| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister; I hear his warnings. What he has just said is very welcome to all of us. We have obtained from him the huge concession that there will be proper consultation before the regulations are promulgated by his Department. Much as we welcome his conversion, what has changed since last Thursday when he made the opposite statement, as is recorded in Hansard?
Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure that anything has changed, nor that I made the opposite statement. We have always taken the view that, on this matter, we need properly to consult with the industry on regulations. I have maintained that view throughout, in letters to and meetings with various parts of the industry. We have never been in any doubt that the industry will be legitimately concerned with these matters and that we should ensure that we take on board their arguments.
The hon. Member for Ryedale asked whether we have a settled view on the direct marketing industry. We do have a settled view, but not a dogmatic view, about how we shall proceed. We are prepared to listen to representations from any organisation that may be prepared to make them and we shall happily consider them, but we shall need to be convinced by the strength of the argument. The Government have data protection and privacy obligations. The previous Government signed the data protection directive, with which we need to comply--I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to do so. It is our clear view that this legislation is necessary to comply with that.
The working party also consulted on all these issues. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not suggesting that we could not be taken on trust. Indeed, he said that he was satisfied that we were prepared to consult on these matters, and I am grateful to him for putting it in that way. He was worried that the consultation period may not have been very long because the full report of the working party came out in October, but I can tell him that the initial findings of the working party were known in July and that there was the opportunity to make representations, although I accept that it was over the summer period.
Some industries have been making representations and we have been continuing to listen to them. We do listen to the strength of the arguments. We have a settled view and a clear policy, but it is not dogmatic. The Direct Marketing Association and the Confederation of British Industry have sent us papers, and we shall continue to consider any representations that they are prepared to make.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that the credit card industry and the finance industry could seek information from other sources--even the telephone directory. He is right. In fact, most other European countries have quite stringent restrictions. Many of them prohibit the selling on of an electoral register. In those countries, the credit card and the direct marketing industries find the other means that are available to them. They might have to create new industries to gather that information, and that might
benefit the economy by creating new business opportunities. However, the credit card and the finance industries will have the opportunity to move forward.
I wish to deal with the issue of debt recovery that was raised by the hon. Member for Ryedale. We have consulted the Data Protection Registrar closely and the view taken was that the use of the register for debt recovery would be contrary to the spirit of the data protection directive. She took a different view to that about discovering the initial identity of individuals to decide whether credit could be granted to them. We could, no doubt, have a legalistic argument about the distinctions, but the registrar is there to advise and we have listened carefully to the advice that we have been given.
Mr. Greenway:
Will the Minister consider whether the explanatory leaflet given to householders would touch on the effect of ticking the opt-out box on debt recovery and on the use of the register for direct marketing purposes, so that existing data can be verified to restrict the amount of junk mail? Is his mind open to those ideas so that, when people tick the box, they know that they are granting consent for the data to be used for those purposes? That would get round the problem of the directive.
Mr. O'Brien:
As I understand it--the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong--he is asking whether, when a person considers whether to tick the opt-out box, he will know that the issues of debt recovery and direct marketing are before him. I see no reason why, on the face of it, such information should not appear in the leaflet that we shall circulate. Whether the debt recovery industry wants such information in the leaflet is a matter for consultation, but, in principle, I have an open mind. I am quite happy to consult the industry.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border asked whether we would consult the police. I am happy to inform him that we are doing that. My officials had a meeting with the National Criminal Intelligence Service only yesterday. Full and proper consultations will take place.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked how we will proceed. My officials are already consulting the industries and, once the Bill is enacted, we will produce a draft. That will be put on the internet, it will be circulated among those who have signalled their interest, and we will listen to their concerns. I do not want to place a three-month limit on the consultation because that would raise all sorts of issues, but we shall talk to the industry about the time that it needs for reasonable consultation.
I have given hon. Members as much reassurance as I can that we shall consult as much as is reasonable in all the circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale will withdraw his motion.
Mr. Greenway:
I am grateful to hon. Members for contributing to the debate and for making pertinent points in support of my case that the House should receive greater reassurance about the implications of clause 9 and the forthcoming regulations. There should be consultation and proper time should be given to interested parties to reflect on the regulations. The House should then have the opportunity to debate and approve them.
In effect, the Minister said that, although he has come to a settled view about direct marketing, it is not a dogmatic one. I interpret that to mean that his mind is not yet fully made up and that both his door and his mind are not closed to further representations. I intervened on the Minister because the more I study the Data Protection Registrar's concerns, the more I am convinced that the problems can be got round through the information that is given to people about the implications of ticking the opt-out box. As the Bill allows, the information should explain to them the effect that ticking the box would have on a number of issues.
All we can do in our debates is to provide the industry with the opportunity to discuss the issues further with the Minister. We have achieved that aim, but it is up to the industry to decide whether it is worth taking that opportunity. As I confirmed to the Minister the other day, the industry is perfectly prepared to pay the cost of the production of the leaflet, which would then be distributed at local authorities' expense when they make their electoral registration canvass.
I think that we have made significant progress in the last couple of hours--we have made considerably more than on Thursday. The Minister should expect the matters to be further scrutinised if and when the Bill goes to the other place. However, in the spirit of the Minister's positive response to our concerns, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Maclean:
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, leave out lines 26 to 31.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in clause 6, page 8, leave out lines 39 to 43.
Mr. Maclean:
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke with his customary wisdom in the previous debate, I reflected briefly that it was an unfortunate custom of the House that my right hon. Friend cannot properly be referred to as my right hon. and learned Friend. Not only does that form of address have a certain ring and cachet about it, it is absolutely appropriate and correct in view of the--to borrow his own phrase--sagacity of his previous contribution. My contribution will not be nearly as sagacious and it will be brief because I wish to reserve my energy for the Second Reading debates that will follow.
The amendments relate to different clauses of the Bill. Amendment No. 13 would amend clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6, but they would both do exactly the same thing. They would delete the three-month residency qualification for Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 13 would delete lines in clause 1 and amendment No. 17 would amend clause 6(5) and remove the words:
"Where a declaration of local connection is made for the purposes of registration in Northern Ireland, the declaration must state that the declarant has been in Northern Ireland during the whole of the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration."
Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, but we have no such requirement for a special three-month residency qualification in any other part of the United Kingdom. No doubt it could be said that before the so-called peace settlement the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland meant that to avoid fraud--it would not be personation in this case--a three-month residency qualification was necessary. I am not sure what the justification is for that. Presumably, the aim was to check the bona fides of the applicant for electoral registration to ensure that citizens of the Irish Republic, a foreign country, were not popping up to Northern Ireland on registration day, staying in the Province overnight, and getting on to the register.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |