ELECTION RETURN, KNUTSFORD (Hansard, 20 June 1955)

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)
Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I think I should inform the House that the Election Return for the Knutsford constituency has now been found. It was posted from Wilmslow sub-post office on Friday, 27th May, in an envelope marked "Election Writ and Return." Post Office rules require that Election Returns should be forwarded by registered post, but this Return was not registered. Registration enables Election Returns to be readily separated from the immense mass of less urgent Election documents which are received in the Crown Office after an Election.
On 28th May, more than 500 Election Returns in registered envelopes were received. Immediate attention was given to them, and, after they had been dealt with, it appeared that the Knutsford Return had not been received. While, at first, it was thought that it might have been delayed in the post, this does not appear to have been the case. Search was made among the unregistered mail, but the Return was not found until 10th June, when unregistered mail relating to less urgent Election matters was being dealt with.
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General ask me to say that they very much regret that this mishap occurred, and that they regret the personal inconvenience caused to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport).

§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport
I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his clear statement and for the expression of regret which it contained. May I ask him, however, whether he is aware of the personal difficulties which I have suffered in this matter? For instance, concerning the possibility of making a statement today, I rang up the personal assistant to the Postmaster-General last week, but the line was so bad we could not hear each other speaking. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that an important communication about this matter, posted in my division, 1040 from Knutsford, took two days to go just over seven miles and arrived just in time to be too late? Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore not agree that all this justifies my actions since 1945 in trying to get the Postmaster-General's Department to wake up?
The Attorney-General: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to address those questions to the Postmaster-General.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
We are very sorry to hear from the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), who is not exactly a progressive Member of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the Post Office, which has been nationalised for a number of centuries, should have so rapidly deteriorated under the present Conservative Government, but we are very glad to know that he has now been relieved of his troubles.
May I ask the Attorney-General whether the acting returning officer concerned has explained why he did not post the communication in the way required under the Post Office rules, and whether he has expressed his regret? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, further, why it took from 28th May to 10th June, nearly a fortnight, to find this communication among the communications addressed to the Crown Office?
Why was there this delay? What is the matter with the Government and their servants that that should have taken all that time? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman now assure us that the hon. and gallant Member, whose voice we are always glad to hear, has been regularly and properly returned as the Member for the Knutsford division?

§ The Attorney-General
The answer to the third part of that question is that there is no doubt about that at all. As to the second part, why the letter was not found before, as I said in my statement, there was a large mass of documents relating to the Election, not of an urgent character, ballot returns and things of that sort, which arrived in unregistered mail. Directly it was discovered that the Writ was missing some search was made of that unregistered mail. It did not bring this Election Return to light. That mass of documents did not require immediate attention, but, as I said, it was when 1041 that mass of unregistered documents was attended to that this document came to light.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Does not this prove that in spite of the gross inefficiency in Knutsford we are always glad to welcome the gorilla back again?

§ The Attorney-General
I should make it clear that there is no suggestion in my statement of any gross inefficiency in Knutsford. There certainly was no mistake on the part of the acting returning officer. There was a slip in not registering this Election Writ and Return.

Air Commodore Harvey
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) is a constituent of mine, may I have an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend that my hon. and gallant Friend will not suffer financially as a result of the Writ arriving late?

§ Mr. Rankin
Has the Attorney-General now revealed the reasons why Earl De La Warr was sacked?

§ Sir T. Moore
Is it not a fact that this communication was received at the Crown Office on 28th May, and that, therefore, there is no reflection whatsoever on the Post Office in carrying out its job in this matter?

§ The Attorney-General
It was received, as far as one can say, on 28th May. It would not have gone astray if it had been sent in a registered envelope.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I must preface this question with a contingent apology, as am not sure that I can remember the facts correctly, but is it the case or not that on the occasion when the House put these proceedings in order by a Vote 1042 there was read to the House a sworn declaration by the returning officer in which, I think I remember, it was there sworn that the letter had been posted in the normal fashion, in the way laid down by the regulations, namely, by registered post, and that he held a receipt for it?

§ The Attorney-General
The hon. Member is, I am afraid, mistaken in his recollection. It is quite clear that the Returning Officer did all that was required of him. He is not required by Post Office rules to put it in a registered letter. That is the part of the Post Office, and that is where the slip was made. When the Post Office received the Election Writ and Return, they ought to have enclosed it in a registered letter.

§ Mr. W. R. Williams
Will the Attorney-General state specifically whose responsibility it was to make quite sure that this particular package should have been registered?

§ The Attorney-General
The answer is, the Post Office.