ADDRESSES OF PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES NOT TO BE REQUIRED (Hansard, 14 February 1985)

§ Mr. Gregory
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 19 suggests that a parliamentary candidate should not put his private address on the ballot paper. The reason behind it is security. In former days, parliamentary candidates at the hustings participated fully and people knew where candidates came from and their addresses. Nowadays, we have international espionage, international warfare, anti-vivisection lobbies and a variety of areas in which candidates are subject not simply to verbal abuse, but to physical harm. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Minister can give a good reason why the address should be retained on the ballot paper, I shall be happy to withdraw the new clause. However, at present, I cannot see why 22c Acacia avenue, followed by the postal address, needs to be on the ballot paper.
If one wishes to show the principal conurbation where a candidate resides, it can be given on his manifesto, and if it is absolutely necessary for it to be on the ballot paper I would be happy to modify the new clause, perhaps on Report, to show the town or city. I see no good reason why genuine parliamentary candidates should be open to abuse and threats to their safety and security by giving their full private address.

§ Mr. Barron
What evidence can the hon. Gentleman give the Committee of acts of violence to parliamentary candidates? It was certainly not offered to me. Does he think that people in Rother Valley may have been influenced by where the three candidates lived? I have lived there for nearly 30 years, another lived in Reading and the third in London. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that might have influenced voters? In those circumstances, his clause might influence people's minds.

§ Mr. Gregory
The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap that I suggested. If he feels that it is material to show from where a candidate comes and the fact that he has been in the Rother Valley for 30 years, that can legitimately be shown in the manifesto. The candidate could put his private address in also, and some candidates do. The town, city or principal place of residence could be put on the ballot paper. A candidate's private address should not be put on the ballot paper. He is then open to the most invidious physical abuse and other difficulties such as we have seen in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the problems because of his keen interest in the welfare of animals.
We have international terrorism. Rother Valley may not yet have succumbed to it. I hope that the hon. Member 603 aspires to higher office when terrorists may take a greater interest in him. I belive that the House has a duty to look after genuine parliamentary candidates.
I hope that the spirit of the new clause will be accepted by my hon. Friend and the House. It does not stop anyone from putting his full address on the manifesto or the town or city on the ballot paper.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Is it not clear that some candidates cannot afford to distribute an election address and yet they may wish to tell the electorate that they live locally? How will their problem be resolved?

§ Mr. Gregory
Their problem can be easily resolved. The number of words allowed on the ballot paper as part of a supporting explanation would permit the candidate to show that he was a local resident. The hon. Gentleman has not raised a genuine difficulty.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Is not that a most undemocratic idea? My hon. Friend would be shutting off the aspiring Member from his constituency. He might as well say that all Members of Parliament should go ex-directory. He is denying constituents the chance of getting hold of their Member of Parliament when they may need him.

§ Mr. Gregory
I am amazed that my hon. Friend should put that above the personal safety of genuine parliamentary candidates.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
We are not cowards.

§ Mr. Gregory
I am not so discourteous as to suggest that my hon. Friend has had no experience of international terrorism. If she had an iota of an idea, she would not subject people to that form of abuse and blackmail. I hope that she never is. A number of hon. Members have been subject to it. If she brings her private transport into the Mother of Parliaments, she will be aware of the checks to which we are subjected. I hope that safety will not be disregarded, and that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the new clause.

