they have been at their address. The current register is not enough; the company will want three or four years' history. I fear that people who are socially and financially excluded and who have opted out for a number of years will want to get hold of their data to prove to somebody that they were resident at an address for several years.

The Minister should consider whether there should be a procedure whereby a fee is paid, not for instant credit, but for people who want proof of residence at an address. They should be able to go to the electoral registration office and get a statement to prove that they have been on the register for certain years. It is important that somebody who has secretly been on the register for several years should be able to prove that, if it is to their advantage. There is no provision in the Bill for people to do so.

I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendments have been tabled in a positive spirit to try to ensure that we make the most of the Government's plan to have two registers. Both amendments deal with provisions that we should like tightened up before the Report stage.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

Amendment No. 22 is a deceptive little amendment. It appears harmless, but its effect could well be to damage electoral registration rates, particularly among young people.

It is a long-standing feature of our electoral registration arrangements that the registration form is completed by the head of the household. That may sound a little old-fashioned, but there are good reasons for continuing with that arrangement. Certainly that is the view of electoral registration officers. First, it significantly reduces the number of forms that officers have to process. Secondly, officers have no other way of knowing when new people move into a household or when children reach voting age. The present arrangement makes the head of the household, who may in practice be any member of it, responsible for ensuring that all eligible people are on the electoral register.

Most importantly, without that arrangement very few of our young people would appear on the electoral register. It is regrettable that so few young people would be bothered to take the initiative to register as electors if left to their own devices, but it is certainly not a fact that we can ignore.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is the Minister suggesting that people deserve the vote if they cannot even be bothered to take the steps necessary to register? It seems a rather odd argument that we should allow people the great privilege and responsibility of voting but rely on someone else to initiate that process. Surely the first test of eligibility to vote should be simply to ask someone to take the initiative to register, whether they are young or not.

Mr. O'Brien

I know that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues are in favour of putting tests and obstructions in the way of people who wish to vote, but I suggest that we should seek to encourage people to register. The traditional method of registration, which the right hon. Gentleman's party and mine have supported in the past, is that the head of the household takes responsibility for ensuring that those who are under 18 are included on the electoral register so that when they reach 18, they can vote.

That is a good approach. It ensures the registration of many young people who, for life style and other reasons, may not think that they need to register before they turn 18 so that they can vote if an election occurs shortly after their 18th birthday. We ought to make the procedure easier for them and ensure that the head of the household is able to take on that task.

I hope therefore that the Committee will understand why we must preserve the present arrangement under which the electoral registration form is completed by the head of the household. The amendment would strike at the heart of that principle. The head of a household would never be able to complete a form with an opt-out request on behalf of another member of the household. Anyone who wanted to opt out would need to complete his own form. We would rapidly be moving into a system of individual registration which, for the reasons I have advanced, would be a most undesirable step.

Under the scheme that we envisage, once there is an opt-out box the head of a household will be able to take reasonable steps to ascertain the preferences of other members of the household. In the overwhelming majority of cases that would simply involve asking them.

We recognise, however, that there will be cases where that process is simply not possible. In a student hall of residence, for example, we envisage that the warden might put up a notice saying that he intends to send back the electoral registration form in three weeks' time, and that any resident who wishes to exercise the right to opt out should contact him within that period. There are already provisions in the Bill to the effect that if someone deliberately filled in the form incorrectly, he or she would be committing an offence. There is protection for people who might fear some form of mendacity.

That brings me to amendments Nos. 73 and 74, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Under the terms of the first part of amendment No. 74, anyone who wanted to opt out of inclusion on the edited register would need to give his personal approval. So either each individual would need to complete his own form, with all the disadvantages that I have already outlined, or everybody concerned who wanted to opt out would have to sign the same form.

Let us consider the situation of a couple who always decide to exercise their right to opt out. If in one particular year one of the couple happened to be away from home at the time when the electoral registration form was to be completed, that person's partner would not be able to complete the opt-out box on his or her behalf even though he or she was well aware of the preferences of the person concerned. That would be the effect of the amendment, and that does not seem to me to be right.

The second part of amendment No. 74 is unnecessary. As I have already explained, we fully intend to put out a leaflet, to accompany the introduction of the new system, which will explain the consequences of exercising the right to opt out of inclusion in the edited register. That decision is of importance to all members of a household. Anyone who is head of a household and filling in the form should ensure that he properly consults other members of the household, who may have a view as a result of consequences that may fall on them if the wrong decision is made.

I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 75. I believe that it is unnecessary. It will be open to anyone in respect of whom the box was wrongly ticked, or for whom the box was not ticked although he would have liked it to be, to apply to the registration officer for a correction to be made. We have a rolling register programme, and that is the whole purpose of it.

