| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.36 p.m.]
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 70:
The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with that part of Schedule 1 which discusses election addresses. I shall come to the main point about election addresses shortly. This is a simpler point and I suspect that the Government may be aware of the problem.
As I read the Bill as it stands, the date on which registration closes and the last date for postage of electoral addresses do not seem to match. It seems
logical that they should be the same. There is no point in the register closing--save, perhaps, for the special circumstances of a clerical error--after the date on which the Post Office demands from the political parties that their election addresses be sent to the Post Office. The two dates should relate to each other so that when the political parties come to send out their election addresses they are sent out to all the people on the valid register.I may be wrong in my interpretation of this part of the Bill--no doubt the Minister will tell me if I am--but those two matters should be in the correct order. The register should close, so to speak; the political parties should get the complete register; and they then have the opportunity to ensure that they have sent their election addresses to all those voting in the election. It should not be the other way round. It should not even be coincidental, because it would be rather difficult to deal with then, and it certainly should not be the wrong way round.
I invite the Government to correct me if I am wrong. If I am not wrong, perhaps they can assure me that they will have a look at this issue before we come to Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Who am I to say that the noble Lord is wrong? I can understand why he has moved the amendment. The first point I should make is that for most purposes the key date in the election cycle is the closing date for nominations. Yet, as the proposal reads, the right to a free mail delivery would be related to the electorate as at the date for the publication of the notice of election, rather than the closing date for nominations. Members of the Committee may wonder what is the reason for that. The answer is quite simple. It has long been recognised that some candidates, in order to kick start their campaign--"to give it momentum" as it is described in the American presidential system--may want to send their election address out early, before the close of nominations.
Section 91(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 specifically provides for that by allowing candidates to send out their freepost delivery before the publication of the statement of persons nominated--which is produced directly after the closing time for nominations--provided they can give the Post Office sufficient security. We did not want to remove that flexibility. However, if candidates are to continue to have the right to send out their freepost delivery before the closing date for nominations, for that purpose electors need to be defined by reference to the earlier date on which the notice for election is published. I trust that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Given all the complicated dates involved, the best I can do is to take away the amendment, talk to those perhaps more involved in elections than I now am and see what they have to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 71:
The noble Lord said: It is fair to say that this is far more than a probing amendment. It is a serious amendment in which not only I am involved; I am joined by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and--I nearly said "my noble friend", but I meant the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with whom I have sparred on many occasions. On this occasion we are speaking on the same side. If I were the Government, I should be trembling in my shoes.
The background to the amendment is of course that there are shortly to be elections in London for the mayor and the London assembly. They are significant elections; they will certainly encompass the largest electorate of any election below the level of the election to the United Kingdom Parliament. The constituencies involved are therefore extremely large. The mayor will have a mandate from an electorate in
The Government themselves have created that structure. The elections are extremely important. They will clearly give London a voice--that is what the Government said they wanted--and the mayor will be a significant figure. In addition to the mayor, there are to be elections to the assembly of a rather limited number of candidates: 14 constituencies in London will elect one each; and 10 top-ups, which is something we are now fairly used to in Scotland and Wales. There will be three groups: the mayor, who is self standing; the 14 constituency members; and the 10 top-ups, who will be related to the 14 constituency members via the d'Hondt formula. I shall not bore the Committee by reminding your Lordships about d'Hondt. I am sure that my previous lessons on the subject have all been well learnt.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page