HC Deb 18 December 1968 vol 775 cc1450-9
Mr. Sharples

I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 21, line 20, at end insert: (2) In respect of section 15 as far as it relates to the property qualification under section 57 (6) of the Local Government Act, 1933, the provisions shall come into force at the elections held after 15th February, 1972.

Mr. Speaker

We shall also consider Amendment No. 56, in page 21, line 32, at end insert: Provided that to the extent to which section 15 has effect for the purpose of qualification for election to or membership of a local authority, no such order shall be made in respect of that section until after the ordinary day of election of councillors in the year 1971. standing in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

Mr. Sharples

This is probably the most important Amendment we are discussing on Report, certainly from our point of view. We attach enormous importance to the whole of Clause 15. We would like to have divided the House on the Clause as a whole but it is not possible to do so. I must make it clear, however, that our objections, particularly to the second half of the Clause, remain as strong as ever and that it is our intention, as we stated on Second Reading and in Committee, to put the matter right as and when opportunity occurs.

The Government forced through the second part of Clause 15, which restricts the right of a person to stand for election to a local authority, with a very small majority of 13. There is no doubt that there were strong feelings not confined to this side of the House, that the Government were committing a grave error of judgment in forcing that provision through.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have not selected the Amendment which would have left out Clause 15 and the hon. Gentleman must now come to Amendment No. 18.

Mr. Sharples

Given that the Government are determined to force through this restriction on the right of a person to stand for election, we come now to the question of the time at which it should become operative. There is a certain degree of urgency in reaching a decision about this.

The Bill will come into operation in the early part of next year. In spring, 1969, about 500 borough and urban district councils will be holding elections. I do not know, and I do not suppose the Home Secretary does, how many councillors already sitting on those councils will be deprived of the right to allow their names to go forward for nomination in the spring elections.

There is also the element that we have no idea of what will be the effect of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government. Neither we nor the Government have seen its report. It will take some time for its report and recommendations to be studied, for the views of the Government to be made known and for legislation to be brought in and implemented.

It may well be that, after the Royal Commission has reported, and after the Government have decided to accept certain of its views, the vast majority of those who are to be deprived of the right to stand for election to local councils in the next year or so will be able to put their names forward again. Thus, unless we impose some form of time control on Clause 15, a large number of people will have to drop out of local government for a few years—and I doubt very much whether, once having dropped out, they will come in again.

I do not believe that any political party or any organisation seeking representation on a local council—and this applies equally to the Labour Party as to the Conservative Party—can afford to see these people, with all their knowledge and experience, dropping out of local government. The Amendment would, therefore, postpone the coming into operation of the relevant part of Clause 15 until elections which take place after 15th February 1972. This would have two effects, both of them intentional.

First, anyone standing for election now or who is already a member of a local council would know that he will not be deprived of the right to stand again for the Council he now serves. Secondly, the date of February, 1972, probably gives a reasonable time for the House to consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission and to learn what recommendations the Government intend to implement. We attach great importance to this Amendment and I give fair warning to the Home Secretary that, unless he is prepared to go a very long way towards meeting us on this point, we shall have no option but to divide the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I listened with interest and some suspicion to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), for it seems that the date chosen in his Amendment could have some relevance to an event which will be of particular importance to hon. Members and which might take place between now and 1972.

There are many Conservative voters in my constituency. Some of them might be seeking representation only to be thwarted in their efforts by people who live outside the borough and who already hold seats in their areas. The people of Hull have only one opportunity to stand for local government, and that is to be members of the City Council. However, when I study the names of some of the representatives on Hull City Council who live outside the borough I find that, far from being deprived of an opportunity to serve the community, they have a remarkable opportunity open to them. They have parish councils, rural district councils and county councils on which to serve. There is no reason why they should not fight for seats on all of these councils, thus giving them the opportunity of plurality of membership of all three. Indeed, there was such a case. A member of Hull City Council was also a member of his rural district council and a member—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are not now discussing Clause 15. That is already in the Bill. We are discussing the date of part of it coming into operation.

Mr. McNamara

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that people were being deprived of an opportunity to serve the local community and that, by postponing the date, they would be able to continue in this service until the Maud Committee reported. I was suggesting that hon. Gentlemen opposite might have had other interests in mind, apart from the report of that Committee, and that the people in question had ample opportunity to serve. People who do not live in areas covered by parish councils nevertheless have an opportunity to serve on the councils of their non-county boroughs and county councils. I believe that the Amendment is a lot of cant.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

There can be no doubt that Clause 15 was considered by both sides of the House to be extremely important. More than one Division took place on it. It would be wrong of me, however, to rehearse now the arguments which were adduced when we discussed that provision. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) should not tempt me to do so.

The Amendment seeks to postpone the coming into operation of a small part of Clause 15; the part which deals solely with the property qualification based on land ownership. It is important to note at the outset that it would affect the position in England and Wales because it is only to those areas that the proposal applies. There is no such property qualification applying to Scotland. If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam desires to do justice to certain councils, he should make it perfectly clear that he is concerned solely with England and Wales.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

We had a considerable debate about the position of Scotland in this connection in Committee. Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman firmly came out against such a proposal on that occasion.

