---

Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for another cogent and telling intervention. I entirely agree--obviously, I would not dare to disagree. I was not suggesting that we should go for what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey described as the full electoral Monty by forcing everyone to reveal themselves on the register. At present, electoral registers contain classifications of people--not merely those who are not entitled to vote in a local government election or who are entitled only to vote in a European election. Additional electors are listed at the end of each category. They appear now. Their names appear on the register, but their addresses do not. Every electoral register in the country has such names. It is not a problem. In many ways, by concentrating on those issues, we could produce a far better clause 9, although my natural obsequiousness prevents me from saying that as overtly as I would do otherwise.

Earlier this year, an NOP survey, which was almost certainly funded by the credit companies, asked whether people would tick the proposed opt-out box when registering to vote and 64 per cent. said that they would. However, when the follow-up question was asked about their credit status, the figures changed dramatically. The problem is that people will tick the box without realising how it will affect their credit status.

Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the junk mail issue is a distraction and a red herring when we are discussing the electoral register? Junk mail is dealt with by the mailing preference service, whereby people say that they do not want such mail and if anyone mails them, they can be prosecuted. Junk mailing services can find names from 100 different sources.

Mr. Pound: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We should consider the mailing preference service; that is certainly a possibility. However, my concern--like that of several other Members--is about access to credit for those who could not otherwise achieve it. Banks and other financial bodies tend to be cautious lenders. If people's credit standing is reduced by their opting out of the version of the register that is available to credit agencies, those people will be added to the socially excluded.

At present, there is a mechanism for lending money to people on the boundaries--on desolation row--and we all know what it is. We all know about the loan sharks who prey on our constituents--the people who take child benefit books and accompany mothers to the post office on a Monday morning, cash the benefit, give half the money to the mother and keep the rest. We know about their interest rates, which double, triple and quadruple. Yes, there are possible alternatives, such as credit banks and credit unions--by all means, let us have more of them. However, the immediate, practical alternative to the loan shark is a line of legitimate credit, attested to by one's presence on the electoral roll. If people are council tenants, have just moved to a council property or do not have a job, they do not have any other credit guarantee to offer. I wholly acknowledge the understandable and laudable concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government, but we must revisit that matter.

Of course the problems of money laundering, fraud and other abuses of the electoral register must be dealt with; I hope to outline a way of doing so later in my speech.

30 Nov 1999 : Column 197

However, I want to draw the attention of the House to the newsletter of the Hampstead and Highgate Conservatives, advertising their autumn bazaar, which, sadly, took place last Saturday. From the perspective of Ealing, we are awed by the Hampstead and Highgate Conservatives, who offer as raffle prizes cars, 25 televisions and videos and a £5,000 ocean cruise--the newsletter does not tell us whether we can nominate a member of the Conservative party to take that cruise. There is a free champagne draw.

In the corner of the document is the headline, "Not a Conservative supporter?"--oddly enough, there is a question mark--under which is the statement:

"We work off the electoral role".

Hon. Members should note that spelling. Doubtless, it is a tribute to the thespian ambience created by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)--long may she continue. The newsletter states:

"If you do not want to receive further mailings from your local Conservatives please let us know . . . by E Mail, [e-mail]."

The Conservatives realise that there are occasions on which one can make a principled decision as to whether to be included on a database. I have deleted my name from the database.

In January 1999, the Office of Fair Trading produced the report of the director general's inquiry into vulnerable consumers and financial services--an important document.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman told us a most amusing story. Will he confirm that he lives in Hampstead and Highgate and not in Ealing?

Mr. Pound: Although it is possible to register overseas, I live in my constituency; my name appears on the electoral roll there--sadly, only once, but not through lack of trying. None of my domestic pets appears on the electoral roll in my constituency--again, not through lack of trying. However, on the principle of inclusion, I occasionally try to add myself to the lists of Conservative associations--just to see what they are up to. Of course, the possibility of a £5,000 sea cruise may also have influenced me slightly.

Paragraph 302 of the OFT report states:

"there are four financial services that stand out as those which most of today's consumers are likely to regard as essential: money transmission, home contents insurance, short-term consumer credit, and long-term savings."

I repeat, "short-term consumer credit" because that is exactly what we are talking about.

In September 1998, the Prime Minister presented to the House "Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal", Command 4045. Under the heading "Action Team 14: Financial services", the document states:

"people living in poor neighbourhoods often have to depend on very expensive forms of credit, including 'loan sharks'."

Action Team 14--with whom I am not personally acquainted--point out that its goal is

"to develop a strategy to increase access to financial services for people living in poor neighbourhoods."

30 Nov 1999 : Column 198

Sadly, the measure that we are discussing would not help.

Coming to the end of the information that I pray in aid, I draw the attention of the House to a letter from Islington council. Before Conservative Members leap to their feet, I point out that I have never lived in Islington, although I should be quite happy to do so. The council's electoral registration document, sent to all residents and dated November-December 1999--the council wisely allowed two months for delivery--states

"Dear Resident


Final Reminder to Register to Vote--Mayor and Assembly Election."

The letter does not suggest for whom one should vote--sadly. It contains the statement that

"to avoid difficulties with banks, credit companies, building societies, and libraries, who often check the register before providing services, it may be useful to provide this information."

In November-December 1999, a London council is telling its electors that, in order to receive credit, to open a bank or building society account, or even to borrow a library book, they need to be on the electoral register.

Many of us will remember Sheila McKechnie, who used to run Shelter; she is now the director of the Consumers Association. She asked the House

"to focus on the potential increase in social exclusion caused by a restriction on access to this data . . . This proposal could create further barriers to obtaining credit for vulnerable consumers. Namely, those who do not have passports, driving licences or utility bills . . . for whom the present system works well."

I had not given this matter much thought until one of my constituents, Pauline Jones, spoke to me about it. She works for Equifax--one of the two major data-collection companies. Ms Jones told me of her concerns, not just as a loyal member of that company, but as someone who is genuinely worried about the law of unintended consequences. I cannot believe that anyone--save, possibly, a few Conservative Members--could object to the main thrust of the Bill. However, one of the unintended consequences--I am sure that it is unintended--of the restriction of commercial availability of the electoral register is that the sort of people with whom my constituent works and whom I represent will suffer.

There are alternative proposals. The Direct Marketing Association has already suggested an additional form of restriction on availability of the roll. There are other ways of dealing with the matter. Sadly, the current baby-and-the-bath-water system will not serve the inclusive, joined-up governmental aims of the Administration in relation to social exclusion.

I thank the House for its tolerance and indulgence; the subject is one of great importance. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department sums up the debate, I hope that he will tell us that it will be possible to reconsider the matter. I thank him and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for being so courteous and so generous with their time as to talk about the matter with me before the debate. I hope that we can discuss it further in Committee and deal with it. The rest of the Bill is Christmas come early; it is wonderful. I have no problem with it.

---