Clause 80

HC Deb 17 July 1972 vol 841 cc186-204

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION AND HOLDING OFFICE AS MEMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY.

Mr. Denis Howell

I beg to move, Amendment No. 588, in page 51, line 14, leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'eighteen'.

This is an Amendment to which we on this side of the House attach some importance. It is a proposal that young people, having been given the right to vote at 18, should have the right to stand for election, and to serve on a local authority. Although this matter was debated in Committee, I regret that the Government have not had second and wiser thoughts and do not propose to bring this about.

We now have a totally irrational proposal to be enacted into our law. It is the proposal, for the first time as far as I can ascertain in our law, that men and women have the right to vote but do not have the right to serve. I believe this to be an indefensible position.

The House has previously had a very honourable record on the subject of trying to involve young people in the responsibilities of citizenship. In 1967, the Latey Committee, which sat under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Latey, produced proposals which found wide acceptance on both sides of the House on the question of conferring upon people at the age of 18 all the rights of adulthood. I do not want to take up an inordinate length of time, but it may be useful to refresh our memories on the reasons the Latey Committee gave for saying that young people at the age of 18 ought to have the rights of adulthood and the responsibilities that went with them. I could not put the matter in a more satisfactory form.

First, the Latey Committee said that: There is undeniably a great increase in maturity towards the age of 18. The vast majority of young people are, in fact, running their own lives, making their own decisions and behaving as responsible adults by the time they are 18. Those of our witnesses who seemed most closely in touch with the young favoured the age of 18 as the age at which it was not only safe to give responsibility, but undesirable, if not indeed dangerous, to withhold it. There is even greater force in that argument today, five years later, than there was at the time the Latey Committee produced it. One thing that is apparent from looking at the young scene today is that if one does not treat young people as adults, they become completely disillusioned with society and this has the most damaging effect.

One of the things to which I should have thought that all of us would have regard was the state of opinion, and especially the state of the youth opinion in this country, about the body politic of the nation. Many young people are cynical, perhaps because they do not understand the political processes, and they are opting out of those processes. One of the things that disappointed many of us was that, having been given votes at 18 at the last General Election, the full advantage that many of us thought would be taken was not taken by young people eligible to vote.

10.30 p.m.

If that analysis is right, it is important that young people should be enabled to play a responsible part in the government of the areas in which they live. To ignore their right to serve on local authorities will only increase the cynicism of young people and will be a self-destructive factor.

The fourth reason given by the Latey Committee is that 18 is the age at which on the whole the young seem to reckon themselves to come of age. In place of the magic age of 21, coming-out parties now take place at 18. Finally, the Latey Committee gave as the fifth of its argument that 18 is already an important watershed in life. The Latey Committee mentioned some of the things which started at 18—the paying of full National Insurance contributions, the ability to enter a public house and consume alcohol, the loss of certain protections given under court orders, the freedom to carry out a whole range of activities such as going up in balloons, engaging in street trading, and driving motor cars. The Latey Committee made the case most convincingly.

Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended that the vote should be granted at age 20. To its great credit, the House of Commons on a free vote overturned that recommendation and superimposed the right to vote at 18. It is inconceivable, now that the opportunity arises in a Local Government Bill, that we should not take the logical step of allowing people to serve at 18.

The Government seem to be saying to young people, "We do not trust you. We want your vote but not your service. We do not trust you to make an effective contribution to local government". Speaking for the Labour Party, I reject that view. I believe that the present generation of young people have a greater concern and idealism and a greater degree of compassion for society as a whole than any generation of young people has had. This should be so, in view of the advance of universal education. Any of us who are in touch with youth know that young people are more concerned about the evils they see around them in society than any other section of society. This is greatly to the credit of young people. This is why they involve themselves in organisations of all types.

I will mention some of the great issues on which young adults feel passionately and on which they will no doubt make mistakes if they are allowed to serve on local authorities, as we all made mistakes when we were younger. However, in these matters their sense of enthusiasm and involvement is needed more today than it ever was. There is, first, the question of the environment. One knows from talking to sixth formers that the whole question of the environment is of considerable concern. Young people are concerned about plant life, about the effect of modern civilisation on the whole of nature, the state of our rivers and beaches, and the opportunities to save the countryside and wild life. This is a matter which the young regard as very important.

They are concerned also about planning and noise. They have a greater interest and involvement in this subject than most adults have. They are very concerned about the effect of planning upon the lives of ordinary people and the failure of planners, generally speaking, to take into account the effect of planning decisions on humanity. All this must be to the good and should be encouraged. If ever there was a subject in which we need the impatience of youth, it is the subject of maintaining a good environment and making it possible for our successors to enjoy the great and rich heritage of this country.

