HC Deb 14 February 1985 vol 73 cc521-42
Mr. Beith

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 30, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

Sub-paragraph 3 states: An alteration made in a register of electors after the last day on which nomination papers nominating candidates at an election may be delivered to the returning officer shall not have effect for the purposes of that election. I raise this matter because my experience during the general election—and I am sure it was the experience of many hon. Members—was that some people found that they could get corrections made to the electoral register but could not cast a vote. The last general election would have been the first one at which the new rules for the correction of the electoral register were in operation. Prior to that, it was impossible to get any change made in the register until the following year. That was most unsatisfactory. The clause was a welcome improvement. However, the general election brought with it a series of disappointed expectations when people discovered that they were not registered, had the mistake corrected, only to find that they could not vote on polling day.

It may be argued that people should always check the draft lists when they appear in post offices before Christmas to ensure that their names are on the register, and that, during the year, if they failed to check the draft list, they should check that the register is up to date, so that a mistake can be corrected. We all know that people do not do that. Political parties do it to help their supporters, and indeed others, as much as they can. However, an ordinary member of the public tends to discover a mistake in registration only when an election is about to take place, and he wishes to take part in it. It is therefore extremely common that at the time of an election people discover that they are not properly registered.

6.15 pm

At present when a mistake is discovered, a correction can be made; but if it is discovered beyond nomination day, the person concerned cannot cast a vote at the election. That sense of disappointed expectation vitiates the otherwise welcome features of the changes in electoral law, from which we have benefited.

The move towards a continuous register, to which names can be added, is a welcome improvement. However, if corrections to the register cannot be made to ensure that people, who discover that their names are missing at the time when most people are likely to discover that omission can vote, the provision is disappointing in practice. Will the Minister consider that problem? It is a genuine difficulty, and many people came across it at the general election.

Mr. William Powell

I strongly support the argument of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). One of the blemishes of our system of voting is the fact that it has been impossible for someone to correct the register and cast a vote. Most of those errors are discovered only when a person presents himself at a polling station to cast a vote. It is regrettable to have to turn such a person away in those circumstances. Obviously, the detail must be considered carefully. I urge my hon. Friend to consider carefully the arguments that have been advanced and to try to assist in this matter.

Mr. Mellor

I take those points, and consider them to be helpful interventions. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made clear and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) confirmed, a person who wakes up to the fact that he has been omitted from the electoral register only when an election is in the offing is usually too late to do anything about it.

Impelled by precisely the same feelings that have motivated the two interventions, we consulted on the basis that there was no genuine reason why the registration officer, aided by modern technology, should not be able to alter the register right up to polling day. It was upon that basis that we went out to consultation.

The proposals met strong opposition, not just from the political parties but from the local authority associations. The local authority associations said that in practice copies of the electoral register for use in polling stations were made ready several days before polling day and that a power to alter the register up to the last moment would wreck the whole procedure.

Some, if not all, of the political parties said that they wanted a definitive register for canvassing purposes at the start of the campaign. In other words, there was no support for the proposition that we put forward.

The Government thought that they could not leave the present position as it is; but, equally, it was difficult, in the spirit of accommodation that has informed our consideration of these matters — rightly so— to insist upon going ahead with the requirement that alterations should be accepted up to polling day. Therefore, we decided—and it is given effect to by the Bill—that corrections should be allowed up to the close of nominations, which would be a fortnight before the poll. That would be a marked improvement on the present position.

We are reviewing the procedures for the making of late claims, and before we make the regulations we shall want to consult the political parties again on this and other matters contained in the regulations.

I hope that, on the basis that the door is not slammed shut in his face, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will withdraw the amendment. There are real difficulties, not raised by the Government but by those whom we properly consulted, in doing entirely what the hon. Gentleman seeks. We have made some improvements, which I hope are welcome, and I trust that he understands why we can go no further at this stage.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down)

I am in agreement with the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Corby (Mr. Powell) in welcoming the enormous improvement in relations with the electorate which rolling registration has brought about. I believe that the Under-Secretary is right to be cautious in any undertaking to continue the rolling of the registration up to polling day. There is, after all, another important person or group of persons whose interests must be taken into account, and they are the candidates.

For the sake of the candidates and their duty and desire to be available to all members of the electorate—that is to say, all who are entitled to vote—it is important that there should be finality at some stage during the campaign. It seems to me that the close of nominations, which is final for other purposes, is an appropriate point of finality for this purpose and one which gives a reasonable opportunity to all candidates to do what most of them desire to do, and that is to make their own direct approach to all who will be able to vote on polling day. Caution may be indicated in respect of the last fortnight before polling day.

Mr. Beith

The remarks of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) touch the scale of balance that we have had to address at several points during the Bill —which is more important, the right of the voter to cast his vote, or the right of the candidate to address the voter? They are both important.

The other context in which we have had to consider that matter is postal voting. In extending postal voting to those overseas we have to some extent reduced the ability of a candidate to address the totality of those listed on the electoral register, because it will necessarily be difficult to communicate within the time available with some of those registered overseas to vote.

My judgment on that matter is that the interests of the elector to be able to cast his vote outweigh the interest of the candidate to be able to address each voter. So far as we possibly can, we must give priority to ensuring that the voter can cast his vote, but having done that, we should do all in our power to enable the candidate to address him.

In making that point the right hon. Gentleman reminded me of what was the most ironic experience at the last election. Some of the people to whom I referred as having been deprived of their vote despite being added to the register, saw their names exhibited on public notice boards in their wards and villages in the course of statutory procedures during the election because the electoral registration officer exhibited the draft additions to the register which had come to him during the election so that objection could be made in the normal way.

The poor individual who found that he was not on the register and had made his complaint duly walked down to the village the next morning and there saw his name and address listed on the notice board for him, his neighbours and the candidate to see. There was no difficulty in addressing that voter at that stage of the campaign, yet he was unable to cast his vote on polling day. Having gone through the whole process of exhibiting the vote, he was precluded from casting his vote on polling day.

