Clause 44

HC Deb 17 July 1972 vol 841 cc133-58

CONDUCT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

Mr. Carlisle

I beg to move Amendment No. 511, in page 22, line 9, leave out 'Subject to subsection (3) below'.

It might be convenient to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 512, 513 and 514.

The effect of these Amendments is to provide that a casual vacancy on a parish or community council would be filled in accordance with rules made under Clause 44. As the Bill stands, any such vacancy would be filled by co-option.

This matter was gone into in Committee and as a result a subsequent meeting was held with the local authority associations and the political parties at which agreement between all parties was reached. The agreement is that any casual vacancy on a parish or community council should be filled in the manner prescribed by the rules. The rules will provide that if two local government electors for the area request it in writing within 14 days of public notice of a vacancy, an election should be held within 42 days of the request. If the vacancy comes within the fourth year of the parish councillor's terms of office or if no such request is made, the parish council will have power to co-opt. If it comes within the first three years and there is a request by two councillors there will be a duty to have an election within 42 days.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 512, in page 22, line 17, at end insert: 'and references in those Acts to parish election rules shall be construed as references to such local election rules as relate to the conduct of elections of councillors for parishes or communities'.

No. 513, in page 22, line 18, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Carlisle.]

No. 938, in page 22, line 26, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 28, and insert:

'When the following ordinary elections fall to be held in the same year, that is to say—

1. (a) the ordinary election of district councillors for any district ward; and
2. (b) the ordinary election of parish or community councillors for any parish or community, or any parish or community ward, which is co-extensive with or situated in that district ward;

the polls at those elections'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. John Pardoe (Cornwall, North)

I beg to move, Amendment No. 269, in page 22, line 34, after 'area', insert: 'together with the cost of printing and distributing an election address for each candidate'. I intend to be very brief in moving this Amendment. It is no more than a probing attempt to find out what the Government intend, and it is about the cost of democracy.

It will be seen that what I am seeking is some kind of assurance about the escalating cost of democracy and particularly local democracy. I do not believe that the cost of getting elected should debar anyone from getting on to a local council any more than it should debar George McGovern from being elected President of the United States. While the finances of American politics stopped Senator Humphrey from being elected President last year and there is a possibility that they may well stop George McGovern from being elected this time, I do not think we want that sort of thing to be introduced into our politics in this country.

This Bill will create very large local government areas by comparison with what we have now. It will create much larger wards and we shall have far fewer councillors. The cost of distributing and printing to cover one ward alone will in some cases be as much as is now incurred in printing and distribution in a General Election—nay, more, because in a General Election in a constituency of 60,000 our distribution costs are paid. They are completely free. We have to bear the cost of printing but the distribution of one election address is free.

I am arguing that one piece of literature should be distributed free and I am going further in suggesting that the cost of printing should also be covered. The Government may say "What is the cost of printing?" It might be one thing for one candidate and another thing for another candidate. Obviously some limitation would have to be applied, and I accept that.

It may be all right when the parties are putting up candidates; the present system may suffice, though, knowing as I do the state of the finances of all three political parties, I doubt whether it will remain all right for much longer. On the last Amendment reference was made to the problem for the independent candidate. The independent candidate has a perfect right to stand. The trouble is that with these very large wards and electorates he will not be able to stand unless he is a rich man or is able to get from his friends and associates hundreds of pounds to get out one piece of literature alone.

Communication is essential to democracy. People ought to vote on issues, they ought to know what sort of person their candidate is, and what he stands for. In a small local ward at present, the candidate may well be known to almost everyone, or at least to one member of every household. This will no longer be true in the much larger areas, so the candidate will have to use the means of communication open to him to put the issues and his views across. He cannot do that unless he is provided with the cash.

There will be real danger if the cost of our elections becomes too great. Those who pay the piper call the tune. Whether it be private donors to a political party, or whether it be institutional donors such as big business or the trade unions, when they find themselves having to pay substantial sums towards the cost of elections, they start to think more and more about demanding that their choice of tune be exercised.

I believe that the situation will get out of hand within a matter of years, if it is not already out of hand, and I want to know what the Government intend. What do they think of providing as a measure of help to local candidates in election campaigns?

Mr. R. C. Mitchell

When I last followed the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), in an earlier debate, I disagreed totally with what he said. On this occasion, I agree with half of what he said. There is a danger of escalating costs in local elections preventing people from standing. This does not apply only to the independent candidate. We all know in our own areas that on occasion the Labour Party will not put up a candidate in a fairly safe Conservative local Government seat, or the Conservatives will not put up a candidate in a fairly strong Labour area, simply in order to save money. This deprives the electorate in the ward or whatever it may be of a free choice in the exercise of their vote. They ought to be able to exercise a choice even though they are in a minority in the ward, and may permanently be in a minority.

