HL Deb 13 July 1948 vol 157 cc764-97

2.55 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Registers of electors]:

LORD MORRISON

May I say at the outset that since many of these Amendments are of a drafting character, unless your Lordships so insist, I will deal with them as briefly as possible. The Amendment to page 6, line 20, is a drafting Amendment and I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 20, after ("who") insert ("on the qualifying date ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Service qualifications]:

LORD MORRISON

This and the following three Amendments are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 7, line 3, leave out ("on the qualifying date") Page 7, line 5, leave out ("on that date") Page 7, line 8, leave out ("on that date") Page 7, line 37, leave out from ("person") to end of line 38 and insert ("whose service declaration is in force on the qualifying date")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Place and manner of voting as elector]:

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 16, leave out from ("is") to ("acting") in line 17.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 9 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 [Discharge of functions of returning officer]:

LORD MORRISON

This is almost a drafting Amendment. Clause 17 provides that the registration officer, as the acting returning officer, is to discharge the duties of "a returning officer at parliamentary elections." This phrase is too narrow, because some of the returning officer's duties are not discharged "at" an election—for example, in connection with the receipt, publication and inspection of candidates' returns and declarations as to their election expenses. The Amendment will accordingly substitute a wider phrase. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 11, leave out ("a returning officer at") and insert ("the returning officer for").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is a purely drafting point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 22, leave out from the beginning to ("a") and insert ("authorised to act as registration officer if the registration officer himself is incapable of acting or there is").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Breaches of official duty]:

LORD MORRISON

This, again, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 32, leave out from ("pounds") to end of line 35, and insert— (2) No person to whom this section applies shall be liable for breach of his official duty to any penalty at common law or under any enactment except as provided by this section, nor shall any action for damages lie in respect of the breach by any such person of his official duty."—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

Clause 20 penalises breaches of official duty by various officials, including the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. As most of his functions are performed in Scotland by the sheriff clerk, it seems right that Clause 20 should extend to the sheriff clerk. The proposed Amendment secures this. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 37, after ("Chancery") insert ("any sheriff clerk").—(Lord Morrison.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for being late, and therefore missing the kindly compliment which he paid to me as an alien "spin bowler." My excuse is that I have been lunching in company with the Prime Minister. I think it is appropriate that we should accept this Amendment, on the assurance that the Scottish "Second Eleven" do their job as well as the alien "First Eleven."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is another drafting point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 45, after ("person's") insert ("criminal").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Registration]:

LORD MORRISON

This is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 42, after ("who") insert ("on the qualifying date").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 23 as amended, stand part of the Bill?

LORD SHEPHERD

I would like to ask a question on this clause with a view to getting a verbal alteration made, if possible, on the Report stage. In the proviso at the bottom of page 26 subsection (4) (a), we find the following words: a person shall not be entitled to be registered… Then, at the top of page 27, in subsection (5) (a), we find these words: except in the case of a person who is as a peer incapable of voting… Many years ago members of your Lordships' House had a great reputation, a reputation that was alluded to frequently when other people were well "lit up." I can readily imagine that on occasions like that some noble Lords might be incapable of doing anything, but in a Bill of this kind in these days I think we ought to use different words. I would suggest that in subsection (5) (a) at the top of page 27, instead of using the words "a peer incapable of voting," words which appear in subsection (4) (a) at the bottom of page 26, shall be used, thus making it "a peer not entitled to vote."

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I receive my noble friend's suggestion with much sympathy. He has asked merely that we should see whether something can be done on the Report stage, and I will gladly assent to his request.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Place and manner of voting as elector]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 44, leave out from ("is") to ("acting") in line 1, on page 28.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 [Voting by post by absent voters]:

LORD MORRISON

This also is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 29, line 27, leave out from ("is") to ("acting") in line 28.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Breaches of official duty]:

LORD MORRISON moved to omit Clause 31 and to substitute the following new clause:

Breaches of official duty.

"31.—(1) If any person to whom this section applies, or who is for the time being under a duty to discharge as deputy or otherwise any of the functions of such a person, is, without reasonable cause, guilty of any act or omission in breach of his official duty, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

(2)No person to whom this section applies shall be liable for breach of his official duty to any penalty at common law, nor shall any action for damages lie in respect of the breach by any such person of his official duty.