I feel that we should strike the balance more in favour of the voter and use every possible means to ensure that he can cast his vote. I do not believe that the objections raised on behalf of returning officers or the parties are overwhelming, even that relating to preparing the register beforehand. It is possible to have a supplementary list of names which have been added to the register and to ensure that a copy is delivered to each relevant polling station.

The objections of the parties are mainly covered by the argument about candidates addressing the voters, with which I have sought to deal. There comes a stage when we must consider ourselves as public representatives representing the voter, and not merely as people who here seek to represent the views of the parties on how the matter has been handled. We have all done a bit of both during the course of these proceedings, but this is a matter where the interests of the individual elector are paramount.

My one worry is that the Minister, in his genuine attempt to be helpful — clearly he set out from the beginning to widen what was available—may not have left himself a door which is sufficiently open, because what he can do in regulations is severely circumscribed by what the Act says. If the Act says that no name which has been added to the register after nomination day can acquire a valid vote at that election, he can do nothing in regulations to make any difference.

For that reason, I am not content to leave the matter there. I do not wish to press the matter to a Division, but I should like to record that although I know that the Minister will be as helpful as he can, the Bill will be left in such a way that some people will be disappointed. Their names will appear to be added to the register. They will see their names exhibited on the public notice board, yet when they go to the polling station there will be no ballot paper for them.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Winnick

I beg to move amendment No. 92, in page 35, line 44, at end insert— '(iii) leave out "public meetings" and insert "meetings open to any member of the public".'. The amendment arises from some difficulties with the words "public meetings". It was not meant, but in practice they allow organisations such as the National Front to exclude all except their own members and then to claim, in effect, that a public meeting has taken place. That is undesirable, because if we are to have election meetings — long may we continue to have such gatherings — members of the public should not be excluded. That is not the case with race hate organisations, which is why I have moved the amendment.

To the extent that meetings, in effect, are peopled only by those who are followers of the organisation, it is possible for remarks which probably break the law to be made. If not the electoral law, they probably break other laws affecting race relations. That would be less easy if people unconnected with the organisations were able to get in.

As I believe the Minister must be aware, there have been a number of difficulties over this point. The amendment substitutes the words on the Notice Paper for "public meetings". The problem would be easier to deal with if the wording were: meetings open to any member of the public. There is no ambiguity there. The wording is simple and clear and it can be enforced. Although the matter is important, it will not preoccupy the Committee for long, and for the reasons I have given I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

6.30 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

I applaud the sentiments behind the amendment. I suspect, however, that we will hear from the Minister that those sentiments are met by the words already in the statute. If so, we would be grateful to hear that, because it will be on the record and available to all registration officers, all parties and candidates.

The purpose of the special provisions which entitle those participating in elections to hold public meetings in buildings which are either owned by the public or funded out of public funds is to show that elections are fully public exercises, that all members of the public are entitled to participate and that for that purpose publicly owned buildings will be thrown open and will serve to achieve that end.

It may be that the amendment is a "belt and braces" operation to achieve that, but there is doubt at present. I should have thought that in every constituency there were private buildings which could be hired out for private meetings. Public buildings should not be available for that purpose, and the amendment goes some way towards making that clear.

Mr. Mellor

If I say, as I shall feel bound to do at the end, that I cannot accept the amendment, I want the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to know from the outset that it is not because I do not have considerable sympathy with it and would be content, if some of the points that I raise could be met, to consider the matter again while the Bill is going through Parliament. I hope that I shall assist him by going through the arrangements as I understand them and setting out what I see to be the difficulty in his proposal.

What the hon. Gentleman raises is eminently proper and I share his sentiments about one or two meetings that have given rise to concern. As he knows, candidates at parliamentary, European Parliament and local government elections have in general a right to the free use of school rooms and other meeting rooms for the purpose of election meetings which are described in the statute as public meetings in furtherance of their candidature". The only qualifications and limitations on that right are that meetings have to be held at reasonable times and on reasonable notice, and must not interfere with the use of a school for educational purposes or with prior lettings of the meeting room. The Bill does nothing to change the substance of the law.

We know that a number of disturbances were provoked in the 1970s by election meetings called by the National Front. A particularly appalling example was the Southall disorder in April 1979 which was the result of such a meeting. These meetings tended to be held in areas of high ethnic minority population and admission was limited to National Front supporters who for the most part were not electors in the division in which the meeting was being held but were bussed in from other areas. Having heard those facts, if someone says that this is damaging to respect for electoral law, far be it for me to dissent from that. Indeed, I do not dissent from it. The question is, what can we do about it?

The 1979 public order Green Paper included a question which was posed to obtain assistance from those who bothered to reply to us—whether it was right for the ratepayer to subsidise what were in effect private meetings from which local electors were excluded, and whether as a consequence the candidates' right to use any school or meeting room should be limited to take account of public order considerations. The Select Committee which reported on public order law in 1980 recommended that an appropriate legal formula should be devised to require a substantial proportion of the seats at an election meeting to be open to the public. The Select Committee recognised the difficulties that even at the best conducted public meetings which are genuinely intended to be open to the public some rowdyism is to be expected. Therefore, the Select Committee added a proviso to the effect that the candidates' stewards should retain the right to refuse entry at an election meeting to those intent on breaking it up and remove them if they gained entry.

The hon. Gentleman's proposal does not include any such equivocation and would make it difficult to keep order even at a proper meeting that did not fall under the umbrella. Indeed, it might be one of his own meetings to which National Front supporters or other people had come with the purpose of breaking it up. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that that would be the consequence.

The difficulty with these provisions is enforcement. The law explicitly allows candidates the free use of rooms only for public meetings, yet the question whether a meeting is a public meeting is a question of fact which can be determined only after the event. There are public order considerations which require that there should be a right on the part of the organisers and, indeed, on the part of the police to refuse entry to such meetings and to act to eject people so as to maintain order. But those legitimate responses to normal meetings or to meetings which only a small minority wanted to make abnormal would be precluded by the amendment.

