NEW WRIT (SKIPTON DIVISION) (Hansard, 15 December 1943)

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart)
I beg to move, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of York (Skipton division), in the room of George William Rickards, Esquire, deceased.

§ Sir Richard Acland (Barnstaple)
At the beginning of Questions I pointed out, inaccurately, that the moving of this Writ would result in the nomination day following on Christmas Eve. Now I am more accurately informed that the returning officer has discretion and could move about the nomination day between 21st and 28th December. The centre of gravity of those two dates falls on the 24th or 25th. In any case the precise date is not relevant, because Christmas, by long tradition, spreads over a number of days, the traditional number being 12. Moreover, a certain amount of preparation is habitually made for this festival, though this year it consists mainly of looking for utility turkeys and utility plum puddings. I do not want a grievance merely for the sake of having a grievance, and I did all in my power to persuade the Whips to change the date. I ascertained that it is entirely within the existing Rules for the Speaker, for example, to make out a Writ on the 27th of the month, which would reach the returning officer on the 28th, so that nomination day would be on 6th January or thereabouts and polling day on the 14th or thereabouts, so that, without revealing any secrets, the House would not be deprived of a Member for Skipton for long. Hon. Members may make a guess whether it would be deprived at all.
1567 In reply to all this, I was told that polling day under the present proposed arrangements would fall on 3rd January, which is well outside the Christmas festival. That is not really relevant, because Members who have fought severely contested elections know that the core and centre of a contested election campaign falls, roughly speaking, four days before nomination day and about six days afterwards and that any remaining days are taken up by both parties in a sort of whipping-up of enthusiasm and trying to make sure that the already converted will reach the polling station. Therefore, under the present proposed arrangements the whole core and centre of the by-election campaign in Skipton will fall upon the unfortunate electors exactly and precisely in the Christmas period and, whether nomination day is brought forward to the 21st or postponed to the 28th, the circumstances will be exactly as I have described them. I have not searched the records, but I am convinced that never before in the history of democracy or at all events in the recent history of democracy, has a by-election campaign been arranged to coincide with the Christmas period.
The next answer with which I was met, when I tried to press this point yesterday, so as to avoid having to waste the time of the House today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry but it would not be necessary to take up the time of the House today if I had received a satisfactory answer yesterday. The next answer which I received was, "Does Christmas matter anyway?" When one is faced with that, one does not quite know where to begin. But for the information of the "usual channels," large numbers of people believe that about 19½ centuries ago, Jesus Christ was born, and although the day is necessarily uncertain, by long tradition this event has been associated with 25th December, on which day it is believed, on the first Christmas, large numbers of angels appeared in the sky proclaiming "Peace on earth to men of good will." Although a superficial glance at the contemporary scene does not suggest that men here have taken much intelligent notice of them, it is the fact that the electors of Skipton have a lovable habit of trying, even in these dark days, to hold a little festival of human good will extending over about a dozen days, in so far as they can 1568 do so, consistent with the Essential Work Orders. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend knows more about Yorkshire than I do, but in a typical village in my own county you will find, about now, that people are preparing a Christmas treat for the school children, or a tea for the Sunday school, which will probably perform some Christmas play, and usually something is also being done for the old people. In many villages preparations are now being made to give a little Christmas cheer to the searchlight detachment or whatever the unit may be of the British or Allied Forces stationed in the neighbourhood. All these things take up the limited spare time of our people and also involve the booking of village halls which are already very heavily booked for various war purposes.
I quite appreciate the point of view of the usual channels. It is that they have decided that by-elections ought not to take place and I am not denying that in this decision a large number of citizens of our country concur. There are those people who do not think that the democracy for which we are fighting ought to go on during the war. There are those people who think it is quite right for us, because we happen to be of the wrong age or sex or because we have jobs which mean that we are not called up, to sit back in safety while other people fight for us; and that we do not have to bother to think to what kind of country these people are coming back. If those people who dislike democracy were to carry their views to their logical conclusions and to stay away from the polling stations on polling day all would be very well. But, oddly enough, all those non-democrats go to the poll on polling day and vote for the Government.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must point out to the hon. baronet that he is now extending his argument very widely.

