HL Deb 25 February 1919 vol 33 cc324-32

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)

My Lords, this is a very short Bill, which makes provision for regulating the expenses in the case of municipal elections as the result of the enormous addition to the electorate which a recent Act has brought about. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill for regulating Parliamentary expenditure was before this House an Amendment was inserted which would have extended its operation to municipal elections. That Amendment was considered in another place, and it was not thought opportune or convenient as a matter of machinery that it should at that time be tacked on to the Parliamentary vote. Since then, and with the imminence of the municipal elections, strong representations have been made to the Government by representatives both of the London County Council and of the County Councils Association, to the effect that. this change is very desirable, and indeed almost necessary.

It is not necessary, perhaps, that should do more than inform your Lordships that in many cases the electorate has been increased to the extent of about 100 percent., and if the old scale of expenditure is permitted to survive there are many constituencies in which, in the case of a municipal election, an expenditure to the amount of £100 would be authorised. I do not think that any of your Lordships would take the view that such an expenditure was to be recommended, or indeed permitted, in elections of this class. Beyond all question there is a great weight of municipal opinion behind the Bill. I should not have thought it necessary to recommend it at such length, where I believe such an agreement prevails, had I not been informed by one of your Lordships that he is apprehensive that, in the case of the London elections which are about to take place, many candidates will find themselves placed at a disadvantage, indeed in some danger, because of his view that they have already incurred expenditure in excess of that which is permitted in this Bill. It is obvious that if this apprehension is in any respect well founded it is one which must be put right; the protection must be given. This apprehension was explained in the other House, and an Amendment was drafted on behalf of the Local Government Board which appeared to those responsible in the other House, and appears to me here, to be adequate for the purpose, which is admitted by every one to be necessary.

The point is a Committee point, because the noble Lord who takes exception to it by no means, as I understand it, desires to contend that the Bill is not a necessary one. The noble Lord will, of course, take his own line as to the extent to which he thinks it necessary to raise the point on the Second Reading; but I would recommend, if I may be allowed to do so, to my noble friend that he should consider whether the point is not really one to be raised and to be met when your Lordships are asked to pass the Committee stage. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD DOWNHAM

had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day three months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that the first time I should have the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House should be an occasion on which I find myself, for the moment at all events, in conflict with my noble and learned friend with whom I have been associated in the other House for so many years. But I feel in a very peculiar position. I am responsible for very many of the candidates who are now standing for the London County Council election, the nomination for which takes place on Wednesday and the election for which takes place on Thursday, March 6. Every code of honour compels me to take all possible action to defend innocent men and women from falling into the clutches of the law because they are doing something which they are not in the least aware is illegal or likely to be made illegal.

These candidates entered the field some three weeks ago or more, and commenced their election expenditure fully believing that they would be able to spend an amount of 3d. per elector in their campaign. They mapped out their expenditure accordingly. They entered into contracts, they incurred liabilities; and unless some far better Amendment than that which has been inserted in the other House should find its way into this Bill, those ladies and gentlemen will undoubtedly walk into a trap of a very dangerous character. They will find that, although they have obtained a majority at the polls, they will be unseated on petition; they will have to go to the Courts to get relief, very likely they may not get that relief; and it is quite a probability that there will be unseated on petition not ten or twenty, but thirty, forty, or more; and you will find that the whole character of the election is altered by the passage of a Bill which was rushed through the other House at about half-past ten in the evening, almost without debate, and a Bill which is totally unknown to most of the candidates now contesting these constituencies.

This Bill does not apply only to the London County Council, but to the elections for all the county councils. It imperils the fate up and down the country of something like 3,000 candidates for the various county councils. It will apply later, in November, to the Borough Council elections. As my noble and learned friend has said, I do not desire to kill this Bill. I desire to see a Bill passed into law which shall reduce the expenditure which it is now possible to make upon elections. What I want is that these candidates who are entirely innocent shall be protected from what I think is post facto legislation in its most vicious form; that candidates who were wholly unaware of this Bill, which may be passed into law, shall not suffer the pains and penalties which they undoubtedly will endure unless some more substantial Amendment finds its way into the Bill than is there now. I am perfectly well aware that an Amendment was moved in the other House—by, I think, Lieut Colonel Sir Frederick Hall—with a view of protecting candidates who have already incurred expenditure or entered into liabilities. But I would ask your Lordships to take the Bill in your hands and see whether that Amendment really protects these candidates. You will observe that the Amendment says— No person shall be liable to any penalty or disability in respect of expenditure in excess of the amount permitted under the said Acts as amended by this Act, but not in excess of the amount which would have been permitted if this Act had not been passed, if the excess was due to expenses bona fide incurred or for which he had made himself liable before the passing of this Act. There are many cases already, and there will be many more, where the expenditure allowed by this Act—namely, 2d. per elector, will actually have been incurred before the passing of this Act.