(3) The persons to whom this section applies are—

  1. (a) any registration officer or person whose duty it is to prepare a corrupt and illegal practices list under the local corrupt practices Act or clerk or assistant employed by him in connection with his official duties;
  2. (b) any person whose duty it is to act as returning officer at or to take part in the conduct of an election under the local elections Act or to be responsible after a local government election for the used ballot papers and other documents (including returns and declarations as to expenses);
and the expression 'official duty' shall for the purposes of this section be construed accordingly but shall not include duties imposed otherwise than by the law relating to elections under the local elections Act or the registration of local government electors.

(4) Section seventy-nine of the local elections Act (which penalises some of the breaches of duty dealt with by this section) shall cease to have effect."

The noble Lord said: The protection from action for damages and so on, given by Clause 20 (1) does not extend to local government returning officers. Further, Section 79 of the Act of 1933 does not penalise all the breaches of official duty covered by Clause 20 of this Bill. This Amendment, therefore, proposes to repeal Section 79 of the Act of 1933 and to replace Clause 31 by a new clause on the same lines as Clause 20, applying to breaches of official duty in relation to local government elections both by the registration official and by the returning officer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 32, line 30, leave out Clause 31 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33:

Use of motor vehicles for conveying electors to poll.

33.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at a parliamentary election, either let, lend or employ, or hire, borrow or use, any motor vehicle for the purpose of the conveyance of electors or their proxies to or from the poll, and a person knowingly acting in contravention of this subsection shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the parliamentary corrupt practices Act.

(3) Nothing in this section shall— (b) prevent any person employing a motor vehicle for the purpose of conveying to or from the poll himself or any member of the same household, or borrowing a motor vehicle from a member of the same household to be employed for that purpose; or and (subject to the next following subsection) any expenses incurred in respect of a vehicle's employment under paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection shall be disregarded for the purposes of the parliamentary corrupt practices Act so far as it relates to election expenses (including the purposes of section forty-two of this Act).

3.8 p.m.

LORD MORRISON moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that—

  1. (a) the court before whom a person is convicted under this subsection may, if they think it just in the special circumstances of the case, mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by section ten of the said Act; and
  2. (b) a candidate shall not be liable, nor shall his election be avoided, for an illegal practice under this subsection committed without his consent or connivance by an agent other than his election agent."
The noble Lord said: A provision creating a new corrupt or illegal practice nowadays usually includes a proviso enabling a court to mitigate or remit any incapacity resulting from conviction for corrupt or illegal practice, and, in appropriate cases, a further proviso relieving the candidate of liability for acts of all or some of his agents committed without his consent or connivance. It seems appropriate to insert both these provisos in Clause 33, except that the second proviso should be limited to acts of a candidate's agents other than his election agent. It seems right that the candidate should be liable for the acts of his election agent under the clause, even if they are done without his consent. This Amendment will insert the appropriate provisos. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 34, line 29, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Morrison.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

As I understand this Amendment, it is some small confession of shame on the part of the Government and is intended to mitigate the effect of this, clause. I was interested to note that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House put up the Scottish leader to move the Amendment, but I assume that this provision will apply throughout the United Kingdom. If it could be said that any improvement to this clause is possible, then I suppose it could be said that this is an improvement. This is a clause which was quite gratuitously inserted in the Bill in order to try to make voters in country districts walk to the poll. I can assure noble Lords opposite, although I do not know how their voters will get to the poll, that all our voters on the occasion of the next election, in any district, however remote from a polling station, will find their way to the poll, in spite of impediments which are put in their way by this clause.