Housing is another matter in which our youth are interested. I suppose there is hardly a sixth form or youth club in this country which has not at some time or other involved itself with Shelter. Our young people are greatly concerned with homelessness, particularly in large cities, and the degradation of slum dwelling. In the last General Election my son distributed literature for me, and on his return home he was inflamed by the intolerable slum conditions which he had found in my constituency in Birmingham. He delivered a verbal assault on me and asked what were the local authority and Parliament doing allowing people to live in those disgraceful, degrading back-to-back conditions.

That is a typical example of youth today. As one who has served as a Minister of State in the Department of Housing and Local Government, as it was, I am aware of the great concern of youth for Shelter and other organisations dealing with homelessness. I am sure that they could produce an irresistible movement for change in those areas to which I have referred.

The education service is another factor It would not be a bad idea if young people at the age of 18, who were still receiving education and were moving away from their A levels to scholarships to universities, had the opportunity to serve on local authorities. They would let it be known how important it is to produce sensible schemes to enable people to gain scholarships to universities, teacher training colleges and the like. It would bring a breath of fresh air to our education committees if young people were able to relate their personal experiences, as would be the case if the Amendment were accepted.

There is the whole question of the Youth Service. The Government, I am sorry to say, have deserted the Youth Service.

Mr. Carlisle

Nonsense.

Mr. Howell

It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying "Nonsense". The Government completely rejected the Youth and Community Report of 1970, of which committee I happened to be the chairman, which made new proposals for the Youth Service. The youth organisations are greatly concerned because the young adult is being completely neglected as a result of the Government's decision. Yet there was never a time, particularly in our cities, when it was more important to develop a young adult service and a youth service.

One of the causes of the boredom and frustrations in so much of our urban situation is that the facilities for young people to pursue leisure activities fails to match the need of the time. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that, I am sure that he will agree that in the argument about the matter the voice of young people ought at least to be heard on the local authority.

Pre-eminently, I suppose, young people today, especially those not at a university or college, have more leisure time than any other section of society except the retired. They are certainly the ones who are able to enjoy active leisure pursuits, they are the ones who want to see the provision of more sports facilities, more swimming baths, more opportunities to enjoy leisure, more cultural opportunities, more facilities for theatre and good music, more opportunities for pop music, a culture in its own right embraced by the mass of young people today.

One has only to spell out the services in which young people have a legitimate interest and on which they ought to have opportunity to express their voice to see that the case for the Amendment is overwhelming.

In Committee, the Government's reply was based on two arguments. First, we were told that this was a matter for a Speaker's Conference. That argument does not stand up. If the House of Commons has decided that young people should have the right to vote at 18, then, with great respect to Mr. Speaker, we do not need a Speaker's Conference to accept the logic of that decision, that those who have the right to vote should have the right to serve on the authority for which they may vote.

The second argument was even more puerile, if I may say so. The Minister said—this is col. 1406 of the Official Report—that there should be time for further reflection. I suppose that all Ministers, if they have no case, resort to the argument that they need more time, no matter how untenable the position in which they have put themselves.

I hope that the Government will have second thoughts. Let them accept the Amendment now, or reconsider the matter in the other place. Their position is impossible to defend. They say to young people, "We want your vote, but we do not want your voice. We do not want to harness your concern. We do not want to give you the right and obligation to stand for election to membership of the local authority for which you and all others may vote".

The case for the Amendment is overwhelming. If it is not accepted, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not fail to sustain it in the Lobby.

Mr. Carlisle

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) felt it necessary to raise this matter again on Report, and I regret the tone of some of his remarks about the Government's attitude to it. I felt at the time that his only purpose must be to have a vote, and he has confirmed that in his last sentence.

Mr. Denis Howell

Why not?

Mr. Carlisle

The hon. Gentleman talks about the Latey Committee Report and implies that the Government's attitude on this matter is, "We want your vote but we do not trust you to serve". If that argument is so conclusive and overwhelmingly obvious, I can only point out that it was the Government of which he was a member who brought in a Bill to lower the voting age but did nothing about lowering the age for representation. The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but it was the Labour Government—he now says that the Labour Party is committed to this principle—who brought in the Representation of the People Act, 1969, under which the age for voting was lowered, but did nothing about the age for representation.

10.45 p.m.

