Electoral Administration Bill

Again, I am grateful for another interesting debate. We consulted political parties and electoral administrators before making these recommendations. There was a great deal of support for a central register of descriptions, not least because it would remove the burden on returning officers, who currently have to decide whether a description is acceptable. We hope that it would reduce the scope for inconsistent treatment of political parties. Our objective is to try to benefit all concerned. There is a debate about the number of descriptions. I have great sympathy with the Liberal Democrats, who have a range of descriptions—it would be interesting to see what they were. The question is whether descriptions should be registered centrally or by individual returning officers. We think that five is a reasonable and appropriate number. If it were found to be inappropriate, we have the order-making power within the legislation to change that. I am not wedded to the number five, but we think it is about right—not least because of the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland question and so on. I would not want an unlimited number. We want something that seems sensible and that helps in understanding the work of the electoral registration officers. If the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is able to specify a number, I shall be happy to consider it—although I would not like there to be 100. Maybe some party discipline is wanted here, but perhaps I should not go there. On Amendment No. 119, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, currently two registered political party names could arguably be connected to commercial gain—the Dungeons, Death and Taxes Party and the Motorcycle News Party. If they read this, I ask them not to write to me. At the last election, the Royal Mail declined to deliver material for the former as it deemed it to be advertising for a company—in that case, London Dungeons. The Electoral Commission has not identified any problem with the status quo with regard to political party names where there exists no similar prohibition, and there is no indication that there would be a problem with descriptions either. However, I am interested in the strength of feeling in the Committee. If Members felt that this was something we should consider again, I should be more than happy to look into it on the basis that people felt it needed further examination. At the moment, we are not doing so because, in all seriousness, there does not seem to be a problem that we need to address. We can look at another number, but we want a consistent number. If noble Lords wish, we can look at this again to see whether there is more to be done about commercial names. At present, that is not a problem that we have identified. Our objective is to make it easier and simpler for our electoral registration officers, and ultimately the voters, to determine what the political parties are. Even with the word ““focus”” at the end of a name, there might be some confusion. That is my personal opinion.