HC Deb 26 July 1915 vol 73 cc2036-57

(1) The next statutory elections of county and borough councillors, district councillors, guardians, and parish councillors, shall be postponed for a year, and the term of office of the existing councillors and guardians shall accordingly be extended by one year.

This Section shall apply only where the next statutory election would take place before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixteen.

(2) Any casual vacancy, requiring to be filled by election, and occurring among the members of any county council, any borough council, any district council, any board of guardians, or any parish council shall, until a new register comes into force, instead of being filled by an election, be filled by means of the choice by the council or board of a person to fill the vacancy, and a councillor or guardian so chosen shall hold office in the same manner in all respects as if he had been elected to fill the vacancy.

(3) The provisions of this Section may be applied, if necessary, to the election, appointment or co-optation of the chairman, vice-chairman, or members of any kind of local or other body or committee thereof, by order of the Local Government Board as respects local bodies, and by order of the appropriate Government Department as respects any other bodies, and may be so applied with the necessary modifications and either generally as regards all bodies of any particular kind, or specially as regards any particular body or bodies.

(4) Any provisions of any Act or Order or regulations relating to any such councillors or guardians, or to any such chairman, vice-chairman, or member of a local or other body, shall be construed as if they were modified in such a manner as to give effect to the provisions of this Section, and the Local Government Board as respects councillors, guardians, or local bodies, and the appropriate Government Department as respects any other bodies, if any question arises, may by Order specify the actual modification which is to be made in pursuance of this Section.

(5) If any question arises as to the appropriate Government Department by which an Order should be made under this Section, that question shall be determined by the Treasury, and their decision on the matter shall be conclusive for all purposes.

(6) For the purposes of this Section the expression "councillor" includes "alderman," the expression "borough" includes "Metropolitan borough," the expression "statutory election" means an election to fill the place of councillors and guardians retiring on the expiration of their term of office, and the expression "existing councillors and guardians" means councillors and guardians who are in office at the time when the next retirement of councillors or guardians after the passing of this Act would, but for this Act, have taken place.

The CHAIRMAN

The first Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Robert Pearce).

Mr. R. PEARCE

I think there will be no occasion for me to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he intends to include the City of London in its provisions, and as that was the sole object I had in putting down my Amendment, I do not propose to move it.

Mr. PRJNGLE

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "existing" ["existing councillors and guardians"], and to insert instead thereof the word "retiring."

The question arises whether the councillor or guardian who retires in 1915, or 1916, or 1917, or 1918 has his term of office extended. By the Clause as it stands every councillor or guardian may have his period of office extended by this Act. This seems to me an unnecessary disturbance, as the result of what we are doing under this Bill. The Bill as it stands is merely to put off the elections of local authorities, but in effect it is doing far more than that, for it is extending by one year the period of office of every existing councillor or guardian. The Bill does not merely extend the year of office of the councillor who is due to retire on the 1st July, 1915. I think it is obviously fair that the operation of the Act should only affect the tenure of office of men who are due to come up for election during this year; otherwise you are extending automatically the term of office of a number of men who would be due to be elected in subsequent years. It is true that the objection may be taken that the machinery that should apply to the proposal which I move would be somewhat different, that, in other words, if events took their normal course, there would be two councillors or guardians as the case might be to refire, and a question would arise as to which of those councillors should be elected for three years and which for two years. Similar questions have arisen in regard to municipal elections, and the usual rule has been, and it could be applied in this case, that the man at the top of the poll has the three years' period and the second of the successful candidates two years. But this could be provided for by an order of the Local Government Board, and there is a provision in the Bill for orders to be issued by the Local Government Board for other purposes. The machinery need cause no difficulty, and it need not be incorporated in the Bill. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, because it limits the effect of the postponement only to those who are due to retire at this period.

