HC Deb 11 December 1968 vol 775 cc508-39
Mr. Onslow

I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 26, line 20, at end insert:

Rule 10 … … Deposit.
The Chairman

With this Amendment we will take Amendment No. 35, in page 26, line 22, at end insert:

Rule 54 … … Return or forfeiture of candidate's deposit.

and Amendment No. 38, in page 28, line 22, at end insert:

6. In Rule 8 (1) of the Parliamentary Election Rules (which deals with the number of electors required to propose, second and assent to the nomination) for the word 'eight' there shall be substituted the word 'forty-eight'.

Mr. Onslow

I hope that the Commit tee will not feel that we have reached too late a stage to spend a few minutes considering an important subject in the con text of elections, that is to say, the deposit. Mr. Speaker's Conference, having considered this matter, decided to make no recommendation, but I feel that the subject is one which could be considered by the Committee, given that there are such few opportunities, and such a long time between them, to consider the basic features of the parliamentary rules.

The deposit of £150, payable by any candidate standing in an election, is widely thought of as being a deterrent to keep frivolous candidates out of the lists but, on looking back at the history, one finds that is a misconception and that the real purpose of the deposit was to attempt to provide the public with some security against the expenses involved if an election had to be held.

The present position dates from the Representation of the People Act 1918, which provided that every candidate should put up £150 with the returning officer at the time of nomination. Before that time, under the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875, the returning officer had certain powers to require security to be given for the charges which may become payable.

It is interesting to note what they were, and to reflect that the maximum charge payable in the case of a county constituency with more than 30,000 electors was £1,000, and in the case of a borough it was £700. It is clear that in 1918 the view was taken that the financial charge involved should be reduced, and that the figure which we now have of £150 is not there to act primarily as a deterrent to frivolous candidates. Perhaps I might mention, in passing, that it is calculated that the equivalent of £150 in 1918 is £52 10s. today.

At a General Election nowadays all the seats, including Mr. Speaker's seat, are contested. I think that possibly the only present Member of the House ever to have had the pleasure of being returned unopposed is my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). Few of us are likely to be returned unopposed. There will be contests between the official party candidates for every seat in the country, and the question of the deposit is not likely to deter any of those can- didates. To suppose that there is any deterrent effect in the deposit seems to be unreal.

Nor do I believe that the deposit has the effect of deterring what are identifiable as less than serious candidates. For instance, "Screaming Lord Sutch" was not deterred from taking on the Prime Minister at Huyton by the fact that he had to put up £150. Indeed, his advisers may have told him that this could be money well spent. I do not know. But if the purpose is to deter the frivolous candidate, the present situation does not help. Instead, it creates a situation in which we are apparently prepared to tolerate the idea of a financial penalty on candidature, and I find this objectionable.

We know that the penalty can be considerable. It is only necessary to look at the statistics of some of the General Elections since the war to see how consider able it can be. In 1950, there were 460 forfeit deposits, 319 of which were on the Liberal side. In 1964, there were 187 forfeit deposits, 53 of which came on the Liberal side. In 1966, there were 237 forfeit deposits, and 104 Liberals were unlucky enough not to get their money back.

I make that point because, in moving the Amendment, I claim complete disinterest. I do not think that the effect of removing the requirement for a deposit will benefit my party at all, and I stand in the paradoxical position of arguing a powerful case for a totally absent Liberal Party.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

The subject is too painful for them.

Mr. Onslow

I had thought that I should get some support from the Liberals, at least on behalf of their insurers. I understand that at one time the Liberal Party persuaded an insurance broker to take the risk. I believe that in 1950 they may well have taken their insurers to the cleaners. Whether they can still insure against the risk of losing their deposits I do not know, but I do not consider that it adds to the dignity of an election that any candidate has to insure against the loss of his deposit. This seems to be an unnecessary indignity.

If the purpose is to safeguard public funds against unnecessary expenditure at an election, I do not think that that works, either. I do not believe that it deters frivolous candidates. We could not argue that the original level set in 1918 would apply today, unless we were prepared to raise it to £400, and I am not prepared to argue that. The financial burdens on democracy are already dangerously high.

That leads me to suggest, first, that we should withdraw the requirement for a deposit, and, secondly, that we should increase the number of signatures validating a nomination. At the moment what is required is a proposer, a seconder, and eight names. Amendment No. 38 suggests that that should be amended to read a proposer, a seconder, and 48 names, a total of 50. I know that the old election hands will throw up their hands in horror at the idea of 50 people having to sign their names correctly on the election nomination paper, but this is the argument of an idle man. If an agent is so careless that he is incapable of checking that the 50 names are right, and are correctly reproduced in the form in which they are set out on the electoral roll, he is not capable of running an election at all.

Most of us stand for Parliament fortified by the knowledge that we have more than 10 signatures behind us. It is not unknown for candidates to be put up with two, three, four, or five nomination papers, all perfectly entered, to sup port their candidature. I think it is much more a fair test that a man should be able to say that 50 people wish him to put his hat into the ring, than that he should have to say that he has been able to get 10 people to put their names down, and that as he has £150 he will have a go.

Mr. C. Pannell indicated dissent.

Mr. Onslow

The right hon. Gentle man shakes his head. I put forward that point of view because we see the financial burden on political activity and democracy increasing daily. The Amendment is consistent with the principles of democracy, and if the Bill had been so drawn I should have been glad to couple it with a further Amendment enabling candidates who get a fair proportion of the poll to reclaim a proportion of their expenses. I cannot, however, argue that, because to do so would take me out of order.

I welcome the opportunity of putting my case to the House, and of suggesting that it is much more important, in a man's entitlement to stand for election to this House, that he should be able to bring before the public a substantial number of names to endorse his candidature, than that he should be able to say, "I can, if the worst comes to the worst, afford to throw away £150 ".