Amendment No. 90 would delete a provision which allows regulations to be made specifying a form of words for registration officers to use in determining whether people wish their names to be included in the edited register. If there are to be two versions of the register, clearly the electoral registration form needs to explain how people can go about deciding whether they wish to exercise their right to be included in the edited register. We think that a uniform approach to this is needed, which is why the provision which the amendments seeks to delete was included in the Bill. Indeed, the amendment would insert a provision allowing for a form of words to be specified for the purpose of explaining to people how to go about getting their names excluded from the edited register. I cannot see what advantages that offers over and above the provisions that are set out in the Bill.

I do not believe that any of the amendments would improve the Bill and I hope that, given the reasons that I have advanced, hon. Members will decide to withdraw them.

Mr. Greenway

I am not a lawyer and the Minister is. My reading of new paragraph 10(1) in clause 9(2) is wholly different from that of the Government. I do not believe for a second that our amendment would have the adverse consequence that he suggests. Given that the Committee wishes to make progress, and that we have made our point, perhaps we can return to the matter on Report. I do not believe his explanation about the head of the household and the ticking of boxes. I am even more confused about wardens of university colleges explaining whether people will have the box ticked or not. I am not sure whether that explanation was entirely accurate.

In the light of what the Minister said earlier about his willingness to accept amendment No. 21, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 22.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 10, line 32, after "which", insert— both the full register and".—[Mr. Greenway.] Amendment proposed: No. 91, in page 10, line 42, at end insert— (ab) to supply to any persons registered under the 1998 Data Protection Act copies of the full register and other documents, or prescribed parts of them, on payment of a prescribed fee and for exempt purposes only"—[Mr. Greenway.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 157, Noes 287.