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. W. Long)

I am afraid I am not accept this Amendment, for it does more to upset the plan of the Bill than possibly the hon. Member realises. All we have done is to treat the date under consideration by the Bill as a dies non, and we push everything forward a year. That is really the only plan by which we can avoid great confusion hereafter as a result of the operation of the Bill. Otherwise you would have the terms fixed for one-third to retire annually, and you would have these numbers accumulating in future ad infinitum, and a problem created for a solution of which there is no machinery. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have given my careful consideration to this matter before we came to the conclusion that the only thing to do was to regard the present period as one during which there should be a complete truce, and that everything should be pushed forward to the time when we will be able to resume the ordinary course under the ordinary regulations.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

Will not this Clause apply to public auditors of municipal bodies, who are elected by ballot, and who, if it does not apply, must of necessity have an election?

Mr. LONG

I think we have made it apply to those auditors, but, at any rate, their particular case is to be dealt with.

Mr. DENNISS

I called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that point on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is an omission from the Bill, and will have to be rectified. I would like to point out to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that it is not at all necessary, because the Clause really applies to existing councillors, except those retiring, and therefore the word "retiring" is unnecessary.

Mr. HOGGE

I should like it to be made clear by the President of the Local Government Board whether this Bill applies to all existing councillors, and extends their term of office one year—that is to say, that men who were returned last November will yet have three years to-run, and so on. If my right hon. Friend means that by the Bill, and does not want to depart from it, of course one would not press the Amendment, but are we quite clear that it is the case, and that it does extend to everybody on these local bodies one extra year's term of office, while they have two years to run and three years to run?

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) does not come within the confines of this Bill, which applies simply to borough councils, district councils, county councils, parish councils, and guardians. The auditor is not a councillor.

The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

I have an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same point as that of the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle). I only put it down in order to get the Government to make it quite clear what the Clause does mean. To the ordinary person it is not evident whether it: means all existing councillors or only those who would, otherwise, retire at the next election. My hon. Friend opposite seems to have understood it in the way we understand it. If that is not the right way, I suggest that the Government should draft a Clause so that its meaning may be beyond doubt, and, as they mean all existing councillors, I suggest that they should use the words "all existing councillors."

Mr. PRINGLE

I still think that my proposal is one that should be accepted, but in view of the statement made by my right hon. Friend I do not desire to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir R. ADKINS

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "year" ["be extended by one year"], to insert the words "In the year 1916 the day of election of a chairman of a county council shall be the day of the first ordinary quarterly meeting of that council after the eighth day of March in that year, and nothing in any Act of Parliament shall require the council to hold a meeting for the election of the chairman or of aldermen apart from or county business."

I move this Amendment on behalf of the County Councils Association in order to prevent the county council being obliged to have a special meeting for the election of the chairman next March.

Mr. LONG

I do not know that any Amendment of this kind is necessary, but if there is any doubt as to the power we have to take the course suggested, I accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I really do not think this Amendment is needed, because some of the county councils have their meetings for the purpose of electing their chairmen and aldermen in the month of May. It is a statutory obligation that the mayor of a town should be elected on the 9th November; is it proposed to alter that in any way? I do not see that the internal arrangements of a council can in any way be affected under this Bill, which really deals with the election of the council, and therefore it seems to me that an Amendment like this simply gives to the council directions which they already possess. [An HON. MEMBEH; "No!"] I am a county alderman myself, and I have had some experience of these matters. I have been an alderman since 1889, and I certainly think there is no need to give any directions to the county council as to the election of their chairman.

7.0 P.M.

I really do not know what the Amendment means. I understand it is to give directions to the council in reference to the election of chairmen and aldermen. I say that the councils have already those powers within their own standing orders and under the Act of 1888, and I contend that there is no need for this Amendment.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

I suggest that the proper place for the Amendment is at Subsection (3) of this Clause, which deals expressly with the election, appointment, or co-optation of chairmen.

Sir R. ADKINS

With reference to what my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Samuel) has said, I may say that the object of this Amendment is not to direct the councils but to provide as to the statutory meeting. I hope it will be inserted at whatever place the right hon. Gentleman thinks most suitable.

Mr. PRINGLE

In view of the provisions of Sub-section (3), is this Amendment really required? The Local Government Board under that Sub-section have very wide powers by which, if necessary, they can by order apply the provisions of the Section. Under the circumstances, surely the discretion of the Local Government Board is sufficient to cover any contingency such as that contemplated?