In effect what is going to happen is this. Let me give an instance which is quite a common one. The expenditure allowed under the old Act was, say, £600 for a particular constituency. This Bill will cut that expenditure down to £400—and I think that is right. But the candidates will have spent already that £400, because they were fully expecting to be able to spend £600. Directly this Bill becomes an Act any candidate who spends a penny afterwards will render himself liable to all the pains and penalties which he will incur by indulging in illegal practices. It means that eight days before the election takes place many of the candidates will not be able to spend a penny more; they will simply have to stand there in silence and be unable to take any action whatever that costs money in order to advocate their candidature; while two fresh candidates may be nominated on Wednesday, and between Wednesday and Thursday spend £400 in advocating their candidature. It means that these candidates, if they have spent their 2d. per elector by, say, next Thursday, will not be able to spend another penny in answering any charges that may be made against them—in answering by means of new leaflets—holding fresh meetings, advertising their addresses in the newspapers, taking on fresh clerks or messengers, or, indeed, providing any of the machinery of the election. That is how I read the Amendment.

I have not contented myself with my own opinion, although I do not think that my opinion on electoral law is altogether to be despised; I do not pretend to be "a child in these matters"; I know something about the arts and the crafts and the wiles of elections. But I fortified myself with the opinion of one of the ablest counsel in these matters at the Bar, and he assured me that my opinion is right, and that if this Bill passes in its present form no candidate who has already spent the amount represented by 2d. per elector will be able to spend another penny between nomination and the time of going to the poll. I think that is a very unfair position in which to put any candidate; and I cannot help thinking that when this comes to the knowledge of your Lordships' House you will see that those candidates up and down the country are protected from the serious risks they will run of illegal practices if they attempt, between the day of nomination and the day of election, to spend money in advocating their particular cause.

If I may say so, I personally am strongly in favour of reducing expenditure on elections. I think £600 is far too much to spend on an election of this sort. But we must look at these things from two points of view—not only from the side of the candidates, and the natural desire we all have to make it easier for men of small means to go upon these County Councils and serve their country, as so many are so well capable of doing, but we must also look at it from the point of view that a certain amount of expenditure is necessary in order to place the issues fully before the electors. An election where only 25 per cent. of the electors vote is hardly an election at all. It entirely destroys the whole theory of popular representation. Unless we allow a certain amount of expenditure we cannot get up sufficient interest in the election, and neither the candidates nor the issues would be sufficiently made known.

My argument is that this Bill is indeed a faulty Bill, and that the pledges made by the Government have not been fulfilled, not because there was not the fullest intention of fulfilling them, but because the particular Amendment which was put down was accepted by those who took part in the debate, and that Amendment does not fulfil the purpose for which it was put down. I think it would have been far better to wait a little time and to consider the whole question of election expenses from the larger point of view. There are other matters which require attention, and it may well be that if we wanted to reduce expenditure upon elections we might have considered whether it was not possible for the Government to give free postage in large constituencies, just as now in Parliamentary elections. We might have considered whether there should not be some clause in this Bill, as in the Representation of the People Act, by which a freak candidate would be prevented from coining into the field, or at all events if he did come he would forfeit £150 or some such sum if he did not poll one-eighth of the electors. I think this is a matter to which further attention ought to have been given in another House, and I see no reason for rushing this Bill through in a hasty manner, in order to cover elections in March. I cannot help thinking it should be considered from a larger point of view, and I think that I, at all events, having upon many a platform always defended the Second Chamber by the argument that it was necessary to revise the hasty and ill-considered legislation of the other Chamber, may now say that this is a case in which your Lordships should revise hasty and ill-considered legislation. I shall move my Amendment in order to try and protect these people who had no knowledge that this Bill was being prepared.

Amendment moved— Leave out "now" and insert at the end of the Motion"this clay three months."—(Lord Downham.)

THE MARQUES OF CREWE

I am sorry to intervene at this moment, but I think I ought to do so, because I am indeed primarily concerned with the subject-matter of this Bill, for it was owing to an Amendment of mine on the Representation of the People Bill that the reduction in the possible cost of these local elections was made. Therefore this Bill has in fact already passed your Lordships' House. The Amendment changing the amount from 2d. to 3d. was inserted in another place, and was accepted by the noble Lord opposite, who was then representing the Government. We are all delighted to welcome the noble Lord here, and some of us are only sorry that his first appearance should be connected with an apparently murderous attempt. The noble Lord said he did not intend to kill the Bill; therefore his intention is not quite so bloodthirsty as would appear from the Amendment on the Paper.