I go half way with the hon. Member, therefore, and I see no reason why we should not have in local elections, just as we do in parliamentary elections, one free delivery of election literature for each candidate.

The proposal that the cost of printing also should be covered is dangerous in one sense, because there is no limitation upon it. A lot of people might go in for expensively produced printed literature if they thought that they would have it done free.

The hon. Member is on good ground on the question of distribution. It could well be done as we do it in parliamentary elections. It could be of special value for the top-tier authorities and the district authorities, though one might not carry it right down to the parish council level. For all the main authorities, there is a strong case for a free distribution of one item of election literature for each candidate, and I hope that the Government will think about it.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

The Common Council of the City of London is not included in this Clause. In every other Clause where there is some benefit, the Common Council is included, but here it is excluded. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why it should not be covered by the rules to be made by the Secretary of State.

The City of London has its own form of elections. It gives no notice. There is a wardmote. If by chance it cannot be rigged, there is an election as soon as possible. People cannot become candidates very easily. One has to be a freeman and suffer a thousand and one other requirements to qualify.

I support the Amendment, but I assume that it would not apply to the Common Council. Was there an error here in Clause 44, and ought not the Common Council to be subject to the rules made by the Secretary of State? If the Amendment is accepted, would it apply to the City of London?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle

I should have expected the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) to put down an Amendment if he thought that there was an error in the Clause. With respect, he is not on quite the same point as that raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), but, if I can obtain the answer to his question before I sit down, I shall gladly give it.

The question of free postage of election addresses at local government elections was raised in Committee, and there was a discussion at the same time on the use of official poll cards for local elections. It was then said that these were matters which could properly be discussed in connection with the local elections rules by the Conference on Local Government Electoral Law.

Should it be decided that what the hon. Member asks for in his Amendment is appropriate, there would be no need for legislation as such. It could be done by rule. But the Government's view is that, before any such decision were taken, one would have to have full consultation with the various local government bodies concerned. I understand that the Conference on Local Government Electoral Law has been looking into the issue of poll cards and free postage

As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North himself realises, the Amendment goes far wider than the practice in parliamentary elections. The cost of his proposal for free postage, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C.Mitchell) supports—this is the best estimate we can make—would be about £1 million a year on the rates. For printing, taking the simplest sort of calculation one can, the cost is estimated as likely to be another £4 million a year on the rates. Thus, we are speaking here of a potential additional cost on the rates of £5 million a year. Obviously, in face of figures of that sort, it is important to consult the local government bodies concerned.

I remind the House that in General Elections, apart from the provision of free postage, there is the requirement of a deposit from each candidate. This is a disincentive to many peripheral candidates—if one may use that term—coming forward to stand. There is at present no deposit required in local government elections. Free postage and free printing might well encourage a great many fringe candidates to come forward, to even further additional cost on the rates, without any sanction such as we have in parliamentary elections.

I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said, supported by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen. I think that we must await the view of the Conference on Local Government Electoral Law on this and the question of poll cards.

My reply to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury is that this part of the Bill does not seek to deal with elections for the Common Council. They have their own legislation.

Mr. Pardoe

I recognise that there would be considerable cost, but the financing of democracy will inevitably cost a good deal in the long run. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and those who think like him that dictators spend hundreds of millions of pounds shoring up their systems. It is too much to ask that democrats should spend a few million shoring up theirs?

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the deposit. I do not advocate a deposit for either parliamentary or local government elections. The policy of my party is that we should replace the deposit system by a statutory requirement for a candidate to secure one signature in every 200 electors before he could stand. In the average constituency, this would call for about 200 or 250 signatures. In my view, we could do much the same in local government elections, and the point about the deposit does not count much with me, though I recognise that it may count with those who believe in the status quo.

I am grateful for the Minister's comments. Bearing in mind that there will be opportunity to review these matters in the context of the electoral rules, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 319, in page 22, line 43, leave out "separately chargeable" and insert "chargeable only".—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mr. Carlisle

I beg to move Amendment No. 307, in page 23, line 7, at end insert: (9) A statutory instrument containing rules under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. The Clause provides that the election of local government councillors shall be in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that those rules shall be contained in a Statutory Instrument which is subject to the negative Resolution procedure of the House.

