CLAUSE 1.—(Qualifying date and qualifying period.) (Hansard, 28 June 1944)

§ Sir Irving Albery (Gravesend)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "is satisfied," and to insert "has reasonable cause to believe."
I do not intend to speak at any length on this Amendment. It was put down on a former occasion, when this House was informed that certain powers were being given to the Home Secretary. I suggest that there is more adequate protection in the words proposed than in the words "is satisfied." It seems to us that, in this Bill, the Home Secretary has a very large and important discretion, and his advisers—I believe they were the Law Officers—have previously said that the interests of this House could best be safeguarded by the words on the Order Paper. In those circumstances, I cannot but believe that the Amendment will be accepted by the Minister. If I am to be disappointed, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will give us adequate reasons for refusing to accept it, and, possibly, will explain why what was suitable on one occasion, is considered to be unsuitable on the present occasion.

§ Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom)
I can only suppose, by the look in the Under-Secretary's eye, that he is not going to accept this quite moderate Amendment, but if he refuses it, I presume it will be upon the ground that the words mean something different, as indeed, I consider they do, from those words which appear in the original Bill. But if the words "has reasonable cause to believe" mean something different from "is satisfied," one is at a loss to know why, in this case, there is a difference in the meaning, whereas when the matter arose over Regulation 18B, it was held by the Attorney-General and others that there was then no difference whatever in the meaning of the words. On the other hand, the Under-Secretary may be in a somewhat yielding mood, and may be prepared to accept this excellent Amendment, so ably moved by my hon. Friend. In that case, he will presumably 752 tell us that the words do not mean something different. In any case, it will be interesting to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say on the matter.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)
My hon. Friends have moved this Amendment in most reasonable terms and I am grateful to them for so doing. The Amendment is, I think, in the nature of a hang-over from the Debate on Regulation 18B, which took place on 76th June. It is true that these words, "has reasonable cause to believe" have been the subject of judicial decision in the highest Court of the land, and have given rise to some controversy and even to some difference of opinion in that tribunal. During the Debate on 16th June my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General referred to his speech of 26th November, 1941, in which he explained very clearly the difference between these two forms of words. The Attorney-General said in the course of the Debate that day: In addition to those changes the words 'has reasonable cause to believe' were substituted for 'is satisfied.' That change…was made to emphasise what the majority of the House desired to emphasise, namely, that these were cases to which the Home Secretary must direct his personal attention… Those words emphasise and make clear to the Home Secretary not that there is an alteration in the legal position in the sense that they give a resort to the courts, but that it is a matter to which he must direct his personal judgment and of which he must personally weigh the pros and cons. Everybody knows that the scope of modern Departments is such that in many cases "——[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1941; Vol. 376, c. 807.]

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)
I ought to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is getting away from the subject and is quoting from a Debate on a rather different subject.

§ Mr. Peake
I was basing myself upon the opinion—I myself not being highly versed in the law—of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The point is that in Defence Regulation 18B these words were put into the Regulation to make sure that the Home Secretary gave, in a matter of the highest importance, namely, the liberty of the subject, his own personal undivided attention, and took upon himself the responsibility of investigating each individual case upon its merits. If we are to be asked, in a matter which involves a question only of whether 753 certain arrangements are or are not administratively feasible, to import these same words, then we are obviously raising the matter of administrative feasibility into the same order of importance and priority, as the question of the liberty of the subject under Defence Regulation 188. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, I am sure, would not wish to do that. If in every Statute—and there are very many Statutes—where a Minister has to form an opinion and has to be satisfied of something, we have to say to the Minister, "You have to give to this matter the same amount of personal attention, and take the same amount of personal responsibility as you have to take in the case of the detention of a British subject without trial," we are going to over-burden the Minister with a weight of responsibility which he cannot individually sustain, and we shall jeopardise the currency of the high value we at present place upon the liberty of the subject.
It is clear, in this matter, that it is a question of whether certain machinery is available and ready for use in connection with Parliamentary elections and that the Home Secretary must give his personal attention to it. But, as my hon. Friends are aware, in order that these arrangements under the 1943 Act with regard to elections may come into operation, the Home Secretary has to be satisfied that the arrangements are complete in every constituency. He has to be sure that they will work universally and simultaneously. The election machinery is to take automatic account of removals from one constituency to another, and if the administrative arrangements are incomplete or inadequate in one constituency, many other constituencies will thereby be affected. The Home Secretary must have the general responsibility for seeing that these arrangements are properly completed, but it is asking too much of him to say that he must investigate the position of affairs, personally, in the office of every clerk of a county, or every town clerk throughout the country, and be prepared to say to the town clerk or to a clerk of the peace, "Your arrangements are not adequate, you ought to take on additional staff, you must do this or that." That is, clearly, class of work which must be left to the ordinary day-to-day administration of the Home Office. I hope that with that explanation my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