Mr. Ross

That is irrelevant to what I am saying. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean no change in the position of Scotland under the Bill; the nonresident franchise in Scotland would still be abolished. It is important to note that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is merely seeking to preserve for a short time a property qualification that is based on land ownership, and I would have thought that that was the weakest of all cases.

Mr. Sharples

The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. He knows perfectly well that we moved an Amendment concerning the rights of those who work in an area and that the Government rejected it. At this stage we can only attempt to delay the process.

Mr. Ross

Exactly. I am informing the House of exactly what the Amendment would do. I recall as well as the hon. Gentleman what took place on Report. The House is entitled to know precisely what would happen if the Amendment were accepted, particularly since a Division is likely to take place on it. What the law requires is ownership of freehold or leasehold land within the area of the local authority concerned, and ownership of land need be no more than notional to give a qualification for election.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will not be surprised when I advise hon. Members to reject the Amendment. If we accepted it we would be reversing a decision of the House, which has decided to abolish the nonresident qualification. Lest there be any dubiety about the intention of the Government, I assure the House that we propose that the abolition of the nonresident franchise should become effective with the 1970 registers and so affect the local elections in 1970. In Clause 27 (3) our intention is that, in connection with the property qualification provision, the appointed day should be before the local elections of 1970, so that the loss of the non-resident franchise and the loss of the property qualification should operate at the same time, and that is in 1970.

Mr. Lubbock

Is there any reason why the two dates should be the same?

Mr. Ross

Yes, for certainty. It is also necessary, from the point of view of Scotland and the greater part of England, where the non-resident qualification depends on the franchise and the name appearing on the register. It is right that the disappearance of one should coincide with the disappearance of the other. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that for the property qualification, which is based on landownership, the person's name does not appear on the register.

Mr. Sharples

Clause 27 (1) refers only to the qualification for voting at local elections. Nowhere in the Bill is there a reference to the provisions applying other than when the Bill comes into operation.

Mr. Ross

I said that Clause 27 (3) referred to the appointed day. I thought that it was right, at this stage, to inform the House of what was the Government's intention. When the non-resident franchise disappears, so too will the property qualification. There is a degree of logic about that. I know what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do. Here is something that is distasteful to him. On the last occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Maryle-bone (Mr. Hogg) was remembered for his most exuberant oratory. I do not think that it was entirely relevant to the Amendment under discussion. It seemed to apply to all property or financial qualifications. At the time I am sure that the House knew what it was doing when it decided that these should be abolished. We have from the start rested on the basis of one man one vote, and that vote based upon a residential franchise. The qualification for election is to be based upon that too. It is clear that this is the trend and has been so over the years.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That has already been decided. We must come back to the debate.

Mr. Ross

Having taken that decision in 1968, to suggest that we should not bring it into operation until 1972 is asking far too much. The House has taken the decision in principle, and it would be wrong to delay it for that length of time. The hon. Gentleman said that this will take us to the next election period, and he has already said that he wanted to change it. In that case it becomes a wrecking Amendment, and he should not try to be persuasive as to how reasonable he is being.

Look what would happen. It would affect the borough elections of 1969–70–71. It would affect the county council and Greater London Council elections of 1970 and the London borough elections of 1971. That would mean, with the proviso already there in respect of existing councillors, that there would be people there in 1974 on qualifications that the House has condemned in 1968. That is taking it too far and I would ask my hon. Friends to resist the Amendment.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

I am profoundly despressed both at the spirit and content of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. I want to be particularly careful not to go back on any of the discussions we held in Committee, nor upon the Amendment which has not been selected, and I shall be so, with your help, Mr. Speaker. I shall not even comment upon the Secretary of State's departure in to those forbidden pastures. The right hon. Gentleman thought to answer the substantial case by my hon. Friend by a series of pedantries. If he had intended to argue that at a later stage the Government would alter the terms of Clause 27 affecting the commencement of the Bill, or if he had intended to assure the House that under the terms of Clause 27, which affects the commencement of the Bill, the Order in Council would be laid so as to give effects to the principle underlying the Amendment, it would have been relevant and perhaps even persuasive.

But the right hon. Gentleman has given no such assurance. He has made it clear that it is not the form of the Amendment to which he is objecting, but its substance and that the Government intend to bring this proposal into effect coin-cidentally with the commencement of the franchise point affected by Clause 27 (1). It is here that the Government's attitude is sadly partisan and depressing. Whatever view one takes about the Clause there is no doubt about its practical effects. It will disrupt the services of a great number of local authorities.

Assuming, as I have to assume for the purposes of the Amendment, that the House, by what was almost the narrowest majority of this Parliament, accepted the principle, it must still face the problem of the consequences which will occur at the date when the principle comes into effect. Whether one accepted the Liberal Party's alternative Amendment No. 56, or the Amendment which we

have moved, the point we seek to make is that if the House is determined upon this Clause, if the Government, using the serried ranks of those who are not present to hear the discussion, are intent upon forcing this Clause through, despite the advice they have received from hon. Members of great distinction on the benches opposite, they must at least mitigate the practical consequences of the Clause by giving time to local authorities to recoup their resources to meet this situation. Before advising my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote on the issue I will say that when it suits their book, the Government have not been very loth to postpone the operation of electoral provisions. They did so with the London boroughs and much good it did them.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 183.

Division No. 44.] AYES [7.0 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gurden, Harold More, Jasper
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Hall, John (Wycombe) Murton, Oscar
Baker, W. H, K. (Banff) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Balniel, Lord Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Onslow, Cranley
Bessell, Peter Hawkins, Paul Page, Graham (Crosby)
Biffen, John Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Pardoe, John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Hiley, Joseph Peel, John
Blaker, Peter Hill, J. E. B. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bossom, Sir Clive Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Pink, R. Bonner
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Holland, Philip Pounder, Rafton
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hooson, Emlyn Prior, J. M. L.
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hornby, Richard Pym, Francis
Buchanan-Smith Alick (Angus, N&M) Hunt, John Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Iremonger, T. L. Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Bullus, Sir Eric Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Royle, Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Russell, Sir Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R. Jopling, Michael Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Cooke, Robert Kaberry, Sir Donald Scott, Nicholas
Corfield, F. V. Kershaw, Anthony Sharples, Richard
Crouch, David King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Currie, G. B. H. Kirk, Peter Silvester, Frederick
Dalkeith, Earl of Kitson, Timothy Sinclair, Sir George
Dance, James Langford-Holt, Sir John Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Dean, Paul Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Temple, John M.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Lubbock, Eric Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield McAdden, Sir Stephen van Straubenzee, W. R.
Drayson, G. B. MacArthur, Ian Vickers, Dame Joan
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Emery, Peter McMaster, Stanley Walters, Dennis
Eyre, Reginald Maddan, Martin Weatherill, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Webster, David
Fortescue, Tim Marten Neil Wells, John (Maidstone)
Foster, Sir John Maude, Angus Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Galbralth, Hn. T. G. Mawby, Ray Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Goodhart, Philip Miscampbell, Norman
Goodhew, Victor Monro, Hector TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gower, Raymond Montgomery, Fergus Mr. Anthony Grant and
Grant-Ferris, R. Mr. Humphrey Atkins.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grey, Charles (Durham) Morris, John (Aberavon)
Anderson, Donald Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Moyle, Roland
Ashley, Jack Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Murray, Albert
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Newens, Stan
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) O'Malley, Brian
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Hamling, William Orbach, Maurice
Bagier, Gordon A. T, Hannan, William Orme, Stanley
Beaney, Alan Harper, Joseph Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Benn, Rt, Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Padley, Walter
Bishop, E. S. Hazell, Bert Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Blackburn, F. Heffer, Eric S. Park, Trevor
Blenkinsop, Arthur Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Parker, John (Dagenham)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Hobden, Dennis Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Booth, Albert Hooley, Frank Pavitt, Laurence
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Bradley, Tom Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Brooks, Edwin Howie, W. Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hoy, James Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Huckfield, Leslie Price, William (Rugby)
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Probert, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Rees, Merlyn
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hughes, Roy (Newport) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hunter, Adam Robertson, John (Paisley)
Chapman, Donald Hynd, John Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Coe Denis Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Coleman, Donald Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Rose, Paul
Conlan, Bernard Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Crawshaw, Richard Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rowlands, E.
Cronin, John Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Ryan, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Judd, Frank Sheldon, Robert
Dalyell, Tarn Kenyon, Clifford Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Davies, Dr Ernest (Stretford) Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, for (Gower) Lawson, George Silverman, Julius
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Leadbitter, Ted Slater, Joseph
Delargy, Hugh Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Snow, Julian
Dell, Edmund Lee, John (Reading) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dempsey, James Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Dickens, James Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Dobson, Ray Lomas, Kenneth Symonds, J. B.
Doig, Peter Loughlin, Charles Thornton, Ernest
Dunn, James A. Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Tinn, James
Eadie, Alex McBride, Neil Tuck, Raphael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) MacColl, James Urwin, T. W.
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McGuire, Michael Varley, Eric G.
English, Michael Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Ensor, David Mackintosh, John P. Watkins, David (Consett)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) McNamara, J. Kevin Wellbeloved, James
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred MacPherson, Malcolm Wilkins, W. A.
Finch, Harold Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirEric (Islington,E.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Manuel, Archie Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Marks, Kenneth Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Foley, Maurice Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Wilson, Will am (Coventry, S.)
Ford, Ben Mendelson, John Winnick, David
Forrester, John Mikardo, Ian Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Freeson, Reginald Millan, Bruce Woof, Robert
Gardner, Tony Miller, Dr. M. S.
Ginsburg, David Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Mr. Alan Fitch and
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Mr. Ioan L. Evans.
Gregory, Arnold
Forward to