LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 22 June 1939)

HL Deb 22 June 1939 vol 113 cc656-62 656

§ Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

§ 4.36 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

§ Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

§ LORD JESSEL
My Lords, before the Report is received, perhaps it may save your Lordships' time if I make a few remarks. Having been interested in London government for a good many years, I must say that we all welcome this Bill and congratulate the Committee on the great care they have taken with it. In particular, I must thank the Promoters for what they have done in reply to the appeal made to them on behalf of the City of Westminster. We were rather frightened about our position as regards our title, and it is indeed a wonderful coincidence and a happy augury that on the very day when Their Majesties are 657 once again coming to the City of Westminster, the clause preserving the title which was granted by His Majesty's predecessor should be before your Lordships' House. I can assure the Promoters of the Bill that that will give great satisfaction, and I may also remind your Lordships that Their Majesties, whom we are soon about to greet, are themselves citizens of the City of Westminster.
Another point which I raised, and regarding which the noble Earl will perhaps tell us, was as regards the disqualifications of certain people. There are three categories of electors for local government—those who reside for a year beforehand, those who are owners of property, and those who are on the electoral list as local government electors. The point I raised at a previous stage was that there is some doubt in the minds of a great many of the boroughs in London as to how the law really stands. The man who is qualified by residence, whether he continues to reside or not, when he is once a member of the Council, remains there. On the other hand, a man who is there by virtue of owning property, if he ceases to hold that property, is disqualified. In the same way, a man who is on the list as a local government elector, if he falls out of the list, is also disqualified. There is a discrepancy in practice in London, and I would ask the noble Earl, whom I am glad to see in his place and who has taken so much trouble over the Bill, whether anything can be done in this matter. It is the law of the land as I understand it, but it does seem to me somewhat of a hardship. The question I ask is, whether this could be amended in any way or if it could be clearly stated what is the proper law on the subject.
The last point on which I should like to congrautlate the Promoters is the provision by which a returning officer, instead of giving a casting vote in the case of an equal poll, has to decide the matter by lot. The town clerk in each of the boroughs is the returning officer these elections, and it was a very invidious thing, in the case of an equal poll, for him to give a casting vote. That is now to be decided by lot, but there is nothing in the Bill to say how that lot is to be cast. Has he to play the three-card trick and ask the candidates to "find the lady"? Has he to put the winning number in a bag, or has he to cut through the pack? I should like to know which 658 method he has to employ in arriving at that decision. Nothing is laid down, and with a nimble conjurer you might be able to achieve any result that might be desired. I hope, therefore, when the noble Earl comes to reply he will be able to tell us what is the right method, because on that also there is some difference of opinion.

§ 4.41 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
My Lords, I should like first of all, on behalf of the Promoters of this Bill and also on behalf of the members of the Joint Committee, to thank the noble Lord for the very kind words he spoke about the labours that have resulted in this Bill. It is highly gratifying to feel that this measure should in its final form, after consideration for many years, win support from all those who are or have been engaged in the government of London. The noble Lord was good enough to ask me for an explanation on the question of the qualifications that are required for a candidate for a borough council or for the London County Council, and I will quite shortly explain the position as it is in the present Bill. There are three distinct qualifications, any of which is sufficient to entitle a person otherwise not disqualified to stand as a candidate at a borough council election or at a county council election. The first of these is if he is on the roll of the local government electors for the particular area; the second is if he has resided for twelve months in that area immediately preceding the day of the election; and the third is if he has freehold or leasehold property in the borough or the county, as the case may be.
Now what the noble Lord was complaining about, I think, if I understand him rightly, was that if the property is sold, or for any reason passes out of the hands of its owner, then the person who is sitting on a borough council as a result of that qualification, if he had that qualification alone, is no longer entitled to sit, whereas if he moves out of the area in which he was living twelve months prior to the date of the election he is not disqualified but can retain his seat. In the first place I think there is a difference between losing a property qualification and losing a residential qualification. If the property is sold then obviously it is no longer his; but a mere change in residence cannot alter the fact that you have 659 lived at a certain address in a certain locality for a period of twelve months, which is a qualification as it at present stands. The second observation I should like to make is that this is the law that applies to all local authorities outside London. It is not an exception which is being made on behalf of the London area. It is in fact part of the general local government law, and as a rule the Committee thought that the proper thing was that, so far as circumstances allowed it, London local government law should be on all fours with local government law outside the London area.