Mr. Ronald Brown

I accept that but here again I do not see any mention of the Common Council of the City. Am I to understand that the Common Council can receive all the benefits of local government but that it will not be obliged to respect the rules that apply to others? It has the same rights as any London borough, but apparently it is allowed to get away with murder. Is it not about time, since we are reforming local government, that we looked at the Corporation of the City of London and considered whether it was right to leave it in this privileged position? Will the Under-Secretary consider the point? It is quite outrageous that we are making special rules for all the other boroughs but that we are leaving the Common Council alone to do as it likes.

Mr. Carlisle

I understand that the Common Council has its own legislation for the purposes of elections to the Common Council. Therefore, it would be that legislation which would have to be amended if the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) wished to do so. He can not deal with that legislation within the Bill.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell

Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether the same situation applies in the legislation relating to the Common Council as applies in the Bill? Does a Statutory Instrument for altering that legislation have to be laid before the House and made subject to annulment?

Mr. Carlisle

The Statutory Instrument for the elections covered by Clause 44 has to be laid before the House subject to negative procedure. I cannot tell the hon. Member whether the rules about the election of the Common Council are or are not similar, but I will write and let him know.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pardoe

I beg to move Amendment No. 268, in page 23, line 7, at end insert: (9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section all local government elections shall be conducted by the proportional system of election known as the Single Transferable Vote. It will hardly surprise the House that the Parliamentary Liberal Party should be advocating the introduction of proportional representation. We shall be accused of making special pleading. I plead guilty, of course. There is no doubt that proportional representation helps minorities. That is why it was introduced into large areas of the old Empire in order to heal wounds between minorities. Later I shall refer to a part of our existing Empire into which we shall reintroduce it very shortly. First, I must answer a point which is bound to be raised in the debate, and that is the question of why a Liberal Government did not introduce proportional representation into local government or in any other way when they had the power to do so. I can only say that I was not there at the time. It was one of the few excellent things that that Government did not do.

The arguments against proportional representation have been rehearsed on the nation repeatedly. I do not accept that there is a strong case against proportional representation either in national or local elections. Most of the arguments adduced against it at a national level do not apply at local government level. The first argument that is ranged against it at national level is that Britain requires strong government and large majorities. I challenge the view that this is a once-and-for-all truth. History has shown that Governments with small majorities are usually those that are in closest touch with the wishes of the electorate.

Second, it is argued that we do not have coalitions and that we do not like them. Whether one likes or dislikes coalitions in national Government, they are acceptable to all three parties in local government and they are commonly practised. It is only in a minority of councils that there is a total embargo on one party's chairman serving under another party's majority. I do not believe that argument is in the spirit of local government or that it is supported nationwide by any one of the three parties, Coalitions already exist in local government and that argument cannot be used.

I mentioned that proportional representation had been introduced into many parts of the old Empire. In October this year, with a little bit of luck, there will be local government elections in Northern Ireland by means of proportional representation. Some of us believe very strongly that if the system had never been taken out of Northern Ireland we should not now be losing the lives of British troops in the way that we are—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

If the hon. Member believes that, he will believe anything.

Mr. Pardoe

The hon. Gentleman says that if I believe that, I will believe anything, but if that is so I have to ask why are the Government introducing it into Northern Ireland with the support of the Opposition? The answer is that they expect it to heal the divisions. The classic example of that is Switzerland where there are massive divisions within the country, not only divisions between the cantons but between the religions and the races and between people speaking different languages. It has been shown to be fundamentally necessary to introduce proportional representation in order to bridge the gap and in Switzerland the proportional method is used to compose the Cabinet and the whole Government.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member before from a seated position. He exaggerated the case for proportional representation in Northern Ireland. They had it before but there were still differences. It did not produce any cure and although there are arguments for it in Northern Ireland it is not a panacea.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe

I should be the last to suppose that the introduction of proportional representation just like that will heal the wounds in Northern Ireland quickly. Of course it will not. What I am saying is that if it had never been removed from the Northern Ireland scene it would have given a chance for those divided communities to come together, because there would have had to be cross-voting. That is one of the great advantages of the system. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is at odds with most of his Government's Northern Ireland policy, and probably with the Amendment as well. The best arguments for introducing proportional representation into Northern Ireland local elections are the bringing of the communities together and the fact that it will be seen to be fair by the different communities. Neither the Government nor Conservative back benchers should advance the view that they will accept something just because violence argues for it. That would be very dangerous. There must be better reasons than the fact that there is trouble in Northern Ireland and that we must do something to solve the problem.

