CLAUSE 6.—(Service declarations.) (Hansard, 24 March 1948)

The Temporary Chairman
The first two Amendments, in page 6, line 42, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "eighteen," in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and in page 7, line 14, to leave out "of the age appearing from," and to insert "born on the date appearing on," in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) are not selected.

§ Mr. Piratin
On a point of Order. May I point out what happened on an earlier Clause, when a similar Amendment was on the Paper? When the Bill was previously considered in Committee, the then Chairman, Major Milner, said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher): I am extremely sorry. As the hon. Member knows, there will be other opportunities. I am sorry his Amendment had been passed over when he arrived. My hon. Friend made it quite clear that he could not get into the Chamber because he could not get by as the Lobby was so filled with other hon. Members. On that occasion, too, the Home Secretary said: I regret also that the hon. Member was prevented from being in his place to move the Amendment when his name was called. But I can hold out no hope that the Government will be prepared to consider this Amendment when we get to a later stage of the Bill"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1948; Vol. 448,, c. 2236.]

The Temporary Chairman
The hon. Member appears to be challenging a de- 3180 cision given by the Chair. I thought he wished to raise a point of Order.

§ Mr. Piratin
I think I have the sympathy of the Committee in pointing out that a similar Amendment was put on the Order Paper to be called last Wednesday, and I would ask for your Ruling about that which stands now in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and myself, in page 6, line 42, to leave out "twenty-one" and to insert "eighteen."

The Temporary Chairman
I gather that the hon. Member is asking why this Amendment has not been selected. The answer is that it is not customary to give reasons for not calling an Amendment.

§ Mr. Piratin
I insist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Yes, it is my right, my duty, to point this out. I was not present when my hon. Friend attempted to get into the Chamber last week. He tried, but with all his vigour and energy he could not get into the Chamber. When he did get in, as he pointed out, he made a run to his seat.

The Temporary Chairman
I do not want to be misunderstood. The hon. Member must raise a point of Order, or resume his seat.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)
I beg to move, in page 7, line 33, to leave out from "declaration" to "a" in line 34, and to insert, shall cease to have effect on the date on which the declarant ceases to be This Amendment raises a point of some substance. The Committee will know that a Service declaration may be made by a member of His Majesty's Forces even though he has not attained the age at which he would be entitled to register or vote, and, under Subsection (4) of this Clause it is provided that having made his service declaration he shall, until the contrary is proved, be treated for the purposes of registration as having been at the date of the declaration and as continuing to be a member of the Forces. If I understand that correctly the registration officer, once he receives the service declaration, must, until he receives notice of its cancellation, treat it as effective and regard the voter as continuing to be a member of the Forces. Under Subsection (7), to which this Amendment is directed, it is provided that a Service declaration 3181 shall continue in force so long as the declarant remains a member of the Forces, or unless it is cancelled by him.
12.45 a.m.
I have been dealing with preliminary points up to now, and have arrived at the point which is troubling me. What procedure is there for ensuring that the registration officer will be notified when the Service declarant has ceased to be a member of the Forces? Surely, there ought to be automatic cessation of the right to vote as a Service voter when the man ceases to be a Service voter. That is the intention, and the Serviceman will then qualify on the ordinary register. Unless that is clearly provided in this Clause, and I think at the moment that it is not, I can see a serious situation arising.
In view of the National Service Act the number of persons on the Service register will grow very considerably. When they have done their year's service they will cease to be members of the Forces from the point of view of voting as I understand it, and yet, because the declaration has reached the registration officer their names may well remain on the Service register. We might find in those circumstances that the Service register, at the time of an election, contains the names of people who really do not intend to vote in that constituency, yet who receive, because their names still remain on the register, a lot of literature from candidates with whom they have no concern at all.
We can see the position of a Service voter declaring for a particular constituency. On leaving the Services he might make his home in some other part of the country, to which he may have gone for the purpose of employment. It may be difficult for the registration officer in the area where he is registered as a soldier, with his name still on the Service register, and the result will be that a great deal of paper will be wasted and a great deal of trouble caused to members of all parties in indicating their views to that Service voter. We think that it would improve this Bill if it was clearly stipulated—and this is not clear in Clause 7—first, that directly a man ceases to be a member of the Forces he ceases to be entitled to vote as a Service voter; and, second, upon that, there ought to be some machinery to ensure that the registration officer who has the declaration is notified when that member ceases to be a member of the Forces. 3182 I hope I have made this rather involved point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. If I have, I am sure he will agree that it is a point of some importance.

§ Mr. Ede
The Service voter is registered in respect of a declaration. It would be wrong to remove him from the register the moment he ceases to be a member of the Forces because then for the remainder of the period of the currency of that register he would have no vote at all. I am quite sure the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to achieve that. What he desires is that the man shall have a vote either as a Service voter or as a residential voter continuously. I take it that what he wants to ensure is that for the remainder of the period of his last year in the Forces he shall remain a Service voter, but that at the end of that period, when the canvass takes place, he shall then be placed on the register as an ordinary registered voter.
What he desires is that he shall be taken off the register if his new address is a different one from the one in respect of which he was registered as a Service voter. The last is the real point that it is sought to achieve in the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has moved. The way in which that will be achieved will be that the regulations governing the enfranchisement of Service voters will place an obligation on the Service authorities to notify to the registration officer for the area where the man chooses to be registered when his service in the forces end. The registration officer, when the next registration is compiled, will remove the man from the list of Service voters. If he then resides at that address, he will come up as a resident voter in respect of that address. If he is registered elsewhere it will be the duty of the registration officer elsewhere to pick him up through the canvass, and see that his name appears on the register. I think that the position is met that there should be no unnecessary duplication of names or the retention of names of Service voters on the register after the end of the year—the registration half-year—in which they cease to be Service voters.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in assuming that I did not desire for one moment that there should be any gap between the Serviceman ceasing to be in the Services and his coming into a residence on the residential 3183 list, where he had no vote at all. But the object of the Amendment was to ensure that there was not unnecessary duplication, and that the Service register did not become clogged with names which did not require to be on it. The system which the right hon. Gentleman has explained to us must obviously depend entirely on the Service authorities. They will, presumably, have a register of all the declarations and see that these declarations are made, it may be, in remote parts of the world. There is likely to be, is there not, a considerable time-lag in the declarations coming back to the central Service authorities? There may be a time-lag in the Service authorities notifying the registration officer, but this system has been in force since, I think, 1944. I imagine from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that it has not been found to have worked unsatisfactorily so far, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and in view of his explanation and assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Piratin
On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, is it your intention to call the Amendment standing in my name?—in page 8, line 9, at end, add: (9) With a view to securing that any member of the forces entitled to make a service declaration under this Section, shall be enabled to do so, the officer in charge of each unit of His Majesty's Forces shall:

(a) have a man to man, or other sufficient inquiry made as to the persons entitled to make such declaration;

(b) provide sufficient forms of service declaration and supply the same to the persons entitled to make such declarations;

(c) arrange for the signature to, and the collection of, such service declaration, and shall be responsible for their transmission to the appropriate Registration Officer.
(10) No officer shall be entitled to reject or amend in any way any such service declaration, but shall be entitled to make any objection thereto in writing to the appropriate Registration Officer for determination by that Registration Officer, as if the service declaration were a claim by a civilian voter. (11) Any officer who fails to carry out his duties, or any one of them, under this Section, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both, or on conviction on indictment to 3184 a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)
No, it is not being called because it is wrongly placed.