§ Sir I. Albery
My right hon. Friend, with his usual courtesy and ability, has given a somewhat detailed explanation of his case. I cannot say, personally, that I feel he has met it. I do not think that anything can be much more important than the action which the Home Secretary would have to take under this Bill, arid certainly the Committee would expect him to give his direct personal attention to these matters, and, if the Bill so determines, that at a certain time it would be upon his direct responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman's chief difficulty probably arises from the somewhat false interpretation which has previously been given to the words. As a layman, I should have said that a person might have reasonable cause to believe something without being satisfied, but, on the other hand, I fail-to see how a person can be satisfied unless he "has reasonable cause to believe." I rather think that is the dilemma with which the right hon. Gentleman has been endeavouring to deal with great courage, courtesy and ability, but I do not think his reply is convincing.

§ Sir A. Southby
If my right hon. Friend will look once more at the portion of the Bill we are seeking to amend, he will see that it says: This section shall expire with the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five: Provided that (a) if at any time while this section is in force, not being less than two months before the date on which it would otherwise expire, the Secretary of State is satisfied that sufficient staff and facilities are available for the operation of the principal Act as originally enacted, he shall make an order advancing the date of expiration to a date specified in the order; All through the Debate in the House yesterday there ran an under-current of fear that this amending Bill might perhaps be used for the purposes of a General Election, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) pressed the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to give a categorical assurance on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was much too "fly" to give any such undertaking but confined himself to saying that it was a thousand to one against such a contingency arising. It is obvious that the House as a whole does not want to have, in this amending Bill, the means whereby the register should be compiled for a 755 General Election. It is a stop-gap Measure meant to put right something which was found to be amiss. Surely, the second greatest concern of the Home Secretary, and of the Under-Secretary, with regard to the liberty of the subject is to ensure that the subject should have an opportunity of giving his vote at a General Election in the best possible way, and that the best possible register should be compiled. I suggest that we have made out an overwhelming case that these words should be altered for the very reason which the right hon. Gentleman himself provides. His speech was the best speech for the Amendment we have had yet. He said that it was so important that the Home Secretary had to give his personal attention to it. He admitted that the proposed words made a great difference and laid a particular duty upon the shoulders of the Home Secretary. I cannot help thinking that he ought, therefore, to accept the Amendment so that there shall be no doubt whatever that when the Home Secretary has satisfied himself that there are staffing facilities available, he will, in the terms of the Bill, begin to act.

§ Mr. Peake
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), in his second speech on the Amendment, seems to have contradicted his first, because in his view the words "is satisfied" in the Bill demand a higher degree of proof than the words "has reasonable cause to believe" which he seeks to substitute for them.

§ Sir I. Albery
I put down the Amendment in the belief it was the kind of Amendment the Government wanted to accept, because it coincided so completely with their views of the meaning of the words, "have reasonable cause to believe," but my view has always been the contrary.

§ Mr. Peake
I hesitated for some time whether I should or should not accept the Amendment. By so doing I should have taken the wind out of the sails of my hon. Friend. At the same time, I take the view that I should have been thereby debasing the currency of the very high value which we place upon the words "has reasonable cause to believe" and which we have put into the Regulations, especially Defence Regulation 18B, where the personal liberty of the subject is involved. I am a little sur- 756 prised that my hon. Friends who take such an interest in that subject should seek to introduce these words into a Statute dealing with Parliamentary elections.