The best argument of all is the argument of fairness, that one man, one vote means exactly what it says, and that all votes must be equal in weight and in their power to elect a candidate. We go to considerable length—we have boundary commissions, and the whole Bill is about rejigging local government boundaries—to provide geographical equality of votes, but we have never attempted to provide political equality. There has been a great deal of argument in the debates here on the Floor of the House and in Committee about the remoteness which will be introduced into local government by the Bill as a result of the large areas created. But for as long as anyone can remember under our system of elections very often as many as half, and sometimes more than half, the electors in a ward or local government area have felt politicallly remote from their local council representative.

There are other arguments. The first is about one-party domination of a council in perpetuity. Earlier today I referred to two county councils, Durham and Surrey. Durham is dominated by Labour, and I doubt whether even Labour hon. Members would defend the quality of local government which has resulted there from one-party domination. It is never a good thing to exist unchallenged.

Mr. Leadbitter

May I, as a Member who was born in Durham, who lived in Durham, was elected in Durham and who did local government work in Durham for many years, say that Durham is a fine example to the rest of the country.

Mr. Pardoe

I wonder how many villages Durham County Council has been trying to shut down. I am sorry to say, being associated with the National Association of Schoolmasters, that I can think of only one local education authority that is more monstrous in its attitude to teachers as an employer, and that is the Surrey County Council.

Mr. Leadbitter

As a teacher who was employed by the Durham Education Authority and who has taught in other authorities' areas, I can tell the hon. Gentleman from personal experience that I found Durham Education Authority an excellent employer.

Mr. Pardoe

That is probably because the hon. Gentleman is a member of another union. I am only stating my own opinion, which I regard as one accepted by many people in Durham and those with any contact with the county council [Interruption.] I am not suggesting, and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) must not put words into my mouth, that there is bribery and corruption in the Durham County Council. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am suggesting that, it is not true.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

Such a thought never entered my mind. The hon. Gentleman has a good nose for trouble in any part of the country and is very quick to smear people, councillors or Members on either side of the House. But does he think he is advancing the cause of education and good relationships between teachers and the authority in Durham, or is he advancing the views of the NAS?

Mr. Ernest Armstrong (Durham, North-West)

The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.

Mr. Pardoe

I did declare my interest. What is more, the Parliamentary Liberal Party not only declares its interest in the House when it is necessary to do so, but maintains a register in the Liberal Whips Office of all our interests. Any hon. Member can there see exactly where I get my extra-parliamentary income from. They will find that the National Association of Schoolmasters is listed there, as hon. Members have been told often enough in the past.

Whether or not we have different views about Durham County Council—and it appears that there are those who think that Durham County Council is the greatest example of local democracy in the world—surely it is true that one-party domination of any council in perpetuity is not a good thing for democracy or for local government? Nor do I think it would be a good thing if the country had one-party Government by any party. The trouble is that many local councils get into the position of being dominated in perpetuity by virtually one party.

Of course, we have idiocies happening. We all know of local councillors who have done marvellous work locally, who are well respected and have served their communities, who have worked very hard, but who suddenly, because of the swing of public opinion at national level, are thrown on the scrap heap. It is nothing to do with what they have done, or their qualities as local representatives. The introduction of proportional representation into local government would place a substantial emphasis on the quality of the individual councillor as opposed to his party allegiance.

Often a small total majority or a small swing can result in all the councillors in one year being elected from one party. In Finchley in the early 1960s, when I was a parliamentary candidate there, there were two councils, the Borough Council of Finchley and the Urban District Council of Friern Barnet. In 1963, the Liberal Party achieved 51 per cent. of the vote and won all the wards. That is a situation which we should do our best to overcome although in that instance it worked to the Liberals' benefit.

It is not always the introduction of a third party which causes disruption. In Plymouth, for example, where Labour and Conservative often switch about on fairly level pegging and Liberals do not usually force many three-way decisions, in virtually a two-party situation the number of councillors elected in a year bears little relationship to the total votes cast.

I am convinced that there is proof around the world that proportional representation leads to a higher turnout. It may seem odd to say that, since I represent a constituency which in the last two General Elections has achieved the highest turnout of any constituency in the country. It was slightly lower last year at 85 per cent., but in 1966 it was 87½ per cent., which means we carried dead people to the poll.

A high turnout is a symbol of good and active democracy. The problem in local government is to achieve a high turnout. One does so only when the voters believe that their vote counts for something and that it can change things. Of course, most voters are never in that position. They live in wards which are either Labour or Conservative-controlled.

