LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Hansard, 7 July 1964)

§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate voting by candidates in elections for local office. I seek leave to introduce a short and simple Bill which is designed to correct a cause of confusion and possible injustice when, for example, a newly-elected local authority meets for the first time to elect from among its members a chairman and vice-chairman.

The uncertainty which the Bill is designed to eliminate is the question of whether procedure should be followed by a councillor who is a candidate for, let us say, the office of chairman—whether to vote for himself, to abstain, or even, as was the tradition a few years ago, to vote for his opponent.

Generally, the manner in which a candidate for an office casts his own vote will have no effect upon the outcome, because the number of those voting for the successful councillor will be substantially greater than the number of those voting for his opponent. Occasionally, because of the evenly balanced views of members of the council, the manner in which the candidates for a local office vote is of critical importance. It is with those occasions that my Bill would be concerned.

My inquiries have shown that there is no uniform custom or tradition of behaviour throughout the country. The old tradition, to which I have just referred, of voting for one's opponent, still lingers on, though mainly as a memory of olden and perhaps more courteous days. Many candidates for such an office show a natural diffidence about voting for themselves—which, to my mind, does them considerable credit—and they abstain from voting. Others, perhaps this time in the majority, have no compunction whatsoever about registering a vote in their own favour.

I think it desirable that a uniform procedure should be adopted so that all candidates for a local office are placed on an equal footing, with the course which they are to adopt clearly laid down, so that a councillor who is, perhaps, still in possession of a certain amount of natural 227 diffidence is not placed at a disadvantage thereby with his fellows.

I will not weary the House with many examples of what I have in mind, but I feel that I ought to give one or two examples of the instances which I have come across in past years and even only recently. The first concerns an election in Northumberland which took place in 1962, and describes the election of a chairman and a vice-chairman. A letter from one of those concerned in this election describes the election of the chairman as follows: The retiring chairman candidate, having been proposed and seconded, had nine votes, but did not vote for himself. If he had he would have had 10 votes. The opposition chairman candidate, having been proposed and seconded, also had nine votes. He voted for himself, making 10 votes. The opposition chairman was duly elected by 10 votes to nine. The second example of the kind of anomaly which my Bill would seek to remedy concerns a rural district in the north-west of England. I have a letter from the clerk of the council, who states: What happened was that at the election of chairman of the council, the retiring chairman, who was, of course, in the chair at the time, was nominated and proceeded to conduct the election. There was one other nomination and upon the matter being put to the council there was equality of votes—11 each. After this lapse of time— perhaps I ought here to explain that this letter describes something which took place several years ago— I do not remember whether there were 22 present with the chairman voting for himself the first time, or whether there were 23 present with the chairman refraining from voting, but on the equality being shown he promptly gave a casting vote in his own favour and thereby elected himself for a further term of office, with, of course, half the council against him. The third example which prompted me to bring this matter before the House concerns a case which occurred in my own constituency as recently as the end of May of this year, after the local government elections had taken place in the urban district of Wigston. Perhaps I may best describe what happened by reading a short extract from a cutting from the local paper. It is from the 228 Oadby & Wigston Advertiser of Friday, 29th May, 1964, and it is headed, "Storm in choosing Vice-Chairman".

The relevant few lines are: When Conservative councillor Mobbs was nominated for the office of vice-chairman. Liberal councillor Allsopp was nominated as his rival. Nine votes were cast for Mr. Mobbs (the Labour members voting solidly with the Conservatives), while eight votes were registered by the Liberal members for Mr. Allsopp. It goes on—this is what the Bill would seek to correct— The Chairman voted for Mr. Allsopp and Mr. Allsopp voted for himself. Mr. Mobbs refrained from voting. The Bill would suggest that all candidates in an election for a local office should be required to withdraw from the council chamber and abstain from voting.

I can say that practically all the rural and urban district council members with whom I have been in touch in the past few weeks favour this course. The members of larger city and county authorities are more non-committal. As many pointed out to me, matters of this sort tend to be settled by arrangement outside the council chamber before the meeting and presented to the council as a fait accompli.

The criticism has been levelled that the Bill would be effective only in respect of those bodies where opinion is nicely balanced, and hence would be of limited value. The same could be said of most of our criminal statutes which we still regard as necessary. I believe that a Measure of this nature would be of value to local and statutory authorities. For this and for other reasons I ask leave to bring in the Bill.