house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

1115 Political Parties and Elections Bill [LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1116
[LORD BATES]
important place: in the Division Lobby. As the elected
House, they expressed their opinion on a matter that
impacts them; it does not impact us in this House.
Our position is that, if that view was taken in
the other place and it was the settled view of that
House, it would be wrong for us in this place to seek to
overturn that from a procedural point of view, not to
mention the qualitative and security arguments that
have been presented so forcefully in this debate from
many sides. Members on our Benches would have a
free vote again in any Division, but I hope that we will
allow the House of Commons to determine the terms
on which they stand for election and respect that.
6.45 pm
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, Clause 21 removes the
requirements on candidates to provide their full address
on statements of persons nominated and the ballot
paper at UK parliamentary elections. The clause was
inserted into the Bill following an amendment that
was tabled by the honourable Member for New Forest
East, Dr Lewis, and accepted by the other place at
Report following a free vote. The clause provides that,
at a parliamentary election, candidates’ full home
addresses will no longer appear on the nomination
paper but will instead be supplied to the returning
officer on a separate home address form. A home
address form enables candidates to choose whether
their full home addresses will be included on the
electoral documents available to the public. That is the
statement of persons nominated on the ballot paper.
Should a candidate prefer that their full home address
not be made public, these documents will instead
identify the constituency in which the candidate has
an address.
The Government issued a consultation paper on
26 November 2008. From the 65 responses to the
consultation, it was clear that there are strongly held
views for and against changing the legislation. Broadly
speaking, a majority of politicians who responded
and the Electoral Commission favoured change, while
administrators, returning officers and the majority of
responses from the public did not. Those in favour
argued that the candidate and their families faced
more ordinary risks to their safety and security, which
warranted the need for their home addresses to be
removed from the public domain. By contrast, those
against the idea argued that the interest of accountability
and free expression of democracy would not be served
by allowing candidates to make it more difficult for
the public to find out information about them.
As a result of the responses to the consultation and
the importance of the issue, we took the view that the
matter would be for the other place and not for the
Government to decide on—hence there was a free vote
on the issue. That allowed those who were elected to
make a decision on their behaviour during elections
and on the information that should be made available
to the public. I reiterate that the Government take no
position on the merits of Clause 21 and that the
inclusion of the clause in the Bill is not government
policy. The Government will therefore allow a free
vote on Amendment 76.
Lord Tyler: My Lords, I am grateful that we have
had an opportunity to discuss this important issue this
evening. Ever since the Ballot Act 1872, the electorate
have had the right to know where their candidates live.
I suggest to your Lordships’ House that we should
take seriously any reduction in that transparency—hence
my anxiety, which I am disappointed that the noble
Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does not share, that
the other place should debate the issue. That was the
issue on which he and I agreed on Monday and we
were successful with that amendment. That place should
take a decision of this importance after careful discussion.
If the Minister really believes that taking an amendment
out of its grouping—no one expected it to come—and
then putting it to a vote without any debate and
without its even being moved is a proper way to
discuss such an issue, I am disappointed.
I have been a Member of Parliament. My address
was in the local telephone book for all the years for
which I represented my constituency. As I mentioned
in Grand Committee, when I had a majority of nine,
at three o’clock in the morning pig farmers would ring
up to say, “We was the nine”, and give me a great deal
of stick on what my views should be on the pig
industry, so I understand the point about families.
The logic of the submission of the noble Lord,
Lord Campbell-Savours, is that every representative in
every devolved Assembly should be given the same
protection. I have listened especially to the experience
of those Members of your Lordships’ House who
know about Northern Ireland. Why should Members
of the House of Commons be protected in a way that
Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are not?
If the Government want to make some real changes, I
suggest that they remove the provision from the Bill
and look at the whole issue again, so that there can be
proper consideration, rather than have it forced through
as it has been so far.
We still have not heard from the Minister or anyone
else any evidence from the police or the security forces
that this is an essential requirement to protect candidates
for the other place and their families. Yet, on a whim,
some seem to want to remove the transparency that
has been in place for some 137 years. This is an issue
that should be debated, discussed and decided in the
other place. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion
of the House.
6.51 pm
Division on Amendment 76
Contents 57; Not-Contents 129.
Amendment 76 disagreed.
Division No. 3
Addington, L. [Teller]
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Barnett, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury,
B.
Burnett, L.
Chidgey, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
CONTENTS
Colville of Culross, V.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Cotter, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dykes, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Glasgow, E.
Goodhart, L.