I have tried to set out the position as squarely as I can. If someone who is provoked by what I have said can come up with a formula that would enable us to exclude those meetings that, as it were, creep in as public meetings but in reality and substance were never intended to be public, without threatening the proper carrying on of legitimate public meetings which a small minority have to be prevented from trying to break up, I shall be glad to hear it. The amendment does not achieve that. It is on that basis that it is not acceptable. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, but we could come back to it later.

Mr. Winnick

If the Minister is telling the Committee that because of all the difficulties he has outlined he cannot come back on Report with a different wording, I will not withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 37, line 20, leave out '£10,000' and insert '£5,000'.

The Second Deputy Chairman

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 96, in page 37, line 23, leave out '£5,000' and insert '£2,500'.

No. 97, in page 37, line 27, leave out '£10,000' and insert '£5,000'.

No. 98, in page 37, line 30, leave out '£5,000' and insert '£2,500'.

Mr. Barron

Amendment No. 95 seeks to change the amount for security of costs for any action taken in court in relation to elections to bring it within the reach of the ordinary common man. The amount of £10,000 proposed for parliamentary elections is too high. The amendment seeks to bring it down to £5,000.

My hon. Friends and I also wish to reduce from £5,000 to £2,500 the security needed for local government elections. I understand the Government's wish to ensure that people do not initiate litigation for frivolous reasons at elections. In many instances elections are frivolous in themselves—as we can see when we look at some hon. Members who are in Committee. We should make sure that the amounts required as security are in the reach of ordinary people. The amounts proposed by the Government are far too high for the ordinary man or woman.

Mr. Alex Carlile

I fear that it is my view that both the Government and the Labour party have got it all wrong in relation to the amendments. A more far-reaching change in the law is required. By section 136 of the principal Act and by the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), both the Government and the Labour party appear to accept that it should remain possible for an election petition based on a corrupt or illegal practice to be brought as a civil proceeding; and for alternative proceedings to be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions by way of a prosecution.

Mr. Bermingham

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is sometimes extremely difficult to persuade the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action in these matters?

Mr. Carlile

I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in due course, if he will bear with me.

The only issue between the Government and the Labour party in relation to this group of amendments is one of quantum. How much should be deposited by way of security for costs? The Government say £10,000 for a general election and £5,000 for a local election, and the Labour party says half of those figures. Of course, if inflation had been applied since the last time the figures were adjusted, they would be £14,200 for a general election and £7,100 for a local election. Therefore, in that sense both the Government and the Labour party have got their sums wrong anyway.

The Liberal party and the Social Democratic party oppose the principle of the provision and the amendment, because we consider that it has three fundamentally offensive features. The first is that something as potentially serious as a corrupt practice, corruption, or even as serious as an illegal practice, should be open to a merely civil action. The very word "corruption" speaks of its essence eloquently without needing elaboration. If corruption occurs at an election, proceedings should be taken through the criminal courts only, as the appropriate sanctions for the conduct surely fall within the criminal law.

The second fundamentally offensive feature is that alternative jurisdictions should be available; and that it should be a lottery as to whether a person is proceeded against by way of election petition, or by prosecution with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If one looks at the Richmond GLC election case and at another case from the north-east which involved an hon. Member, one sees that, although the allegations that were made in the two cases were of the same general type, one proceeded by way of election petition and resulted in a massive bill of costs being faced by a candidate who was cleared of every corrupt practice alleged; whereas the other led to proceedings in the Crown court by way of a prosecution authorised by the Director of Public Prosecutions, resulting in a proper acquittal and an order for costs which did not leave the candidate involved in anything like as disadvantageous a position.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is straying a little wide. The amendments deal with amounts. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now going wider into the principles involved.

Mr. Carlile

I was seeking to keep in order by making the point that I regard the amounts in the amendment as being quite wrong because the concept of setting a quantum for such proceedings is in itself wrong.

The third fundamentally offensive feature about the concept behind the amounts stated in the amendment is that it is wrong—I am surprised that the Labour party should accept it as a concept—that money should be the measure of whether an allegedly corrupt or illegal practice is to be considered by the court. Even if the amendment is accepted, if the Labour party is able to lay its hands on £5,000 of union money to present by way of security for costs so that it can bring an election petition, it can bring it; but if, as is the case in most areas, the Labour party cannot raise the £5,000, then however serious the corrupt practice of which it wishes to complain, it cannot bring it. That is an odd and unacceptable state of affairs.

6.45 pm

In accordance with the broad views of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils, "I suggest that we should not be faced with choosing between the amounts set out alternatively by the Labour party, and the Government. Rather, we should have a single procedure whereby allegations of corrupt and illegal practice are brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, it is sometimes difficult to persuade the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring prosecutions, but that restraint is only right and proper. He rightly exercises his discretion carefully and authorises proceedings only in cases when he regards it as more than 50 per cent. likely that a conviction will result. That kind of restraint is needed in relation to election disputes.

Therefore, although I do not intend to force a Division on the amendment, I ask the Under-Secretary to reconsider the principle behind the provisions and realise that we should be talking not about amounts but about the whole cumbersome procedure of election petitions and whether it is right for that cumbersome procedure to continue.

I can speak of one episode from my own experience. I was once instructed to appear in a local election petition on behalf of, as it happens, the Labour councillor who was elected against whom a petition had been presented by another candidate. I saw it as a fantastically expensive, extremely elaborate, grossly wasteful and long-delayed procedure. My view is that the whole procedure of election petitions, often unmerited, which can take so much longer than the relatively simpler course of a criminal prosecution in appropriate circumstances, leads the post-electoral process into disrepute.

Mr. Bermingham

I listened with care to what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said. He surprised me considerably because one would have thought that such an honourable and learned Member would know that there is a world of difference between an illegal practice leading to the presentation of an election petition and corruption. The two arms are needed. I agree that the corruption procedure is much speedier and less expensive to the party—

Mr. Carlile

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that corrupt practices should, in principle, be dealt with only by way of prosecution, and not by an election petition? That seems to be the import of what he said.

Mr. Bermingham

I agree that any corrupt practice in any election should be dealt with by way of criminal prosecution. I do not believe that any hon. Member would think otherwise. However, I know from experience that it is often the presentation of a petition and matters that arise from the examination of the petition that lead to the subsequent corruption trial or the subsequent trial for perjury.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be led astray. We are dealing with amounts.

Mr. Bermingham

I would hate you to think, Sir Paul, that my turning my back on you was in any way discourteous, but it allowed me to make my point to the hon. and learned Member. I shall now return immediately to the sums of money involved.

It is right that people should be able to present a petition against election practices. It is equally right for those who have stood for election, whether they were successful or not, to be protected from the utterly frivolous petition. The idea of security of costs is aimed at protecting against spurious and ill-founded allegations or petitions.

I concede that in this modern day and age £500 or £1,000 is no deterrent to the frivolous petition, but we need not go as far as the Government have gone in raising the limits to £5,000 and £10,000. That will eliminate a number of well-founded petitions brought by individuals, perhaps independent candidates, without any particular means. To tailor the limitation to take into account the discouragement of the frivolous and still leave it within the means of the honest and honourable petitioner would be a sensible compromise. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) in his amendment to reduce the sums to £5,000 and £2,500.

Dr. Marek

rose—

Mr. Mellor

Let me save the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) from feeling the need to push at an open door. I understood him to realise that it is wide open and that I am accepting the amendments. I want to put hon. Members out of their misery before the hon. Gentleman makes a speech that might persuade me that I am wrong to do so.

Dr. Marek

The amendments are about right. This is a Government Bill. If the sum is too low, frivolous applications will be encouraged. One wants to keep it above that level.

Mr. Mellor

That ringing endorsement of the amendment will be welcome to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and it has not persuaded me that it is wrong. Therefore, I shall accept the amendments.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) knows, as was pointed out, that the arguments that he adduced go to the basic principle and are the result of his frustration that new clause 17, which would have given him the opportunity to dilate on those matters without objection, was not selected. I shall honour the fact that it was not selected and not be led into the path of disorder.

It is eminently appropriate that someone who does something as grave as bringing an election petition should have to show that he is capable of withstanding the consequences of failing in order to recompense the candidate who is brought before the court for his costs. To put up security for costs is eminently right, particularly given the recent example of the application in respect of the Penrith by-election, which showed us just how the procedures can be abused. There is nothing wrong with the principle, but the sum of £1,000 was fixed as long ago as 1868. I am surprised that the result of inflation since 1868 is only £14,000. The hon. and learned Gentleman's mathematics may not be as good as his law. I suspect that I may be right about that.

Mr. Alex Carlile

I could have got the figures wrong. It could be £142,000.

Mr. Mellor

It was a mere guess and speculation, as one should have anticipated from that Bench. In any event, the sum has not been increased since 1868. We are now doing so and I am sure that we are pleased about that. Perhaps in our zeal to increase the amount we might have gone too high. The eloquence of the hon. Member for Rother Valley has carried the day.

Will you grant me a moment's indulgence, Sir Paul? When I replied to amendment No. 79 late last night, in an anxiety to deal with the issue quickly I said something which may not have been completely accurate. I am writing to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) about it, but it might be appropriate to mention it now. I telescoped the argument and I should like to put the right position on the record.

The point related to the penalties for making a false declaration to become an overseas voter. I suggested that that was an offence under section 61 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 which was punishable as an illegal practice and the penalties would therefore include disqualification from voting. What I should have said was that the making of a false declaration would not be punishable under section 61, but it would need to be only if the result of the declaration was that the person got his vote and excercised it. That is the mischief. If he got his vote as a result of a false declaration and exercised it, that would be an illegal practice under section 61 and would be visited with the penalties which the hon. Gentleman wanted.

I hope that that explanation does not make the hon. Gentleman regret his withdrawal of the amendment. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put the record straight and I am grateful to you, Sir Paul, for your indulgence.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 96, in schedule 3, page 37, line 23, leave out '£5,000' and insert '£2,500'.

No. 97, in schedule 3, page 37, line 27, leave out '£10,000' and insert '£5,000'.

No. 98, in schedule 3, page 37, line 30, leave out '£5,000' and insert '£2,500'.—[Mr. Barron.]

Mr. Bermingham

I beg to move amendment No. 100, in schedule 3, page 38, line 40, after 'relief)", insert— '(a) in subsection (1) the words "else if in respect of a payment made in contravention of section 78(1) or (2) above paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to this Act" shall be omitted and (b)'. The amendment may seem complicated, but it effectively alters section 167 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by deleting in the second line of section 167(1) the words "High Court" and substituting the words "County Court". The object of the exercise is to allow the applications for relief to be brought in the county court.

Before I go further, I thank the Minister for reading into the record the matters that he did. My view has not been altered. I accept the undertaking. I realise that the casting of the vote is the matter that causes the problem, and I am satisfied on that point.

A considerable number of agents are often amateurs and things can often happen in the heat of the preparation of the papers. It is certainly the case in all major parties that people who are not professional agents can make innocent mistakes when calculating election expenses, whether for a parliamentary or a local government election.

Applications for relief under section 167 have to be made in the High Court, which is an expensive procedure. In some cases, it is incredibly expensive. The amendment seeks to allow applications in respect of errors made in good faith — it is a prerequisite to show that the omission is not a criminal act — to be made in the county court where, in my experience, the quality of the judiciary is equally as great. The county court is well capable of dealing with such applications. It has always seemed strange that such applications have to be made in the High Court. The amendment merely seeks to allow those applications in future to be made in the county court.

Mr. Mellor

The position, as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, is that for the most part the jurisdiction is exclusively that of the High Court, and only some trivial applications for relief may be made to the county court. I understand that a number of applications under section 167 of the 1983 Act are made by candidates whose election publications have failed to include the name of the printer and publisher, and so on. Therefore, I understand why some of those should not involve going to the High Court, which is an expensive procedure.