§ Sir R. Acland
I am in your hands, of course, Mr. Speaker, but I felt it right to point out to the Government that in order to have a by-election which reflects the will of those people who are not basically anti-democratic, those people who really do want to meet the candidate and make an intelligent decision—some of them naturally voting for the Government and some against—in order that this may happen, it really is necessary to hold the by-election at a time when the electorate 1569 of Skipton will have some chance of geting to know what the different candidates stand for. This, really is impossible in the second largest constituency in England when you have the shortest days and longest nights of the year and all the halls are over-booked in any case, when all the Christmas events are pressing upon them and people are trying to get a little bit of family life. A by-election is quite impossible in this period.
If there were any valid reason why this by-election should not be postponed for 10 clear days, I would not be standing here and speaking now. If it were a fact that the alternative to the present arrangement would be to wait until the House reassembled after Christmas, thereby postponing the polling day until well into February, then, although we have often postponed elections much longer for the convenience of one party or another, on balance, I would say "Get it over now." But when it is the easiest thing in the world to ask you Mr. Speaker—and I am sure you would concur—to issue this Writ on 27th December and thereby have the polling day round about 14th January, I just appeal to this House in the name of fair play and of respect for the quite simple wishes of the electors of Skipton to let these people enjoy Christmas as well as they can consistent with the war effort now, and then let them afterwards address their minds to the important citizens' duty of deciding for or against one candidate or another. I and my friends are prepared to accept a proper verdict of the Skipton electorate, which may well be against us; but let it be one which has been given after proper consideration. I appeal to the usual channels, to the Leader of the House and the Deputy Prime Minister, to let us have 10 days' postponement.

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden)
I really think the hon. Baronet is somewhat unreasonable. This is the fifth occasion on which he has opposed the issue of a Writ. He began his criticism earlier on an entirely false hypothesis.

§ Sir R. Acland
I pointed out that—

§ Mr. Eden
Will the hon. Baronet allow me to make my speech? He said earlier that under this arrangement nomination day would be on Christmas Eve. That was his accusation. I was a little 1570 astonished when I heard that; I made inquiries and I found that the hon. Baronet was quite wrong in his hypothesis and I arranged that he should be told that he was wrong. Let me tell the House what the position is. It is quite simple and can be stated in a few sentences. If the Writ is moved to-day, a very wide discretion remains in the hands of the returning officer and he may fix the date for nomination on any day between Tuesday, 21st December, and Tuesday, 28th December. Therefore, there is an extremely wide latitude within which nomination day may be fixed. I have not, none of us has, the least idea of what day he will fix but, should he choose the later date, then 8 days follow before the polling. The procedure which is being followed is absolutely normal practice. In point of fact, if the returning officer fixes the outside date, the campaign will last quite a bit longer than usual. I do not think the hon. Baronet need be unduly perturbed that his own candidate will not have a chance, because I see by the newspapers that he has already begun his campaign. I cannot help thinking that we should be allowed to get on with the Debate which is the main business of the House to-day. As I say, we have followed the normal practice in this case and both the House and the country expect us not to be unduly leisurely in filling these vacancies. We have been criticised before for being too stow; now the hon. Baronet criticises us for being too fast. I have looked into this and I find that the hon. Baronet never spoke to the Patronage Secretary about the matter at all—

§ Sir R. Acland
I spoke to the man concerned.

§ Mr. Eden
The Patronage Secretary is the man concerned.

§ Sir R. Acland
I assume that the usual channels are one and entire. I spoke to one of the usual channels, and the usual channels knew at eleven o'clock yesterday that I was going to raise this matter.

§ Mr. Eden
The hon. Gentleman gave notice that he was going to oppose this, but it does not follow that we agree with what he says. He gave me the impression that he had been in consultation with the Patronage Secretary himself. I would ask the House to let us proceed with our normal Business.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)
There is a disposition in the House to-day to treat this matter with some levity. It would be a great mistake to treat the issue of this Writ or of any other Writ with the levity which has been exhibited here today. The plain truth is that no answer has been made to the case of the hon. Baronet and that this matter cannot be considered on its own. It has to be considered in the light of the background that has been developed and in the light of the position of the country and the Parliamentary situation generally. The Leader of the House has said that the hon. Baronet based his objections on a false hypothesis. He did nothing of the kind. The hypothesis that he advanced does not depend upon whether nomination day happens to be on the 24th, 25th or 26th. You may or may not disagree with his hypothesis, but if does not depend on that. His hypothesis, which is a sound one, is that by issuing the Writ at this particular point in time, you create a situation in this by-election which is wholly unfair to the candidate who does not happen to be a supporter of the Government. That hypothesis is true.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that that argument will not be pursued, for it is carrying the matter into a far wider atmosphere than the question before the House.

§ Mr. Brown
Is it not in Order to argue that the choice of dates in this Writ will make it more difficult for the voters in the constituency to express themselves properly?

§ Mr. Speaker
No, it would not be in Order to argue that. The hon. Member can state it as his opinion, but if he argues it it will lead to a general Debate far beyond the issue before the House.

§ Mr. Brown
Are we not entitled to argue whether the Writ should be issued and bring forward arguments why it should not be issued now?

§ Mr. Speaker
The question before the House is a very narrow one, and we cannot go into the general question.

§ Mr. Brown
In arguing whether the Writ should be issued now or later, am I not entitled to use arguments for a later date? If not, I do not see how we can argue it at all.