When the matter was debated in Committee, what was said on behalf of the Government, and I repeat it here tonight, was that on matters of this kind we have for many years achieved a situation of parity between eligibility for candidature to local or parliamentary Government. Proposed changes on eligibilty for membership of Parliament have always been referred over the years to Mr. Speaker's Conference. It was therefore suggested at that time that since we felt that parity was important in the right to stand for both parliamentary and local elections it was decided to refer the question of people being eligible to stand at the age of 18 to Mr. Speaker's Conference.

As I understand it all parties in the House were consulted on the matter and agreed to that course of action. Mr. Speaker has agreed to preside over a conference with that question on the agenda.

Mr. Denis Howell indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlisle

The hon. Member for Small Heath shakes his head, but that has been the normal method of dealing with matters of that kind. If any change of parliamentary candidature follows from a recommendation by the Conference it could be reflected by a change for membership of the local authorities. One Bill could deal with both matters. If I accepted the hon. Member's Amendment tonight he would appear at the Dispatch Box in a few months' time saying that it was monstrously illogical of the Government to accept the argument for local elections, but not to have accepted it at the same time for parliamentary elections. It is right that Mr. Speaker's Conference should look at matters like that.

The hon. Member's arguments about the interest of youth in matters like homelessness and things of that kind apply just as much to national politics as they do to local politics. Therefore, particularly in view of the way the hon. Member ended his speech, and in view of his Government's record on the matter since the Latey Report was published, I am bound to say that he moved the Amendment tonight not because he believes this is not a matter which should go to Mr. Speaker's Conference but in an attempt to gain what he believes will be a short-term political advantage by claiming that his party is interested in 18-year-olds having the vote and that the Government are not. That is a gross parody of the situation and I hope that if the Amendment goes to a Division it will be rejected.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas (Huddersfield, West)

I had the pleasure of serving on Mr. Speaker's Conference and I took the view that there was a distinction between serving on an authority and voting for it. It was that view which caused Mr. Speaker's Conference to come to the decision it did. Any person of 18 years of age in July, 1970, would be 21 or 22 before he had the right to vote in a General Election.

I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) that 18-year-olds have experience of life. They know what it is all about. They are concerned with individual cases and with causes and they are concerned with people. There is a point here which should be re-examined. Mr. Speaker's Conference should consider the whole matter of whether to allow not just 20 per cent, of the 18-year-olds, but all of them to stand and to vote. There is a slight defect in the argument we are making from the Opposition benches, but equally there is a greater defect in the Government's argument. We should try to arrange a system whereby 18-year-olds are allowed both to vote and stand for election, and not have to wait until they are 21 or 22.

I accept the points made by the Minister, but my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell)has made the point very clearly that at 18 years of age a person is sufficiently independent, and capable of assessing his ability and the difficulties in society, to be a very worth-while member not only of a local authority but of this House. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will follow the lead from this side and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Maddan

I respect the experience and the views of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), but I should not like it to be thought by silence that I and other hon. Members on both sides looked forward to a recommendation from Mr. Speaker's Conference that people of 18 should be enabled to stand for Parliament or local authorities. The distinction between representing people and casting one of many votes in an election is real.

I do not want to disparage 18-year-olds, but however capable they are, and however high their intellect, their experience, which contributes to judgment, must be substantially less than it will be even when they are 21.

Mr. Lomas

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that a person who has been at a technical college, has left at 18 and is in employment for three years until he is 21 is less fitted to represent the community than a person who has spent a closeted life at Oxford, Cambridge or some other university, and who does not know what the world is all about?

Mr. Maddan

I do not want to draw that sort of comparison. Since we are on a one-way escalator—the ages always come down, not up—I do not want to waste time by suggesting that perhaps the logic of that argument might be that 21, because it is too low for some, is too low for all.

There is merit in making the honour of representation of constituents, whether in this House or in local Government, something to be treasured, something which if necessary one may have to wait for. Things we do not have automatically available to us at the very first moment may be that much more important. Most of us who have courted our wives may learn from that experience that very often a little delay underlines the importance of what we are taking on. The same is true in this instance.

I did not want that point of view to go unrecorded.

Mr. Ronald Brown

I am concerned about the odd principles of the Government Front Bench. I well remember the argument for inserting subsection (l)(c). It was said that if someone paid rates in an area it was only right that he should have his say, that he should have a vote. It is odd then to argue that a man with a wife and family whose home is in the area cannot stand for election because he is under 21.

Is it right that someone with a beautiful house down in Surrey, who happens to have his lawyer's business in my constituency, can vote and stand for election in my area, even though he knows about it virtually only that which allows him to make his money, whereas the boy or girl living in the area, contributing to its worth, taking part in its activities, knowing all about it, cannot stand for the council to put forward their views about the area? Why do the Government believe it right that people whose residence is miles from my constituency should be allowed to stand for the council because they stay there two or three hours in the day and call it their principal place of work, whereas people living and working in Hackney are not allowed to stand? I hope that the Government will explain the logic of their thinking. Or are they again attempting to bias the whole legislation they are putting through in favour of their own friends?

