Electoral Administration Bill

My Lords, I begin by saying that I am happy to think about this further. On the face of it, I completely appreciate that this amendment seems a good idea. However, I have some practical and technical difficulties with it as it stands. As drafted, it allows a party to register a description of more than six words if that includes the place name of a ward, constituency or local authority area. I want to deal with a couple of problems I foresee with that. First, the policy behind a central register was to create a consistent set of descriptions to aid voters when reading their ballot papers. I am not sure that allowing an almost unlimited number of names to be added to a description helps to achieve that goal. For example, as a local authority area may cover more than one constituency or ward, if different candidates use different areas—if candidate A says Princes Ward, but candidate B says Lambeth Council—it may lead to confusion among voters. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is not seeking that but the amendment has that potential. Secondly, the administration of such a scheme might be cumbersome and disproportionate. The register is for descriptions that are used on nomination and ballot papers only. To implement this amendment the commission will need to check nomination papers against lists of numerous permutations of descriptions—at a time when they are, in any event, quite busy—which is an administrative issue. Finally, there are difficulties with technical flaws in the amendment. As drafted, a party could actually only register five descriptions, albeit with relevant local names, but as long as there is a relevant name the six-word limit may be ignored. The example given by my officials—which I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate—is the ““Idle Toad party actually working really, really, really hard for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham””. That is 17 words but would technically be allowed within the amendment, which I am sure is not what the noble Baroness is seeking either. I am happy to think again about this amendment and look at whether we could do something on the same basis that I have just stated to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As it stands we would not be keen to accept it, because of its genuine technical and administrative issues. However, I am happy to think again about the principle behind it before Third Reading.