My difficulty is that it is not easy to say from the outset what will be trivial. Even in the instance that I have given of omitting a mark, that may be a legitimate mistake for which relief could be granted immediately for literature that was otherwise perfectly well within the limits. But there are circumstances where one could envisage that a candidate, desperate to secure election or re-election, might ride a coach and horses through the restrictions on the amount of money that he could spend on publicity. He could publish a great deal of expensive literature without the proper mark and then not be entitled to relief, even though he would be applying on precisely the same basis as the individual who had left a mark off one piece of literature only.

We must recognise that illegal practices are potentially serious. Indeed, an election can be declared void if a candidate is found to have committed them. The danger of giving the county court jurisdiction over applications for relief is that it might well be asked to entertain, and perhaps grant, an application for relief while at the same time an election court, which has only a limited number of High Court judges, was considering the same issue on the trial of an election petition. That might well arise if the abuse were as wholesale as I have suggested.

7 pm

I am not anxious to involve people in any more difficulty than is absolutely necessary when dealing with inadvertence, but it is not easy, until one has heard the facts of the particular case, to separate out in rules what is inadvertence and what is perhaps more sinister. I believe that in order to preserve the gravity and seriousness of an illegal practice—since a bad case undermines the whole principle of free and democratic elections and is therefore treated very seriously by the courts—it is right for the High Court to retain this jurisdiction.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but we are strongly attached to the present arrangement.

Mr. Bermingham

I appreciate the point that the Minister is making. However, does he agree that there ought at least to be written into the rules—this could be done with no great difficulty — that the county court judge, who is a circuit judge since the new rearrangement, shall also have power to refuse to consider the matter further? These are men of great integrity. He then could refer the matter to a judge of the High Court, and the normal procedures would have to apply. In other words, the relief he could give would be yes, no, or referral, in which case it would then pass on. In a case where what appeared to be a minor infringement gave rise to a much more serious matter, as I am sure the Minister is well aware, the judge would have the power to refer it either to a full election court or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which of course is what happens.

Mr. Mellor

But the result would still be that a judge on a lower level of the judiciary than has customarily dealt with these matters would be being invited to exercise discretion that would be conclusive of the matter and might oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in a case which a High Court judge might have wished to consider had the matter been put before him.

Because we are dealing with technical matters and because we want good and common sense to govern these rules, I am always open, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for further application to be made. If the hon. Gentleman wants to set out in writing any more detailed points, there is time in the further progress of the Bill to consider them. But at the moment, for the reasons I have given, the Government are attached to the continuation of the rule whereby, save in only a very small number of trivial instances, jurisdiction to deal with illegal practices remains firmly vested in the High Court. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more satisfaction than that.

Mr. Bermingham

I propose to ask leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, because, if I do not, I realise that subsequently I may not be able to bring it back. I shall take the opportunity offered by the Minister and write to him in the intervening period.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Beith

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in schedule 3, page 40, line 45, leave out 'desirable for publicising it' and insert 'best calculated to afford information to the voter'.

The Second Deputy Chairman

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No 56, in page 41, line 5, leave out 'desirable for publicising it' and insert 'best calculated to afford information to the voter.' No. 94, in page 41, line 6, at end insert 'In the case of an election to fill a casual vacancy the returning officer shall also deliver a notice to those persons entitled to receive free copies of the electoral register under regulations issued by virtue of this Act.'.

Mr. Beith

Amendment No. 55 relates to the public notices which are displayed during an election by returning officers. The wording which I have proposed simply reinstates a bit of wording which was in the parent Act which the Government are amending. The reason for suggesting that we go back in part to the original wording is that I believe it is stronger than the Government's proposed wording. I believe it to be tighter as it places a more systematic demand upon the returning officer.

The words "desirable for publicising it" are extremely loose and subjective and allow for considerable difference of interpretation by returning officers. One might say that it was desirable to place a notice outside every church, chapel and public building, as is the traditional arrangement, while another might say it was no longer desirable to go to such lengths and that only a limited number of notices were required.

My proposal, best calculated to afford information to the voter, is more capable of objective test than the wording that the Government now propose. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister to consider changing the wording.

Mr. Mellor

I welcome you, Mr. Lamond, to the Chair of this Committee.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He wants to put back what appears in section 200(1) of the 1983 Act—wording that goes back to the 19th century. We thought that it was more appropriate to recognise the changes in circumstances that have occurred since it was first thought that the form of words to which the hon. Gentleman is attached should go into legislation. We believe that the electoral registration officer, as an experienced person, will have a view on the manner in which proper publication should be made and that, therefore, we should give him the discretion to do so. In effect, it is clear that in most cases he will use local newspapers for the additional publicity and that the scope for making a different decision is limited.

I am not persuaded that the hon. Gentleman has a point of substance in preferring the antique phraseology he wants to bring back to the simpler and, I think, better formulation that we have adopted of "desirable for publicising it". I do not think that there is a major difference between us, and I hope that it will not break the bonds of amicability that have characterised our relationship over the past two days.

Mr. Beith

This is the narrowest difference that has arisen between the Minister and myself in the course of these proceedings so far. However, I am not convinced by the general proposition that his current civil servants are better in their use of English than those who served his Department in the 19th century. Generally, the reverse appears to be the case. When I see the words on the amendment paper I am even more convinced. However, I have not convinced him or, I suspect, the armies that he could bring into the Lobbies were I to press the matter to a Division, so I will not do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James Lamond)

Owing to a misunderstanding, amendment No. 57 has been altered so that, as well as leaving out words, it now proposes to insert the word "tenth". Members will see that that would not make sense. I shall therefore allow the amendment to be moved in its original form—that is, to leave out the words 10 at night on the". The same applies to amendment No. 58.

Mr. Kaufman

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 41, line 38, leave out the words '10 at night on the'.

The Temporary Chairman

It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 58, in page 41, line 39, leave out the words '9 at night on the'. No. 59, in page 41, line 42, leave out '10 at night'.

No. 60, in page 41, line 43, leave out '9 at night'.

Mr. Kaufman

I wish, first, to thank the Clerks for the assistance that they have given my hon. Friends and myself in ensuring that these amendments are in order and suitable for outright inclusion in the Bill, which is our objective, to which I hope the Government will be able to respond in a receptive manner, thus strengthening the bonds of unity and amicability which were slightly slackened before, but which can now be tautened to the maximum.