Proportional representation would be a good thing to introduce into the national scene but, even more important, we should think of introducing it into local government. There are many right hon. and hon. Members who can only be called—I am myself one—what A. P. Herbert once termed "non-members". In other words, we are sent here by a minority of our constituents. Every time we look at a group of constituents we have the uncomfortable feeling that more than half of them voted against us. That is true of more than one-third of hon. Members. In the 1964 General Election it was true of more than half of us. That is a situation we should not allow to come about on a national level and certainly not at local government level. I do not know why the Government are prepared to grant proportional representation in one part of the United Kingdom without at the same time introducing it throughout local government.

Mr. Leadbitter

I shall be brief but my brevity will depend entirely upon the patience of my Front Bench. I shall take up the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) purely on the basis that he spoiled his own case.

Mr. T. W. Urwin (Houghton-le-Spring)

Why not take him down?

Mr. Leadbitter

That will happen in a few moments. The hon. Gentleman spoiled his own case because he swept back into history and apologised because when his party was in power it did not produce what it now wants. Now, when he and his hon. Friends can be housed in a telephone kiosk, he wants us to help him out.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman is simple. When he tries to argue a case, he should stick to its merits. He must not offend the House by making imputations against local authorities purely because, over a period of years, some have been dominated by one party or the other. In the case of one area he mentioned, the Conservatives were in power; in the case of another, the Labour Party was in power. I gather that there may be situations where there is a possibility of the Liberals having some influence, but I do not know where. The fact is that no Conservative or Labour Member will put up with a Liberal who says that because the Liberals have a register in their little office the rest of us have an attitude towards political corruption which is questionable purely because of the electoral system. He should withdraw his imputation. He has spoiled what could have been a good speech because he has made a nasty imputation.

Mr. Ronald Brown

Mistakes are made from time to time, and the only place where Liberal councillors have been elected recently is Hackney. The first thing Liberals do when they get into the council chamber is to cross the floor and become Conservatives. That is why we never have Liberal councillors.

Mr. Leadbitter

I was prepared to listen to a first-class case which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North could have made about proportional representation. The House is anxious to listen to such a case because those of us who sat in Committee for many weeks tried to produce some useful suggestions in a Bill which to say the least is a rotten potato. We have sought improvements both in Committee and on Report.

The hon. Gentleman spoiled his own case. I and, I am sure, the whole House regrets it. I resent any imputation that hon. Members either in the Conservative Party or in the Labour Party are corrupt in a certain way because the Liberals have a little register in their office which salves their consciences. This House had better watch such imputations because too many people are anxious to nail hon. Members wherever they are and to nail councillors wherever they are—provided they are not in the Liberal Party.

Mr. Pardoe

In an article in this week's New Statesman by Professor John Vaizey, who is a member of the Labour Party, the hon. Gentleman will read a statement to the effect that the public generally believe that local government is corrupt. Professor Vaizey asks who can say that it is not. I do not agree that it is corrupt, but who can say that it is not?

Mr. Leadbitter

That kind of suggestion from a paper which has such a small readership and is of little significance should not be followed up. The New Statesman has no credibility to me. It is not a publication I take much notice of. Nor does anyone else. We in this House are dealing with the problem of how best to get the right kind of councillors under this Bill. Unless the Labour Party can come up with ideas which are better than those contained in the Bill, both sides of the House had better support the present system of elections, because the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not the right one to follow.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

I hope that I shall not be out of order in assuring the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on this occasion and others, that my hon. Friend is not stating that merely because the Liberal Party has a register there is some morality attached to us and by implication some immorality attached to everyone else. We merely point out that such a register would give the protection to all hon. Members to which they are entitled. It is a suggestion which is receiving favourable consideration and it would be for the better health of politics generally.

I do not think that it helps greatly to go back into history. However, at the time my father sat as a Conservative—he was eventually defeated by a Liberal, much to my regret, although being magnanimous I have forgiven the Liberals—experimental proportional representation for 100 constituencies was introduced in a Bill in 1918 which was narrowly defeated. In 1923, there was another attempt, this time to provide for the alternative vote. The Bill passed through this House but was thrown out by the other place.