It is in any case a silly clause, a mean clause, to put into the Bill—but there it is. At any rate, it does seem unreasonable that if a person going along the road gives somebody a lift, he is guilty of a criminal offence if he enables that voter to cast his vote. The Minister of Fuel and Power, or whatever Minister deals with this matter—there are so many, I forget which one is responsible—made an appeal to us the other day to assist "hitch-hikers" on every possible occasion; but if you happen to choose a day when there is an election on to offer that help, you are treated as a criminal. That is still to remain, but I gather that out of the great generosity of their minds the Government now propose that a candidate shall not be penally liable if somebody without the candidate's knowledge or connivance, has done a neighbourly act. And that generosity extends even further: his election agent is also not to be liable. Let us be thankful for small mercies and accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words following paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: This Amendment will have the effect of leaving unchanged the existing law as regards expenses incurred in connection with the employment of a car for taking electors to the poll. That is, a candidate will continue to be prohibited from making any payment or contract for payment on account of the conveyance of electors to the poll. As regards incidental expenses, those incurred by a candidate in respect of the use of his own car will have to be included in his return, and it will be permissible for any other person to incur minor expenses in connection with the use of his own car, if he pays them himself and they are not repaid by the candidate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 35, leave out lines 16 to 21.—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I should like to find out something more about this proposal. The words we are leaving out say: and (subject to the next following subsection) any expenses incurred in respect of a vehicle's employment under paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection shall be disregarded for the purposes of the parliamentary corrupt practices Act so far as it relates to election expenses… What are subsections (b) and (c)? Subsection (b) says that nothing in this clause shall: prevent any person employing a motor vehicle for the purpose of conveying to or from the poll himself or any member of the same household, or borrowing a motor vehicle from a member of the same household to be employed for that purpose. If we delete these words and a man takes himself and his family to the poll, is that or is that not to be part of the election expenses of a candidate? With these words in, it was quite clear that it was not going to be part of the election expenses, because that is what the words say; but by taking them out, are we now making it part of them? If we are not doing that, why were the words ever in the Bill? Surely they were safeguarding words. I cannot see any reason for taking out this very clear statement in the Bill as it has come to us. The items covered by paragraph (b) certainly ought not to be part of a candidate's expenses. Nobody can check in any way how many cars have come with voters. Nobody knows how people have voted. so one cannot possibly return the cost of the cars on the election expenses of any candidate. Let us make it clear that by taking these words out we are not making it a liability of the candidate or his agent to include these amounts in the election expenses. If there was no doubt about the matter, why were the words ever included?

LORD MORRISON

I will endeavour to explain to the noble Lord. When we have a long and complicated Bill like this, by the time it reaches your Lordships' House, there is generally some amount of "tidying up" to be done. The "tidying up" here is caused by the fact that in Clause 33, lines 16 to 21 were originally related to a requirement that the candidate must include in his return of election expenses a notional sum of two pounds in respect of each car employed on his behalf. This was struck out in the House of Commons. It therefore seemed desirable to strike out the lines in question, and that is what we have done.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am delighted to hear that we are gradually striking out in this process of what is euphemistically called "tidying up." This clause had no place in the original Bill—is that not so? The Leader of the House does not know, but the Party manager behind him may instruct him—or possibly he does know. This invidious and insidious clause was put in because the tail required it to be put in, and in order to preserve the harmony of the internal association, it was put in, and the tail has wagged the dog. If we are tidying up, would not the tidest way be to remove the clause altogether?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 33, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD MOYNE

Speaking for myself, from this backmost Bench and on this almost neutral flank, I feel compelled to say that I am far from content that this clause, as it is at present drafted, should stand part of the Bill. I am an inveterate giver of lifts, not only at election times but at all times. I expect to give and I hope to get them. I have sometimes been disappointed. But I consider that the general kindness of motorists in this respect is one of the few redeeming features left amidst the din and danger of our highways. When I first looked at this clause I found it so worded that it seemed to me, in my innocence, with such knowledge of the English language as I possess, to make me guilty of a corrupt practice if I gave someone a lift on polling day, knowing that he was going to the poll. The opening words of Clause 33 are: Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at a parliamentary election, either let, lend or employ, or hire, borrow or use, any motor vehicle for the purpose of the conveyance of electors or their proxies to or from the poll.… I am not concerned only with giving lifts to people I meet on the road. I live in a country district and the polling station is about two miles away. I can ill spare my farm hands to walk all the way there and back during working hours. Some of them and their wives, though not actually infirm, are elderly, and intermittently have bad legs, which often makes walking painful for them, especially at the end of a day's work. I may say, incidentally, that they are by no means all of one way of thinking politically; and, oddly enough, I often find myself defending the Government Part to some of their own supporters when they seem to me to criticise them for the wrong reasons. Normally, like all my neighbours, I would expect to give anyone a lift who was going to vote, without endeavouring to discover how his vote was going to be cast. I do not want to enlarge upon the hardships inflicted in remote places if lifts cannot freely be given to friends, neighbours, or even strangers: they were fully explained by many honourable Members in another place. But the permission to give lifts to people living in the same household under subsection (3) (c) does not by any means meet my difficulty.

