Political Parties and Elections Bill

My name is on the proposal to oppose Clause 17 standing part of the Bill. I accept that this is controversial, and I have had approaches from my colleagues in another place suggesting that this is no part of our role and responsibility and that we should not intervene on this issue. I am not sure that I can accept that, for reasons that I shall briefly explain. I hope that we all agree that whether at a parliamentary election a candidate may withhold their home address is an important issue that is worth debating. Wherever you come out on it, it is worth addressing. I begin by following the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, because there is an issue of process here. The provision was slipped in at the very last moment and not debated at all. As the noble Lord hinted—he did not say this specifically—although the measure was passed by 235 votes to 176, examination of the Division list is very interesting. It was not a party issue at all. People felt extremely strongly about it in all parties. Therefore, one responsibility of this House is to give the other place a chance to debate this important issue at a later stage in the passage of the Bill. If noble Lords think that this is not an important issue, of course we should stay out of it. On a practical point of view, the link between those who seek election and the electorate should be maintained at all costs. Personal details are an important part of that link for many electors, and an address is an important part of the personal details. Those who support Clause 17 believe that it represents a risk to the personal safety of the candidate or the safety of their families. One has to acknowledge that as an issue. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville rightly brought this to my attention during the Second Reading debate. I should like to hear from the Government what evidence there is of danger and what has happened in the past that leads us to believe that we need to take this further step. It seems to me that the evidence so far is not great. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, any malefactor—terrorist or eccentric—of even moderate competence will be able to dig out the candidate’s home address with a view to making his or her case to them, and the appearance of the address on the nomination paper has no real further role to play. It is a question of balance—of increasing the distance between the candidate and the electorate or putting the candidate and the candidate’s family at risk. In my view, on the evidence that we have to date the advantage lies with maintaining the closest possible link between those who seek election and the electorate. I accept that the other place will have to and should take the final decision, but we are entitled to ask Members there to think about it and debate it so that all the arguments involved in this sensitive issue are fully aired and a proper conclusion reached that is not slipped through in five minutes at the end of a very long and difficult Third Reading debate.