Mr. LONG

As I have said, we want to deal with the question of the holding of the statutory meeting of county councils in England and Wales, and this is an endeavour to make it perfectly clear. I think it is right that the Amendment should come in on Sub-section (3), and I hope my hon. Friend will be prepared to move it there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Section" and to insert instead thereof the word "provision."

The object of this Amendment is to deal with the case of those authorities whose statutory elections take place after the first day of July next.

Mr. HEALY

Could not this be renewed next year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DICKINSON

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).

This Section applies to casual vacancies, and the proposal is that those casual vacancies shall be filled by a process of co-optation by the members of the councils instead of, as is now the case, by election by the ratepayers. That is a very important change in the law, and, unless there are very strong reasons for it, I submit that it would be very unwise to start such a system. At the present moment all the councillors hold their seats by the election of the people, and under this proposal vacancies may be filled and members so elected may hold their seats for one or two or three years—members who have no responsibility to the people and owe their election entirely to their fellow members. I think that is a sufficiently important change in the law for us as a House to hesitate before we introduce it.

Sir G. YOUNGER

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that in all cases in Scotland all casual vacancies are filled in this way by co-option.

Mr. DICKINSON

I generally thought that all good things came from Scotland, I but I know now of an exception.

Sir G. YOUNGER

It is an excellent rule.

Mr. DICKINSON

I am not sure that it is a rule that will suit us in England, and, at any rate, it is a very considerable change. This filling of casual vacancies will not apply simply to those members who are elected for this year, but to any vacancy. Thus the rule may apply to vacancies caused by the death of men who would have to retire next November or the following November, or in three years time. Therefore it is giving to the existing council, sitting this year, and which very likely under ordinary circumstances would have been entirely changed, the right to place in positions of authority men who will sit there for three years. I submit that that is a change which is really quite unnecessary. At the present moment very few elections occur, because the general feeling of the public is against them. My belief is that in nineteen cases out of twenty the various parties would say: "We do not want and think it is better not to have an election," and the parties would come together and instead of a formal election there would merely be the process of nomination. That, at any rate, would be done by representatives of the people, and not by the council. I believe that there are very few cases where this provision will be required, and I submit that it is precisely in those cases it ought not to operate. Where you really have a question of dispute, and where one party is trying to foist into office a member of their own party, that ought to be left to take its ordinary course, and I believe that less harm would be done by an occasional by-elections during the War than by instituting this procedure doing away with by-elections.

I think the House will see that there may be important issues raised. One very important question arises which may be decided by the vote of one individual, and that is, the election of aldermen. Take a council consisting of forty-eight members, of which thirty-six are elected councillors and twelve are aldermen. Imagine a case in which the minority of that council have been able in past years to elect the whole of their aldermen. This is a case existing at the present moment. Take a case in which, not calling them one political party or the other, but calling them Party A and Party B, and suppose there had been seventeen councillors elected for Party A and nineteen for Party B. Nevertheless, the whole of the twelve aldermen have been of the political colour of Party A, and the constitution of that council at the present would be twenty-nine of Party A and nineteen of Party B. Take the case in which the aldermen would, in the ordinary course, have gone out of office next November, and in which their time would be postponed until November of next year, and in the meantime there are two vacancies amongst Party B and Party A take advantage of the opportunity given by this Bill to bring in two members of their own party. The result of that would be that when the next election came round Party A will still be able to elect the whole of the twelve aldermen, whereas under ordinary circumstances, if this Bill had not passed, Party B would have been able to elect one-half of the aldermen. The result would be in a ease like that, that instead of Party B getting into a majority of two Party A would remain in a majority of thirty-one to seventeen. That is no fanciful case. I know that at this moment there are certain borough councils in which the party in the minority has been anticipating, with a fair amount of certainty, that the next election will enable them to get into power and to change the colour of the aldermanic bench. If we pass this Bill it will delay that operation taking place for three years, or perhaps-six years. It is very difficult to change the aldermanic bench once it is elected. I believe that this proposal will give rise to a very great amount of dissatisfaction.

