|
Mr. Heath: That did not answer my question, but perhaps the Minister will write to me in due course.
Ms Harman: When I write to the hon. Gentleman, I will say that this is not an unusual drafting method in cases where it is more appropriate for the technical detail to be set out in a schedule.
The Chairman: Order. That is the point I was going to make. As I understand it, the schedule contains the substance but it must refer to a clause—in this case, clause 24.
Mr. Heath: Mr. O'Hara, I am most grateful for your guidance and I agree with it, but normally there is some operative sense in the clause. In other words, the clause says that something will happen and the schedule says how. This clause does not do that, but I do not want to detain the Committee any longer.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Use of candidates' common names
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Heath: I know that Committee members are hoping for our proceedings to reach a conclusion at some stage in the near future, but this is an important point. I welcome the Government's suggestion
Column Number: 74
regarding the use of candidates' common first names. It always was nonsensical that we had things like ''Dick commonly described as Harry'' on the ballot paper, and if we can change that nonsense, it is good that we do so.
I am less than totally convinced about surnames. As I understand it, in law, surnames are adopted by people as their principal descriptor; surnames have less status in law than first names to a certain extent. The commonly held misapprehension is that a deed poll is necessary to change one's surname. It is not; it is simply a matter of whether one is attempting to defraud or deceive. If one is not, one can adopt any surname one chooses, and that becomes the name by which one is commonly known. Therefore, I have to ask how it is that within electoral law we shall now have a person with two apparent surnames? It is a sort of Elton John amendment: he would have to describe himself not as Reg Dwight, but as Elton John. My contention would be that he could describe himself as Elton John anyway because that is the name by which he is commonly known and there is clearly no attempt to deceive.
I would be grateful if the Minister explained why it is felt appropriate to change both components rather than make the simple administrative change that gets rid of the common descriptor, which is often a nickname or a diminutive of a first name by which people are known. For example, if someone is known by everyone as Bob rather than Robert, why is he not called Bob on the ballot paper?
On another issue, subsection (4) has a form of nomination paper, which refers to Arthur Seymour Sullivan, who wishes to be known for the purposes of the ballot paper as W. S. Gilbert. That may raise a question in the mind of the elector as to whether he writes music or words, if he is known by both names. I am slightly surprised that the commonly used forename given as an exemplar in the Bill is the less-than-commonly used forename ''W. S.'' Is that an acceptable forename? Can one just have any combination of letters or even numerals as a commonly used forename?
''W. S.'' is not a name, but a set of initials. Are initials acceptable for the purposes of electoral law as a forename? If they are, what is the limitation? Could one have a logarithm or a logo or some other descriptor as a commonly used forename? The artist formerly known as Prince, as we famously know, once adopted a squiggle as his name. Is that squiggle now acceptable in British law as a commonly used forename?
I am sorry if that is a reduction to the absurd of the argument, but the exemplar used raises more questions than are answered. I am slightly surprised. Perhaps the Minister can explain—or not.
Ms Harman: The Roman alphabet must be used—so no squiggles or any letters from other languages.
Clause 25 allows candidates to use their common name on a ballot paper instead of their official name, so long as that is given to and accepted by the returning officer at nomination. The important point is
Column Number: 75
about common names and common usage, which is what I would ask hon. Members to focus on.
If somebody is known in a particular way, letting the description by which they are commonly known in their area go on the ballot paper is fair enough. For example, they might be known by a single name—I hesitate to mention the example appearing in my briefing note, which is Sting—or a shortened version name of a forename like Bob, instead of Robert. If somebody has been known all their life as Bob, or as Tony rather than Anthony, then people will recognise them more easily as such.
People could have a different name that they always used as their professional or stage name. That name might have nothing to do with the name on their birth certificate. I will not use any more of my examples, although we all know that Cliff Richard's name was not Cliff Richard—for those who are not old enough, his name was Harry Webb. The point is that nobody knows him as Harry Webb, except his mum.
There are names where initials are used, which some people are known by—for example, A. A. Milne, John H. Stracey or Malcolm X. I am using provocative examples, for which I apologise.
The Chairman: P. J. Proby?
Ms Harman: P. J. Proby. There are archaeological layers here.
If hon. Members look through the parliamentary books, they will find that the name they think they know for a lot of people in the House is what they are commonly known as, but not their real name. I am sorry that we did not do that for the Committee, but hopefully we will do so promptly. A whole load of hon. Members have names different from those that they go by. For example, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is known as George, but his real name is Gideon. We might have Dave instead of David for the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).
The point is what one is commonly known as. Putting that name on the ballot paper makes sense—why refer to something on the birth certificate? Refer to what one is commonly known as.
Column Number: 76
If the name is not commonly known and people are just trying to be misleading, confusing, obscene or offensive to voters, returning officers will decide that in their judgment that is not on and will give notice in writing of their reasons for refusing to use a name. The clause is sensible and brings the law into line with a lot of the situation that exists at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Offences as to false statements in nomination papers
Amendments made: No. 15, in clause 26, page 28, line 22, leave out first 'In'.
No. 16, in clause 26, page 28, line 22, after 'papers)', insert 'is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert ''or
(c) a certificate authorising for the purposes of rule 6A of the parliamentary elections rules the use by a candidate of a description if he knows that the candidate is standing at an election in another constituency in which the poll is to be held on the same day as the poll at the election to which the certificate relates.''.'.
No. 17, in clause 26, page 28, line 29, after 'election,', insert—
'(c) at statement that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as the poll at the election to which the consent relates,'.
No. 18, in clause 26, page 28, line 39, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (2) (b) at the beginning insert ''except for the purposes of subsections (1) (c) and (1A) (c),''.'.—[Mr. Devine.]
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Kevin Brennan.]
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 17 November at Nine o'clock.
| 
