UK Parliament / Open data

Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 48:"Page 7, line 14, leave out ““as may be prescribed”” and insert ““prescribed in subsection (6A) below””" The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 49 and 50. This cluster of probing amendments seeks to clarify the precise terms under which an elector can apply for an anonymous absentee vote, and the meaning of subsection (6). The effect of subsection (6) appears to be that if somebody applies for anonymous registration, and the ERO is not satisfied that that person needs the level of protection that anonymous registration would give, that person loses the right to be registered at all, anonymously or not. We read that:"““no entry is to be made in respect of him in the register (whether an anonymous entry or otherwise)””." It does not seem right than an individual should be punished for applying for anonymous registration when it is an option. I even venture that it would be infringing on basic rights to deny someone a right to vote merely because they had requested to undertake that right in a particular way. Perhaps the Minister will reassure noble Lords, and concede that our amendment makes a good deal of sense. Amendments Nos. 48 and 50 combine to ensure that the safety test is subject to proper scrutiny. The Bill states that the safety test is satisfied if the safety of the applicant,"““would be at risk if the register contains the name of the applicant or his qualifying address””." However, the Bill does not specify who would decide whether the applicant was, or was not, at risk. This strikes me as another oversight. Anonymity is a safeguard for those in danger—under the witness protection scheme, for example. Surely, the test of anonymity is paramount to their safety. A witness statement, as accepted by the police or in the courts, should be sufficient. Whether a person’s safety is at risk is a matter for the expert judgment of the police. What is more, a person’s right to anonymity should not be a matter for the ERO to decide. That person should have the opportunity to appeal to an authority other than the electoral registration officer. I beg to move.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

679 c562-3GC 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top