§ Mr. Kaufman
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) raises the terrible spectre of international terrorism swooping down on the Monster Raving Loony candidate for any by-election. I have heard a great deal of piffle spoken in my life, but the hon. Gentleman's argument is as nonsensical as any that I have ever heard.
Who does the hon. Gentleman think he is that terrorists want him? He has taken his own precautions. My hon. Friends, on my behalf, have checked all available reference books — "Vacher's", "Dods" and "Who's Who"—and he has concealed his address all right. They will not get him unless they come to the House of Commons which he identifies as his address, unlike the Under-Secretary who properly lists his address where anyone — animal lib—[Interruption.] Well, he gets a free paint job on his house in that way. The Opposition are completely opposed to the new clause. Electors have the right to know the address of the candidate who is putting himself or herself before them. It is as simple as that. Candidates for the House of Commons are not separated from the people by candidature, let alone by election. We are part of the common people. We are not different or special. We ought not to expect any extra protection, safeguard or security that is not available to any other member of the population. The moment elected representatives or people seeking election regard themselves as superior, separate, part of an elite or a target 604 then, if they do not want it, they have a good solution—do not stand for Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will kick this one right out.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
Anyone who stands for election to the House of Commons knows that he is taking risks on his own behalf and on behalf of his family. Anyone who does not want to take the risk does not have to stand for Parliament.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregor)) fondly imagines that those who are determined to injure him will not find him just because his address is not in the telephone book or in Who's Who. What a lot of nonsense that is. Those who are determined to perpetrate acts of terrorism, to injure or to damage on political grounds will seek out their victims. The chances are that they will find them. We take that risk voluntarily.
In the aftermath of the dreadful Brighton bombing last year we heard one of the few moments of agreement in the House when there was a fine exchange between the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). During that exchange I thought that hon. Members on all sides accepted that the process of democracy should continue unabated and unaffected by the acts perpetrated by terrorists and that we must not be cowed into any form of fear or submission because of those acts.
I understand and respect the motives behind the new clause. I do not share the views of those who suggest that it is simply a way of concealing the fact that candidates have come from far away to stand for election. That will come out in any event during the campaign if the local newspapers are reasonably responsible.
We must surely maintain the spirit of the exchange shortly after the Brighton bombing, by resisting the new clause with as great a majority as we can muster.

§ Mr. Mellor
I was genuinely interested to hear what the Committee thought of the new clause. I think that a message has come across to me. We need to recognise that there is a real issue involved. When the Select Committee dealt with this matter, it recommended that we should reconsider the requirement that the candidate's home address should be printed on the ballot paper.
In regard to the 1979 general election the Select Committee said in its report: a good deal of concern was expressed both by the police and the political parties about the security of candidates, and the Conservative Party witness told us that some candidates were most unhappy at having to disclose their private addresses. In view of the recent incidence of terrorism, we consider that the publication of a candidate's home address could lay him open to an unnecessary degree of danger, and we do not believe that its appearance on the ballot paper carries any great significance for voters". In fact, that was one of the recommendations that we did not accept. We concluded that, because the candidate's address is also given on the nomination paper and the published statement of persons nominated, little would be achieved by removing it from the ballot paper. That probably remains the right view, although I have great respect for what my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said. If scope had been given by the response of the Committee, I would have been prepared to take the matter further.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
rose—

§ Mr. Mellor
I do not rule out that it might be possible at some stage to examine the matter again. [HON. 605 MEMBERS: "No."] I am saying that the Government's position is as set out in the White Paper. We concluded that we should not accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but I do not think that, because the hour is late, we should underestimate the legitimate concern that people have in this day and age about their address being made known. I do not think that the address on the ballot paper is a matter of such fundamental substance that it is not open to reconsideration. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) that if he withdraws the new clause it might be possible to look at the matter again in future.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
rose—

§ Mr. Mellor
Of course I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ Mr. Carlile
I only wanted to ask the Minister this question. Does he agree that if a terrorist wants to find out the address of a candidate, the ballot paper is the least likely place to find it because, in order to see the address on the ballot paper, he must be able to vote in the constituency in any event?

§ Mr. Mellor
I said politely, in deference to the Select Committee and others, that I thought there was an issue that might not be concluded tonight. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not assume that because I said that I had swung four square round to strongly advocating the position that we had demolished in our own White Paper with as much elegance as the hon. and learned Gentleman did in his speech. The ballot paper is not the most likely place that the terrorist would look for the address. That is not to say that if candidates legitimately feel that they do not want their address disclosed we should not give some thought to whether we should make this a requirement in the new clause. Whether or not it is the most likely place for terrorists to look, there is still the issue whether having the address on the ballot paper serves any particular purpose. It may be said that it shows that the candidate lives in the constituency, but he would normally have his election address in the constituency.
The Government stand by what we said in the White Paper, and it coincides with what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants us to say. I shall leave the matter there.

§ Mr. Gregory
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Minister said. I am saddened by the mock bravado of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He is out of touch with his hon. Friends, because I have been in touch with quite a few of them and I know that they are sympathetic. Furthermore, I hope that he will never have any wish to regret the rather harsh words that he used.
Nevertheless, I fully accept the point made by my hon. Friend. I hope that he will consider the new clause in the next few days as we prepare for Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Hon. Members
No.
Question put and negatived.