There are many other instances which will occur to hon. Members. There is no doubt that where the parties are fairly equally divided it is a very great advantage to get a man chosen in view of the coming election. There will be a great temptation to parties on such councils to exercise their right in rather an unfair manner. I do not think it is wise for this Committee to put those councils in that position. They ought not to have the option of doing so. I do not believe the proposal of this Sub-section is necessary. I believe that the by-elections that would take place would be very few, and that it would be wise it we could avoid even the possibility of abuses taking place. We do-not want more abuses to creep in to the municipal system; we want to leave it as far as we can as it stands at the present moment—that is, to maintain the direct responsibility of the members of the councils to the ratepayers who elect them, and not to, however small a degree, to start a system by which you may have men serving on these bodies who will never be responsible to the electorate at all.

Mr. RADFORD

I wish to support the Amendment, which has been moved by my right hon. Friend with his usual lucidity. The danger of increasing the co-opted element on our local authorities is a serious one, and we ought not to take any steps by this measure to increase it. The Clause appears to me to be wholly unnecessary. We ought not to give an opportunity to borough and county councils to increase the co-opted element. It is well known to persons familiar with the constitution of local authorities that the weak spot in them is the aldermanic bench. I say this notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) has confessed to the House that he is a county alderman.

Mr. HEALY

(indistinctly heard): There are three city councils in Ireland where one of the political parties is in a permanent minority. In the city of Derry, where the Nationalists have a large majority, and have a Home Ruler representative in this House, the corporation has so contrived that they are in a permanent minority. In Belfast also the Nationalists are in a permanent minority on the city council; while in Dublin the Conservatives are in a permanent minority on the council. Would it not be fair to provide that in such cases the existing complexion should be maintained? It could be done in the case of Ireland by giving an appeal to the Local Government Board. I would suggest that between now and the Report stage an Amendment should be drafted providing that the incoming councillor should be of the same complexion as the man whose place he is to fill.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I have been requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton to raise this very point as to the method by which the election is to take place in these cases. In many towns the elections are fought, not on strict party lines, but on business or non-party lines. In other places we have three parties contesting seats on the council—Conservative, Liberal, and Labour. There is no direction in the Bill that, in the event of a vacancy arising, the incoming councillor should be selected from the party to which the councillor who has retired or died belonged. Unless some such direction is given, a great deal of friction may be caused. At present we have very few by-elections, and I rather agree with the-Mover of the Amendment that the Subsection would be better omitted, leaving' the matter to the discretion of the local ratepayers. In some cases it is essential that the opinion of the ratepayers should be ascertained on a given subject; but, generally speaking, since the War, there have been no elections to our municipal councils. It may be all right to prevent the general election on the 1st November, but, as far as casual vacancies are concerned, the proposal may give rise to a very difficult problem. Therefore I suggest that, while the Bill should apply to the election on the 1st November, it would be better in the case of casual vacancies to leave a discretion in the hands of the ratepayers, who, in the majority of cases, would doubtless decide to have no election.

Mr. LONG

I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. My right hon. Friend in moving it said that what the Bill proposes is a great change. It is a great and terrible change to be at War, and it is because we are at War we are making these wholly unusual proposals. All those hon. Gentlemen who have advocated the dropping of this Clause have failed to recognise that, whether you have a register or not any election which takes place must take place on a register so mutilated and so unrepresentative of the electors as to make the return a perfect farce. What do we do? We adopt the practice which already obtains in Scotland.

Mr. HEALY

And in Ireland for county councils.

Mr. LONG

Times without number I have heard Englishmen lamenting that their local government system was not more like the system obtaining in Scotland. It works there without any difficulty. It seems to me to be carrying the principle of popular election to an absurd point if you are to say that in no circumstances, even when for obvious reasons you want to have no elections, are you to introduce the principle of co-option. My right hon. Friend referred to all sorts of possible arrangements which might be made by party organisations in order to produce certain results hereafter. I take a different view. I believe the feeling in favour of laying all these questions aside to be even stronger, if possible, amongst the recognised parties in-the country than in this House. If I am told that in that case there is no need for this Bill, my answer is that we know already from experience that an election may be forced against the will of both parties, and the very scandal that you want to avoid may be brought about through no fault of the leading parties, but through the independent and unjustifiable action of an individual or a small group of individuals. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) suggested that we ought to have words in the Bill governing the selection of the co-opted councillor. It is extremely difficult to find words to do that. I had already considered the question. I hope and believe that the principle adopted in regard to Parliamentary elections, so far without a breach, will be adopted throughout the country. I believe that the universal sense of justice will lead people to say that, if there is to be co-option as a temporary measure during War time, it is obvious that vacancies must be filled by men of the same party, if the outgoing councillors are party men, or, if they were independent, by men selected on those lines. I do not think you can safely go further. I should be glad to consider the point if I thought we could deal with the question satisfactorily; but to promise to introduce words would be to undertake what cannot be satisfactorily accomplished. I hope the Committee will adhere to the proposal in the Bill. I am confident that by-elections ought to be avoided. If they took place they would take place on a register which would not be in any sense representative of the people.