§ Sir R. Acland
On a point of Order. I rather resent the way in which my case has been dealt with by the Government. I certainly said the Writ would be issued on Christmas Eve, but my speech was then cut off.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make another speech.

§ Mr. Brown
The point I want to make is that it is no answer to the case made by the hon. Baronet to say that the returning officer has discretion. The short answer to that point is that the returning officer ought not to be allowed discretion if the exercise of it will precipitate a situation unfair to either candidate. If he exercises his discretion in such a way as to choose some date mid-way between 21st and 28th December, that will involve a hardship on one of the candidates. There is no fair play in these by-elections. I have just come back from one. We have now a situation in which the local Conservative paper is even refusing to report the speeches in a by-election. Opinion is growing in the country about the selection of dates for the issue of Writs. I remember occasions when Writs have been delayed here for as much as six or eight weeks to enable particular candidates to be brought back from the Near East or the Far East. I am not arguing against that. I am prepared to have all the delay necessary if it means fair play to the candidates, but the attitude of the Leader of the House is that he wants the Writ issued to-day, fair play or not. There is great feeling in the country on the point. [Laughter.] Believe me, there is a strong feeling about the unfair way in which by-elections are fought. It is part of the stock-in-trade of the Tory Party at by-elections to take the attitude that it is almost a crime for anybody to put a candidate into the field against them. Members of the House on all sides value freedom and democracy. Let them take care not to do anything that suggests that it is not democracy they are striving to serve, but a narrow and specialist party interest.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is going far wider than the question of this particular by-election.

§ Mr. Brown
I will conclude by repeating the appeal to the Leader of the House to withdraw this Writ and to allow it to 1573 be issued at some time which will ensure that both sides will be able to put their case to the electorate without the embarrassment of the Christmas period.

§ Mr. Reakes (Wallasey)
I intervene with some reluctance, but I would like the Leader of the House to consider the point that, even assuming the returning officer exercises a reasonable discretion, it will mean great hardship, not on the candidates alone, but on certain staffs in the constituency, particularly the Post Office. It will be necessary for the postmen to deliver thousands of election addresses just after a time when they have been overworked during the Christmas rush. It does not end with the postal staff, for other people are concerned, particularly in the printing trade and staffs in the municipal offices. I am sure that every Member irrespective of politics will appreciate that point and will not desire to add to the burden of those upon whom will fall the hardship of having to carry out the electoral machinery of a by-election in the festive season or even in the New Year.

§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
May I make an appeal to the Leader of the House? I think that the hon. Baronet and his supporters have put up a fair case for the issue of the Writ to be postponed. It might very well be carried over to another month, because one Member does not make much difference here. I do not see any reason why it should not be deferred until later. In listening to the arguments in favour of postponement one is bound to agree that there is some reason in the plea put forward.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)
May I support what my hon. Friend has said? Those of us who sit for that area know how difficult things are, particularly in the winter time. Although it is not often that I agree with the hon. Baronet, it seems to me that he has made out a fairly substantial case for allowing this Writ to go to the other side of the holiday. It would be a shocking thing if it appeared to the public, although of course it is not true, that this House was being unfair to a small party which frequently criticises the Government.

§ Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)
It is a very difficult situation for the party to which I belong to speak on this matter raised by 1574 the hon. Baronet. I want to appeal to the House in this way. The hon. Baronet and his party, whether you ignore them or whether you do not, whether you agree with them or whether you do not, are putting forward a candidate at this election. They have a perfect right to do that, and I think it would be a deplorable thing if any party, even the Communist Party, which is so derided from all quarters of this House, were under any possible handicap, or thought it was, in a by-election of this kind, and that is why I support my hon. Friends who have spoken and think that the Leader of the House ought to explain to the House the reasons for the urgency of this Writ to be issued.

§ Mr. Eden
I should always like to accede to any request from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), but I do not think that what we are now doing could possibly react unjustly on any party. If I thought it would, I would not propose it for one second, but I am perfectly convinced that that is not so. What is proposed is the normal practice followed in every case. We have an application from the local people that they are ready to proceed. If on top of that I was now, in response to a request from one of the parties, to hold matters up, I would really be opening the floodgates to similar arguments in the future. The dates are still extremely wide. One suggestion was that it should be postponed until after Christmas, but Christmas does not count—it is like a Sunday—and I think it might be better if you fixed the date as 6th or 7th January.
As I have said, I have gone into this matter very carefully, and I came down early to-day to go through the dates and to go through the question generally. I have satisfied myself that there is no injustice to anybody in the present arrangement, and I must advise the House that if we start moving these dates about in response to any feelings we may have of this kind, we shall be making great difficulties for the future. I hope the House will take my advice and proceed with the date I have suggested.