As the Government will know, this is one of the aspects of the Bill which, in its original form, most offended us in the Labour party and on which we were most determined to secure amelioration. It seems to us that at a general election, which may be held only once every five years, it is an absurdity that, for the convenience of polling staff and returning officers, an hour should be removed from the hours of polling. After all, one hour in five years does not seem to be a very great price to pay for democracy in return for perhaps a little additional fatigue on the part of returning officers and their staff.

There is no doubt that the provision to close the poll at 10 o'clock rather than 9 o'clock is of great importance to people who would not necessarily qualify for an absentee vote or who might not know until much nearer polling day that their working hours would interfere with their opportunity to vote. Shift workers and long-distance lorry drivers wishing to vote in person might be inconvenienced by such a limitation of polling hours.

Mr. Forth

The polling stations will still be open between 7 am and 9 pm. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that some people cannot vote between those hours, but are able to do so between 9 pm and 10 pm?

Mr. Kaufman

Yes.

Mr. Forth

As polling stations will be open from 7 am, the right hon. Gentleman's argument loses much of its validity.

Mr. Kaufman

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the social habits of certain parts of the country, as anyone who represents or lives in a north of England constituency does.

Mr. Forth

I was born in Scotland.

Mr. Kaufman

Scotland cannot he blamed for that. I am referring to the social habits of the north of England, where I was born and part of which I represent. When we go round knocking on doors on polling day, many women say that they will not vote yet. They wait for their husbands to come home, have a bath, change their clothes and have their meal before going out to vote. Voting is a family occasion and many people in the north of England treat the act of exercising the franchise with the concern and respect that it deserves. The husband is the operative person in these family arrangements. If he comes home late, the wife may not be able to vote either. They may be unable to find a baby sitter. All kinds of problems may arise.

An election should not be about limiting people's opportunity to vote. It should expand the opportunities to vote within sensible limits. The additional hour until 10 pm has been available for a number of years and it is widely used. As I said at earlier stages of the Bill and in the debate on the White Paper, Dr. David Butler's survey showed that in the 1979 election 4 per cent. of the electorate voted between 9 pm and 10 pm. That one-hour period represents only 6.66 per cent. of the polling time available, so a 4 per cent. vote is not a bad proportion. Secondly, 4 per cent. is 1,250,000 people. It may be argued that if polling stations close at 9 pm some of those people may find a way to vote earlier. Nevertheless, all those people found the hour between 9 pm and 10 pm the most convenient for them. That being so, it seems gratuitious folly to take that hour away for the sake of tidiness or the convenience of polling officials. The opportunity to exercise the parliamentary franchise comes to each person on so few occasions in his or her lifetime as an adult citizen that to curtail it for no sensible reason is, in its way, an attack on democracy.

I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment, to which the Labour party attaches great importance. We believe that the Bill will be vastly improved by the inclusion of this amendment and the consequential amendments which will complete it.

7.15 pm
Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)

I endorse all that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has said. When I supported the Bill as a whole on Second Reading, I found this aspect of it rather difficult to understand. When I first sought election in 1979, I stood in a constituency with a large proportion of shift workers. Shifts in the steel industry ended in the early or mid-evening, so a large number of votes were cast between 9 pm and 10 pm. People anxious to vote, come what may, might be prepared to suffer inconvenience to vote earlier, but the electoral system should not impose that necessity upon them. We should make it as convenient as possible for people to cast their votes. Some of my political opponents even suggested that the decision in the late 1960s to extend polling hours from 9 pm to 10 pm led to my winning my seat in 1979 because so many votes were cast in that last hour of polling. That is no reason to limit or to extend polling hours, but I believe that on this one day in every four or five years we should make things as convenient as possible for the electors rather than for the returning officers and their staff.

As a Member representing a constituency with the peculiar voting habits that prevail in the north of England, I endorse the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Gorton. He will no doubt agree that in his constituency, as in mine, only a small proportion of votes are cast before 6 pm or 7 pm and that the vast bulk of the votes in Manchester, and in the north-west and north-east generally, are cast from 6.30 pm onwards. It would be most helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister would accept the amendment.

Mr. Beith

I believe that we should retain the 10 pm finish, for many of the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Many people in my area are in precisely the position that he described. Women waiting for their husbands to come home from work cannot be certain at what time they will arrive. Drivers and building workers working away from home may leave home before 7 am and may be considerably delayed in the evening. The disadvantages to returning officers and candidates are simply not worth the discouragement and difficulty that would be placed in the way of those who wish to cast their votes later in the day. I believe that we should stick to the 10 pm finish.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels

For a change, I support the Labour amendment. I see no reason to reduce polling hours. In Leicester people vote right up to 10 pm and it is important that they should continue to have that right. People working in the mines some distance away may leave home before 7 am. There are also many shift workers in the knitwear industry. I hope that the motive for the proposed change was not the wish of certain Members to get their results on television the same evening. I know that traditionally there is some competition and results from places like Torquay and Guildford are rushed to the screen as quickly as possible. That is not my aim. I entirely support the Opposition amendment which would allow everyone the right to vote at any time up to 10 pm on polling day.

Mr. Mellor

Historically speaking, the 9 o'clock end of polling time has much more tradition behind it. That was the position until 1969. The Speaker's Conference of 1965 to 1968 was very much in favour of retaining the hours then laid down, but the Government of the day insisted on an amendment to extend the hours to 10 o'clock. That has remained the situation. The Select Committee, no doubt persuaded by the evidence of Dr. Butler among others with regard to the 4 per cent. who voted in that last hour, considered that there was no party advantage either way. The Select Committee recommended that polling hours should be brought into line for parliamentary and local elections and should run from 7 am to 9 pm. Acting in good faith on the Select Committee's recommendations as representing an objective cross-party view, we decided to include this in the Bill. We were fortified in so doing by the fact that many of the people who voted in that last hour could vote between 7 am and 9 pm without great inconvenience. However, if they were to vote only in the last hour, the arrangements that we have made for absent voting could be applied to them without any difficulty.