Mr. John E. B. Hill

I regret the way in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) put his case because he frequently returns to the complaints about the Youth Service and the report of the committee of which he was chairman, although he got a full answer a few months ago. After hearing this debate, I am sure that the matter should be considered by the Speaker's Conference, on which I also serve.

Mr. John Silkin

I am sure that when the Minister of State comes to read Hansard, and possibly a little earlier, he will regret some of the things he said. It is never a good thing to impute motives to those to whom one is opposed. If he had been present in Committee, he would have found that that was not the way in which matters were handled. I am sorry to detain the House for the three minutes necessary to bring the hon. and learned Gentleman up to date, to educate him. The Amendment has been moved because, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir Richard Sharples) knows, however charmingly he put his view, we disagree with him and said that we would raise the matter again. It is an important matter to us.

I am not certain that there is any electoral advantage in our proposal. I cannot see that allowing young people of 18 to stand as councillors can be considered as providing short-term advantage to any political party. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) seemed to think it disadvantageous. To us, this is simply a matter of justice. We are concerned with local democracy, which means giving the right to vote and to rule to the people. If it is true that at 18 one is mature enough to serve the community, the community is very stupid to reject that service.

Young people were serving the community in Athens 2,500 years ago, and I would never have thought that the hon. Member for Hove was even older than that. There is nothing new about our proposal. There is nothing new in allowing people disqualified from serving in Parliament from serving on a local authority. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman might care to look into the history of women's suffrage. Women could stand for and serve on parish councils from 1870 onwards but it was not until 1918 that the first batch of women got the vote.

Let us forget the question of which Government did what. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) says that on the Representation of the People Act. 1969, there was a free vote on the issue of 18-year-olds getting the vote. As an ex-Chief Whip, my memory is clouded on the events of the time. But I do remember that the present Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party was against votes at 18, and he may have been right.

But the question then was whether young people should have a vote in a parliamentary election. A General Election was coming along in 1970. Perhaps the Labour Government should, amongst all the other things they did, for good or evil, have included a Bill enabling young people to fight local elections at 18. Let us say that that Government were remiss is not doing so. But we are here not concerned with the Labour Government of that time and with what they did or did not do. We are here to decide whether or not young people of 18 should be able to stand as candidates in local government elections.

11 p.m.

I am not averse to a Speaker's Conference, if one must have one, to decide whether people of 18 should be able to stand for Parliament. It seems a very odd way of doing things, because quite clearly they will do so. With due respect to the hon. Member for Hove, I doubt whether there is any hon. or right hon. Member present who believes that we will stop people of 18 from standing for Parliament in due course if they want to. Let us say that this is the way in which we do it. We do things traditionally here: we act 30 years after

everyone else has decided that it is right to do so.

But that has nothing to do with local government elections. It is a separate point altogether. The very fact that the Representation of the People Act has been mentioned shows that it is a different point. We are here concerned with the Local Government Bill. If the Minister of State cares to read the Second Reading debate he will see that I asked his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at that time: "Incidentally, why do you disqualify people of 18 from standing for local government?" and that the right hon. Gentleman turned to the Minister and said, "Why do we?" One thereby realised that the right hon. Gentleman himself thought that there was a distinction between local government and Parliament.

We have a chance of doing something. It will not hurt anyone. If anyone thinks that the whole of our democracy is in imminent danger because young men and women of 18 will be able to stand as local government candidates, though very few will, all I can say is that he has a very timid disposition. I am glad to advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Amendment, and I also, in the most non-partisan way possible, appeal to hon. and right hon. Members on the Government side to join us and so settle the issue once and for all.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Houst divided: Ayes 127, Noes 139.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Carlisle

I beg to move Amendment No. 470, in page 51, line 16 after 'is', insert and thereafter he continues to be'. I suggest that with this Amendment it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 471, in page 188, line 5, at end insert— 'local government elector', means a person registered as a local government elector in the register of electors in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts. The effect of the Amendment would be to oblige a member of a local authority whose qualification for election and membership was as a local government elector to retain that qualification throughout his membership. As the House will know, Clause 80(1) provides for the qualifications for election and membership of a local authority and sets out five, and we have just been discussing age. Another is that he should be a local government elector.