I cannot help thinking that the object the noble Lord has in view might be obtained by an Amendment in Committee. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in moving the Second Reading, stated that the case of those who had already incurred expenditure and made themselves responsible for some further expenditure would have to be met. I feel that in common fairness it is impossible to dispute that statement, and it is, I gather, the belief of the noble and learned Lord and of His Majesty's Government that such a safeguard is sufficiently provided in the Bill. The noble Lord thinks not, and he is fortified by the opinion of learned counsel, and I have no doubt that when the Committee stage is reached he will be prepared with an Amendment, perhaps framed on the same admirable legal advice, so drawn as to meet these hard cases.

I should have thought myself that the particular instance which he mentioned, that of a man who had already spent £400 and was thereby precluded from spending any more and would have to go naked, so to speak, until the election actually took place, would have been met by the provision in the Bill which allows a share of the expenses already spent to be charged. For the purpose of the indemnity some portion of that £400 must surely come under the phraseology of the Bill, which allows an excess to be spent, and therefore there would be a certain portion, though not probably the full amount, of what the candidate might desire to spend, which would remain for the further period of the election However that may be, the noble Lord will no doubt be able to bring up words, and I gather, from what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stated, that the Government would regard with favour any such Amendment. In those circumstances I hope we may assume that the noble Lord will not desire to press this particular Amendment to a division, but will be content with the very clear account of his motives which he has given.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

My Lords, as chairman of a County Council I am most anxious to support the views of Lord Downham. Take the case of the county in which I happen to be chairman of the County Council. The nominations took place in the middle of last week, and polling will be almost immediately. The candidates have, no doubt, made all their arrangements and are probably keeping only a very small reserve with a view to holding meetings on the eve of the poll. It seems to me that it is behaving most unfairly to bring in this Bill in the middle of the elections. I say nothing about the alteration of 3d. to 2d., but it will be very hard on the candidates who are acting perfectly fairly in what they consider they have a right to spend, in regard to the election, if they suddenly find themselves obliged to go to a Court to ask for relief from liability.

As my noble friend has said, the Amendment in the Bill does not give them the relief from liability which they certainly ought to have. Candidates started an electioneering campaign with the idea that they had so much money to spend, and it is unfair that this should be changed at the last moment and that they should thereby be placed in a false position. I do not know whether my noble friend proposes to divide now, but I hope that when we go into Committee he will move some Amendment to the effect that it shall not apply to the present election. In that case I shall have the greatest possible pleasure to support him. I would ask your Lordships to consider the injustice that is done by bringing in a Bill like this to candidates in whose cases nominations have already been made, some of them a week ago, and where the polls are to be taken almost immediately.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am sure that when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack looks into the words carefully he will see that my noble friend below the gangway is entirely justified. It is, indeed, a very astonishing proceeding that in the middle of the contests—on the eve of the poll—we should be legislating as to what expenses should be incurred in the election. Such legislation cannot be defensible. As to the substance of the Bill I believe there is only one opinion in your Lordships' House, and that is that the smaller the expenses can be made the better; but you should limit them in proper time and before people have undertaken the responsibility of an election.

I respectfully say that I do not share the view of my noble friend who sits behind me, the Leader of the Opposition that the words of the Amendment inserted in the House of Commons cover the case. I do not think they cover the case at all. The only case they cover is where a man has actually made himself liable and actually entered into contract for expense. Then there is rather a cumbrous method of obtaining relief. This is not a question of a candidate having entered into any contract though he is by the nature of the case, if he is to go on with the contest at all, under an obligation to incur expenditure. That is not covered in the least, and the unfortunate candidate is placed in the most ludicrous position. I hope that between now and the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—no man is more qualified to do it—will revise the Bill to see that we do not legislate in a manner of which your Lordships and the other House would have cause to be ashamed.

LORD SOUTHWARK

My Lords, there is another case that ought to be considered, and that is the case of the candidate who has started later than the candidate who began his expenditure much earlier, because the candidate who starts later is not empowered under the Bill, so far as I understand, to spend anything like the sum of money necessary to place him on equal terms in fighting his opponent. I throw out that suggestion as the matter is being considered.

LORD DOWNHAM

My Lords, I gladly withdraw my Amendment on the undertaking given me by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.