| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Community Protection (Airport Noise and Pollution)
Mr. David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to require airport operators to reduce operational noise and pollution levels in consultation with local authorities and communities near airports; to enable local authorities to enforce noise and pollution mitigation agreements; to involve communities near airports in the shaping of balanced planning frameworks controlling the operation of those airports; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 48].
Representation of the People Bill
As amended in the Committee, considered.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
May I remind hon. Members, out of courtesy, of my interest in the Institute of Sales Promotion? The institute has no particular interest in the Bill, but I would not want any hon. Member to think that I had been in any way discourteous, even though aspects of this matter affect marketing in a way quite separate from my own interest.
As recently as last Thursday, a Committee of the whole House discussed in some detail the vexed issue of the inclusion of an opt-out box on electoral registration forms: how that would be achieved; how voters would be made aware of the effect of ticking such a box by a leaflet explaining what that would mean and, more important, of the availability of a full and an edited register to various organisations for various purposes, including uses that could best be described as commercial. We had a fruitful and constructive debate. Some progress was made and the Under-Secretary kindly informed us that he was persuaded of the case for including credit referencing as one of the legitimate purposes for which the full register should be available.
Less than a week--a brief period--has elapsed, but I make no criticism because that is the way in which our proceedings sometimes work, and given the pressures of business, one understands why. Nevertheless, we felt that it was pertinent and proper to revisit the issue on Report to test some things further with the Minister and--more to the point, for reasons that I shall explain--to include something further in the Bill.
As I have said, the Bill provides for the commercial sale of both the full and edited registers. Thanks to amendment No. 21, to which the Minister kindly agreed, there is a clear requirement to explain to voters on both registers the consequences of ticking any opt-out box. However, the Bill does not clarify or indicate in any way which organisations will and will not have access to either register--or, indeed, for what purposes they will have such access on payment of whatever fees and under whatever licensing arrangements are to be enshrined in regulations, none of which is in the Bill.
I should make it abundantly clear that, in moving the new clause, the Opposition are in no way suggesting that we are not prepared to take on trust the Minister's commitment to
further consultation, which is welcome. We entirely accept that the hon. Gentleman is willing to consult, and will continue to consult. Our concerns are different: several very important questions remain to be answered.
First, ideally, consultation before the Report stage should have been more extensive and comprehensive. The working party on electoral reform, whose report the Government are seeking to implement, was published, following the recommendations in July, only in late October. Meaningful consultation on the effects and implications for many commercial organisations and our constituents took place only after the Government signalled their intention to have an opt-out box and published the Bill. The Minister's promise to consult, which we take at face value--it is entirely right--implies clear acknowledgement that consultation thus far has been less than adequate to resolve all the issues. This is a complex matter and such issues will take some time to resolve.
Secondly, we must ask whether the Minister's mind is fully made up on the question of access and use for commercial interests. Has he decided which organisations or types of organisation may have access to the full register, and for what purpose?
The Minister's response in letters and replies to some of my questions in Committee last week is not completely clear. In a letter to the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, Mr. Colin Lloyd, on 12 January--I pointed this out in an intervention on him in Committee--the Minister said:
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary or his officials had a chance to edit whatever he said or meant to say, but his statement is ambiguous. One interpretation is that the industry will not be allowed the full register, and another is that it will be allowed the full register but that that register will not be available for all kinds of commercial uses. So, there is a doubt.
Later in last week's proceedings in Committee, however, the Minister appeared to reaffirm the point made in his letter when he said:
Only two conclusions can be drawn from the Minister's responses: either he has made up his mind, in which case we must wonder what the promised consultation is for, or he remains open to change and further argument. Has he signed off his policy and come to a final position on the use to which the full register will be put for commercial
purposes, so that further consultation will not change his mind? If that were the case, such consultation would be pointless, except to allow--this is what he may have meant--for continuing discussion on the use of the edited register, the leaflet and the fee and licensing arrangements for which the regulations will provide. All those things are extremely important, but none of the consultation would address the central issue of whether the full register should be commercially available to interests other than the four that he set out in his letter to the chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association.
If that is not so, might the Minister still be persuaded to widen the scope of the full register's use? We rather hope so, as do many commercial interests in both direct marketing and other organisations--including, still, many financial institutions.
Given that the Bill has reached such an advanced stage, the position is unsatisfactory. In agreeing Third Reading, we must consider whether the Bill is satisfactory--and whatever the Minister's reply, my comments suggest that it is not. If policy is settled, why are the provisions not more explicit? Alternatively, why do we not have draft regulations to consider?
In the Standing Committee considering the Freedom of Information Bill, we have been discussing constructively the fact that much of that legislation will be enacted through regulations. The Minister has confirmed the advanced state of drafting of those regulations, for which I commend him. Indeed, as he knows, in Standing Committee B yesterday, I expressed some surprise that the process was so advanced. That only fuels my argument that if the policy is settled we should have had the opportunity to consider draft regulations in conjunction with Third Reading.
'. (1) The Secretary of State shall publish in draft any provisions he intends to make by regulations under paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of Schedule 2 to the 1983 Act as amended by section 9 of this Act and shall consult such persons and bodies as appear to him to have an interest in the operation of those provisions.
(2) No regulations making provisions under paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of Schedule 2 to the 1983 Act shall be made by the Secretary of State until three months have elapsed from the date of the publication of the draft provisions referred to in subsection (1) above.'.--[Mr. Greenway.]
5.7 pm
"The full version will only be made available for electoral purposes, for law enforcement and crime prevention and in connection with applications for credit."
However, in direct response to my question on whether the letter was the final, definitive statement on who will have access to the register, he said:
"we want to ensure that all interests are taken into account."
He went on to say:
"It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry."
5.15 pm
"The full register will be available for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes, which include money laundering and fraud protection checks. We have invited the financial industry to consider the best way in which to facilitate that."--[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 460-3.].
That appears unambiguous.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |