PLURAL VOTING (ALLEGATION) (Hansard, 5 July 1950)

§ Mr. Studholme (Tavistock)
Compared with the war in Korea the subject which I am about to raise may appear to be a trivial one. It is, however, because I believe that a principle which is far from trivial is involved—the principle of the liberty of the subject—and because the particular case is concerned with a lady who is living in my constituency, that I have felt justified in renouncing temporarily the vows of silence which the Members of the Whips Office take upon themselves, in order to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. I will be as brief as possible because the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) is, I know, anxious to intervene at some stage during the Debate.
The facts are as follows. A young lady whose home is in Cardiganshire, and who is at present teaching in a school near Tavistock—I will refer to her as Miss "B," which is the first letter of one of her names, as I know she would like to remain anonymous—is now on the electoral roll both in Cardiganshire and in the Tavistock division. Shortly after the last election an official of the Labour Party at Aberystwyth—I am told he was the chairman of the Trades and Labour Council there—wrote to the returning officer at Tavistock asking if he could be informed whether this young lady had voted in the Tavistock division. He stated, apparently, that he wished to have this information for obvious reasons—obvious perhaps to him, but to others not quite so clear. The returning officer replied that he could not give him the information because, I presume, by that time the marked registers had been sent off to wherever they are sent.
597 Thereupon, it appears that the subagent of the Labour Party at Aberystwyth wrote to the Attorney-General, who put the matter into the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Office then instituted police inquiries, and next step taken was to send a C.I.D. man to interview Miss "B" at her school early in May. One can only suppose that the object of the visit was to extract a confession from this unfortunate girl. What surprises me is the way in which the Attorney-General handled this matter. I am sorry that he is not able to be here himself this evening in order to explain. The hon. Gentleman who is to reply can, of course, disclaim all personal knowledge of the matter because it is not his Department which instituted the proceedings.
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

§ Mr. Studholme
Why go to all the trouble and expense of putting the matter in the hands of the Public Prosecutor when there was no prima facie case against Miss "B," only the uncorroborated statement of this individual at Aberystwyth? Why waste the time of the police and why distress this unfortunate girl so unnecessarily? She was suddenly fetched out of her school to meet a man who stated that he was a police officer and wished to interview her in private. He then informed her that she was accused of having voted twice during the recent election. One can imagine the state of mind of this poor girl who was suddenly confronted with this accusation. She was thoroughly taken aback, she could only tell the truth, which was that she had not voted in the Tavistock division at all, but had recorded her vote by post at Aberystwyth.
The young lady has no complaint whatever to make about the C.I.D. officer who, as one would expect, was courteous and merely carrying out his duty. Why go to all this fuss and bother and why harass this poor girl in a way which, I (think, in the circumstances, was quite monstrous, when, obviously, the simple thing to do would have been to send to the Clerk of the Crown's office to inspect the electoral register, where the marked copies of the electoral registers are sent?
598 These marked copies have a mark against the person's name who has voted—a tick—and the register does not, of course, show how people voted because the ballot is secret. I think that it is important to make that point. It does, however, show whether a person is deemed to have voted or not. All this is quite clearly laid down in the Representation of the People Act. Surely the Attorney-General, or someone in his Department, ought to have known about that.
One can obtain a photostat copy of any part of the register on payment of £27, as I discovered. I took the trouble last week to go myself to inspect this part of the register. There was no tick against Miss "B's" name, and, therefore, the evidence was presumably that she had not voted in the Tavistock division. I would have bought a photostat copy of this particular part of the register to have had the pleasure of waving it in the hon. Gentleman's face, only I thought £27 a bit too much.
There are a few question which I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman. Why did the Attorney-General lend himself to be a party to this particularly shabby piece of snooping on the part of the sub-agent of the Aberystwith Labour Party, without first satisfying himself by sending someone to look at the register CO find out whether or not there was a prima facie case? If the register had shown a tick against the name of this young lady then presumably she would have voted in the Tavistock division, and no one could have complained of the subsequent proceedings.
There are nearly 900 cases of dual registration in my division. Would the Attorney-General be prepared to investigate all these cases through the police without first look at the register if I forwarded him their names and asked him to find out if they voted in two places, without any prima facie evidence at all, but merely because I suspected that they had voted twice?
May I add another discreditable detail to this rather sordid story? About the time of the election, Miss "B" received a threatening, anonymous letter on the theme, "One man, one vote." It was written in a curious and distinctive handwriting, and it bore the Tavistock postmark. I am sure the Under-Secretary 599 will agree that like blackmail the writing of anonymous letters is a particularly contemptible form of occupation.
The whole thing reflects no credit on the Attorney-General, nor on the Aberystwyth Labour Party, or on this miserable anonymous letter writer at Tavistock, presumably not unknown to the sub-agent of the Labour Party of Aberystwyth. The more I think of this matter, the more disgusted I feel. I think that the Attorney-General has slipped up badly.

§ Mrs. Middleton (Plymouth, Sutton)
Will the hon. Member tell the House on what authority he says that the writer of the anonymous letter was known to the Labour Party sub-agent at Aberystwyth?

§ Mr. Studholme
I did not say that. I said that presumably the writer was not unknown to the sub-agent of the Labour Party of Aberystwyth. That is a presumption, and I repeat it.

§ Mrs. Middleton
Will the hon. Member inform the House on what evidence he bases that presumption?

§ Mr. Studholme
I said that it was a presumption, and I think that any fair-minded person would accept that as a reasonable presumption. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The more I think of this matter the more disgusted I am. I think that the Attorney-General has slipped up. This is the sort of thing that shakes one's confidence in the Law Officers of the Crown. Where are such Gestapo methods getting us? This is the sort of thing against which we fought two wars.
The Under-Secretary has quite a lot to explain in his reply. I ask him to give two assurances, firstly, that this sort of thing will not happen again, and secondly, that an apology will be sent on behalf of the Attorney-General to the young lady concerned.

§ Mr. Bowen (Cardigan)
I rise to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Studholme) for having raised this matter, and to associate myself with the observations he has made both in relation to the general principle involved, and in so far as they related to the particular facts, indicating the way this lady was treated. The hon. Member has used strong language, but I would respectfully 600 suggest that his words were fully justified in the circumstances. There are two aspects to this matter, both of which reveal substantial improprieties.
The first aspect concerns the action which gave rise to these police inquiries, that is to say, the allegation, about which we have been told, made by the subagent of a political party, in regard to which there is no dispute now that it was entirely unfounded. The allegation was made either in an utterly irresponsible way, to put it at the minimum, or maliciously. The surrounding circumstances would suggest that it was done maliciously.
I think it only right and proper that I should explain why I assert that the allegations were unfounded and were either malicious or utterly irresponsible. It is quite clear that the allegation was made without a shred of evidence to support it. Responsible persons are expected to refrain from making allegations, unless there are some grounds on which they can be substantiated. There was none here whatsoever.
The other matter, which indicates either irresponsibility or maliciousness, is that one who occupied the position of politcial agent, or sub-agent, should know full well that he could have ascertained very simply whether there was anything in this allegation or not simply by arranging for the marked register to be inspected in accordance with the provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1949. If he had taken that action he would have ascertained immediately that the allegation was completely unfounded. But on no evidence, and without taking the elementary step of examining the register, this allegation is made. My first complaint is of the impropriety of making an allegation in those circumstances. The other aspect of the matter with which I am concerned is the action taken on the allegation. I venture to anticipate that the Under-Secretary of State will agree with me that the action taken was wrong.

§ Mr. Bowen
The hon. Gentleman dissents?

§ Mr. de Freitas
Entirely.

§ Mr. Bowen
Then I will pursue the matter further. An allegation was received by the Attorney-General, and then the police were brought into the matter and asked to investigate it. One would have thought that before the police took action by interviewing this lady they would have done two things—first, inquired from the person who made the allegation whether that person had any grounds for making it, and whether that person was in a position to offer evidence which showed that this lady had voted twice.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether such an inquiry was made. I find it difficult to believe that it was, because if it were made surely the political agent would have had to answer, "I have not a tittle of evidence on which to found my allegation."
Secondly, if that inquiry were made, one would have thought that the next step to be taken before the police proceeded to interview the lady was to follow the procedure laid down in the Representation of the People Act, and inspect the marked register. Any such step would have avoided any further police action. With great earnestness I say that, for the Attorney-General to bring into play the police in the way he did, without making these two elementary inquiries, was something which was entirely wrong.
What happens? The hon. Member for Tavistock has indicated that this lady makes no complaints about the police officer. At the same time it was not a very pleasant experience for her when a C.I.D. officer visited her school, interviewed the headmistress, arranged with that person to see this school mistress, and then to tell this lady herself that it is alleged she has committed a criminal offence—all that without an elementary inquiry on the part of the Director of Public Prosecution's office, which would have prevented any action of the kind.
The hon. Gentleman referred to another aspect of this matter, which does not concern the Government Departments involved, but which was a remarkable coincidence, if coincidence it were. Not only was this lady visited by the police in this way, but she received an anonymous letter on the same matter. I hope that the authorities will show as much diligence in trying to track down the 602 writer of that anonymous and threatening letter as they did in other respects, and I hope we will receive an assurance from the Under-Secretary on that subject.
I associate myself with the request made by the hon. Member for Tavistock for assurances, and with his request that a communication should be sent to the lady indicating clearly that no suggestion of any kind is made against her, that it is accepted that her behaviour throughout the matter has been impeccable and that the deepest regret is felt that she should have been caused unnecessary annoyance. There should be an assurance, also, that if questions of this kind arise again the proper action will be taken to inquire whether there is any foundation for the allegation and whether the elementary task of examining the marked register has been carried out to ascertain the true position. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us both these assurances.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas)
A great deal of heat has been brought into this Debate. I hope that the House will bear with me if we take this matter very carefully in stages. In this country we pride ourselves on being law-abiding and upon having fair and honest elections. To help to maintain this state of affairs our election law expressly provides for candidates to appoint agents and sub-agents to watch over the conduct of elections. The men and women nominated by the candidates of all parties are there for the purpose of guarding against just such offences as plural voting. They take an honourable part in ensuring that those of us who come to this House do so because we have been chosen freely by the people in accordance with the law.
After the General Election, several complaints were received by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General as to violations of the law. As hon. Members will expect, a large proportion of the complaints came from agents and sub-agents. Lest it should be thought that this was the so-called "shabby snooping," of people who were guilty of "substantial impropriety" by writing in this way, I would say that these complaints came from all parties. They were roughly in the proportion of half from those who supported the Government and half from those who 603 supported the Opposition. The Attorney-General sent all complaints automatically to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director has no private police force of inspectors or detectives to investigate allegations, so he asks the police to investigate, as they did in this case.
What happened in this case? The Attorney-General received a letter from the sub-agent of one of the candidates in Cardigan, and the letter was passed automatically to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

§ Mr. Bowen
Could the hon. Gentleman indicate whether the sub-agent gave any reasons for the allegation?

§ Mr. de Freitas
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me go on. The letter was passed automatically to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I wish hon. Members who cheered earlier were here to hear this. That letter contained two allegations of plural voting. The first allegation was against an old lady. The second allegation was against the schoolmistress. The Director of Public Prosecutions asked the police to make inquiries. In the case of the old lady, the allegation of plural voting was proved. The letter contained two allegations of plural voting, and the first one was proved—

§ Mr. Bowen
Why does the hon. Gentleman say that it was proved?

§ Mr. de Freitas
The first allegation was proved—

§ Mr. Bowen
Have there been proceedings?

§ Mr. de Freitas
No, because the old lady died and could not be proceeded against.

§ Mr. Bowen
What right has the hon. Gentleman to say that the allegation was proved?

§ Mr. de Freitas
The allegation that she voted twice was proved. There have not been any proceedings because she died. The letter made two allegations. The first one, against the old lady, was justified. The second one had to be investigated. The investigations have been criticised because of the method that was 604 used, but not the manner. 1 was surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen say that an investigation of the marked register would show whether someone had voted or not—

§ Mr. Bowen
It would be a guide.

§ Mr. Studholme
The presumption would be that they had voted if there was a tick against their name. That is obvious.

§ Mr. de Freitas
If her name was marked it would not be conclusive evidence that she had voted.

§ Mr. Studholme
But that would be the presumption.

§ Mr. de Freitas
We are seeking evidence. Looking at the register to see if her name was marked would not provide conclusive evidence that she had voted. Somebody might have voted in her name.

§ Mr. de Freitas
I am trying to make my reply and I cannot give way again. We have to have something more than a presumption and that is why investigations were made.