§ Sir A. Southby
Why should my right hon. Friend be surprised at our taking an interest in any method which particularly concerns the subject?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North)
I am loth to intervene in this small Debate, but the point which has arisen is rather interesting. I am sorry, Mr. Williams, that you ruled the Under-Secretary of State out of Order when he was reading the explanation of those particular words which was given by the Attorney-General, in a previous Debate. I am an ordinary man and for the life of me I cannot see that either form of wording imposes any duty on the Home Secretary personally to inquire into anything at all. Therefore I should advise the right hon. Gentleman not to take such a very high view of the particular words which he has put in the Bill, and to accept the Amendment, because it is perfectly clear that what the mover of the Amendment said in the second of his speeches is correct—"satisfied" is a much stronger word than "has reasonable cause to believe." What we in this Committee are interested in, is that the Home Secretary should be satisfied. He need not inquire personally. He has a large office with officials and he knows whom he can trust among those officials. Therefore, the personal liability of the Home Secretary is no greater whichever of these words you take. He is finally responsible to Parliament. If the Under-Secretary puts such tremendous faith in these particular words, which he has put into the Bill, then by all means let us have them, and let it be perfectly clear that the Home Secretary is more responsible in this matter than we should otherwise believe the words to imply. I should like to put it even more strongly, and say "is personally satisfied."

§ Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern)
I suggest that the Committee should reject this Amendment on the ground that two words say quite well, what is is now proposed to say in five. No one in his senses could see any serious reason why the Committee should waste its time discussing this, and I think the Bill should be left as it is.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)
I support what my hon. Friend has just said and would express the hope that the two hon. Members on the other side, having had their quiet enjoyment and, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said, their hang-over from a previous Debate, will now be willing to let this matter rest. I think it would be wrong for the Minister, having announced that he had no intention of accepting this Amendment, now to change his mind and accept it. It is obvious that the two words "is satisfied" are quite sufficient to express the meaning which it is found essential to express, and any longer form of words which the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Irving Albery) himself admitted was not as strong, should not be substituted for the words which are now in the Bill.

§ Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)
The vital difference that I see between these two sets of words is in the first place that the words "is satisfied" are much firmer than "has reasonable cause to believe." We do want the Bill to be as firm as possible. The other distinction between the two sets of words is that, in my judgment, the words "is satisfied" are intended to deal with a set of circumstances that are more capable of proof than in the other case. Hon. Members will definitely weaken this Bill—where there is a much greater measure of the possibility of proof—if they bring in words that relate only to things connected with the opinion of the Home Secretary, and this Measure should be as strong as possible.

§ Mr. Lionel Berry (Buckingham)
I do not agree with the last speaker. There is a question of principle involved. I support this Amendment because, on a previous occasion, the whole question was thrashed out, of which form of words is right and which is wrong. Personally, I am not satisfied myself that anyone can be satisfied unless he "has reasonable cause to believe." Are we not entitled to have some explanation, from say the Solicitor-General, who I see is listening to the Debate?

§ Sir I. Albery
I do not regard this matter as trivial. It may be that it is a little unfortunate that it has had to be raised on this issue, but there are very important issues at stake and we want to test these words. We have given our 758 view as to the meanings of the words, and the right hon. Gentleman has given his but, after all, the people who got us into this dilemma were the Law Officers of the Crown, and the least they can do is for one of them to speak now and get us out of it.

§ Sir Ernest Shepperson (Leominster)
Could not both sides in this dispute be satisfied if both forms are kept in—"is satisfied" and "has reasonable cause to believe"? Than everyone will be pleased.

§ Sir I. Albery
I desire formally to oppose Clause 1, in order to give the Solicitor-General an opportunity of saying something.

§ Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a question. I take it that the difficulties which have caused this Bill have arisen in connection with the ordinary constituencies and that nothing in this Bill affects the position of the electors registered at universities? An assurance on that point would give satisfaction, though I feel no doubt as to the answer.

§ Mr. Peake
My recollection—and I think it is pretty clear—is that the Act of 1943 had no bearing on the compilation of the register, so far as university students are concerned.

§ Commander King-Hall (Ormskirk)
I think I shall just be in Order on the Third Reading, in expressing my regret that this Bill does not include——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)
I am sorry but the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have any regrets on the Third Reading.