Electoral Register: Disclosure Ruling (Hansard, 13 December 2001)

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, following the court ruling, electoral registration officers must continue to sell electoral registers in accordance with the law. However, when selling to commercial concerns, they must exclude the particulars of electors who have objected to their details being included in such cases. The Government had always intended to provide for such an opt-out and for edited registers in the regulations which, subject to parliamentary approval, we were planning to make in time for the 2002 canvass. We are now considering how best to progress those proposed regulations in the light of the court ruling and we shall consult widely.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Can one assume that, in the light of the Robertson v. City of Wakefield decision, the Government now accept that the sale of the register for commercial purposes without consent contravenes Articles 8 and 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it will be necessary to make an amendment to the Data Protection Act 1998? Can the House assume that the Government accept that position? In the context of the sale of the register, is the noble Lord aware that the Government relied on a flawed certificate of compatibility with the ECHR and that, at all three stages of the progress of the Bill, they refused to give a reason or an answer for doing so? Does the Minister agree that this raises a wider question?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, the current situation arises from an appeal by an individual against the publication of a register containing his name by an electoral registration officer. To my knowledge, the Government do not intend to appeal against that judgment. Therefore, we are left in the position that electoral registration officers cannot sell registers unless and until they have ensured that people have been given an effective opt-out.
The process for addressing the current anomaly is that, by the end of January, the Government will publish their paper setting out proposals on how to move forward on this matter. That paper will go out for widespread consultation with individual electors and with the credit data agencies which rely substantially on the registers. In short, the result is likely to be that in future individuals will he required to be given an opt-out. Only a register without the names of those who have chosen an opt-out can be published. The thrust of the noble Lord's question was about what happened 1416 when the Bill was before our House. I regret that I must plead ignorance on that, but I shall consider his question and write to him accordingly.

§ Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the concern and difficulty that this matter is causing in a number of commercial companies throughout the country? In certain cases, people who can no longer carry out what they considered to be a legitimate act are being laid off. Perhaps I may press the Government not to wait until the end of January but to make a statement before the end of the year so that people know exactly where they stand.

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, we shall certainly publish as soon as possible what we consider to be sensible proposals for moving forward on this matter. I am well aware of the considerable concern expressed by the data protection industries and by a number of charities which rely on electoral registers for publication purposes. However, we are where we are, and it appears that past practices will not be able to continue in the future.
One should note that the electoral register has never been a perfectly reliable database, with regard to both inclusions and exclusions. For obvious reasons, it is certainly not a reliable record of identity because people can add their names to the register without validation. Over the past few months the Government have been hoping to find a consensus that will move the matter forward. In a sense, the court action has kiboshed that and forced us on to different routes, but we shall come forward with proposals relatively soon.

§ Lord Goodhart
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that we had lengthy discussions on exactly this subject during the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000 in this House? Does he recall that on that occasion the Act enabled the Representation of the People Act 1983 to be amended so as to make it possible to publish an edited register for sale to commercial interests? Why did the Government not see this problem coming and deal with it when they made the Representation of the People Act regulations earlier this year?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, there is some truth in what the noble Lord says. From 1983 it became obligatory on all electoral registration officers to sell electoral registers, whereas previously it had been discretionary. As the noble Lord said, the 2000 Act recognised on the face of the Bill that that appeared potentially to conflict with data protection rights. The delay has been caused fundamentally by the Government trying to find a way to reconcile what may well be reconcilable: the interest of data protection and human rights and the interest of the commercial organisations which have relied on these registers in the past. Therefore, the plan had been to lay regulations by the spring in time for the 2002 register in order to allow that to proceed. As I said, the court judgment has effectively put an end to some of that detail. It is hoped that we shall find the best way forward in the circumstances in the next few weeks.

§ Lord Marlesford
My Lords, presumably the Government are not contemplating making it illegal for electoral registers to be available to political parties and, for example, to parish councils which make widespread and essential use of them? Is it really conceivable that there will be only an edited version published with as many people who wish to remain anonymous having been taken off the register? Is that practical?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, the noble Lord need have no fear in that respect. The court judgment does not put at risk the right of political parties, crime prevention agencies, the British Library and a number of others to have access to the full register. Similarly, individual citizens will still be able to go into their town hall, or wherever, and inspect the register. However, those of your Lordships who are more au fait than I am with the Representation of the People Act 2000 will recollect that Section 9 made clear that one could not photocopy the register and take it away. That would clearly circumvent the thrust of the legislation.