The Under-Secretary of State for Scot land (Mr. Norman Buchan)

I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). Basically, this is a simple proposition. I do not think that the deposit of £150 effectively pre vents a freak or frivolous candidature. An example of that was given. A much better alternative is, however, that there should be some evidence of a substantial body of support, in this case it is suggested 48 names. This is a fairly simple proposition.

There has been a lot of talk about it, but it has never been accepted that this change should be made. I remember Mr. David Butler, the psephologist, arguing that a large number of names should be brought forward in this way, but I do not think that the Amendment would do what the hon. Gentleman in tends. I say that because 48 is too few to establish a substantial body of sup port, and, on the other hand, too many for the comfort of the agent who may, in a great hurry, have to make the proper arrangements.

Mr. Onslow indicated dissent.

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, but we know the difficulties which can be caused by trying, in a short time, to get the whole thing exactly right. We know of the signature which misses out the middle name, or is slightly different from that on the electoral roll, and so on. The figure suggested is too many for comfort, and too few to establish substantial support. I therefore do not consider that the hon.' Gentleman has made his case.

This is an interesting issue, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. I accept that basis of his argument that we should not use finance to prevent the workings of democracy, and I am glad that he rejected the possibility of increasing the amount of money payable. The case for a change has not been made, and I think that we should follow the line of successive Electoral and Speakers' Conferences, and accept the situation as it stands.

Mr. Costain

Can the Minister tell us the amount of deposits forfeited at the last two General Elections?

Mr. Buchan

Some figures were given earlier, and I saw no reason to challenge them. I do not have the up-to-date figures. I suspect that both in relative amounts and per party the sum was not unlike some of the figures put for ward earlier.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell

The hon. Gentleman was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference, as I was. There is something in the point which he makes that £150 in 1918 is worth only about £52 now, but he knows that we took that into consideration. Whereas it might have been a burden in 1918, it is less of a burden row, so Mr. Speaker's Conference deliberately decided to keep it as a relatively small financial penalty. As for "Screaming Lord Sutch", it was probably worth more for the publicity to him, and in any case he probably earns far more than the Prime Minister does.

Mr. Onslow

Oh, come!

Mr. Pannell

Yes, he probably does, or he gets it in one way or another. The hon. Gentleman had better not tempt me on that issue, and, for the sake of argument, perhaps I should speak of "any" Prime Minister. The whole affair was frivolous, and it was rather a bad thing in itself that we had that candidature, but I do not regard it as a good case to argue from.

Now, the point about signatures. I am not at all sure that what the hon. Gentleman says is right. I can remember one occasion when the question of a nomination paper was raised and the returning officer said," As long as the person is identified as that person, I shall take the paper ". However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's agent could tell him about these things. There is always the tested nomination paper, the one which is put to the returning officer, which is 100 per cent. right. We all collect the other nomination papers—from the branch of the A.E.U. in my case, from the British Legion in another, from the Soroptimists in another, and so on. These are the dummies, the decorative nomination papers.

After having spent a good deal of time on this matter in conference and having taken part in a collective decision, I cannot see an affront to democracy in the arrangements we now have. I think that it is probably a good thing to indicate that Parliamentary candidature is in no sense a frivolous matter, and I should not want it ever to be so, but, though I listened with sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's argument, I feel that we shall approach the subject rather more responsibly if we leave the position as it is.

Mr. Onslow

I am much obliged to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), the level of whose reply, if I may say so, was more studied and less superficial than that of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I despair of getting any sense out of the Under-Secretary, and I suppose that I had better withdraw the Amendment, though I do so with reluctance.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sharples

I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 27, line 12, leave out paragraph 2.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving)

We may discuss, at the same time, the following two further Amendments: No. 36, in page 27, line 16, leave out 'ten' and insert 'a quarter past nine'.

No. 37, in page 27, line 16, at end insert:

Polling hours at local elections

3 In rule 3 of the local election rules, for 'eight o'clock in the morning' there shall be substituted the words 'seven o'clock in the morning', and for 'eight o'clock in the evening 'there shall be substituted the words' a quarter past nine in the evening', and the proviso to paragraph (1) and the whole of paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be deleted.

Mr. Sharples

Paragraph 2 of the Schedule extends the hour of polling at Parliamentary elections from 9 until 10 o'clock at night. This matter was debated on Second Reading, but one of the difficulties which the House found, and which its Committee still finds, is that the Government have advanced no argument in favour of the change. I understand that it was one of the matters considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference, which came to the conclusion that no change should be made.

Before agreeing to what is now pro posed, the Committee should be told what evidence has been put to the Government to persuade them to reverse the decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference. If an important decision like this is to be taken, there must have been clear evidence and pressure put on the Government to that end.

From whom did the pressure come? Did it come from representatives of the trade unions? If there is a real demand for the extra hour from any broadly representative section of the community, no one would wish, by opposing such a move, to prevent people from exercising their right to vote.

Is the change intended to meet the problems of shift workers? We have not been told. Was there pressure from employers' organisations? We must have clear answers to these questions. Did representations come from any of the main political parties? Was it felt by any of them that people were being deprived of their right to vote by the closing of polling stations at 9 o'clock instead of 10?

Did representations come from any of the bodies concerned in the conduct of elections or in the administration of Government generally? If there is such evidence, the Committee should be plainly told.

Mr. C. Pannell

At a time when we want to get away, the hon. Gentleman asks all these questions although he knows that the answer to each one of them is, "No".

Mr. Sharples

If the answer is "No", as the right hon. Gentleman says—he knows much better than I do, since he was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference—I do not know it and, if the Committee is asked to make a major change in the electoral system the Government should tell us on whose recommendation it is proposed.

What consultation took place? Were there consultations with any of the interested bodies? What was the view of the various societies representing returning officers? They are the people who have to administer elections and on whom grave responsibilities lie. If they objected to this proposal, the returning officers may have said that there were administrative difficulties. Administrative difficulties are by no means insuperable, but we should look at the matter from the point of view of the officer who is responsible for the conduct of an election.

