RULE 17.—(Consideration of Objections.) (Hansard, 29 November 1917)

Mr. HEALY
I beg to move, after the word "all," to insert the words "claims and." The Amendments I have put down deal with the same point and are designed to make the working of the measure more simple. As the Clause is drawn, it will be necessary for the registration officer to give individual notice to every claimant or voter who is objected to as to when his claim or objection shall be heard, and when his case has been disposed of by a decision it will be necessary for the registration officer to convey to the claimant whether his claim has been allowed or disallowed, and in the case of those who are objected to he will have to inform them whether they have been struck off the list or not. Nothing like that is done at present. As regards the latter part, the giving of notice to a person as to how his case has been dealt with, that has never been done in any Court with which I am acquainted. The High Court does not send out any information as to how a case 2294 has been disposed of; neither does the County Court. The person concerned is supposed to look after all these things himself, and in practice there is not the smallest inconvenience resulting.
Similarly, at the present moment what is done is that when the claims and objections have all been published then the lists are closed and notice is given as to the day when they will be considered. That notice is given by posters and newspaper advertisements, and that has always been found to be quite adequate for the information of the voters. If under our present system the revising barrister had any such obligation imposed upon him as is being imposed upon the registration officer, his work would never done. In some constituencies, if it were necessary that the officer should begin by giving notice of any particular day when a case is going to be heard, or inform those concerned as to how the cases have been disposed of, the revision would take a whole year. My Amendment would made the paragraph read: The registration officer shall, as soon as practicable, consider all claims and objections of which notice has been given to him in accordance with these rules. I submit that unless the procedure is simplified, that a very heavy burden will be placed on the registration officer. The general idea is that the work of revision is done by the voter, but that is not so, because it is done by the party agents, and will always be done by them, and unless it is done by them it will not be done at all. That is the present system, and it will be the system in the future so long as there are parties My experience is that voters are very, careless about taking any trouble to get on the register, and if there were not party agents to do this electoral work the lists would be very imperfect indeed. I hope the work of the party agents will be greatly reduced by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may rely that through the party agent every voter will get ample notice as t[...] when and where his case will be dealt with, and what the result of it is after it is all over. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this proposal careful consideration, because it is made solely in the interests of relieving the heavy burden which is placed by this Bill on the registration officer.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
I beg to second the Amendment.
Rule 11 sets out the form of the notice of objection, and Rule 12 provides that The registration officer shall, as soon as practicable after receiving any notice of objection, send a copy of the notice to the person in respect of whose registration the notice of objection is given. To that extent the person who is likely to be injured receives notice from the registration officer, but in addition to that these rules propose that the registration officer shall give a second notice of the time and place of hearing to the person who has been objected to as well as to the objector. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is giving almost too much trouble to the registration officer. It is quite fair that the objector and the other man should know when the case is going to be heard, but I think some further justification is required for putting this duplicate function on the shoulders of the registration officer.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I quite recognise that this Amendment has been moved to save time and cost, but whereas we propose that the registration officer shall give the individual notice of the time when the objection to his vote is going to be heard, my hon. Friend proposes that he shall give public notice to all the world. I think that would act to the detriment of the individual.

Mr. HEALY
It is done at present.

§ Sir G. CAVE
That may be so, but it is better for the voter that he should have personal notice than that he should have to watch for a public notice. The registration officer will not sit as a Court to hear a series of objections, but I have no doubt that he will hear so many on one day and so many on the next, and it will be very convenient for each voter to have notice of the exact day on which his case will be heard. If public notice were given, people would have to attend and wait until he arrived at their case. There is another objection to the Amendment. The registration officer would be compelled to give notice to every claimant even although there was no objection to his claim and no reason why it should not be allowed without any hearing at all. In Rule 18 we provide, in cases where the officer is satisfied as to the claim, that he 2296 may allow it at once without any hearing whatever. My hon. Friend's Amendment would alter that.

Mr. HEALY
My Amendment simply provides for a general notice that this Court or tribunal will sit to dispose of the business of revision, just as at present.

§ Sir G. CAVE
Without giving any name at all?

Mr. HEALY
That is what is done at present.

§ Sir G. CAVE
It would not be sufficient under this Bill.

Mr. HEALY
The objections are already provided for earlier in the Bill.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I have just dealt with that point. This Amendment would require notice to be given to everybody even if their claims were not objected to. If that were done, everybody would turn up and you would have people attending even although their claims had been allowed. I think our scheme is much better than that of the hon. Gentleman.