Division No. 26]	[3.56 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Amess, David	Jenkin, Bernard
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony	Key, Robert
Bercow, John	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Blunt, Crispin	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Body, Sir Richard	Lansley, Andrew
Boswell, Tim	Leigh, Edward
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Letwin, Oliver
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Brady, Graham	Lidington, David
Brake, Tom	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Brazier, Julian	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Breed, Colin	Loughton, Tim
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Luff, Peter
Browning, Mrs Angela	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Burnett, John	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Burns, Simon	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Butterfill, John	Maclennan, Fit Hon Robert
Cash, William	McLoughlin, Patrick
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Madel, Sir David
	Malins, Humfrey
Chope, Christopher	Maples, John
Clappison, James	Mates, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Collins, Tim	May, Mrs Theresa
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Cran, James	Moss, Malcolm
Curry, Rt Hon David	Nicholls, Patrick
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Norman, Archie
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)	Öpik, Lembit
	Ottaway, Richard
Day, Stephen	Page, Richard
Duncan, Alan	Paice, James
Duncan Smith, Iain	Paterson, Owen
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Pickles, Eric
Evans, Nigel	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Faber, David	Prior, David
Fabricant, Michael	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Fallon, Michael	Rendel, David
Flight, Howard	Robathan, Andrew
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Robertson, Laurence
Fox, Dr Liam	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Fraser, Christopher	Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Gale, Roger	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Garnier, Edward	Ruffley, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Gibb, Nick	St Aubyn, Nick
Gill, Christopher	Sanders, Adrian
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Shepherd, Richard
Green, Damian	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Greenway, John	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Grieve, Dominic	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Hammond, Philip	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Hawkins, Nick	Spicer, Sir Michael
Hayes, John	Spring, Richard
Heald, Oliver	Steen, Anthony
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Streeter, Gary
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Stunell, Andrew
Horam, John	Swayne, Desmond
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Syms, Robert
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Hunter, Andrew	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Taylor, Sir Teddy	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Tonge, Dr Jenny	Whittingdale, John
Townend, John	Wilkinson, John
Tredinnick, David	Willetts, David
Trend, Michael	Wilshire, David
Tyrie, Andrew	Yeo, Tim
Walter, Robert	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wardle, Charles	Mrs. Eleanor Laing and
Waterson, Nigel	Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Ainger, Nick	Cummings, John
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Allen, Graham	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Dalyell, Tam
Atherton, Ms Candy	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Austin, John	Darvill, Keith
Barnes, Harry	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Barron, Kevin	Davidson, Ian
Battle, John	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Beard, Nigel	Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Dean, Mrs Janet
Benton, Joe	Denham, John
Bermingham, Gerald	Dismore, Andrew
Berry, Roger	Dobbin, Jim
Best, Harold	Donohoe, Brian H
Betts, Clive	Dowd, Jim
Blackman, Liz	Drew, David
Blears, Ms Hazel	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Blizzard, Bob	Edwards, Huw
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Efford, Clive
Borrow, David	Ennis, Jeff
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Fisher, Mark
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Fitzsimons, Lorna
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Flynn, Paul
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Follett, Barbara
Browne, Desmond	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Burden, Richard	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Burgon, Colin	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Butler, Mrs Christine	Fyfe, Maria
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Galloway, George
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Gardiner, Barry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Gerrard, Neil
Cann, Jamie	Gibson, Dr Ian
Caplin, Ivor	Godman, Dr Norman A
Casale, Roger	Godsiff, Roger
Cawsey, Ian	Goggins, Paul
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Chaytor, David	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Clapham, Michael	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
	Grogan, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Healey, John
Clelland, David	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Coaker, Vernon	Hepburn, Stephen
Coffey, Ms Ann	Heppell, John
Cohen, Harry	Hesford, Stephen
Coleman, Iain	Hinchliffe, David
Connarty, Michael	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hood, Jimmy
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)	Hope, Phil
Corbett, Robin	Hopkins, Kelvin
Corbyn, Jeremy	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Corston, Jean	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cousins, Jim	Howells, Dr Kim
Cranston, Ross	Hoyle, Lindsay
Crausby, David	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Hurst, Alan	Pollard, Kerry
Hutton, John	Pond, Chris
Iddon, Dr Brian	Pope, Greg
Illsley, Eric	Pound, Stephen
Jenkins, Brian	Powell, Sir Raymond
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
	Prosser, Gwyn
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)	Purchase, Ken
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)	Radice, Rt Hon Giles
	Rammell, Bill
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Rapson, Syd
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Keeble, Ms Sally	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Rogers, Allan
Kemp, Fraser	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Rooney, Terry
Khabra, Piara S	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Kilfoyle, Peter	Roy, Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Ruane, Chris
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Ruddock, Joan
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Ryan, Ms Joan
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie	Salter, Martin
Laxton, Bob	Sarwar, Mohammad
Lepper, David	Savidge, Malcolm
Levitt, Tom	Sawford, Phil
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Shaw, Jonathan
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Sheerman, Barry
Linton, Martin	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Love, Andrew	Singh, Marsha
McAvoy, Thomas	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
McCabe, Steve	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Macdonald, Calum
McDonnell, John	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
McIsaac, Shona	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
McNamara, Kevin	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
McNulty, Tony	Soley, Clive
MacShane, Denis	Southworth, Ms Helen
McWalter, Tony	Squire, Ms Rachel
McWilliam, John	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mallaber, Judy	Steinberg, Gerry
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Stevenson, George
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Stinchcombe, Paul
Martlew, Eric	Stoate, Dr Howard
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Meale, Alan	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Miller, Andrew	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mitchell, Austin	Temple-Morris, Peter
Moffatt, Laura	Timms, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Tipping, Paddy
Motley, Elliot	Todd, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Touhig, Don
	Trickett, Jon
Mountford, Kali	Truswell, Paul
Mudie, George	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Tynan, Bill
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Vis, Dr Rudi
O'Neill, Martin	Walley, Ms Joan
Organ, Mrs Diana	Wareing, Robert N
Palmer, Dr Nick	Watts, David
Pearson, Ian	White, Brian
Pendry, Tom	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Perham, Ms Linda	Wicks, Malcolm
Pickthall, Colin	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Pike, Peter L

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)	Worthington, Tony
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)	Wray, James
Wilson, Brian	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Winnick, David	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)	Wyatt, Derek
Wise, Audrey
Wood, Mike	Tellers for the Noes:
Woodward, Shaun	Mr. Mike Hall and
Woolas, Phil	Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Allan

I want to follow up a point that was made when we considered amendments Nos. 77 and 78 about whether data derived from the register can be disclosed to a third party. Political parties currently process data and create delivery lists that state, for example, that a road contains 40 houses, of which the even numbers are two to 20 and the odd numbers are one to 21. That data is used for our purposes and passed on to charities, which use it as a free source of information for their collectors. It is not used for direct access to individuals; it is simply a free source of useful data. The Minister said earlier that he did not understand why the amendments had been tabled, so I have tried to explain. Can he confirm that we will be able to continue to use the data within the regulations? I emphasise that we provide only information that has been derived from the register. Does he support that?

Mr. Mike O'Brien

The hon. Gentleman asks me the same question as Bill Powell from Atherstone in my constituency. He is also a Liberal Democrat. As I have told him and the Committee, the proposal deserves a sympathetic response. We can deal with the matter through regulations. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it should be permitted to pass on essentially statistical information to charities. I have sympathy for that approach and I believe that we can find ways in which to achieve that. I hope that the matter can be tackled later through regulations and that I shall be able to satisfy him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.