Let us think of the clerk at the polling station. At a Parliamentary election, he probably has to be at his place of work at least half an hour before polling opens to make sure that everything is set up properly. If the proposed change is made, he will probably have to remain in the polling station for 15 hours. In many cases, it is difficult for returning officers to arrange reliefs for those who man polling stations at a Parliamentary election when polling is relatively heavy during the whole of the day. Moreover, in many constituencies the same people have to be used for organising and taking part at the count as were used throughout the day at the polling stations.

Everyone concerned with local government accepts that at General Election times he will have to work very long hours, but there are limits beyond which we ought not to ask those who serve us so well to go. If people are asked to go too far, they will get tired and make mis takes which all of us will regret.

The Government may say that this is essential to meet the needs of certain people who cannot vote during the 14 hours at present available, but, if so, what is so different about local elections? If someone cannot get to the poll by 9 o'clock at a General Election, what different arrangements is he supposed to make for a local election? If this proposal is accepted, there will clearly be absolute confusion during the first local election after it comes into effect. If there were a March General Election, and the polls closed at 10 o'clock, would any one realise at the local government elections the following April and May that the closing hour was different?

One thing that we must do is make it possible for as many people as possible to vote in local elections, which are, in some ways, almost as important as General Elections. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has said that the hours are different now. They are in the morning, of course, but it is not in the morning that this difficulty arises. Many people put off voting until the last minute. It does not matter whether the polling stations close at 11 or 12 o'clock: these people would still do the same. There is a great difference between different opening hours in the morning—although I should like them to be the same—and different closing hours, which present great dangers.

This proposal is wholly unnecessary, administratively undesirable and will lead to confusion at local elections. It is directly contrary to the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference and not one shred of evidence for it has yet been offered to the Committee. I do not believe that it should be in the Bill, and unless we get a firm assurance that the Government intend to reconsider their decision, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the Committee against it.

Mr. Roland Moyle (Lewisham, North)

I want to draw attention to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), proposing that polling stations should remain open until 9.15 only. I suppose that the longer they are open, the more likely it is that there will be a 100 per cent. vote. Traditionally, my party more than any other has pressed for the extension of the hours of opening, but one can have too much of a good thing. We shall have to maintain party workers in action until 10 o'clock and this is not the first time that I have said that party workers who support hon. Gentlemen on both sides are fairly important people in the working of the democratic machine.

To some extent, we should curb their natural enthusiasm to ensure our return to the House. I know that it is probably fashionable on both sides to think that hon. Members themselves are solely responsible for any electoral triumphs in their constituencies, which is why we often do not pay enough attention to these voluntary and hardworking people who canvass, man polling stations and push out literature—

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

I agree completely that these people are a very important part of the Parliamentary system. Is it not a pity, therefore, that the Prime Minister should have cast a slur on them in saying that, because they are interested in politics, they can not be included in the Honours List—as if they were lepers?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Moyle

I am sure that my own party workers get their reward by seeing me in the House, but I would hesitate to say that the same applied in Peter borough.

The other aspect of this problem, which is not confined only to my constituency but which I have seen in a number of others in which I have worked, is that the great majority of electors have voted by about 8.30 or 8.45. Therefore, there will be a rapidly diminishing return in keeping the polling stations open a further hour. There is also the problem for the voters themselves who, having voted by 8.30, find while relaxing before their television sets at 9.45 that they are continually knocked up by party workers from both main parties. This will not add to the popularity of party political activity.

For all these reasons, I should like my right hon. Friend to consider this again, possibly with a view to seeing whether he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orpington, which is a very sensible compromise.

Mr. Lubbock

I am very grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) and I echo what he said about party workers. None of us, once he is elected, spends enough time considering how much he owes these workers, without whose assistance none of us would be here. To impose on them the great additional load of having to stay on until 10 o'clock, getting voters to the polls and staying on there after as observers during the count—

Mr. C. Pannell

Scrutineers.

Mr. Lubbock

I mean scrutineers, a word which I know the right hon. Gentle man prefers.

This will mean that they will have had a 16-hour or 17-hour day, which is absolutely unreasonable and too much to ask of anyone who voluntarily gives service to make the democratic system work. If I had to call on the Orpington Liberal Association to do it, I know that they would put their shoulders to the wheel with a glad heart, but it would be unreasonable to compel them to spend that much time "at the finishing post" after what has probably been a long and gruelling election.

Therefore, I have suggested what the hon. Member has been good enough to call a sensible compromise, designed to test the Home Secretary's hypothesis that, because polling stations are closed at 9 o'clock, some people are thereby pre vented from voting and that, if we kept them open another hour, they could do so. Very well, let us advance the hour to 9.15, and we can then make a comparison between previous elections and the first at which this change was made to see whether there was any noticeable difference. But if there has not been, then, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) said, we can only assume that, whatever time polling comes to an end, there will be people who will leave it to the last minute. If one goes to a polling station just before 9 p.m. one usually sees a rush of people to vote when previously during the afternoon it has been quiet. There is a tendency for people to leave voting till the last minute.

Amendment No. 37 is concerned with bringing the hours of polling in local elections into line with those applying to Parliamentary elections. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for his support, although I suggest that it is important to make the polling times coincide at both the beginning and end of the day.

Many people go to polling stations at 7 o'clock in the morning at local elections, having only a month or so previously cast their votes at that hour in a Parliamentary election. However, they find that in local elections the polling stations are not open at 7 a.m. It may be inconvenient for them to return before 9 o'clock at night, or they may say," I have gone to the trouble to arrive at the polling station at 7 a.m., having hurried over my breakfast, leaving me little time in which to catch my train. As they have not bothered to open, I will not bother to cast my vote." I have heard people say this.