Mr. W. THORNE

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has met the case put forward by the Mover of the Amendment. My right hon. Friend put some strong arguments why this Sub-section should be deleted, but I think that I could put forward an even stronger case. In the Division that I represent we fight the municipal elections on strict party lines. There is a big cleavage between the Socialists on the one side and the reactionaries on the other. I quite recognise that it is quite necessary to pass a Bill of this kind, because in my own Division, and doubtless in many others, a tremendous number of men, the major part of whom "belonged to the party that I represent, have joined the Colours, and most of them would be disfranchised. I happen to be an alderman myself in the Borough of West Ham; but I am not supporting the Amendment because it affects me as an individual. In county boroughs under the Municipal Corporations Act one-third of the aldermen have to retire every third year. In the Borough of West Ham we have twelve aldermen; six belong to one side and six to the other. If this Bill were carried in its present form, at the coming November election, as aldermen cannot vote in the election of aldermen, our opponents, being in a majority of two, could elect six other aldermen from their own party and also fill up the vacancies by another six, which would give them twelve more than they have at the present time. That certainly would be a great hardship. I think that between now and the Report stage some alteration will have to be made to meet such a case, not only in West Ham but in other county boroughs where similar conditions prevail. It is all very well for some hon. Members to say that there are no party divisions in regard to municipal elections. I submit that there are very few municipal elections which are not fought on party lines in some form or other; therefore it seems to me that under the Bill the parties at present in a majority would be placed in a much stronger position. It does not matter whether the majority is Liberal or Tory; the same thing would apply. They could elect six aldermen of their own party. They could also fill up vacancies from their own party, and the result would be, as I say, to place their party in a stronger position. I would suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that between now and the Report stage he should try -to find some words to meet the suggestions put forward; not only of the special case that I have mentioned, but the other cases in the county boroughs in different parts of the country.

Sir W. ESSEX

I want to suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that he might consider the wisdom of dropping out any provision for the casual vacancies referred to in this Clause until, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, those vacancies totalled to a number large enough to disturb the free action of the council. Suppose you have a council of forty-eight members and one member dies; is it absolutely essential that you should replace him either by election or co-optation? Could not that vacancy be ignored during the time of the War? Suppose you have two, three, or four vacancies. We all know that that would mean nothing more disastrous to the free and proper working of a council than the absence at holiday-time of a certain number of members. I think there is a needless amount of fuss being made about this, and I would ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could see his way so to alter this Clause that the rule would only come into action when the membership, by some special and most unlikely event, was reduced below a certain good working number. I should be prepared to trust the fair-mindedness of the Local Government Board to set some machinery in motion for co-optation when a specified number of vacancies is exceeded.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

By this principle of co-optation in London occasion has been taken to create an artificial permanent majority by those who are able to administer it. The possibilities of an election arising is almost certain to ensure the selection of a person belonging to the same party to fill the vacancy. With the knowledge of what has occurred during past years in London I feel quite sure that the same abuse will occur again. The omission of this Sub-section would, I believe, make matters very much better than its persistency in the Bill. I hope that if the Sub-section is not dropped now that before the Bill comes up on the Report, the right hon. Gentleman will consider some means whereby he can ensure what he recognises as desirable—that is, that a member of the same party shall be substituted for any person retiring, or any vacancy arising through death.