Mr. Leadbitter

The integrity of a Member of Parliament does not depend on a register but upon his own personal conduct and standing.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Thorpe

I will not be drawn further, save to say that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. But I also wish to see Members of Parliament afforded every form of protection against unfair attack, and it seems to me that this is one way in which this might be brought about.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept that just as there can be corruption on the part of Members of Parliament working for some firm and thereby getting a pecuniary advantage, there can equally be corruption on the part of hon. and right hon. Members giving legal advice to firms and getting similar pecuniary advantage. Therefore, a register is not sufficient. I should like to know precisely what money is drawn in individual cases by, say, the barristers, the lawyers, the journalists, and others.

Mr. Thorpe

I promised not to trespass further in this direction, but I must say that I would have no objection at all to that. Indeed it has been suggested that tax returns might be included, but in my view that inspection should be limited to those who might have a right to inspect. Professional fees should obviously be included. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us there.

The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked a very proper question about PR. It operated in Northern Ireland, in effect, for two local elections, and for one election for Stormont before the Unionists abolished it. The reason given for the abolition was contained in a perhaps rather unguarded remark by Lord Craigavon, who said that unless the system was changed it could well happen that at the next election, "There would be more of them returned than there would be of us." That was at least an honest disclosure.

But what is most significant is that under that system one had cross-voting. For instance, the Shankill Road area, which is predominantly Protestant and was a three-member local government seat, returned two Protestants to one Catholic. Likewise, the Falls Road area, which was and is predominantly Catholic, returned two Catholics to one Protestant. The reason was that in each of those areas there was a sizeable Protestant or Catholic minority, and it was therefore not surprising that with a system which guaranteed that minorities were represented in proportion to their strength they were able to secure such election.

It also happened that a moderate Unionist, having cast his first preference for a moderate Unionist candidate, would much rather cast his second preference for a moderate Catholic than for an extremist Unionist. The great problem in Northern Ireland—and it is one reason why the Government have reconsidered this system—is that at the moment we have single-member constituencies, so that it is only the extremists who get nomination. The choice is then between an extremist Unionist or an extremist Nationalist, and anyone who stands for moderation is swept away.

I do not think that my hon. Friend overstated the case when he said that had PR been kept on it would have helped to encourage cross-voting between the communities. That is what has happened in the Republic where PR, which Lloyd George introduced in 1920, has never been abolished. I admit at once that the Protestant minority there is very much smaller than is the Catholic majority in the North, but the fact remains that a man's religious persuasion never determines his political affiliation. There has not been the same polarisation. I suggest that the system of PR guarantees minorities no more or no less representation than is proportionate to their strength. It seems to be the essence of democracy not only that majorities shall prevail, but that minorities have rights.

Secondly, it encourages much more cross-voting. It would be out of order to discuss parliamentary elections, but it has been suggested that there should be a General Election on the Common Market. If candidates were allowed to campaign on the Common Market, nationally or locally, as they genuinely believed, not only would there be many candidates who would differ from the official leadership of their party, and I refer to all three principal parties, but a voter would be in the position of having to vote on this great Common Market issue for a candidate to whose views he was diametrically opposed, although he was voting for the party whose views he supported, or to vote for the cause, which would mean voting for the candidate of another political persuasion.

But if he had a multi-member vote in a three-member constituency, he could express his first, second and third preferences, no doubt casting his first preference for the candidate with whose views he was in agreement, only grudgingly giving a preference to the candidate with whose party's views he agreed, and even voting for a moderate or independent candidate from another party.

Mr. Denis Howell

What has this to do with the Amendment?

Mr. Thorpe

The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) asks what this has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Howell

No, it was me. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in what I was observing to my right hon. Friend, let me say that it had nothing to do with that. I was commenting that as president of my trade union, APEX, I was glad that we had got rid of the very system that the right hon. Gentleman is now advocating. We got rid of it because with the proportional transferable vote system it took 86 votes to elect the union delegation to the Labour Party and the TUC.

Mr. Thorpe

I confess that although I am now interested, I was more interested in the quantity of the conversation that was going on than its quality. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has overthrown the system used by the NUR and the NUM and many other first-class unions which have always used it and which have found it to provide great safeguards for minorities.

Mr. Biggs-Davison rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Before the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) intervenes, I should like to draw attention to the extent to which the debate has ranged beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

I wish only to make it clear that I am not opposed to experimenting again with proportional representation in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. Indeed, such a proposal was put forward in Mr. Brian Falkner's Green Paper. I merely wish to urge that exaggerated claims should not be made for proportional representation.

Mr. Thorpe

I entirely agree, but nor should exaggerated opposition be shown to it. It has not yet been shown to it in the debate, and that is very satisfactory.

