REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL (Hansard, 3 May 1967)

§ Mr. Denis Coe (Middleton and Prest-wich)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require reference to be made on nomination and ballot papers at parliamentary and local elections to the political or other allegiances of candidates, and to make provision to avoid inaccurate use of such allegiances. I believe that this amendment of our electoral law would be widely welcomed. It would provide a sensible way of assisting electors to identify the candidates of their choice and so avoid the confusion which often exists at the moment, especially where the list of candidates is extensive.
My attention to this problem was aroused when I lived in Cheshire and was asked to vote at a local election for six parish councillors out of a list of fifteen, and four rural district councillors out of a list of twelve. It so happened that I was a political activist in the area and, therefore, the candidate of my choice were my friends and colleagues, but I submit that for the ordinary elector to have to remember the names of up to ten candidates out of a total of 27 represents a prodigious feat of memory which he ought never to be asked to indulge in.
This problem was spotlighted for me then, and it has remained a problem for many years. The recent Greater London Council election brought it to the fore yet again. I suggest that as we move towards larger areas of local government the problem will become even more important. It is time that the House considered it. I know that the Speaker's Conference is considering the question of allowing the printing of the names of political parties on the ballot papers at Parliamentary elections. I do not know 450 what it will decide, but in any case there is no provision for the question to be considered from the point of view of local elections, where the need is even greater.
The matter is urgent. If we consider the Greater London Council election, we see some of the reasons for urgent action being taken. First, there are a great many candidates. There can be anything up to 21, with 4 having to be chosen from the list. This represents a tremendous task for any elector.
If we study the results of that election we find that in many cases there were as many as 10,000 lost votes. I submit that most of those came from people who were anxious not to vote for the wrong candidates and, therefore, did not vote for their full quota of candidates. We are told, according to a recent piece of research—a report of which appeared in the Press at the weekend—that many electors gave preference to candidates at the top of the list—in other words, at the beginning of the alphabetical order. The researcher purported to prove this by showing the successful candidates in each case and the position they occupied in alphabetical order.
Even more important is the problem that arises where more than one candidate has the same name, or where candidates have similar names. There was a perfect example in Wandsworth, where two candidates had the name Pritchard—one Liberal and one Labour. The Labour candidate received 6,000 fewer votes than his Labour colleagues while the Liberal Pritchard—good luck to him—received roughly 6,000 votes more than his Liberal colleagues. I suggest that on that occasion the Liberal candidate received some votes to which he was not entitled. In Brent, the successful Conservative candidate, Mrs. Forbes Cockell, had 3,000 votes fewer than the other successful Conservative candidates and the most successful Labour candidate, Mrs. Forbes, reecived 3,000 votes more than her colleagues. Obviously, the problem is worse when names are similar and there is therefore an obvious need, which is getting worse because of the trend towards larger areas.
People who have agreed that this is a desirable reform have nevertheless asked how I would ensure that the perverse candidate did not take the name of 451 a political party to gain votes. It works both ways. Sometimes it would be unwise to adopt a party's name if one's object was to be different. However, where it is a problem it would be dealt with.
The first Clause of the Bill would provide that political allegiance could be put on ballot and nomination papers and the second would provide for registration of parties. This can be worked out in detail, but the major parties could register with an electoral commission or the existing Registrar of Friendly Societies and obtain a "patent" on their name so that others could not use it. I would not go as far as some Continental countries, which do not allow candidates to stand unless they belong to a political party.
This can be worked out in Committee. I would think that the ideal solution would be registration of parties and no description on a ballot paper of those without a political label. In this way, we would retain the individual's freedom to stand, providing that his nomination papers were signed, but he would not be able to use official party labels. That would be a typical and effective British compromise.
Two objections might be raised to this Measure. First, it might be argued that it would help voters too much and that they should find out for themselves who the candidates are. This is difficult because of the size of the areas concerned, but the important democratic principle consists in an elector making up his mind to go to a polling booth and cast his vote. Once he has decided, it is then incumbent on the House to pass laws to make it as easy as possible for him to identify the candidates.
The second objection might be made that this would recognise parties for the first time in a Constitution. I agree, and why not? Why do we as a country try to hide the actions of political parties as something not quite nice and a little shameful? We know that the political process is worked on a party basis and if the electors are sometimes disdainful of politicians and their activities, we must bear some blame because our laws try to sweep them under the table. I am therefore not worried that this would introduce recognition of political parties.
452 I submit this suggestion then and hope that the House will give me leave to introduce a Bill which makes sense in modern political terms and would be widely welcomed and simple to operate.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol West)
I rise to oppose the Motion. The way in which the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) seeks to deal with this matter is unworkable and his Bill is the wrong way to go about it. The Bill's long title is no good because it does not contain the words "… purposes connected therewith ". Any hon. Member who has tried to introduce a Private Member's Bill knows that if those words do not appear all kinds of objections will be raised to all his aims when he tries to have the Bill printed. If the hon. Member is given leave, I hope that he will deal with that, because on that basis he seems doomed to failure.
Also, he has not dealt with the whole problem, which must be tackled. This is a vexed question. I attempted to deal with the matter as long ago as 15th July, 1964, when I was given leave to introduce a Bill. Although I included the words "purposes connected therewith" in my long title, I could not get the Bill printed because the clerk said that almost everything I wanted to do was out of order. Although I had the leave of the House and had left every possible loophole to get the Bill into writing, I found it impossible. The hon. Member has stymied himself from the very start.
I agree with him that there has been enormous confusion, especially in the Greater London Council elections. In 1964, I referred to the G.L.C. elections of that year. It has been worse on this occasion, and one person may even have been elected in error. I went to vote in the Westminster Division of the Council but discovered on looking at my ballot paper that I knew the names of only three of the candidates whom I wished to support and could therefore only vote for three. I was one of the lost voters.
In spite of this, I cannot feel that a Private Member's Bill can tackle this problem. In any case, the hon. Member's Bill would have no hope of discussion unless the Government gave it time, and, although they have done some strange things in that direction, I doubt 453 whether they would give time to this. If the hon. Member is given leave to have the Bill printed at public expense, I am certain that he will not be able to print what he wants. My Bill was never printed at all.
The hon. Member dealt with descriptions on ballot papers but did not suggest that christian names as well as surnames might be printed in full in the same large print. That might have been a help. Nor did the hon. Member deal with the question of standardising the printing of ballot papers. In the city of Bristol at the last election, every constituency had a different style of lettering. Gothic or Old English lettering was not used but every type of Roman, some of it less legible than others. This should have been dealt with.
The hon. Member skated over the question of a candidate's description. This could apply to his occupation as well as his political allegiance. A description should be designed to indicate the candidate's present occupation.
The hon. Member might have dealt with the very vexed question of the largely fictitious present occupations of Members of Parliament seeking re-election to this House. His own party must find itself in enormous difficulty because in it are full-time politicians. As they always tell the House, they are whole-time Members of Parliament. What is such a person when he ceases to be a Member and is seeking re-election?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We do not usually have interventions in a Ten Minute Rule speech.