Mr. HEALY

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the insertion, after the word "choice" ["the choice by the council or board"], of the words, "with the approval of the Local Government Board"? That, I think, would meet the whole case, whether that approval were obtained beforehand or afterwards. That would always mitigate the suggestion of what is called "uproarious partisanship." I think that that approval would be quite sufficient to prevent any gross breach of the truce. The words would do no harm, anyhow.

Mr. KING

I would like to appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to consider these suggestions. Let me point out to him that we have had six or seven Members speaking upon this last Amendment, and not one of them is in favour of the Clause as it stands. All sorts of objections and difficulties arise out of it, and I hope, whether the admirable suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Cork is or is not accepted, serious consideration will be given between now and the Report stage to the matter with a view to making this Section more generally workable and agreeable to those who have to work it.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

If the Government do accept the words "with the approval of the Local Government Board," I should like to suggest there should also be some words inserted to guide the Local Government Board and the councils, otherwise it will not appear on the face of the Act how the choice is to be made, or on what ground the Local Government Board is to approve or disapprove of that choice. I would suggest that after the word "person" ["a person to fill the vacancy"], some such words as follow should be added: "representing as nearly as possible the same principle and interests." There would thus be something to guide the councils and the Local Government Board.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

Nobody supports the Clause as it stands. But if I am asked whether the Clause should contain the Sub-section or the Sub-section should come out altogether, I am bound to say that I should prefer the Clause as it is. We are prepared to swallow the camel of the whole council going on, naturally, in war, and if we are prepared to do that I am prepared to trust to the council to deal fairly by any casual vacancy that occurs. We have the suggestion made to us that a council may use casual vacancies most unfairly to alter the composition and change the whole character of the council to that of one of the parties. I should like to know what would be the position during war time of any local party in any council that did that? They would simply be breaking the party truce, and I should not like to be a member of that council during the time of war after having done that. I really think we are unduly apprehensive of what may follow. If these difficulties exist at all, the suggestion which the hon. and learned Member for Cork has made is to the point. But is not there this difference—I think I am right in saying that a casual vacancy need not be filled for six months?

Mr. J. SAMUEL

Who said so?

Mr. GLYN-JONES

I know it is so in some parts. That being so, it might be arranged that a casual vacancy should not be filled by co-optation until after a certain number of months have elapsed. In that way abuse would be prevented to some extent, but I do not think the danger is a very serious one.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "and occurring" ["and occurring among the members of any county council"].— [Mr. Hayes Fisher.]

Mr. PRINGLE

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "until a new register comes into force," and to insert instead thereof the words "the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixteen."

The Clause as it stands provides that casual vacancies shall be filled up by councils until a new register comes into force, whereas the first Sub-section only continues the period until 1st July, 1916. We have no indication of the period of time which will elapse before the new register comes into force. In (Clause 2 we have a similar reference. At the beginning of Clause 2 it says:—

"(1) The Parliamentary and Local Government Register of Electors in force at the time of the passing of this Act shall remain in force until Parliament provides for special registers being made or otherwise directs…"

Or apparently until the new register comes into force; it depends upon whether Parliament provides for that special register being made. Up to the present time we have had no indication whatever from the Government what they intend to do in regard to special registers. We do not know whether they intend to have a Parliamentary election. We do not know whether they intend to postpone the election for the present Parliament, or whether, when these elections come due, they intend to have this special register as indicated in the Act. Apart altogether from the intentions of the Government, we do not know whether Parliament will accept the views that the Government put forward. We do not know whether this House will accept the provisions of the registers which will be put before it by the Government, and we have, on Friday and to-day, seen an exhibition of independence in another place which indicates that even although this House accepts the views of the Govern- ment in respect of this special register we have no security that this special register will be passed by another place. In these circumstances, the existing register might be continued as a permanent register in view of disagreement between this and the other House. Consequently, I hold that in this Clause we should at least have a date fixed which would not be longer than the term for which the postponement of the local elections applies. The date in Sub-section (l) is 1st July, 1916. But if that date were inserted there would be a period between July and November when casual vacancies might happen, and they would have to be filled up by election. Consequently, I suggest that the Government should insert the words I propose, which would be a period during which there would be no local elections. In other words, casual vacancies would be filled up without election until the next local elections were due—unless Parliament makes further provision.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I have observed before that the hon. Member for Lanark shire is haunted by the fear that an election might take place—

