Mr. Paul Lambert:

I thank the Chairman and other members of the joint committee for the invitation to contribute to their deliberations. I understand that one of the matters arising relates to the issue of data protection and the possible use of PPSN numbers for the purpose of compiling a central or rolling register of electors by the new electoral commission. I would therefore like to make some broad comments on that.

In the documentation so far, it appears that there has been no very detailed examination of the data protection issues. The comments concerning data protection have been quite broad and headline in nature, so there is an opportunity to expand on that in more detail, not only with the electoral commission itself when it is established, but also in the ongoing process. I would also endorse the comments of the previous data protection commissioner on these issues.

One of the starting points for this type of discussion concerns alternatives. While we are thinking of PPS numbers, we should also ask whether there is anything else we might think of as solutions to some of the concerns and problems that arise. Some of these have been mentioned already, such as matching, consent and computer identifiers. There may be other solutions to some of the problems as well, however, so we should not just leap forward and go straight to creating a new exemption for data protection usage.

If, after looking at those alternatives, there is an issue about considering PPS numbers, we should examine what the justification for that is. However it is defined and elaborated upon, we should also ensure that it is clear, justified and limited so that what is intended for one purpose is not so openended that it can be used for other purposes or justifications, or effectively become an example of mission creep whereby other unintended consequences can arise down the road.

While some issues and concerns have been raised in the discussion, it is important to separate these different purposes and consider each one individually. At the end of the day, purpose No. 1 might be justified but purposes Nos. 4, 5 and 6 may not be. Therefore, each activity and purpose requires individualised consideration.

Principles to bear in mind from the perspective of data protection include data minimisation and proportionality. While we can create an exemption we should not necessarily leap to the widest exemption possible. There should be a proportionality to what it is we are creating in an exemption, if there is to be an exemption.

There are other separate matters to bear in mind, some of which have been briefly flagged. There is a strong argument that the PPSN should not appear on the register itself and may not, or should not, be attached to the register. There are also issues of verification and identification. If we are creating an exemption for creating the register, that is quite separate and distinct from using the PPSN for identification purposes on polling day. There is a strong argument against relying on PPSN for purely identification purposes on election day. That is an example of where we should put some detail into separating the problems and possible data protection issues and purposes for individualised consideration.

Security is always an issue, particularly nowadays, concerning personal data protection, but it is a particular issue in terms of PPSN also. A separate issue is that of marketing. If there is a central register, it should not be available to people for marketing purposes. The ability of individual citizens to opt out of marketing purposes should be contained in or continued over into a central register.

Utilising PPSN per seis not necessarily a magic bullet for all the various issues and concerns that can arise concerning the register.