LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL. (Hansard, 24 February 1933)

§ Mr. BERNAYS

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is supported by representatives of all parties in the House. Its backers include Members of every section and sub-section of the supporters of the National Government, and include the Opposition also. Its object is to secure proportional representation for the electors in local government elections. At present the opinion of the electors in local government elections is often grossly distorted at the elections. I have one or two glaring instances here, which I should like to give to the House. In 1931, at the local election in Bradford, the Socialist vote was 33,000, and the anti-Socialist vote 62,000. That anti-Socialist vote secured 22 seats, whereas the Socialist vote of 33,000 secured no seats at all; so that the Socialists, although they had half as many votes as the anti-Socialists, obtained no seats. At Burnley, in 1932, the Socialist vote was 17,000, and the anti-Socialist vote 14,000. The 17,000 Socialist votes secured 10 seats, while the 14,000 anti-Socialist votes se- 2128 cured two seats. Although the Socialists only had 3,000 more votes than the anti-Socialists, they secured eight more seats. One could multiply instances of this kind.

The present system not merely distorts opinion, but distorts the issues to be decided. I suggest, and I think it will be agreed among Members of all parties in the House, that it is disastrous that local politics should be fought on party lines. After all, these councils exist not so much to make the laws as to carry them out; their purview is administration, not legislation. Housing, health, unemployment, education—these are the things that they are elected to administer; but, under the present system, local elections are fought as if the fate of the central government depended on the result. I suggest that it is absurd that men and women who are elected to decide whether there should be a public library or a municipal wash-house should be elected on a Socialist or anti-Socialist ticket. Most of us agree on that. This Bill presents an opportunity to get away from that and, incidentally, to free the Council chambers up and down the country from this barren conflict of Socialism and anti-Socialism.

Under the present system party politics in local elections tend to keep out altogether the men who might be the most useful. We had an instance in Liverpool of a great servant of the City who served it for 19 years and was thrown out because of the election being fought on the party ticket. The proposals of the Bill 'are very simple. It is proposed to allow local authorities in Great Britain by the resolution of a three-fifths majority to substitute for their existing system of election the method of proportional representation by the single transferable vote. None of the arguments that operate in national politics against proportional representation operate here. The Bill was supported when it was introduced in 1923 by no fewer than 80 town councils, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading to-day.

§ Sir GERALD HURST

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

2129 I think this will strike most Members as one of the most useless Bills that have ever been brought in. It is amazing to me that a Member of the Conservative party can support such a revolutionary and subversive Measure. The hon. Member opposite said it would put an end to the distortion of issues at election times. It must be a very wonderful Bill to do that. The idea that by its means the fundamental struggle between Socialism and anti-Socialism at municipal elections will be put an end to seems a complete delusion. After all, we have to deal with realities. The real dividing line between English people to-day in national and local politics is the line of Socialism, and the argument that you are going to do away with that by introducing proportional representation seems to me to be entirely unconvincing.

The Mover also pointed out the advantages of the Bill in that it would enable a minority of 30,000 socialists in Bradford or Burnley to be represented. That argument in itself recognises that the real fight at these elections is between two political parties. I differ also from the hon. Member in his view that this scheme would encourage men to stand for election at municipal contests who at present are standing out. After all, the 2130 aim of the Bill is to substitute for the small constituencies of to-day larger areas and more constituents, which will involve greater expenditure. If a, man cannot get in to-day, he is not more likely to get in if he has more constituents and a larger area to deal with and if more money has to be spent. The great obstacle in the way of getting good men to stand at present is that the call of business is so great and the demands of being a member of a municipal body are so onerous that he cannot afford the time.