As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has said, he is much attached to this. In the spirit of amicability and partnership that has governed proceedings in consideration of the Bill, it would be churlish of me to refuse him this. I am therefore content to recommend that the Committee accepts the amendment.

Mr. Corbett

I apologise for the temporary absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who has duties elsewhere in the House. I thank the Minister for what he has said. We attach great importance to this matter, and I am delighted that he has acknowledged that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 41, line 39, leave out the words '9 at night on the'.

No. 59, in page 41, line 42, leave out '10 at night'.

No. 60, in page 41, line 43, leave out '9 at night'.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Mr. Beith

I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 43, line 34, leave out 'YOU MAY VOTE FOR ONLY ONE CANDIDATE' and insert 'VOTE FOR ONLY ONE CANDIDATE AND PUT NO OTHER MARK ON THE BALLOT PAPER, OTHERWISE YOUR VOTE MAY NOT BE COUNTED'.

The Temporary Chairman

With this we can discuss amendment No. 62, in page 43, line 39, leave out 'YOU MAY VOTE FOR ONLY ONE CANDIDATE' and insert 'VOTE FOR ONLY ONE CANDIDATE, AND PUT NO OTHER MARK ON THE BALLOT PAPER, OTHERWISE YOUR VOTE MAY NOT BE COUNTED'.

Mr. Beith

The last time that the Minister and I disagreed on a form of words a couple of amendments back, it was a fine matter of judgment. However, in this instance, I think that the Government have got the wording seriously wrong to the extent that it would be misleading to leave the words on the ballot paper in the form that they now propose. As I understand it, the intention of the Government must be the quite reasonable one of explaining to voters that they have only one vote to cast and, as it says in the fuller words appearing in the guidance to voters, if they try to cast more than one vote their vote may well not be valid.

It must be the Minister's experience, as it is mine, that quite a lot of electors have the impression that they have more than one vote. Perhaps they have taken part in a local election in which there are two candidates or more and they have put two crosses on the ballot papers. Maybe they are pioneers of the single transferable vote and, as I have seen one or two people do in most elections, they have put numbers down on the ballot paper. Perhaps they have used the system in trade union elections or somewhere else. Certainly there are always some people who are confused on the point.

Mr. Forth

The hon. Gentleman presumably precludes any possibility of proportional representation in allowing people to cast only one vote for one candidate.

Mr. Beith

If the hon. Gentleman will wait until we consider a later amendment, he will find his curiosity satisfied.

It ought to be common ground in the Committee that, in whatever form the Bill finally emerges, the ballot paper must be intelligible to voters. As the Minister has said several times, the exercise of a franchise is a serious matter. People must have the opportunity to cast their votes in conditions that enable them to do so.

It is my well-founded suspicion that the Government have not the slightest intention of changing the voting system in the Bill but intend to continue with the present one. Should that be so, we should ensure that the instructions to the elector explain the matter properly to him. I ask the Minister not to treat the matter lightly because it can cause genuine confusion.

I wondered for a moment in my appraisal of the words You may vote for only one candidate whether I was taking a view based on my own experience of the English language, having been brought up in the dialect of Cheshire and living now in the rich dialect of Northumberland. I looked at the Oxford dictionary. I did not bother going to the fuller Oxford English dictionary, or even the shorter. Had I done so, I think that I would have had even greater variety. The Oxford paperback dictionary defines the word "may" in several ways: expressing possibility, "it may be true", or permission, "you may go", or wish, "long may she reign", or uncertainty, "whoever it may be". There is an enormous range of possibilities surrounding the word "may". In simpler more everyday terms, it is frequently used in a permissive sense rather than one directing that somebody should act in a particular way.

I am convinced that if the words You may vote for only one candidate appear on the ballot paper as now proposed, there will be more and not fewer electors who think that they have some choice in the matter and can vary what they put down. It must be for that reason, I think, that the guidance for voters is a great deal clearer and more explicit. That will contain the wording that I have sought to include in the amendment.

It is not part of my case to say that the amendment is the only way of resolving the problem. I hope that the Minister will concede that there is a real difficulty. I do not know how he uses the word "may" when he addresses his children at home, but I shall be very surprised if it is not at times used in a permissive sense rather than in a mandatory sense as he seeks to use it here. I plead with him to look again seriously at these words because, if he does not, he will cause more confusion than he started with.

Mr. Mellor

What the hon. Gentleman said about the word "may" I cannot help feeling was an unwelcome return to the chalk face of his previous incarnation because there was a bit of pedantry about it. With the greatest respect to him, if one says to somebody You may vote for only one candidate", I do not think that that can be seen as an invitation to vote for two, three or four, or that more of them will do so. This is not to say that there is not a case for issuing further guidance in appropriate places.

I was wondering what the hon. Gentleman would say as he made his opening bid for attention by suggesting that the wording was seriously defective. When it all turned on the little word "may", I thought that his argument lost some credibility. However, it may be that I am getting churlish as the hours go on. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) is indicating agreement, which makes me even more resolved in my view that an outrageous proposition has been put before us.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would have the ballot paper say You may vote for only one candidate and put no other mark on the ballot paper, otherwise your vote may not be counted". There is limited space on the ballot paper. I think that those words, although correct in their proper place, are too many to put on the ballot paper. Having taken issue with the hon. Gentleman over his assault on the use of the word "may", I should say that on more general points the cloak of pedantry slips off and he is on better ground.

7.30 pm

We have become aware of the fact that the notice of guidance to voters displayed at every polling booth has the same appearance as it did 100 years ago. I do not know whether that makes it attractive to the hon. Gentleman, especially bearing in mind what he said in an earlier debate about antique language — however, I suspect not. No doubt he will support the new form, using simpler language, that will be displayed at future elections pursuant to some of the work that we have carried out. The words that he has suggested will be included. I hope that the newer and more attractive format will mean that the words are more heeded and noticed by people than had they been buried in the old form.