There are three vital reasons why PR should be used in local government. The first is that we are to have much larger units than ever before and there will therefore be an even greater tendency for there to be remoteness between the elected councillor and the electorate. I therefore want the closest possible relationship between them, and I believe that a three-member constituency of this sort is the way in which that can be achieved.

Secondly, I believe it is important that the man should not merely get elected because he happens to belong to a convenient political persuasion in a particular area. I say this coming from a borough where the Liberal Party controls the council. It is equally applicable in all cases. I should like to feel that the personal qualities of a candidate were of at least some advantage to him and of greater advantage than at present. We have only to see as my hon. Friend says, some of the first-class councillors who have been 15 or 20 years on the council and who have been thrown off merely because of a slight swing. We had a case in one London borough the other day where a very small swing caused the defeat of the whole council. If we look at the votes cast that situation did not express the wishes of the electors in that area.

The third thing is that I believe we should not only attach importance to the quality of the individual and try to get a greater proximity between the feelings of the electors and those whom they return, but also the more in local government that we can encourage cross-voting so that people feel that on their second or third preference they will sometimes vote for a cause and not necessarily always a nominee of the party, the more we shall encourage some very good people to go into local government.

I look forward to the experiment with PR which is being introduced in Northern Ireland. It was disastrous that it was ever abolished. I believe there would have been much less sectarian bitterness had that not happened. I very much hope that we will consider extending it to local government in this country because there will be great benefits all round.

Mr. George Thomas

I wish to refer to the speeches of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). At least we can pay this tribute to the right hon. Gentleman: he dealt with the merits of the case. It was kind of him to explain what his hon. Friend meant by his speech. One of the main arguments advanced by his hon. Friend was that our current system leads to one-party domination. Although he withdrew from any suggestion of bribery and corruption he suggested that there is something unpleasant about one party holding the confidence of the electorate for a long period of time. There is no local authority which remains in power without keeping the confidence of the people who put it there in the first place.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North—an area not exactly regarded as having the most progressive authority in the land, certainly not in educational matters—referred to Durham in offensive language. I do not wish to do him an injustice but I think he suggested that it was the worst authority in the world. The hon. Gentleman's grievance in the first place is that he cannot get many of his colleagues elected to that authority. His sense of grievance came out clearly. The Durham County Council was one of the first authorities in the country to abolish school fees for secondary education. It has taken a progressive line with student grants and in Durham the student going to a college stands a far better chance of being supported by a grant than the young people from the constituency of the hon. Member. He had better keep his recriminations for those narrow people in the area from which he comes who refuse to give generous grants to their young people.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North is earning for himself in this House and in the country the reputation of a man who goes round looking for something to condemn. He is somebody who is very eager to talk in generalities about corruption in terms of other people. I would say to the hon. Gentleman "Methinks, he doth protest too much." It makes me wonder.

9 0 p.m.

I leave the hon. Gentleman, to turn to the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Devon, North who advanced three main arguments which the House must take seriously. I do not for a moment believe that we should consider the question of proportional representation in local government in this country on the basis of the special circumstances which so sadly prevail in Northern Ireland. We must look at the other three main arguments adopted by the Leader of the Liberal Party.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that three-member constituencies would bring local councils closer to the people No doubt for reasons of time, he did not explain how they would be closer than the single member wards because they might each come from the same part of the bigger constituency. This is quite possible and therefore I believe the argument does not hold water.

By criticising the quality of candidates the right hon. Gentleman did not do his case great credit, because the quality of candidates for both local and national Government is not unimportant even in strong areas. Whether he be Conservative, Liberal or Labour, if the man is not respected this will be reflected in the total vote cast. I do not believe we should under-estimate the fact that if a man is held in high regard he will receive a bigger vote. It is the common sense of the British people and their instinct for decency in public life which ensures that candidates who are unfit for public life are weeded out.

The third matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that of cross-voting which gives a second or third choice for the electors and which, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, would create an interest in local government. On the contrary, I believe that it will create greater confusion and difficulty. It would multiply splinter groups and would add to the problems of local government. I was not at all persuaded by the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and I was very much offended by the bad taste of the insinuations left in the air of this Chamber by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.

Mr. Carlisle

I will stick to the subject of proportional representation rather than become involved in any little local argument about the standard of Durham Council.

I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) in his criticisms of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in support of proportional representation. The effect of these Amendments would be to provide that the local elections rules should prescribe the introduction of the single transferable vote for all local elections, whether they be county, district, parish or community elections. Just as I believe the majority in this House would oppose the idea of proportional representation in parliamentary government, I believe that equally the majority of hon. Members are opposed to the idea of proportional representation in local government.