§ LORD JESSEL
May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? The noble Earl has not included another disqualification, which is that the local government elector on the list also loses his qualification. What I mean is that the noble Earl has made a so-called difference between the man who leaves his residence and the property owner who loses his property, but the disqualification also takes place in the case of a man who goes off the local government list of electors. What I wanted the noble Earl to do was to tell us what was the law, because there is a difference of opinion in regard to the practice in certain boroughs of London. I wanted the noble Earl to say exactly what the law is.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
I must apologise for not making my point absolutely clear. If the member goes off the roll of local government electors he is still qualified to sit if he has either of the two other qualifications—that is to say, the property qualification or the residential qualification—but if he comes off the roll of local government electors and that was his only qualification at the time he stood, then he is no longer, according to the law as it will be if your Lordships are good enough to accept this Bill, a borough councillor or a county councillor, as the case may be.
I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the remarks he has made in a general way and for the specific points he has raised. The only other one which perhaps he expected me to answer was the question of deciding by lot in the case of a tie at a borough council or a county council election. Without being able to say impromptu exactly what method would be used, I think the Bill would 660 expect the returning officer to use his own judgment in the matter, and I have no doubt that he would have plenty of precedents to which he could turn to do it in the proper way. I was delighted that the noble Lord agreed so heartily that this proposal removed an unfair burden on the returning officer. I have met to the best of my ability the noble Lord's points, and I should only like to say in conclusion that it is exceedingly gratifying that what was once a controversial measure should have received such wide support.

§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

§ Clause 7:

§ County aldermen.

§ 7.—(1) The county aldermen shall be elected by the county council from among the county councillors or persons qualified to be county councillors.

§ (2) The number of county aldermen shall not exceed one-sixth of the whole number of county councillors.

§ 4.48 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
had two Amendments on the Paper with the object of making subsection (2) read as follows: The number of county aldermen shall be one-sixth of the whole number of county councillors or, if that number is not divisible by six, one-sixth of the highest number below that number which is divisible by six. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Amendments which you will see on the Paper are not of substance, and I do not propose to make any observations about them unless any member of your Lordships' House wishes to put a query. I should, therefore, like to move the first Amendment that stands in my name.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 7, leave out ("not exceed") and insert ("be").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

§ LORD AMULREE
My Lords, I had the honour of presiding over the Joint Committee which sat upstairs and I should like to say, with regard to the first Amendment moved by my noble friend, that the object of it is that the Bill should follow the existing law. The clause as it now stands in the Bill was in the Bill when introduced into this House. The clause in question deals with the number of aldermen to be elected on the London County Council. The clause as it now stands was introduced fifty years ago into the Local Government Act of 1888, and is now applied specifically to London. 661 There was no evidence before the Committee that the clause had in any way caused hardship or difficulty in its application, and accordingly we adopted it from the Local Government Act of 1888.
The subsection reads as follows: The number of county aldermen shall not exceed one-sixth of the whole number of county councillors. That is quite clear. Suppose the number of county councillors cannot be divided by six, then we are to take a number which shall not exceed one-sixth. The Amendment which my noble friend has on the Paper provides that if the number of councillors is not divisible by six you should take one-sixth of the highest number below that number which is divisible by six. That is taken from the Local Government Act, 1903, but when one comes to borough councils it is provided that the number shall be one-third of the number of borough councillors. Accordingly when we had to consider the question of borough councils as well as the county council we adopted what has been the practice in London for over fifty years—namely, that the number of county aldermen should not exceed one-sixth of the number of county councillors. I submit that this is a very late stage at which to propose such an Amendment.

§ LORD JESSEL
My Lords, I think we ought to have some explanation of this before the House proceeds to a decision.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
My Lords, I am naturally most willing to give any explanation that is required, and I will try to make it as brief as possible because I know that your Lordships will want to get to the exceedingly important business which follows. The first Amendment makes no alteration of substance at all. It is purely drafting.