The hon. Gentleman knows that in each polling compartment appears the words The voter may vote for only one candidate in addition to a similar invitation on the ballot paper. If, to meet the hon. Gentleman's point, the words that he wants on the ballot paper should be the words in each polling compartment, and if he tabled an amendment to that effect on Report, I should be happy to accept it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

The Under-Secretary has gone part of the way towards meeting the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It could be argued that if the words are good for the polling booth, they are good for the ballot paper.

I agree with the Minister that the suggested wording contains far too many words to print on the ballot paper and that they would not be read by the elector in that flurry of anxiety that accompanies the groping for the pencil on the end of the string. The Minister is right to insist that the additional part of the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman should be confined to the notice in the polling booth.

I do not know why the Minister is so insistent in his use of the word "may". In some voting circumstances that word is capable of a different meaning. It can mean that plumping is permitted. If we were electing a different kind of body from this, there might be a question whether or not the elector could plump. I do not know why there should be any objection to putting the words "Vote for one candidate only"—which is simple and unambiguous—at the bottom of the ballot paper. I thought that I detected a sign pass between the Minister and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I hope that those words will appear before the House on Report and be accepted.

Mr. Beith

I am grateful for the intervention of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I also welcome the Minister's comments. As we are in Committee, we can have a useful exchange of views and make useful progress. I am ready to concede that the number of words in the amendment is too many. I had the precise intention of relating what appears in the Bill as likely to be on the ballot paper to what I understood to be the Government's intention—and in no way was the Government's intention expressed more clearly than in the guidance to voters. I wished to draw the attention of hon. Members to what I believed to be a potential difference between what the Government were doing and what they intended.

The Minister must not throw around charges of pedantry. We are trying to design a form of words that people will understand, so we must ensure that the words are in a form that will be understood. If it is pedantic to ensure that Government forms and documents are intelligible to the people, I should be very happy to be a pedant. The Government have failed in their duty to do that on many occasions. I know that the Government are seeking to improve matters, and I am unhappy to see them making matters worse. The Minister made a useful suggestion about the wording that should appear in each booth at polling stations. I want to meet him on that by tabling an amendment on Report, which I hope will be accepted.

The right hon. Member for South Down has hit on the ideal solution to the problem of what should appear on the ballot paper. After all, most people read only the ballot paper. If we get rid of the ambiguous word "may" and give the instruction, "Vote for only one candidate", we will greatly improve the ballot paper while satisfying the Minister's criterion that there should not be too many words. I gain the impression that in echoing the view of the right hon. Member for South Down, I find acceptance in other parts of the Committee.

Mr. Mellor

Although I did not intend deeply to wound the hon. Gentleman, I think that he may have stated his case more emphatically than the merits deserved. That is not to say that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is not capable of persuading me that there is a real point involved here. Having considered what has been said, if the injunction were merely, "Vote for only one candidate", or "Vote for one candidate only", and if an amendment were tabled to that effect on Report, the hon. Gentleman might think that it was worth being wounded in the interests of triumphing in the end.

Mr. Beith

Such is the lot of politicians through the ages that, on the basis that we can make such sensible amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Beith

I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 45, line 2, at end insert— '(aa) in paragraph 3 after the first "candidate" there shall be inserted the words "other than any candidate at an election where the number of candidates remaining validly nominated at the date of election was equal to or less than the number of vacancies to be filled at that election.".'. The amendment is supported and encouraged by the National Association of Local Councils. Its purpose is to absolve candidates in an uncontested election for parish or community councils from having to make a return of their expenses to the returning officer. That is a burdensome requirement on those who stand at local elections in their first-ever election, and who seldom incur expenses. They do not dream that they are committing an election offence by failing to certify that they spent nothing at all. The piece of paper is, in most circumstances, of no significance to anyone. It is a simplification of procedures designed to help the ordinary councillor who is not a professional politician.

No change in the law is suggested for contested elections, where it is right that a requirement is placed on every candidate to show what expenses he incurs in contesting the election. That is when the matter becomes significant. However, if the candidate is unopposed in an election to a local council, the association believes that the requirement to file a return of election expenses should not be placed upon the candidate.

Mr. Mellor

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has a great interest in these matters. I welcomed his interest in and the comments that he made during our earlier discussions on parish council elections. A number of hon. Members want parish elections to be put on the same basis as other elections, to ensure that their importance is not underestimated. That is why the Government have taken the very proper step of extending postal voting facilities to those elections.

If we are invited to move towards bringing parish and community council elections into line with other elections, we should be cautious about any suggestion that we should in other ways open a divide between those elections and others. I do not want to make too much of the point, but fundamental to our election rules is the rule that candidates must comply with the regulations and give a full account of what they have done during the election period.

While it may be my turn to be pedantic—although I hope not — even if an election is uncontested, as a number of parish council elections are, I believe that candidates should still enter that election with appropriate solemnity and fill in the appropriate forms. We move away from that requirement at the peril of appearing to underestimate the fundamental significance of the rules for the proper conduct of each and every election in this country.

I do not want to overstate the case, because if I were to do so I would fall into the trap which I have, in a very lighthearted way, accused others of falling into. I do not know whether the amendment has the support of the National Association—

Mr. Beith

Yes, it does.

Mr. Mellor

I was unaware of that. Of course, one always continues to think about these matters and one does not close one's mind, but I am still not attracted by the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will not press it.

Mr. Beith

I recognise the consistency in what the Minister says. The amendment was suggested by the National Association of Local Councils to deal with the problem as it saw it. But as I was one of those who strongly pressed the Minister to put parish council elections on all fours with other elections, particularly in respect of postal votes, I would be the last person to want to give the impression that we should make them less than full elections in every sense of that phrase.

I suppose that it inevitably becomes one of those slight bureaucratic absurdities that people have to make a nil return. It might have been attractive to simplify that arrangement, but it is certainly my view that parish councils should be treated on all fours with other local authorities, together with their elections. The National Association of Local Councils has done a great deal of work in ensuring that that is the case. Indeed, I pay tribute to that work.

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to