Although I have listened with interest to the general argument advanced by the Leader of the Liberal Party for proportional representation, I really cannot believe that it would be right to bring it in for local government in this way without its being discussed in the framework of parliamentary government as well. Frankly, in all the consultations which have taken place about local government reform with all the various bodies concerned there has been no widespread demand or support for the idea of proportional representation in local government elections. I am sure that in this Bill and this major change which we are making in local government there is enough change for people to understand without adding to it a completely different form or type of voting in local government when it does not apply to parliamentary elections.

Mr. Thorpe

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that that particular system worked for university seats in this House right up to the time when the university seats were abolished, so that there is a precedent for having two different electoral system working. What would be his reaction—I accept that he would be stating it off the cuff—to allowing a certain degree of option in local conditions so that the local council should determine under what electoral system it will operate for the next 5 to 10 years?

Mr. Carlisle

I got into enough trouble suggesting three-member seats and one-member seats—although that is a wholly different matter—as a system which might operate to suit local conditions most effectively, but that is entirely different from giving an option on the method by which people should be elected. I think it would add confusion to have completely different types and method of election in different parts of the country.

May I now take up the point about size? Surely the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West must be right. Most of the argument has been about the need to retain a degree of connection between the ward and the member. Nobody has really challenged the idea of the one-member ward—for example, for county councils. Many have argued that perhaps the total number of councillors should be increased to make the ward still smaller, yet the effect of proportional representation, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, would magnify by something like threefold the size of the individual electorate for a county council. I really do not believe that it would advance the interest of the public in local government to get a situation where, I believe, the individual councillor would be more remote from those he represents. That, I believe, would be the effect of proportional representation. I do not believe it would have the advantages which the right hon. Gentleman sets out for it, and I certainly do not think it would be right to do this for local government in isolation in the way the Amendment proposes.

Mr. Thorpe

May I reply—I shall be 30 seconds—and say, first of all, that the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) raised, was a perfectly valid one—how is the Member's contact with his electorate increased? Very often we find, on looking at the complexion of a council, a minority who are not represented; it may be as much as 45 per cent. of the electorate who have no councillor at all. Under our winner-takes-all system it is possible for one party to sweep the entire board and for two or sometimes even three opposition parties to have no representation whatever. The position about proportional representation is that it gives every minority a chance to be represented in proportion to the number of votes cast for it.

Take, for example, the Labour Party in Sussex, where it is in a minority, but there are probably enough Labour votes, if aggregated in a three-member constituency, to get one Labour Member elected. It may even be that in Durham there are enough Conservative votes if aggregated to ensure that the minority has one seat. The tragedy of our present system is that we have inflated majorities. Leaving aside the Liberal Party, the major Opposition party is often totally unrepresented or at any rate grossly under-represented in proportion to its strength.

To have a system whereby Joe Bloggs, who happens to belong to the minority party, is for the first time elected to the council, would increase the feeling of people that they were being properly represented. At the moment that is not so. Finally—

Mr. Blenkinsop

On a point of order. We seem to have moved to the position where speakers assume that they have a right to speak twice. I ask that the normal convention of the House should be observed whereby the leave of the House is asked before either hon. or right hon. Gentlemen seek to address the House twice.

Mr. Pardoe

Further to that point of order. After moving the first Liberal Amendment this afternoon, I rose at the end of the debate after the Government had replied to ask Mr. Deputy Speaker on a point of order whether I had a right of reply. He assured me that I had. When I began by saying, By leave of the House", he said that I had no need to say that

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has properly pointed out, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) who rose to speak a second time is not the mover of the Amendment. The Chair allowed that to pass on the assumption that he was taking on the hon. Gentleman's task in replying to the Amendment. That I still suppose to be the case.

Mr. Thorpe

That is indeed the case. I will complete what I want to say by making one final point—

Mr. George Thomas

The right hon. Gentleman said he would speak for only 30 seconds.

Mr. Thorpe

My speech has been somewhat elongated but not through my intervention.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that the case for changing our electoral processes should not rest upon the conditions in Northern Ireland. Of course I accept that. All I am saying is that in Northern Ireland we can see more starkly the disadvantages of polarisation, the disadvantages of unrepresented minorities. I hope we shall never see such a situation in this country although I think for historical reasons it is unlikely to occur. It is because I want to see minorities represented—by that I mean any party which is not the majority party in any particular council—because I want to see cross-voting and because I want the electorate to have a variety of choice that I believe this reform is overdue.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn