CLAUSE 10.—(Proxies.) (Hansard, 24 March 1948)

§ Mr. Younger
I beg to move, in page 12, line 36, to leave out "appoint," and insert "have."
This and the following Amendment can be considered together. The point is that the proxy is technically appointed not by the elector but by the registrar.

§ Mr. Hogg
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he has separated the word "have" from the word "appointed"? Why could they not have been placed contiguously, to use a phrase the exact meaning of which we now know? Why should he split this sentence half way down the centre in this inelegant fashion?

§ Mr. Pritt
To "have appointed" a proxy is a use of the verb which we understand and which the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has in mind; but that is not what the Clause means. It means to have a person who has been appointed 3287 as a proxy. The draftsman is right to say: A person shall not be entitled to have… to possess, as it were— …more than one person at a time appointed as proxy to vote for him…

§ Mr. Younger
I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. The explanation he has given is quite right. This is simply a matter of drafting. I do not think that there is any doubt at all about the sense.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I did not mean to butt in but I think that explanation is not quite right. "Have" is not a passive "have." Surely what is meant is that "X" shall not be entitled to get someone appointed in that sense? I agree there is not a very practical difference between the-two but I cannot agree that the logical and grammatical explanation given from below the Gangway helps the Minister at all.

§ Mr. Grimston
I beg to move, in page 13, line 1, to leave out "of whom," and to insert "unless."
The point we are raising here is the number of proxy votes that a person can exercise. The Clause now reads: A person shall not be entitled to vote as proxy at the same election in any constituency on behalf of more than two electors of whom that person is neither the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild. That means, as far as I can see, that a person can be proxy for any number of relatives plus two outside people as well. We think that is too many. It may often occur that members of a family, husband, son or sons, daughters, are away on service and that a large number of family proxy votes are being exercised. It is quite wrong that on top of that a proxy v6te for strangers should be exercised. The words we propose to insert by this and a subsequent Amendment would make the Clause read to cover the point I am trying to make, that is, that where a person is exercising a proxy vote for two or more members of his family, he cannot exercise one for a stranger as well. That is desirable and I hope the Home Secretary will accept it. If he has a better 3288 way of meeting the point, we shall be happy to hear his proposal.

§ Mr. Ede
When the proxy vote was first arranged, there was a great fear that we might get a professional class of proxy voter and that there might be someone appointed by one of the political parties to collect all the proxies in an area and to exercise them. That clearly would be very undesirable. It was therefore decided that, apart from relatives, a person should not be entitled to act as proxy for more than two persons. That is the arrangement we propose to continue. I cannot myself think that it is undesirable that within a family a person should be able to choose which of his or her relatives would be preferred to exercise the proxy vote; and if there should be a fairly large family, I do not think any harm is done. Nor should a person acting for his or her family be debarred from acting as proxy if not more than two other persons wish him to act in that capacity. There is, for example, the case of a fiancee of one of the children who might desire that one of the parents should act as proxy and I cannot see why, in such cases, that should not be allowed. The Clause is not open to any of the objections which it was said to be by the original proposals, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment because the procedure does not at present lend itself to any malpractices; on the other hand, a wide choice of persons who desire to appoint someone to act as proxy is allowed.

§ Mr. Younger
I beg to move, in page 13, line 2, to leave out "neither" and to insert "not."
This is a drafting Amendment to correct a small grammatical mistake. It does not change the sense in any way, but in this context "not" is more grammatical than "neither."

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
I should like to ask the Home Secretary about Subsection (7). We were told by the Under-Secretary at the beginning of our discussion on this Clause that it was an error to say that a 3289 person appointed a proxy, and so we put in words a little bit awkward, but which expressed, with reasonable accuracy, the fact that the proxy was appointed for someone. But, apparently, a person who made this discovery with regard to Subsection (1), failed to read on to Subsection (7), where we find that the registration officer shall keep a record of electors who have appointed proxies. That is to say, in the first Subsection, the doctrine is laid down that one has a proxy appointed for one, but in the other Subsection one appoints one's own. There seems to be unnecessary carelessness here. I do not want to animadvert too much on these matters, but if the Home Secretary's officers are given half a chance, they never make mistakes of this kind. It simply is not done.
The reason why it is done here is that the right hon. Gentleman is grossly overworking his staff. In any ordinary period this just could not happen. This is a small matter and no one had spotted it. It would do no one much harm, but if this happens in a small way it can easily happen in regard to an important matter because; whatever else his officers do, they do pay great attention to details in getting Acts of Parliament accurate. It is very proper that they should, but if the staff are driven so hard then anything may happen. I beg the right hon. Gentleman before it is too late to take a lesson from this and do not drive the staff of this House quite so hard as he is trying to do.

§ Mr. Ede
I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's admonitions to heart, and I am glad he has blamed me and not the staff. After all, I can defend myself if I feel like it. They unfortunately cannot, therefore I accept the blame. I ought to have spotted it, particularly when my attention had been called to the rewording of the first Subsection, but I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that while I listened with patience to him this is not the only time that a small slip has been made in drafting a Bill.

§ Mr. P. Roberts
I therefore take it that the plural "proxies" is not intended because under Clause 10 (1) a person shall not be entitled to have more than one proxy. I take it it is assumed that a person might be entitled to appoint more than one proxy? Therefore I can say, "I will appoint someone as proxy and also someone else, but only one of them 3290 can exercise the right to vote for me." It seems to me as the Clause is now drafted even with the amending word in Subsection (1), it will be possible to appoint more than one proxy but only in point of fact to have one, otherwise there is no point in omitting the word "appoint." Under subsection (7) it must be possible for an elector who has appointed proxies, in the plural, to have them on the register to that effect. I would like the Home Secretary to make it quite clear that that is not what is intended by this Clause.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
Am I right in supposing after the explanation just given by the Home Secretary that Subsection (7) should read: …shall keep a record of electors who have had proxies appointed. I take it that is how it should read on the amendment to the word "have" in Subsection (1)?

§ Mr. Ede
I am not going to bind myself to the exact form in which Subsection (7) will be re-worded, but the hon. Member has correctly expressed the idea which should be enshrined in that Subsection. With regard to the point of the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts), each elector is entitled to only one proxy, but of course unless there is only one elector so registered in the list there will be electors and proxies. But the number of electors and the number of proxies will be the same even though some of the proxies have been duplicates.