CLAUSE 63.—(Payment of expenses of registration.) (Hansard, 21 April 1948)

§ Mr. Younger
I beg to move, in page 58, line 26, after "borough," to insert "metropolitan borough."
This Amendment and the first Amendment to the next Clause in the name of my right hon Friend relate to the same matter. They are no more than drafting Amendments necessitated by the fact that some London constituencies will now include more than one metropolitan borough, and therefore certain powers proposed to be given to the registration officer in boroughs are now required to be given also in metropolitan boroughs.

§ Mr. Leonard (Glasgow, St. Rollox)
I wish to put before the Secretary of State a point affecting the city of Glasgow. It was the subject of an Amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison), my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and myself, which was not called—in page 58, line 5, after "authority," insert: for the spring register and the whole amount paid by the authority for the autumn register. 1887 The city of Glasgow has expressed the feeling that the value of these two registers varies as between local authority elections and a general election, and it would be appreciated if the Secretary of State could explain why the division of the cost should have been made in the proposed proportions. The Glasgow Corporation are of the opinion that the Spring register is the one in which they are primarily interested. Rightly or wrongly, they are of the opinion that the Autumn register has been specially designed for the purposes of a general election, and that that register would be of value to them only in the case of a by-election. Therefore, I would be glad if the Government could give an indication of the reason why the cost has been divided in the proportions provided for in the Clause.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
May I reinforce what the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) has just said. If we were dealing purely with local authority elections, there is no doubt that there would be only one register. No one would dream of having two registers for that purpose. That being so, and looking at the relative benefit which the locality and this House get from these registers, it would seem that, whereas a spring register is equally valuable for both types of election, the autumn register, as the hon. Member has just said, is, if not 100 per cent., nearly a per cent. available for Parliamentary elections only. Therefore, it seems that if the aim is that the expense should be divided in proportion to the use which is to be made of the register the local authority is being rather hardly treated in this matter.
This is something which might be looked at. The sum involved is not very large, but in a city the size of Glasgow it amounts to a considerable sum. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties there are, which we thrashed out upstairs—the point about rapidly rising rates and the fact that the concessions he recently gave have almost entirely gone, and will certainly go very soon. We are contemplating a very difficult position in local authority finance, and every little helps. I certainly reinforce the request of the hon. Member that we should have an explanation of why this 50–50 decision has been taken. There is great force in the view which has been expressed by Glasgow Corporation that a close examination of the situation would 1888 lead to a somewhat different division of the expense between the two bodies concerned.

§ Mr. Woodburn
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, the Clause shares the cost between the local authority and Parliament. So far as I can see, the Amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) referred, suggesting a different division of the cost, indicated a misapprehension. The preparation of the election register is not something which is done in the spring and in the autumn, but is now very much a continuing process. So far as we can estimate, if there was only one register per year it would not be less costly than the two registers. In other words, the process, by being continuous, effects a considerable economy in the compilation of the register. Moreover, if the argument were to be addressed to the amount of use that was to be made of a register, I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend would suggest that we might charge one-fifth to the State, because there is a general election only every five years, and four-fifths of the five years' cost to the local authority, because they use the register four times to every time it is used by the State. The matter is really beneficial to the local authorities, and there is some misapprehension. According to our calculations if there was any question of sharing the cost according to the use made of the register, it would cost the local authorities more than under the present system. The Amendment, which I understand was out of Order because of the financial provisions of the Bill, would not bring the benefits to the local authority as are presumed by that Amendment.

§ Mr. Reid
I am a little surprised that the Secretary of State should say that there would be no saving by having only one register per year. I believe I am right in saying that at one stage between the wars—I am not sure whether it was under the Geddes Axe—the second register was done away with as a measure of economy. If that is so I find that action a little difficult to reconcile with the view that the production of two registers per year does not produce extra expense. I would ask the Secretary of State to re-examine the matter and see whether what he has said is accurate. The difference between local 1889 authority and Parliamentary elections is that one knows exactly when local authority elections are due, and there need only be one register a year for that purpose. A Parliamentary election, on the other hand, may happen at any time, and therefore we must always have the register in order for it. For that reason I would not in the least accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that what counts is the number of times the register is used. It is a fact that there must always be an up-to-date register for Parliamentary affairs, whereas for local government affairs a register is only needed when an election is imminent. Although the up-to-date register is used for by-elections there will be no question of making an up-to-date register for the purpose of by-elections. I understand the difficulty about making a change at this stage, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-examine the matter and see whether, when an opportunity occurs, there is not a good case for making some change.