Mr. PRINGLE

No, no; I am anxious for an election.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I observe still that the hon. Member is haunted by the fear that an election may take place on a very old register. He seems to think that something may occur to prevent an ad hoc register ever being brought into force. I am afraid that is a fear I cannot possibly dissipate if the hon. Member insists upon it. For my part, I believe the intention of the Government, which is adumbrated in this Bill, is absolutely certain to be carried out, and that the next election will be carried out on an ad hoc register after the War. The register will be made up for the purpose of obtaining a proper representation of all the interests concerned. The whole principle of this Clause is to prevent casual election taking place on what is a most unrepresentative register, and if the Amendment should be carried it would limit, to a certain extent, the operation of this Clause, which, I think, in principle commends itself to this House, and would very likely mean a certain number of casual vacancies being filled up on a very stale register, and a register which obviously grows more stale every month. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I have stated.

Mr. PRINGLE

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to give a more convincing reason. After all, Subsection (1) continues only until 1st July, 1916. Consequently, after that date, and before the November elections, it will be necessary for Parliament to make some further provision for local elections if the War still continues, and the effect of my Amendment would be only to continue the provision with regard to casual vacancies up to the same period, and if Parliament requires to make new provision for ordinary elections, it will be only right to make provision for casual elections at the same time. In other words, the Amendment makes provision with regard to casual election correspond with the other. On these grounds I see no reason that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward refusing my Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. DICKINSON

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words, "provided that no person so chosen shall hold office beyond the next succeeding election of councillor or guardian."

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to oppose my original proposal, and also to criticise me somewhat for bringing it forward. As the vacancies would have to be filled up, I would point out that this danger should be avoided: that so far as regards persons who will under the ordinary course retire after two or three years, they ought certainly not, in my opinion, to be co-optated in this way, and if the right hon. Gentleman would agree that these non-elected persons should only hold office until the next general election of the council, I believe that objection to his Clause could be got over, and some of the evils I foreshadowed would not occur, because the election of aldermen will only take place after the next election, and, therefore, there would be no one to elect an alderman who had not gone through the process of election. I do submit to the right hon. Gentleman that this proposal will avoid a good many difficulties I foresee, and it will bring about a condition of affairs in which, after the next election, now postponed, everything will assume its normal course, and every member of the new council will be directly elected, whereas otherwise you will have men sitting for two years and two and a half years who have been co- optated in this particular manner. I think it could easily be avoided by the introduction of the words I propose.

Mr. HEALY

These words would not do at all, and words should be applicable to the three Kingdoms.

Mr. LONG

While I admit that a case has been made which might possibly arise, I do not think that I can take the words suggested in the Amendment, because, as pointed out, they would not apply to the United Kingdom; but, if it is desired to terminate the period of service for those who are co-optated under special circumstances, I am quite willing to consider whether some words cannot be added for the purpose. I cannot take the words as they are, because, as I understand, they cause some complication.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I think I may say, and I think I am right in saying it, that the Amendment is really the rule as applied to Scotland. I think where we elect to a casual vacancy the person always goes out and stands for election again, so that it is not a novel proposal.

Mr. DICKINSON

That is an additional proof of the advantage of my Amendment. On the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that he will consider how to carry the object out on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3).

I simply want to get an explanation about this Sub-section, because it appears to me to be a very complicated one. I have endeavoured to understand it, and I think some remarks from the President of the Local Government Board will give some enlightenment. Does it mean that when a member is a co-opted member of a committee or of the council or other body, that the council need not have an election? The fact is they do not have elections; they are simply appointed. They are simply moved into their positions by a resolution of the council that they be co-opted on to any particular committee where they have the power to co-opt. The other point is with regard to chairmen: does it mean that if a chairman is a co-opted member of the committee or body there is no need for any election so far as he is concerned? I move the omission of this Sub-section for the purpose of ascertaining what it means, because I think it ought to be some guidance to councils if they read these Debates at all.