There is no reason why we should not change the hour at which people may vote in local elections to make it coincide with opening time for Parliamentary elections. Indeed, I cannot understand how the difference arose in the first place. At present there is an option at the end of the day under the election rules. There is a proviso by which instead of closing at 8 p.m. the polls may be kept open until 9 p.m. I am informed that in practically every part of the country this option is exercised and the 9 o'clock rule applies.

I recommend that we no longer need this proviso. Instead, there should be a universal closing time for local elections throughout the country, just as there is for Parliamentary elections. I have suggested 9.15 p.m. for local elections so that both local and Parliamentary election closing times are the same.

I cannot see any virtue in having a close of poll coinciding with the striking of the clock at the hour of 10, except that it might be easier for people to remember 10 o'clock, which is the only argument of substance in favour of advancing the time by one hour. At first people might go to the polls just after 9 o'clock. They would previously have been prevented from casting their vote. They will find that there is an additional quarter of an hour—that is, if my recommended time of 9.15 p.m. is accepted—and thus be able to cast their vote, which may result in a marginally increased poll.

Unless powerful evidence can be adduced by the Home Secretary to show why an extra hour is vital, his proposal will create all sorts of difficulties. I am mainly concerned with the plight of party workers, but we must not forget the returning officers and those who are engaged professionally in the conduct of elections. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal will inevitably mean many results not being declared until the following day, particularly if counts must in some cases take place the following morning. Indeed, if the former Leader of the House had his way, we might have had morning polling the following day, the polls having been closed at 9 o'clock the night before

We are prepared to go a part of the way with the Government to test the feeling of the electorate. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept 9.15 p.m. as a compromise between his suggestion and the system we already have, I am sure that that would be acceptable to the three parties and the electorate as a whole.

Mr. C. Pannell

I do not think that many of the arguments that have been advanced, however eloquently, on this subject will move the Home Secretary. I wish to advance some that may influence him.

My right hon. Friend received advice from both of the main political parties saying that there should be two registers a year. He replied that, refretfully, he could not accept that advice. It would have been too expensive. Sir Stafford Cripps abolished the idea in 1949, and then it cost £3 million.

Bearing that in mind, what is this extra hour for polling likely to cost? There will have to be a completely new scale of expenses for returning officers, otherwise we will not get them. There will be overtime all along the line, great confusion and a great deal of other expense, particularly in a divided city like Leeds, with a complete recount the next day. That used to happen regularly. In divided cities there were frequently six recounts. This is one reason why I am still in favour of carrying on the process the following day, but that is another argument.

A great deal of strain is bound to be placed on many people. In 1924 in my constituency there were seven recounts of two votes. The nonsense was stopped only when the Conservative candidate went into hysterics and fainted. The Home Secretary—who, after all, has not lost a certain fiduciary flavour in his arguments—should say why he is pre pared to refuse two registers a year, which would be vital—both parties want that; it would not really be an extravagance—but is prepared to condone this sort of extravagance all along the line.

There is the other argument that in many cases one cannot increase the size of the poll. By the time the count is taken, the register is usually only about 85 per cent. accurate. This proves that the polling figures at General Elections are nothing short of amazing. On one occasion a village in my constituency polled over 90 per cent. On another occasion sufficient ballot papers were printed in South Coventry to cater for a poll of 95 per cent—and they ran out of ballot papers.

The antecedents of the Chair, however lurid, must never be referred to. The antecedents of the Under-Secretary may be referred to, and even called in question. My hon. Friend represents Leeds, South. He is next door to me and I regard him as a good neighbour. I am willing to bet that if, at the last General Election, he had gone into a polling booth in his constituency at the same time at which I went into one in my constituency, he would not have found any voters there. I was told by the presiding officer," They are all watching 'telly'. 'Gunsmoke' is on. In any event," he added," they have nearly all balloted."

I assure hon. Members that I have studied this matter. At the last General Election I carefully watched what went on at one polling station. Not a vote was cast after 8.40 p.m. Leeds and Pudsey have been the subject of investigation by the Leeds University. Considering the polling habits of people, it seems that we are now unable to get much bigger polls than we already get. One will always come across the person who will be shut out at the last moment. In many instances people will use this as an alibi for not voting. The electoral process cannot turn on that sort of consideration.

Perhaps the Home Secretary is struggling after an electoral liability. Has he realised that if the polling stations are kept open until 10 o'clock the pubs may suffer? Does he believe that people should do their drinking before or after they have voted? All sorts of considerations come into this and I trust that my right hon. Friend has borne them in mind.

I was a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I appreciate, whatever I may feel about youngsters of 18 having the vote, that strong views are held on the subject and that it is a substantial political matter. It is of far more importance than the matter we are now considering. Although I might not have agreed on the first issue, I appreciate the weight of argument in favour of votes at 18. But I have never heard a great demand for the polls to be kept open until 10 o'clock. In the main, people are working shorter hours and they are not working overtime to such an extent. Who would this proposal benefit? It would be to every one's disadvantage. I do not usually vote against the Government, but I certainly will not go into the Lobby in favour of this proposal in the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

Perhaps it might be advantageous if I intervene at this stage to give answers to some of the questions which have been asked. I have no intention of bringing the debate to an end.

I regret that I was not in my place when the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) asked a number of questions, but I have had a full account of them and I shall endeavour to give the answers. I was engaged elsewhere when he was speaking. Somehow the Home Office seems to be involved practically every other day in something or other in the House.

It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said, that Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended that there should be no change in the law in this respect. This is a situation in which the Government have departed from the recommendations of the conference. The evidence that was given to the Government was, on the whole, along the lines of that which has been expressed in speeches this after noon—that the functionaries concerned with elections do not want this change.

They wanted polling to finish at 9 o'clock at night, but the Government take the view—it was the Government's own decision—that there was a case for extending the hours of polling to 10 o'clock. There are people who are excluded when polling ends at 9 p.m. They should be given the opportunity to vote. Therefore, the Government bring this as their conclusion to the Committee in face of the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I ask the Committee to sup port their view.

