HC Deb 21 March 1922 vol 152 cc219-20
28. Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on 15th November, 1920, the then Leader of the House, speaking of the proposal to have only one electoral register instead of two, stated he would be glad to see it adopted; and can he say when a final decision on this question may be expected?


I am aware of the reply given on the date referred to by the then Leader of the House; but the hon. and gallant Member will bear in mind that it was made expressly subject to the proposal commending itself generally to the House, and according to my information there is no such general approval as to satisfy this condition. I hope, however, that the question will soon be disposed of.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a memorial was signed by over 300 Members of this House in favour of this alteration; is he further aware that a saving of a quarter of a million sterling would be effected thereby, and is he also aware that this House was told on 20th December that the matter was under the consideration of the Prime Minister?


I am aware of those facts, but at the same time there have been very strong representations the other way. I hope that the matter will be decided before the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill is reached.


Who is going to decide it?


The Government.


Will the Government take the matter up at once?

36. Mr. HURD

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that a county council, district council, and parish council elector must have resided in the parish or some parish in an immediately adjacent county on 15th December, 1920, in order to receive the right to vote at the elections in March and April, 1922, he has now decided to save £250,000 by providing for a yearly instead of a half-yearly register?


I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham on the subject of the annual register proposal. The statement in the first part of the question is substantially correct, but I could hardly agree that the facts mentioned afford material support to the proposal.


If the facts stated in the first part of the question are substantially correct, what is the reason for not saving the money?