New Clause 1 Content of election address
Electoral Administration Bill
12:00 pm
David Heath (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Leader of the House, Law Officers (Constitutional Affairs); Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is about regulations on the content of electoral addresses—material sent out by candidates via freepost and delivered by the universal service provider, which is, of course, currently Royal Mail. It deals with whether Royal Mail has powers of editorial control over candidates’ material. I say that it does not, apart from the requirement, already enshrined in statute, not to send out offensive material, material that contravenes statute, or material irrelevant to the election. Some people in Royal Mail think otherwise. They think that they have the right effectively to determine that material is unsuitable for their postmen and postwomen to carry. I think that they are wrong, but the law is sufficiently ambiguous to require some clarification.
An aspect of the matter that causes constant concern to many candidates is any reference to or depiction of the Post Office in election material. Every hon. Member in the Committee knows that the Post Office has been a current political issue for some years. Our views on what should happen to it and to Royal Mail deliveries are a proper political issue, within the province of Parliament, on which we can and should express an opinion. The topic is particularly current when closures of sub-post offices are threatened. This has been a very hot political issue in my constituency, and, I suspect, in the constituencies of many other Committee members.
On post office closures or the future of the Royal Mail, some postmasters—not all; there is some difference in practice—will not accept such material in a freepost leaflet. Some splendid rows have developed as a result. Some postmasters go even further. It is not even a question of expressing an opinion, positive or negative, about Post Office or Royal Mail services. The suggestion is that being pictured with a post office in the background is somehow inappropriate for freepost material and must be changed, even if, incidentally, Royal Mail does not own if it is a sub-post office or a private dwelling that is part of the streetscape, village or community.
Postmasters know perfectly well that a general election period is brief and that there is no time for a long argument about whether election material is acceptable. If their initial reaction is that it is not, expediency dictates that the design of the election material must be changed. I understand from the Electoral Commission’s statutory report that that was a big issue in the 2001 election and remained a problem in 2005, despite the best endeavours of the Electoral Commission and the Government to talk to Royal Mail.
That also happened during the European parliamentary election, in which postmasters decided of their own accord that certain political issues were not the province of election candidates and that they had no right as candidates to talk about them in their constituencies because it was not a matter for the European Parliament. It is not for a postman to decide what goes into a communication between a candidate and the electorate; it is a matter for the candidate and his or her agent to determine. The authorities should intervene only when an issue contravenes the firm requirements governing offensive material or material outwith the Representation of the People Act 2000.