Mr. LONG

These words are, I admit, a little mysterious at first sight, but they are intended to apply to certain special cases. If the Committee will look at the phraseology, they will see that the words apply to

"the election, appointment or co-optation of the chairman, vice-chairman or members of any kind of local or other body."

The kind of local bodies to which it is to apply is, for instance, a harbour board or the General Medical Council. In some of these cases they are very anxious that the provision of the Bill should be made to apply to them.

Mr. HEALY

There is another mystery which the right hon. Gentleman might clear up, namely, the use of the word "co-optation." We are familiar with the word "co-option," and why should we not use it here?

Mr. J. SAMUEL

After the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I am really glad I moved to omit this Sub-section, because I am afraid that without the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman many councils would be mystified as to the meaning of this Sub-section. We are really dealing here with county councils, borough councils, district councils, and guardians, and anyone reading this Sub-clause would be under the impression that it would apply to something in connection with those bodies. Now we are given to understand that it really means something affecting some outside bodies such as the General Medical Council, harbour boards, or public bodies of that kind. If it only means that, it will not affect the public very much, and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the words "vice-chairman" ["co-optation of the chairman, vice-chairman, or members"], to insert the -words "elective auditors."

It has been pointed out that, after all, the elections for elective auditors are sometimes very keen elections, and it has been thought better to include them in the Bill

Mr. DENNISS

It is a suggestion I made to the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading and, having thought it over, I have come to the conclusion, having regard to the words "any kind of local or other body," it would not be safe to leave it at "elective auditors," but that it should be "elective auditors or officers." There are a large number of Acts of Parliament called Improvement Acts, and there are some officers who may be elected. I do not know that there are, but to make quite sure you have to go through a very large number of Acts of Parliament, and I have an idea that there are some. At all events, may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the word "officers" wrould be a word of caution which could do no harm? I would suggest the right hon. Gentleman should add that to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir RICHARD WINFREY

I beg to move, on behalf of the hon. Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire (Sir R. Adkins), after Sub-section (3), to insert

"(4) In the year 1916, the day of election of a chairman of a county council in England or Wales shall be the day of the first ordinary quarterly meeting of the council after the 8th day of March in that year, and nothing in any Act of Parliament shall require the council to hold a meeting for the election of the chairman or of aldermen apart from other county business."

It is only a question as to where it should be set out.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

This is the same Amendment which we had a short time ago, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept it. Last March, when the county councils elected their chairmen, they were elected for twelve months.

Mr. LONG

This proposal does not interfere with the re-election of a chairman or the election of a fresh chairman.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

Some councils elect their chairman every year in May, but if a council elected their chairman last March there is no obligation on their part to call a statutory meeting to elect another chairman, and I want to know whether that chairman will have the right to go on until the council meet at some future time after the date for the purpose of-electing a chairman. This means that the chairman will be elected for one year and three months, and in that way you are overriding the decision of the council that the chairman should be elected for twelve months. If the aldermen come out on that date they ought to be elected within the twelve months. I think you are setting aside an Act of Parliament that gives a direction to the council that it must elect a chairman once every year. The same thing applies to the borough councils. They appoint their mayors on the 9th November. I do not see why there should be any interference with the discretion of the council.

Mr. HEALY

This is the sixth Amendment moved without notice on the Paper, and this Amendment is six times longer than any of its predecessors. I think it is only fair that we should see these Amendments on the Paper, and I do not think a long Amendment like this should be moved without proper notice. I do not know what the effect of these words is. I suppose it has been considered by the Government, but it is not treating the House with fairness to deal with a whole series of Amendments in this way.

Mr. LONG

No one deprecates manuscript Amendments more than a Minister in charge of a Bill, and I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork has said. My hon. Friend showed this Amendment to me and I believe it is simple, but he was good enough to say to me that if I saw any difficulty he would withdraw it and allow me to deal with it at a subsequent stage if I thought it was desirable. I do not want a long debate upon this point. This is an Amendment which has been moved on behalf of the chairman (Sir Henry Hob-house) of the County Councils Association of England and Wales, who was a very well-known Member of this House for many years. But rather than we should waste time upon it, I would withdraw it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Mr. HEALY

I do not object to the Amendment, and I only expressed my opinion.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.