Clause 5 - CORE schemes: supplemental
Electoral Administration Bill
12:00 pm
Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)
Of course. My preamble was entirely intended to compliment the Minister of State on her answers to our intricate questions this morning, but I must not repeat that point. I am fully aware that I must not be repetitive, so I thought it important to seek my moment to ask my question. Why would it be necessary for the CORE keeper to pay the ERO, and for the ERO to make payment to the CORE keeper? There is probably a simple answer to that question, but I would like to have it.
Clause 5(2) states that
''A CORE scheme may make provision
(a) as to circumstances in which the CORE keeper and such an ERO may agree that functions of one of them may be exercised by the other;
(b) for functions of the CORE keeper to be exercised by such an ERO;
(c) for functions of such an ERO to be exercised by the CORE keeper.''
In what circumstances does the Minister of State envisage that those functions would be exercised either by the ERO or by the CORE keeper and vice versa? Similarly, clause 5(3) states:
''A CORE scheme may make provision as to—
(a) the circumstances in which the CORE keeper may make a charge for the provision of services or information to any person;
(b) the level of any such charge.''
That is an important provision because, quite rightly, the electoral register is used by many organisations. We all get junk mail, which is relevant to this point. I get sacks full of junk mail every week, which is partly due to the fact that I sometimes buy things and give my address in order for those things to be delivered. Therefore, one's name, address, postcode and so on, and apparently one's tastes in everything from kitchen equipment to baby clothes, are recorded in a database somewhere so that one can be bombarded with more junk mail enticing one to buy more goods.
It is sometimes difficult to imagine how a mail order company gets the name, address and details of a particular person. Often, it has been able to do so because it can buy the electoral register. There is nothing wrong with that because it is public information; I am not criticising that. However, the provisions envisage circumstances in which the CORE keeper may make a charge for the provision of services or information to any person.
Referring back to our previous discussion on clause 3 about the way in which taxpayers' money is spent in the administration of the electoral system, can taxpayers' money be recouped if the information held either by the ERO or the CORE keeper is used by an outside body for commercial purposes? I am only asking this question, not stating a preference or principle, but is there a possibility that a CORE keeper, an ERO, the Electoral Commission, the Department for Constitutional Affairs or any other spender of public money might recoup that money from those that use the information thus gathered for commercial purposes?