§ Mr. de Freitas
I hope that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Studholme) will allow me to develop my case. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman like this. I have seen the register. The hon. Member need not have thought that he would have to spend £27. I went there and I have looked at it myself. The fact that the name was not marked is not conclusive evidence that she had not voted. She might have voted in someone else's name.
The investigations were therefore made by the Devon police. The police asked the presiding officer and the polling clerk if this schoolmistress had voted there or not. But they could not say. The Director of Public Prosecutions therefore asked the Devon police to see the schoolmistress and put the specific allegation to her. Hon. Members have no complaints about the manner in which that was done. A detective sergeant went along in plain clothes to the back door. I should like to read a bit of his report because it deals with the anonymous letter.
605 In his report the detective sergeant stresses how he went to the back door in order not to embarrass her by having to see more people than necessary before he saw her. The report says that he told her who he was and that he wanted to see her about a small matter. The report adds: She said in effect 'Oh, dear. I hope it's nothing serious…you'd better come along to my room.' Then there was the interview. The report goes on that the detective sergeant told her about the allegation, and she replied: I voted by post, and didn't vote here. No, I wouldn't do that…I received an anonymous letter a couple of days before the Election telling me it was an offence to vote twice. I'd like to find out who sent it. She added that she could think of no one who might be at loggerheads with her, and she thought she destroyed the letter at the end of the last term. That was the first the police had heard about this anonymous letter, and she thought she had destroyed it last term.

§ Mr. Studholme
She received more than one anonymous letter. I have seen one she received.

§ Mr. de Freitas
I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman could let the police have it.

§ Mr. Studholme
Certainly

§ Mr. de Freitas
There is no question of that here, however, and it does not affect this issue, which was an investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions into an allegation which had been made.
It is important to realise that no Departmental Minister has any concern with these cases. But, since the Attorney-General is responsible to this House for the Director of Public Prosecutions, my right hon. and learned Friend would have replied to this Debate tonight if he could have managed it. So I would like to stress that I am here tonight as a Member of the Government deputising for my right hon. and learned Friend and not as Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The hon. Member referred to Gestapo methods. He was also quoted in a newspaper last week as referring to "the extraordinary Gestapo methods" adopted by the Home Office in Devon. What are these "Gestapo methods"? They 606 are the methods of a free people whose servant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, enlists the help of the Police Force responsible to the people of Devon through their freely elected Devon County Council. It is hard to see that that is anything like a Gestapo.
May I sum up? The responsibility for the investigation of these allegations was that of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney-General asks me to say that he endorses completely his action in this case. The responsibility for the manner in which these investigations were carried out is, of course, that of the Devon Constabulary. There is no complaint made of the manner in which this was done. I would like to make the comment, since my Department has been brought into this, that the Devon police deserve great praise for the careful and considerate way in which they conducted these investigations on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

§ Mr. Studholme
Why did the Director of Public Prosecutions not first send somebody to look at the register to satisfy himself whether or not there was a prima facie case?

§ Mr. de Freitas
It has no significance whatsoever if somebody goes there and sees if the name is marked. Remember the allegation is of plural voting. Therefore, nothing is proved by seeing whether the register is marked or not.

§ Mr. Bowen
Will the hon. Member answer my question as to whether the person who made the allegation produced any evidence to support it?

§ Mr. de Freitas
As far as I know, the Cardigan police made inquiries there. How far they went on that line, I do not know.

§ Mr. Bowen
Was there any evidence to support it?

§ Mr. de Freitas
The allegation was of plural voting in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tavistock, not in Cardigan. Hence the inquiries in Devon.

§ Mr. Studholme
There was no evidence.

§ Mr. Donnelly (Pembroke)
As there are two minutes left, perhaps I may support the Under-Secretary because it is 607 important that the Government should draw attention to the necessity for seeing that no impersonation takes place during Elections. About four years ago I had the unusual experience of contesting an Election in County Down where the situation is different from what the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Studholme) or the hon Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), I imagine, envisage in their constituencies. May I give an account of the situation which arose in the Election which took place in the Northern Ireland Parliament on 25th June, 1946? My quotation is from a speech by the late Mr. J. W. Nixon, a Member of the Northern Ireland House. He said, referring to committee rooms in Bangor— The Unionists' committee rooms were outside in the grounds. There were"—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
Order. I do not think any Department in this country has any responsibility for this, have they?

§ Mr. Donnelly
Yes, Sir. The Northern Ireland elections for this House are under the jurisdiction of this House.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
How was it raised in the Northern Ireland Parliament?

§ Mr. Donnelly
It was raised on a Motion on the Adjournment there, trying to draw the attention of the Northern Ireland Parliament—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
But someone must have been responsible, and there cannot be responsibility in both places, can there?

§ Mr. Donnelly
With respect, Sir, may I suggest that matters affecting elections to this House are nothing to do with the Northern Ireland Parliament, but their ways are rather strange when it comes to Debate. May I be allowed to proceed, Sir?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order.
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.