If the qualification for membership depends merely on the fact that he is a local government elector, by the Amendment he will be obliged to retain that qualification throughout his period of office in order to remain a member. That was the position under Section 57 of the 1933 Act and it means that if he ceases to be a local government elector during his period of office, unless he has one of the other qualifications set out in the Clause, his right to membership would cease. Amendment No. 471 merely defines "local government elector", a definition originally omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Silkin

I beg to move Amendment No. 726, in page 51, line 28, at end insert— Provided that if any of the above qualifications claimed by a member of a local authority ceases and no other qualification exists, the local authority shall declare the office to be vacant in accordance with the provisions of section 87 below.

11.15 p.m.

This Amendment seeks to ensure that a person once elected to a council should continue to remain qualified throughout the period of his service as a councillor. As the Clause is drafted, once the person is elected there is no need for this qualification to continue; it can stop the day afterwards or even a minute afterwards. A man may move away altogether, but because he had 12 months' residence or worked for 12 months in the area prior to nomination, he could continue to hold office.

What is more, the office of councillor is itself regarded as a qualification of voluntary work within the area. A councillor once elected can in theory continue long after he ceases to have any other connection with the area. It is a kind of local government perpetual motion. The Minister may be interested to hear that we have examples of this having taken place and, should he require them, I will see that those examples are made available to him.

Surely the qualifications should be continuous. It seems absurd that because a man was qualified before the date of nomination that qualification should remain with him. Under the original 1933 Act the words "a member of a local authority" had some meaning. If the qualification of being an elector or of owning land ceases, the councillor ceases to be qualified and comes off the council. If all the qualifications are relevant only before that time, then the words have no meaning whatever.

I realise that this is a somewhat late stage at which to bring up this Amendment again. We have suggested it before and we have tried to show that there is some justice in it. It may be difficult for the Minister of State to reconsider the matter, but if he looks at it with a fresh mind he will see there is something in what I am saying.

I beg the Minister to reconsider the matter before it reaches another place. It seems absurd that the good work of Amendment No. 470, which I heartily support, should be undone by the words as they are at present in Clause 80.

Mr. Carlisle

The effect of this Amendment is that if any qualification claimed by a person who wishes to be a member of the council then ceases during the period he is on the council, he shall become ineligible to continue by Clause 87. So far as concerns the qualification of being a local government elector, the requirement that this should be a continuing qualification has already been met by a previous Government Amendment.

The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) argues that the man should cease to be qualified if he fails to have a continuing qualification in regard to the matters set out in paras (b), (c), (d) and (e). The difficulty is that they do not refer to a continuing qualification, but refer to a necessity to have a qualification at the date of election. Therefore, if on the day after the election the person ceases to have the qualification, he still continues to be qualified and does not become disqualified under Clause 87; whereas if he is qualified as a local elector, rather than by having been a resident for 12 months, then since this is a continuing qualification he ceases to be qualified. The difficulty is that the qualification specifically relates to the person's situation for the 12 months up to the date of nomination. I have some knowledge of the one about principal or only place of work because I was the Minister who in the 1970–71 Session took through the Bill about qualifications for councillors, but on the local government electorate and residence one, and it seems these are tied very much together, at the moment I am advised that, since there the qualification relates to a qualification obtained prior to the date of election it is difficult to see how it can be continuing. I am quite prepared to consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said—

Mr. John Silkin

It may short circuit matters if I say that of course the whole point is that it does apply prior to nomination, whereas I am hoping that it will continue, and I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he will look at the matter again because I think, as I heard him speak, that he himself is a bit doubtful about the logic of it.

Mr. Carlisle

As I say, I am quite prepared to look at this. I cannot make any commitment in any way, but I should like at least to look at the basis of this.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell

That was a rather disappointing reply even though the Minister said he would look at this question again. I think his reason for apparently rejecting the Amendment in the first place was weak. All of us can point to examples of what has happened in councils we know. I know of an example, not in my own county, but not far away from it. A councillor, a couple of months after his election to the council, moved to another town 200 miles away, but he could remain a member of the council for the remaining three years, provided he came back once every six months under the six months' rule under the present Regulations. So long as once in six months he trotted back for a five-minute appearance he could stay on the council for the whole three years. On certain councils such a person could keep his membership for not only three but four years.

I do not see why somebody who qualifies under paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) and does not qualify under (a) can disappear for a couple of months. It is quite wrong that if he does he should remain a member of the council for four years, only coming back once every six months to register a vote, for otherwise he can be thrown off the council by a vote of the council. I see no real difficulty in finding a form of words which would do for (b), (c) and (d) in particular exactly what is already done under (a).

Amendment negatived.