Mr. Sharples

For reasons which I appreciate, the right hon. Gentleman was not present when I made my speech. I not only asked what were the views of returning officers, but what positive evidence there was from outside bodies of any kind, trade unions, employers, local government, and so on, from either side of industry or the political parties, of a demand for this change.

Mr. Callaghan

This conclusion was drawn from the political experience of members of the Government, which is as great as that of outside organisations or of anyone else. In their view there were circumstances in which people did not vote until 9 o'clock. It was the Government's collective view, having discussed and considered the evidence, that there was a case for extending the time to 10 o'clock.

Several Hon. Members

rose —

Mr. Callaghan

I did not think that I was saying anything controversial. I was stating the Government's view.

Mr. Lubbock

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that view was supported by any outside organisation?

Mr. Callaghan

I thought that I was being absolutely clear. The Government reached their own conclusion on this matter. The functionaries were opposed; the presiding officers and those concerned with elections do not like this proposal. They want polling to finish at 9 o'clock, but the Government are entitled to reach their own conclusion and to submit it to the Committee. There is no more to it than that and no less.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Callaghan

I think that the hon. Member would be about the fourth on the list.

Mr. Costain

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in some rural areas where only a few people are going to the poll, it is absolutely absurd to keep polling stations open for 15 hours when probably about 190 have polled early in the morning?

Mr. Callaghan

I should like to be permitted to develop the case. I have been interrupted several times after speaking about two sentences. Before 1948, the polling hours were 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., but there was an option to apply for an extension at either end. The present statutory hours are 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. It is difficult to produce concrete evidence that any polling hours are in disputably the right ones. I grant that there are constitutional difficulties, but these have to be balanced against other considerations. There are the interests of election officials, of candidates, of agents and the interest of the electorate, to be considered.

On average, Parliamentary elections occur only every four years. It is not as though we were asking everyone to do this additional work every day, or even once a week; it happens once every four years. The Government propose that once every four years the poll should be open until 10 instead of 9 o'clock. It cannot be expected that the poll should be open no more than the present mini mum number of hours. The emphasis should be the other way round giving the longest possible reasonable time.

With our changing social habits it cannot be argued that 10 p.m. is very late for members of the public to be about. Working hours may be shorter than they used to be—since the Government came to office they have been shorter—but there is much more travel ling than there used to be. Although no one can prove that any particular hours are right, there is a case for extending the time to 10 o'clock.

After the publication of the Government's proposals, the societies representing returning officers in England and Wales asked the Home Office for a meeting and put their view. They did not conceal the fact that they were concerned about the arrangements for Parliamentary elections. They said that it was difficult to get staff of the right calibre, particularly for the type of presiding officer needed, and that the extra hour would not add to the attractions of the job.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West asked about cost. The Treasury fixes the scale of expenses for returning officers, including the pay for presiding officers and poll clerks. The present fees are seven guineas and £4 a day respectively. The Treasury indicated to societies of returning officers that it would be prepared to consider a pro rata increase for the extra time of polling. The returning officers have ex pressed doubt whether such an increase would be sufficient. I can only say that the Treasury is willing to meet the additional cost on a pro rata basis for the extra hours involved for the staff.

I accept that this means that in a number of areas the count cannot take place on the evening of the day of poll and it may have to be postponed to the following day. This would be one of the results of the proposed change, but in many constituencies the count already takes place on the day after the poll. If satisfactory arrangements can be made for a count on the following day, which, of course, involves the custody of ballot papers overnight, there is no reason to expect greater difficulty in other areas than where at present the count takes place on the following day. There may be difficulty about mustering as many observers, but candidates do this in areas where the count traditionally takes place on the day after the poll.

I do not think that there is anything in the point about the use of schools, because at the moment there is no requirement on a local authority to do more than to allow the school to be used for the polls. I do not want to make too much of this, but there is no authority to require a local authority to make the school available for the purposes of a count. It is only for the purposes of the poll. I dare say there will be many cases, as there are in county areas now, where this alternative arrangement can be made.

As regards the extension proposed by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), a quarter of an hour is neither here nor there. There is something to be said for closing the poll on the striking of the clock, though on occasion I have regretted it. More recently, there have not been quite the crowds at the close of the poll that I remember in my earlier days, when I saw queues at ten to nine at night trying to get into the polling station and often people were shut out. There fore, I propose that we adhere to the striking of the clock. That makes it 10 p.m. or 9 p.m.

As to the starting time, I rely on the fact that the political parties considered the matter, but although they would have liked an earlier start, they recognised the administrative difficulties and were content for it to remain at 8 a.m. This is what I understand to be their conclusions in my conference. This is what is reported to me as being the conclusions of the conference.

Mr. Lubbock

Why should administrative difficulties be brought in to argue against doing something in the morning which the Secretary of State has decided to do in the evening?

Mr. Callaghan

If the Government had thought that there would be a substantial number of people voting in local elections at 7 a.m., that would have made a difference and we would have overcome the administrative difficulties. I do not think that there is the same incentive to vote at 7 a.m. in a local election as there may be to vote after 9 p.m. in a General Election. There is a case for an optional closing time, but nobody has suggested this. I suggest that this is something that the Committee might want to consider, although I would not recommend it. There is much to be said for having a fixed time, with everybody knowing what it is, and for its being standard through out the country.

My recommendation to the Committee on behalf of the Government is that we should give the electorate this extra hour in which to cast their votes, accepting that there are administrative complications arising from it, but hoping that in the end the result will be that there will be a bigger vote than there would have been otherwise, in which case it will have been justified.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

Does not the Home Secretary appreciate that the lethargic who have not managed to cast their votes in 14 hours will be shut out at 10 p.m. just as they are shut out at 9 p.m.? Many people say that they have had no time to vote as a polite way of saying that they want to abstain.

