Mr.
Oaten: Given that this year the county council and
European elections are being held, as I understand it, on the same day,
does that mean that the late registration processes are going to be
co-ordinated?
Mr.
Wills: Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they will
be.
I hope that
members of the Committee will be pleased to learn that where relevant
citizens of the Union already have an anonymous entry on the local
government electoral register, the amendment will automatically grant
that person an anonymous entry on the European register for the
European parliamentary elections.
A number of
changes have been made to the procedure for registration officers to
determine applications and objections to applications. For example,
objections to a person’s registration can now be made both
before and after that person’s registration. The amendment to
the 2001 regulations will ensure consistency so that, as far as
possible, the same procedures for registration for parliamentary and
local elections apply to determinations in relation to registration by
relevant citizens of the
Union. Finally,
we are making a minor amendment to regulation 8 of the 2001
regulations, so that on registering a relevant citizen of the Union in
the European parliamentary electoral register, the registration officer
will no longer be required to send a copy of the application and
declaration to the Secretary of State. Instead, the registration
officer will only have to send information contained in the application
and declaration, which complies with the EU directive and removes a
potential burden from administrators.
I am
extremely grateful that members of the Committee have borne with me
while I have gone through the detail of the statutory
instruments—I realise that they are somewhat technical. They are
none the less important, and I hope that members of the Committee agree
that it is important to go through the detail in that way. The
Electoral Commission and other stakeholders, including the Association
of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Electoral
Administrators, have made many helpful, useful and practical comments
that we have taken into account in the final drafts of the statutory
instruments before us today. We are extremely grateful to them for
their contribution. The instruments are designed to ensure the
successful running and proper conduct of the European parliamentary
elections. In
addition, through the measures that we have made—changing
definitions of qualifying officers and the evidence needed for
anonymous registration—we hope to benefit people who might
otherwise choose not to register to vote. On that basis, I commend the
regulations to the
Committee. 2.48
pm Mrs.
Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): It is a
great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Bercow. Mr.
David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): May we have a vote
on
that?
Mrs.
Laing: No; I am very pleased that we do not have to have a
vote on that, as it is clear that the Committee is, on that particular
point, utterly unanimous.
I thank the
Minister for giving us a careful and measured explanation of the effect
and importance of the two instruments that are before us today. The
Minister
will, I think, be pleased to hear that the official Opposition support
the regulations in principle. As always, it is our intention to help
the Government to improve the electoral system and ensure the integrity
of the ballot. The Minister has heard me say that very often, but that
is our intention and we therefore support the statutory
instruments. As to the
issue of anonymous registration, we have discussed that in another
context at other times and have gone through the need for it. The whole
House appreciates that there are some cases—usually difficult
and sad cases—in which it is essential to protect a
person’s liberty and safety and their ability to take part in
the democratic process, and these regulations are the right way to do
that. What we are considering today is how to simplify that process,
and we support that.
I was about
to ask the Minister how many peers would be affected, but he gave me
the answer before I had time to put the question. I am glad to hear
that it is in the region of five. I would not for one moment argue that
because only five people are affected that this is not an important
regulation. The principle remains the same whether the number is five
or 500. God forbid that we should have 500 peers resigning at one go.
Perhaps that would be a good thing, but we can discuss that in another
context. None the less, whether it is five or 500 peers, the principle
is the same. Those five peers must be given the same rights as everyone
else.
Mr.
Wills: I was just going to invite the hon. Lady to agree
with me on the principle that electoral regulations should, as far as
possible, be consistent across the piece, and that is also what this SI
is designed to
do.
Mrs.
Laing: I do, as ever on that point, agree with the
Minister, but I will come to it very shortly. Consistency is an
extremely important part of our system. As we examine such
matters—as we do day after day, week after week in one context
or another—inconsistency is often found. In my opinion, the
integrity of the ballot and the validity of the system depend entirely
on consistency in so far as it can be achieved. Therefore, I welcome
the regulations
today. One
area of concern relates to the Statistics Board. I understand that any
information about the electoral process, including contributions and
participation, should be made available to the Office for National
Statistics and the Statistics Board. We need the statistical analysis
of such matters and I totally support that. However, I have concerns
about data sharing, data security and the amount of information that is
now gathered by this Government about individuals in our country, and
the use to which that information is put. My concern is not about the
principle of the Statistics Board having access to the electoral roll,
but that such information will be used for purposes other than those
purposes for which it was gathered. One of the principles that I
believe we should apply in the gathering and keeping of information
about the individual is that, except in exceptional cases in which it
is specified that it can be used for other purposes, information should
not be used for purposes other than those purposes for which it was
gathered. That is an important principle, which is worth exploring in
relation to this enormous amount of information. We are talking about
the name, address and sometimes
age of every single person who is eligible to vote in this country. That
comes close to a census of everybody in the whole
country. Chris
Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Would the hon. Lady not agree
that the electoral register already provides the names and addresses of
every single person in the country—or at least everyone who is
on
it?
Mrs.
