Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 16:"Page 2, line 39, leave out ““may””" The noble Lord said: We move on to Clause 2, which I suppose is a small milestone to reach. In moving Amendment No. 16, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 19 stand together; they are all one amendment. Amendment No. 18 represents an alternative approach, in deleting one of the paragraphs. The amendments probe what restrictions the Government are thinking of putting in place in relation to the use of CORE information—that is, information on the new national database. Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 19 refer to subsection (3), which says:"““A CORE scheme may . . . make provision such as is mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2)””." The paragraphs are non-transparent, because they refer to lots of provisions in the 1983 Act. As I understand it, they refer to the law and regulations in relation to the access to, and supply of, electoral registers on behalf of other organisations. A number of bodies are entitled to receive copies of the electoral register in relation to their functions and duties, such as the Electoral Commission, political parties and election officials who are conducting elections—and, indeed, credit reference agencies. Those bodies will continue to have access to local electoral registers whether a CORE scheme is set up or not. Under what circumstances should access to the CORE database be refused when there is access to what ought to be the same material at local level? It is not clear to me why there should be different restrictions for the national database to those that exist for local electoral registers—and when I say different restrictions, I mean different rights of access to the information and rights to take copies and have copies. Amendment No. 18 queries yet another catch-all provision, which says:"““A CORE scheme may . . . make such modifications of provision made under those paragraphs in relation to such information as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate””." I am not quite sure why we bother having a whole paragraph here, when it could simply say that the Secretary of State can do what he wants. Indeed, Clause 2(1) reads:"““A CORE scheme may authorise or require a CORE keeper to take such steps as are specified in the scheme in relation to information kept by him in pursuance of the scheme””." That is another way of saying that the Secretary of State can do what he wants since he is the person who sets up the CORE scheme under a previous provision. Why are Clauses 2(1) and 2(3)(b) both required when all they do is state that the Secretary of State has the power to do anything at all, subject to regulations? Whenever such catch-all provisions appear in a Bill, the Government should be challenged to explain why they are necessary. However, the overriding purpose of these amendments is to probe why there should be restrictions on access to, and the supply of, the national database of registers when that information is available locally. As I understand it, there is no provision to stop it being available locally. I beg to move.