§ Mr. Piratin
Then, as I gather I shall have an opportunity of referring to that particular matter on a later Clause, I will on this Motion, refer to another Amendment—in page 6, line 42—which was not called. I feel that the Committee ought to give greater consideration to this Amendment, which is to the effect that the qualifying age should be 18 and not 21. I ask the Home Secretary to make some observations on this matter. We are dealing with Service men. The Home Secretary, in the Debate in Committee last week, alluded to the same point made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). On the question of the qualifying age being 18 instead of 21, he said: Our view is that 21 years of age is the appropriate age for people to undertake the duties of citizenship. It requires a certain amount of maturity and experience, and we feel the long established practice in this country of regarding 21 as a suitable age should be continued."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 2236.] I take it that that represented the Government's point of view.
I wonder whether that is really the view of the people concerned. We have a most contradictory situation. Lads of 18 have been called up to do their duty in the Services, and, as we know, they have done it very well indeed. Such young men of 18 have risen to rank; many a lad of 19 has flown his own aircraft, and lads of 19 and 20 have been in charge of companies. Does the Home Secretary suggest that these lads have not risen to a stage of maturity and citizenship, when they have been in charge of companies in battle? Of course, they have. Many other lads of that age would have done the same, had they had the opportunity.
I would direct the Home Secretary's attention to the Appendix of the Report of the Conference on Electoral Reform and the Redistribution of Seats, Cmd. 6534. On page 8 it will be seen that the third resolution was to the effect that the Conference recommended that the franchise be extended to all who have reached the age of 18. The resolution was voted on, with the following result: Ayes, 3; noes, 16; 3185 not voting, 13. Only 16 out of a committee of 32—only half—voted against that resolution to change the qualifying age from 21 to r8. Yet the Home Secretary says with much confidence, "It is our opinion that 21 is a suitable age." At that conference the Labour Members did not vote in favour of 21; in the main, they abstained. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and two others voted in favour of 18. I hope the Home Secretary will make some observations on this matter.
It was only in 1944 when the Labour Members were then half inclined—that is the interpretation of their abstention—to consider that 18 was a suitable age. Yet today the Home Secretary says, "We think 21 is a suitable age." Why? The Home Secretary is well aware that a lad of 18 can be sent to prison for an offence. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is different from voting."] The hon. Member is not taking this matter as seriously as he might. Perhaps it is because of the late hour, but that, unfortunately, is the result of the Government's decision, and we have to abide by it. We are debating this Bill in most difficult circumstances. If a lad of 18 is sufficiently responsible so that he may be sent to prison for some offence, is he not responsibe to undertake the duty of citizenship? If he may be put in the Army and rise to rank and command men, is he not also responsible to undertake this other duty?
I would also refer to a technical point. At the moment, in view of the fact that we normally have elections at five-yearly intervals, the person who qualifies at 21, on the average, will not vote——

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I must remind the hon. Member that this Clause only deals with Service declarations.

§ Mr. Piratin
May I respectfully say that the point which I have in mind relates to page 6, line 42 of the Bill, concerning the age qualification of 21 years? I submit with the greatest respect that I am in Order in dealing with that.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
If the hon. Gentleman for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) looks at the Subsection, he will see that it concerns merely a declaration of the attainment of 21 years of age.

§ Mr. Piratin
It is my opinion—and I say it with the greatest respect—that I 3186 am entitled to deal with this Subsection line by line and word by word, and if I think that 21 should he altered to 18. I am entitled to say so.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No

§ Mr. Piratin
Do you rule, Mr. Beaumont, that I am not entitled to say so? Could I have your Ruling on that, because I should like to know where I am as a comparative newcomer to this Committee.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is only entitled to discuss the matter in so far as it relates to the Service declaration.

§ Mr. Piratin
The Service declaration relates to the age which is the suitable age to make the declaration, and the Clause says 21. I am asking that that age should be 18.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member should read what is there. It says: A service declaration shall state…whether the declarant had on the date of the declaration attained the age of twenty-one years, and, if he had not, the date of his birth

§ Mr. Piratin
I do not want to cross swords with you, Mr. Beaumont, on this matter, but I want to see what is in Order. I would point out to you, with respect, that Clause 6 (2) reads as follows: A service declaration shall state…whether the declarant had on the date of the declaration attained the age of twenty-one years…. I should like to see the Service declaration age brought down to 18 years.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
It will be in Order to say that, but the hon. Member must not discuss it.

§ Mr. Piratin
I am discussing some reasons why it should be 18, and surely one must state reasons for an opinion. May I continue?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The answer is "No." The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of 18.

§ Mr. Piratin
May I put this question to the Home Secretary, or the Under-Secretary, in addition to the points I have already made? As we are dealing with ex-Service men and the declarations of ex-Service men, is the Home Secretary of the opinion that if a man is fit to fight, he is fit to vote?

§ Mr. Ede
This issue was raised on Clause 1, where the age for voting was fixed. All that we are doing here is to collect information about the date of the birth of a soldier, and altering this figure from 21 to 18 would not give the soldier the vote at 18. All it would mean would be that when he attained the age of 18, it would be recorded. If he had not attained the age of 18, the date of his birth would be recorded. I discussed the question of altering the age on Clause 1, and if the matter is raised in an effective form at any later stage of the Bill, I will consider whether it is necessary to make any further statement on the issue.