CLAUSE 6.—(Qualifying Period.) (Hansard, 20 November 1917)

§ Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL

I beg to move, to leave out the words " either on the fifteen day of January, or "

The reason of this Amendment is that two registrations a year has been considered by many of the borough councils in the Kingdom, and they have come to the conclusion that it would be more economical and more desirable to have one register a year instead of two. In the London area alone the saving would be something like £80,000 a year to the ratepayers, besides saving an immense amount of labour. There are over sixty members in the London area, and that means about one-tenth of the electorate of the whole country, and, if the saving be £80,000 a year for the London area, it is assumed that the saving for the whole country, by having one register a year, would be about £800,000 a year to the ratepayers alone. In addition to that, there is an enormous amount of extra labour involved in having to do the work twice a year instead of once a year, and the evidence has gone to show that municipal elections as a matter of course take place in the month of November, so that the spring register would be of no service for municipal and county council elections which take place in March for Parliamentary elections. In regard to Parliamentary elections, for eighty years, I think, there have been only two elections which have not taken place in the period covered by the register that would come into force on the 15th October. It is not proposed to lengthen the period of qualification, which will remain the same, six months after the 15th July, and the register would come into force on the 15th day of October. There is nothing political about this proposal; it is purely a business proposition with a view to economising the taxpayers' money to the extent of £800,000 or £1,000,000 a year. It would also economise the expenditure of candidates, who will otherwise have to keep their organisations for the revision of the list twice a year instead of once a year, as would be the case if this Amendment were adopted. I have been asked not only by my own borough council, but by other public bodies, to move this Amendment. I ought to tell the Home Secretary that, unfortunately, by some Mistake, it was forgotten that the Amendment should be printed upon the Paper this morning. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to do something to meet the wishes of the municipal bodies of the country.

§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD(Mr. Hayes Fisher)

I think the House will consider it a little inconvenient to have an Amendment of this kind brought forward, and which does not even appear upon the Paper. It is a proposal which touches at the root of one of the most important decisions of the Speaker's Conference, that there should be two periods of qualification, as now, in the Bill, and two registers. As regards saving the ratepayers' money, I myself in earlier years have made several attempts in that direction, and I have every sympathy with anything which would just now relieve the ratepayers of any portion of their burden. But I feel that this is one of the most important parts of the Bill dealing with one of the most important recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. We are all agreed that the time which has hitherto elapsed between a man obtaining his qualification and obtaining the possibility of using that qualification by way of voting at an election was far too long, often amounting to two years. As far as I can understand my hon. Friend's Amendment, if it were carried it would be quite possible that a man, five days after the first part of the qualifying period, might possibly come in on the 20th of January, and if he came in on the 20th he would not obtain a vote, so far as I can understand, until the following October year. Therefore, if we were to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend, we should be perpetuating the foolish and evil system under which voters would have to remain in a particular place for something like eighteen or twenty months before they could exercise their qualification. However desirable it may be to save the money of the ratepayers, yet, after all, we may comfort ourselves with the knowledge that while the first registration will be very costly, on the second time of asking, and on the third time of asking, a great deal of that expenditure will disappear. Once a thorough and exhaustive survey has been made, and once a good new register has been established, there will not be such an enormous expense in keeping up that register. I, like others, am desirous of saving money to any extent, but I do not think such a saving could be effected as my hon. Friend has indicated to the House; but, on the other hand, I think there would be a very great loss, which would not at all be compensated by any saving, 1085 if we were to do away with one of the greatest benefits to be found in the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, namely, registration twice a year, and a short instead of a long period of qualification.