§ Mr. Cooke
I am sorry if I have transgressed on some point.
This is a very valid objection. The description of a former Member seeking re-election may be in many cases largely fictitious if he is a whole-time Member of Parliament.
The hon. Member suggested that party labels should be, as it were, patented. That is wholly unacceptable. What happens if there is a party split in a constituency or if a great monolithic party machine has its own candidate and a former Member of this House breaks with his party and stands for election? 454 The late Sir Winston Churchill provided a classic example. Is a great political party, Conservative, Labour or Liberal, to be able to patent a party label? That is quite unacceptable. On the other hand, if party labels were allowed we could deal with a number of people who wanted to use the same label. If there were no agreement among all the candidates in an election as to what labels should be allowed to be used, they could use no labels of any kind. The hon. Member did not deal with this position, but it certainly could not be left to the discretion of the returning officer.
The hon. Member did not deal with the question of cranks. Some people might want to stand for election for quite frivolous reasons. The hon. Member did not deal with the question of the deposit in such cases—an increase to £300 might discourage cranks. It is not impossible at present for some crank, quite legally, to change his name to that of a candidate in the constituency in which he wants to make a demonstration. I go so far as to suggest that if some people were up to no good and wanted to create mischief they could change their names to your name, Mr. Speaker, or to mine simply by giving the appropriate notice in a newspaper. Then they could create complete confusion. I shall not go over what has happened in Bristol, but I remember on one occasion an elector coming to me and saying, "I voted for you, Mr. Cooke". I replied, "You could not have done that because the General Election is not until next week." He said, "Oh yes, you were standing for the council." He had in fact voted in error for a Labour local government candidate.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Ten Minute Rule applies to speeches in opposition as well as to speeches in support.

§ Mr. Cooke
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was almost interrupted and I am sorry if I protracted my remarks. I will bring my speech rapidly to a conclusion. The hon. Member's suggestion of the way in which this problem might be tackled is wholly unacceptable. Action is needed, but not in this way. I therefore oppose this suggestion.