Laing: Yes, it does, but the point is that such
information is now to be made available in full to the Statistics
Board. I question why the board has to have the full register with a
person’s age, if it is over 70 or under 18, and their full
address, unless they are anonymously registered. Why does the board
require the full address? Why not a postcode, so the board would know
how many people live in this or that street but not the precise
address? Why does it need to have the full electoral register? As a
matter of principle, I will continue to ask the Minister, whenever the
subjects of data sharing, data protection and data security arise,
about the general principles of data
use.
Mrs.
Laing: I will first give way to the hon. Member for
Winchester and then to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to prolong the
discussion.
Mr.
Oaten: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady and I also do
not wish to prolong this. I should have thought that the Statistics
Board already has the electoral roll, but it has to pay for it. The
difference is, not whether it gets the roll, but whether it pays for
it. Given that all three political parties tend to have it, I have no
problem with the Statistics Board having a copy. I am much more
comfortable with it having it than the Conservative
party.
Mrs.
Laing: It may be that I do not entirely disagree with the
hon. Gentleman’s points. Indeed, I accept that the Statistics
Board already has the full electoral register and that it could easily
garner the whole register, even if the regulations were not passed. It
might cost money, which would be wrong because one Government
Department would be paying another, but I can see that it could happen.
I am merely taking the opportunity to tell the Minister that I will, on
every occasion when we discuss the collection of data about the
individual in the UK and the way that those data are used, ask him or
other Ministers how that information is to be used and whether the
Government have considered the principle of data sharing, data
protection and using data for the purposes for which they were
gathered.
Chris
Ruane: What is the hon. Lady’s rationale for
thinking that this confidential information would be more secure among
300 to 350 electoral registration officers spread throughout the
country, than it would be with five or 10 ONS officers in a central
location?
Mrs.
Laing: Well, that is a brilliant question to come from
that side of the Committee. My rationale is that the Government have
such a poor record of keeping data secure at every level of government,
from the Home Office to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and
from the Benefits Agency to almost every part of
government that can be named—small, big, regional, national or
international. The Government’s record of keeping information
about individuals secure is absolutely abysmal. I will not lose the
opportunity
to—
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady has made her point about
data security, which she is entitled to do, but we must avoid straying.
I know that she will wish to avoid straying into a general Second
Reading-style debate on the principles of data security. We need to
narrowly focus the debate on the terms of the
orders.
Mrs.
Laing: Thank you, Mr. Bercow; you are totally
correct. I did not wish to be drawn into the wider context. I have
stated my concerns several times and I will not repeat them again. I
think that the Minister has loudly and clearly heard my
point. I
agree with what the Minister said about consistency on the European
parliamentary elections regulations. In another context, we discussed
and argued over late registration, the rolling register and so on, so
the debates have been well rehearsed. I appreciate that it is essential
that the regulations for the European elections should be the same as
those for other elections, particularly, as the hon. Member for
Winchester said, given that several types of elections will be taking
place in a few months all on the same day, when it would be ludicrous
not to be consistent. I thank the Minister for giving us a greater
explanation of the need for the statutory instruments, which we
support.
3
pm
Mr.
Wills: I rise briefly to deal with the worries expressed
by the hon. Member for Epping Forest about data sharing and data
protection. I will not stray. I am concerned about what she said, and I
am concerned primarily on her behalf. She is an adornment to the House
and I hate to see her getting so wound up and agitated about something
that she has no need to get wound up and agitated about. Of course the
data should be used only for the purposes for which they are gathered;
not to do that would be a breach of the Data Protection Act. The
Government passed that Act because we believe in the security and
privacy of people’s data, and putting protections in place to
that end. That is why we implemented the European directive, which I am
sure that the hon. Lady welcomes. It is brought into force in this
country through the Data Protection Act. We have conducted reviews into
data sharing to see how we balance the interests of privacy with the
obvious benefits of data sharing.
On many
occasions, I have heard the hon. Lady refer to the perils of data
sharing—she has done so again today—but I have never
heard her explain the advantages and benefits that it brings. In the
real world, which most of us inhabit, we have to balance those two
sometimes conflicting imperatives. The hon. Lady’s particular
anxieties need not trouble her any longer. What she is worried about is
already catered for under legislation. That there are penalties for
breaching the protections will, I hope, reassure her. All we are doing
under the statutory instrument is making a minor consequential change
to the fact that the Office for National Statistics is known as the
Statistics Board. It already has access to the data. We are making sure
that the Statistics Board, a well respected, independent body,
continues to have free access to the data in the new corporate form.
That is all. There is no substantive change, apart from that. I hope
that I have reassured the hon. Lady and that she will fret no more
about the matter. I am sure that she has a lot else to fret
about.
Mrs.
Laing: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I
thank him for his explanation. I am totally
reassured.
Mr.
Wills: On that happy note, I hope that the Committee will
see fit to approve the statutory
instruments. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People
(Amendment) Regulations
2009. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft European Parliamentary Elections
(Franchise of Relevant Citizens of the Union) (Amendment) Regulations
2009.—(Mr.
Wills.) 3.3
pm Committee
rose.
| 
