HL Deb 02 July 1981 vol 422 cc290-2

3.17 p.m.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the action of a candidate at Warrington by-election to change his name by deed poll to that of another better-known candidate is an acceptable practice or a matter that needs review to avoid public confusion.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on this matter while the by-election to which the noble Lord refers is in progress.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that strict reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are two candidates in Warrington with the same name? Secondly, is he aware of how long it takes to change a name for such an occasion and how long it would take to change the name back again?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I think I can quite safely say that I do not know the answer to any of the questions my noble friend has asked! My noble friend's original Question of course did not refer, if I may say so to him, to two people having the same name: it referred to somebody changing his name and doing it by deed poll. I think it is important that I should say that I am not aware of a case in which a name has been changed specifically for the purpose of contesting an election.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister two questions about the returning officer's discretion: First, has he got a discretion, where a candidate offers himself in a particular name, to put on to the ballot paper, "Name changed by deed poll, dated so and so, formerly known as Joe Ramsbottom (or whatever it may be)"? Secondly, if a candidate by way of description wishes quite deliberately to misrepresent himself as being the official candidate of a party of which he is not the official candidate, has the returning officer discretion to refuse or accept that?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the reason I originally said that this was not a matter for the Government to comment upon is that if the electorate has been misled in any particular case that would be a matter for the court. That is why I really think it is better not to pursue this in any greater depth at the present time. However, may I just add that, as I understand it, in the event of there being a genuine difficulty about this because people have the same surnames and Christian names, there is on the ballot paper also the provision that there should be addresses given. Although in the final analysis that may not be a very good answer, it does mean that some distinction could be indicated to the electors.

Lord Byers

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not feel that it is appropriate at this moment to answer my noble friend's question on the discretion of the returning officer? It is a very important fact. That is what we want to know.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the returning officer, as I understand it, has no discretion to say that he will not accept the nomination for a candidate if he believes that, in some way, the candidate is not a suitable candidate; in other words, is debarred by law. As I understand it, however—and I must write to the noble Lord if I am wrong in this—there is a discretion so far as the name is concerned.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, is it not a fact that there have been instances, particularly in local government, of candidates with the same surnames and Christian names? Is it not also a fact that the matter has been surmounted in those cases by efficient election organisation? Is not the general question raised by the noble Lord one on which it would be unwise to take hasty action, as happened on a recent occasion, and, furthermore, is it not a matter that ought to have the closest review before there is any change in election law?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that probably it would be extremely sensible to look at this matter, if there is a point to look at, after the election is over, but not on a point which is referring to—

Lord Wigoder

No.

Lord Belstead

The noble Lord says, "No". I say, "Yes". My view is—and I put this on behalf of the Government—that it would be wholly wrong for the Government to continue to comment on this matter while the election is on.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, may I help the noble Lord on the time factor—

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is no need to be disturbed about this matter, as the candidate concerned is showing himself to be so inadequate? If he wants to use the dirty tricks department to reflect prestige and ability, why not use a name that would do that, such as "M.Thatcher"? This one does not do that at all.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, one thing I am absolutely certain about is that it is not for the Government to say whether they think that one candidate is either adequate or inadequate.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, may I help the noble Lord on the time factor? If he can find a good solicitor and a quick typist within five minutes of Bush House, the whole thing can be done in half an hour.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the noble Lord left me when he crossed the border.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, would the House agree that there might be one subsidiary question from the party concerned? Is the noble Lord aware that when we are sitting over there and they are an unprecedentedly large opposition party over here, we shall show the greatest sympathy and understanding and, I hope, practical help to that party in its plight when one or two dozen "Margaret Thatchers" are down for election in Finchley?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, let us end this by saying: Let us see how this election goes.

Forward to