Mr. Callaghan

I have met such people at 8.45 in the evening, just as the hon. Gentleman has, no doubt. It is also the case, especially with shift workers, that 10 p.m. could be a convenient time. There are a number of shifts that start at 10 p.m. and run to 6 a.m. The workers start to leave for their work at 9.30 p.m. Perhaps they even go into the "pub"—into the Labour club in my constituency—and drink a pint before going to work. If the poll closes at 9 p.m., I see them coming into the club at 9.30 in the evening having just left home in time for a drink, and then going straight to the works.

I hope that maybe some of them will be inclined to vote before they go to work. This is a matter that cannot be proved either way. There is no case for saying that there should be less than a reasonable number of hours in which people can cast their votes. Nobody can claim that from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. is an excessive number of hours in which to register a vote once in five years to re turn someone to the House of Commons.

[Dr. A. D. D. BROUGHTON in the Chair]

8.15 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

I do not think that even the Secretary of State believes that he deserves to get away with that. I have admired the right hon. Gentleman's tactics for many years. He pulled all the stops out of the barrel to smooth over a point, knowing that he has no case. He used all his charm and sweet reasonableness, but did not answer one of the questions. He had to admit that he has nobody to support him, except what he calls "the Government".

This is a case in which the voice of Parliament should be heeded. Both sides have made it clear that they think that the Government are wrong in making this proposal. I was interested in one sentence the right hon. Gentleman used. He said that the Government have decided this, that the Government are com posed of people with a fair amount of experience at elections, and that their view is that it should be 10 p.m. He said," Having examined the evidence, that is what the Government have decided ".

What was the evidence that the Government examined? Was there any evidence which they examined which fitted in with what they have decided to recommend their supporters to vote for? The right hon. Gentleman admitted that those who run the elections have made it clear that they think that this is a bad thing and that they may not be able to recruit people to run the machine. Mr. Speaker's Conference made the clear recommendation that this is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has heard the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). What was the evidence that the Government examined? I would give way if the right hon. Gentleman wished to say that he had any evidence at all which fitted in with what the Government are recommending to the Commit tee.

Mr. Callaghan

When a challenge such as this is issued it is easy for an hon. Gentleman to go on and say," As the Minister did not rise, clearly he had no evidence ". So I intervene. The evidence is that people have been shut out of the poll at 9 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I wonder where the evidence came from. Some people will be shut out at 10 p.m. Whatever the closing time, somebody will be shut out. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence—otherwise, he would have used it—to show that a sufficient number of people were shut out at 9 p.m. to justify this alteration. Certainly, those running the machine do not think that. His right hon. and hon. Friends do not think that. My right hon. and hon. Friends, who are equally experienced, do not think that.

The right hon. Gentleman used all his charm. He used that reasonable approach of which he has such an abundance. But he did not make out a case. This is an instance where, even now, he ought not to try to whip his hon. Friends into the Lobby to support anything as nebulous as this. I beg him to have second thoughts.

Mr. Onslow

The Home Secretary has been so urbane and bland, for a change, that he has made it perfectly clear that he has a rotten case—and he knows it. It is the right hon. Gentleman's manner, when he thinks that he has something of a case, to be somewhat more discourteous than the Committee likes.

It may help the House if I go briefly through an exchange of correspondence which I have had with the Home Office on behalf of the clerk of one of my local authorities who was concerned in the giving of advice to the Electoral Advisory Committee. He wrote to me on 25th July, after the publication of the White Paper, complaining about the proposals to extend polling hours till 10 p.m. He told me then that in April, 1968 he was asked by the Home Office to express his opinion on the possible extension of polling hours till 9.30 p.m. He expressed himself as being strongly opposed to it. He was, naturally, very surprised, on the publication of the White Paper, to find that the proposal was for an extension till 10 p.m. and he told me that he was even more strongly opposed to that proposal.

I undertook to do what I could to discover what was in the Government's mind; why this decision, which was wholly unlooked for, had been made; and what evidence, if any, the Government had seen fit to consider.

Accordingly, I wrote to the Home Office. On 12th August I received a reply from Lord Stonham, in which he said: In reaching their conclusion on this matter the Government were aware of and took into account the administrative difficulties … which would be involved, but we considered that these difficulties should not be allowed to prevail over the principle of affording the longest reasonable time for people to exercise their voting rights at Parliamentary elections, which are held infrequently. The Home Secretary repeated that tonight.

The letter goes on: In our opinion an extension to 10 p.m. would be of particular advantage in areas where people travel some distance to work and do not return in time to vote conveniently before 9 p.m. I wrote again to Lord Stonham, asking whether he could tell me from whom evidence had been taken about the value of an extension to 10 p.m. and whether he could cite specific areas where people travel some distance to work and do not return in time to vote conveniently before 9 p.m. He replied as follows: The answer to your first question is that my colleagues, with their experience (which I can from personal knowledge confirm) of fighting elections and of what goes on at polling stations, required no evidence from out side to convince them of the value and importance of allowing the maximum opportunity for people to vote. As for the people about whom you particularly asked—those who travel some distance to work and do not return in time to vote conveniently before 9 p.m.—my colleagues had particularly in mind the needs of shift workers in industry. Shift working is commonest in the large industrial areas, but is by no means unknown in many other parts of the country. This care for shift workers is no doubt commendable, but the statement that the Government required no evidence is an extraordinarily insulting remark even from a Minister of this Government. The comment in the Fulton Report that it is an abuse of consultation if it is simply used to prepare the ground for decisions which have been taken already applies with great force to this case.

Shift workers who are likely to be away for the whole of polling day ought to have no difficulty in getting a postal vote, anyway. If they come home at six in the morning, it ought to be no great trial for them to stay up an extra hour and vote when polling stations first open. The unfortunate functionaries, as the Home Secretary so patronisingly calls them, who man the polling stations will be working a day of 15 hours or more for a sum as yet undisclosed, but certainly it will be substantial.

Those of us who are used to getting election results on the night of the election will find increasingly that counts take place the following day. The premises for counts will cost more to obtain, and the staff to do the counting will be more difficult to obtain, because most bank clerks will be working in their banks and will not be able to do it. The whole process will be made more difficult, expensive, and cumbersome simply because the Home Secretary will not admit that he is wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman took a certain view. He consulted a lot of people and found that they did not agree with him. He was to stubborn and is still too stubborn to change his mind. As a result, thanks to one man's stubbornness, a great many people will be put to considerable inconvenience.

I do not think that there is any substantial evidence to show that large numbers of people are being deprived of the opportunity to vote by reason of the polling stations shutting at 9 p.m. I doubt whether there will be more than 10 in any constituency. Let us say that there will be 6,000 throughout the country, half of whom, if they applied themselves, could get there in time and would be unable to vote only if they went home, had a meal, washed and changed and

perhaps stopped at the local for a beer before going to the polling station.

If we agree to the Home Secretary's proposal, voters will be exposed to the danger of polling procedures being handled by tired men. That is too great a price to pay for one man's stubbornness. This is a bad proposal, though I have no doubt that the Home Secretary is delighted at the prospect of whipping his supporters to vote for it. It is his proposal and his alone.

Mr. Sharples

We have had an extremely unfortunate reply from the Home Secretary. To say that it was a disappointment would be the under-statement of the year. Unfortunately, he was unable to be present throughout the debate, for reasons which I understand, but finally he came into the Chamber apparently with no interest in any of the arguments put forward from either side of the Committee. There was a most powerful speech from his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who asked a large number of questions. The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to answer them, or any of the points raised by other hon. Members. After listening to one and a half speeches, he came to the Dispatch Box and said," We have no evidence of this. No views have been expressed to us about it. It is the Government's view that this change should be made ".

Clearly, it is the Government's view. It is not that of his own party. The Government have been wrong before, and they are wrong again, and the country will realise it.

There is no point in continuing this debate. It is clear that the Government are not prepared to listen to reason from either side of the Committee or anyone outside. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the Committee now.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 110, Noes 171.

Division No. 35.] AYES [8.25 p.m.
Astor, John Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Carlisle, Mark
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Brewis, John Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Chichester-Clark, R,
Bessell, Peter Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Cooke, Robert
Biffen, John Bullus, Sir Eric Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Corfield, F. V,
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W) Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Costain, A. P.
Dalkeith, Earl of Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Ridsdale, Julian
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Lubbock, Eric Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Dean, Paul MacArthur, Ian Royle, Anthony
Deedes, Rt. Hn, W. F. (Ashford) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Sharples, Richard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas McMaster, Stanley Silvester, Frederick
Elliott,R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) McNair-Wilson, Patrick Sinclair, Sir George
Eyre, Reginald Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Farr, John Maude. Angus Speed, Keith
Fortescue, Tim Mawby, Ray Stainton, Keith
Gibson-Watt, David Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.) Summers, Sir Spencer
Glover, Sir Douglas More, Jasper Temple, John M.
Gower, Raymond Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Grant, Anthony Monro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh van Straubenzee, W. R.
Grieve, Percy Murton, Oscar Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Nicholls, Sir Harmar Waddington, David
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Onslow, Cranley Webster, David
Hawkins, Paul Osborn, John (Hallam) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Page, Graham (Crosby) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Hiley, Joseph Page, John (Harrow, W.) Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Hill, J. E. B. Peel, John Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Howell, David (Guildford) Pike, Miss Mervyn Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Hunt, John Pounder, Rafton Wright, Esmond
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Pym, Francis Wylie, N. R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Quennell, Miss J. M. Younger, Hn. George
Kitson, Timothy Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Rees-Davies, W. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lane, David' Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Mr. Hector Monro and
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
NOES
Albu, Austen Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) McCann, John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) MacColl, James
Alldritt, Waiter Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Macdonald, A. H.
Allen, Scholefield Ewing, Mrs. Winifred McGuire, Michael
Anderson, Donald Faulds, Andrew Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Archer, Peter Finch, Harold Maclennan, Robert
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Fitch, Alan (Wigan) McMillan, Tom (G'gow, C.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McNamara, J. Kevin
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) MacPherson, Malcolm
Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice Ford, Ben Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Fowler, Gerry Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Beaney, Alan Galpern, Sir Myer Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Gardner, Tony Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Bishop, E. S. Garrett, W. E. Mapp, Charles
Blackburn, F. Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Marks, Kenneth
Blenkinsop, Arthur Gregory, Arnold Marquand, David
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Booth, Albert Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mendelson, J. J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Buchan, Norman Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hannan, William Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Harper, Joseph Moyle, Roland
Carmichael, Neil Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Neal, Harold
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hattersley, Roy Newens, Stan
Coe, Denis Hazell, Bert Noel-Baker. Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby,S.)
Coleman, Donald Heffer, Eric S. Norwood, Christopher
Concannon, J. D. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret O'Malley, Brian
Crawshaw, Richard Hooley, Frank Oram, Albert E.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Orme, Stanley
Dalyell, Tarn Hoy, James Oswald, Thomas
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Hughes, Emrys (Ayrsh're, S.) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hunter, Adam Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Hynd, John Park, Trevor
Dell, Edmund Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Dempsey, James Janner, Sir Barnett Pavitt, Laurence
Dewar, Donald Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Dickens, James Jones, Dan (Burnley) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Dobson, Ray Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Pentland, Norman
Doig, Peter Kelley, Richard Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Driberg, Tom Kenyon, Clifford Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Eadie, Alex Lawson, George Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Leadbitter, Ted Probert, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Rankin, John
Ellis, John Lomas, Kenneth Rees, Merlyn
English, Michael Loughlin, Charles Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ennals, David Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Rose, Paul Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Ross, Rt. Hn, William Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Whitaker, Ben
Sheldon, Robert Symonds, J. B. Wilkins, W. A.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Taverne, Dick Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Urwin, T. W. Woof, Robert
Silverman, Julius Varley, Eric G.
Slater, Joseph Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Small, William Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Mr. Neil McBride and
Snow, Julian Watkins, David (Consett) Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Oscar Murton (Poole)

I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 27, line 23, leave out 'In'.

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. A. D. D. Broughton)

It would be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, No. 75, in page 27, leave out lines 26 to 34 and insert 'are hereby repealed", also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton).

Mr. Murton

I am really speaking on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations which, while realising that the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference was that the ballot paper should continue to be stamped with an official mark, urges that further thought should be given to whether ballot papers need official marks on them at all.

Paragraph 4 of the Schedule has been amended to abolish the procedure under which ballot papers can be embossed as an alternative to being perforated. Now, they must be embossed solely. This will reduce the number of papers which have to be declared invalid for want of official mark, for experience has shown that, where papers are marked rather than perforated, they can slip through the net. Many an indignant voter has found himself disfrancished because his paper has been disallowed.

On the other hand, one wonders whether there is any real safeguard against forgery in having the papers marked or embossed. It is worth considering whether it is worth the expense of having machinery which, simple though it may be, makes it necessary for papers to be physically perforated.

Marking or perforating is probably an obsolete relic of days when people were more unscrupulous at elections than they are now. Indeed, it is debatable whether perforation itself will give absolute protection against anyone determined on forgery. It is always possible that someone could enter a polling station early in the morning and remove a paper after it had been perforated. It would surely not be beyond the wit of man to reproduce, in the course of the day, the perforated mark and to produce forged perforated papers with someone else in the evening entering the polling booth and putting a sheaf of them into the ballot box. It sounds absurd, but equally absurd is the suggestion that the papers need a physical mark upon them.

The object of my Amendment is to remove this. When one comes to the postal vote, the paper has to be perforated, yet there is even less likelihood of forgery here. The postal vote is checked against the person in whose name it is registered. Altogether this is a time-consuming exercise. It is liable to mistakes. In debating the last series of Amendments, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that perhaps someone might get tired towards the end of the evening, and this is the one likely case when a paper may be overlooked. It would be much better if the paragraph of the Schedule were amended on the lines I recommend, which would mean that the paper would not require marking by stamping or the new arrangement of perforation.

Mr. Buchan

The argument boils down to three points—it is unnecessary, time-wasting for officials and in any event the devised method could be reproduced. This is false. It is necessary to retain some kind of marking. It is true that no one really suspects forgery in British elections, but one of the reasons for this is because of the fairly elementary but effective safeguard of marking the paper. If that did not happen, and if people did not change their habits, the kind of suspicion we want to avoid might be aroused, and that might lead to the kind of practice which we do not want to encourage.

We have tried to tighten up on this and make it more effective by bringing in perforating, which is more easily identifiable and avoids the problem of papers being marked and subsequently lost because the mark has rubbed off following handling. The figures are interesting. Something like 50,000 ballot papers were rejected at the last General Election for various reasons. Of these 2,061 were rejected because they lacked official marks altogether. The suggestion that the perforating could be reproduced is a little far-fetched. The "Great Train Robber" concept of an election is not really our problem.

It boils down to whether we think it fair to put this extra work on the pre siding officers to secure the sanctity of the election. I think that it is. In an election that takes place once every four or five years to decide the government of the country the extra work needed should be done. If a failure in stamping occurs, the ballot paper is wasted. The only answer is extra vigilance on the part of the presiding officer. We note that it should be opened before being put into the box. I agree that this does not happen very often. What is saved by retaining this habit here is very considerable.

Amendment negatived.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Sharples

I beg to move Amendment 39, in page 29, line 46, at end insert: 'by a person authorised by the returning officer'. Rule 44 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, refers to the procedure adopted on the closing of the poll and lays down what should happen to the ballot papers after the poll has been closed. It concludes by setting out the duty of the presiding officer. It provides that he shall deliver the packets to the returning officer to be taken charge of by him ". Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 of the Bill proposes that after the words 'deliver the packets' there shall be inserted the words 'or cause them to be delivered'". It does not make clear who can be authorised to carry the ballot papers from the polling station to the count.

It is right that we should make it clear that the responsibility remains with the presiding officer and that only a person who is authorised by him should be allowed to take charge. I know that normally the job will be done by a policeman in a police car. The ballot papers are handed to the police and the presiding officer normally goes with them. It is reasonable that the presiding officers should hand over the papers to someone like an officer in charge of a police car. But there could be a misunderstanding, and it would be wrong if the ballot papers were handed to, for example, a taxi driver or someone of that kind. The purpose of the Amendment is to clear up any doubt and to safeguard the situation.

Mr. Buchan

I should like to consider the Amendment. Probably it would be a good addition to the Bill. It is possible that the drafting of the Amendment needs to be altered. However, if the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) will withdraw it, I will consider it favourably.

Mr. Sharples

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In view of his clear under taking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Buchan

I beg to move Amendment 92, in page 30, line 22, at end insert: Provided that where it is for the mayor or town clerk to give notice of the poll, the description required by this sub-paragraph shall also be given by him instead of by the returning officer.

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. A. D. D. Broughton)

It would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendment 93, in Schedule 5, page 47, line 50, column 2, at end add: and the proviso, and in the local elections rules in Schedule 2 the words 'or town clerk', and in the rules in Schedule 3 the words 'mayor or'".

Mr. Buchan

These are technical Amendments, consequential on the provision in paragraph 12 (1) of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Bill that the returning officer shall, as soon as practicable after publication of a notice of poll, give to each of the election agents a description in writing of the polling districts, if any". The returning officer is not the appropriate person on whom to place this responsibility for borough elections in England and Wales outside London or at burgh elections in Scotland. At borough elections in England and Wales the mayor is required to give notice of poll. At burgh elections in Scotland the town clerk is required to give notice of poll.

The effect of the Amendment is to place on the mayor or town clerk the responsibility for giving the election agents a description of the polling districts at these elections.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Forward to