I know that in another place assurances, some of them clearer than others, were given to say that in Clause 33 (1), at line 24, the words "a candidate" meant a particular candidate. I know, too, that on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Morrison (Hansard, July 5, column 338, line 13) gave his, categorical assurance to the same effect. But the object of an Act of Parliament is surely to set out the law once and for all, without regard to statements in Houses of Parliament which in themselves have not the force of law. Moreover, when asked during the Report stage of the Bill in another place (Hansard, June 14, column 101} whether it was contemplated that lifts given by a car without labels and without conditions would infringe the law, the Secretary of State for Scotland refused to give an answer, but said that such a question was one for the courts to decide. I hate to be in any way controversial, but I must, with great respect, beg to differ from the proposition of the right honourable gentleman who was speaking no doubt in the heat of debate and perhaps without weighing his words.

I am sure the noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack when we are not in Committee will be the first to agree that the touchstone of good legislation is the avoidance of litigation. If legislators can make themselves clear, it is their duty to be plain. The Government—through the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, through the Home Secretary himself and through the Secretary of State for Scotland—have been at pains to say that "candidate" means "particular candidate." Would it not be right to put the word "particular" into Clause 33 (1) at line 24? To do otherwise is to leave the law in obscurity; and a jovial hint was even made in another place that a feeling of doubt might not be amiss. To the suggestion that a motorist might be allowed to convey a friend to the poll at the friend's, request, the Secretary of State for Scotland (Hansard, June 14, column 99) said that you never knew; the policeman might give them a lift if they did too much of it.

This kind of uncertainty is not the rule of law; it has about it a suggestion of a rule of (shall I say?) apprehension and alarm. I do not want to use more controversial words than those. I feel sure that the right honourable gentleman did not mean his words to have the threatening sound which they bear in cold print, and that he was more or less cracking a joke. I would suggest, however, with respect, that the rule of law is too precious a principle to be played with or in any way whittled down. The free way of life demands that the liberty of the subject shall be circumscribed only in so far as the personal economic and political freedom of his neighbours demands it. It is not my object here to quarrel with the Government's intentions under this clause. It is my object for the protection of the freedom of the subject to pursuade them to make the clause exactly fit their intentions and to go no jot or tittle further. There is a feeling that this Bill ought not to be amended from this side of the House, and I have given way to that feeling by putting no Amendment down. I agree that if Amendments are to be made they would, in this instance perhaps, be more readily acceptable if they came to another place from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and especially from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor who cannot, I feel sure, think that the clause as at present drafted would be an ornament to his Statute Book and who is, I am sure, as jealous a guardian of the rights of the subject as of the rule of certain unambiguous law to protect them.

Perhaps I must not in this matter seek to put ideas into their heads; but, at the same time, for instance, if they were to insert on page 34, Clause 33, line 24, before the word "candidate" the word "particular," and if in the same line they were to insert after the word "election" some such words as "having exacted from an elector a promise that he will vote for that candidate, or having held out to any such elector a promise that he will convey him to the poll as an inducement to vote for that candidate," the burden of my complaints would be met. The Amendments I have suggested are not meant to be wrecking ones, or obviously they would have no chance of being introduced. Therefore, I think it only fair to point out that the Government, if they decide to act upon them, would no doubt wish to move a consequential Amendment to subsection (2) (a) to substitute for the words "purpose aforesaid" the words "for conveying electors to the polls" so as to protect their regrettable aim of limiting the use of Party colours to officially allocated Party cars. Another consequential Amendment would arise in line 41 where again it would be necessary to insert before "candidate" the word "particular."

I have endeavoured to avoid making a controversial speech and to avoid discussion of the merits of the Government's intentions as such. I believe I have not misinterpreted their real aims and that, in the circumstances, such Amendments as I have suggested might well meet with the considered approval of all Parties.

LORD STRABOLGI

I believe there is something to be said for what the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, has just put before your Lordships. I think there are certain ambiguities in this clause. I would respectfully suggest to my noble friend the Leader of the House that it might be gone through with a small tooth-comb between now and Report, because I think certain alterations to the wording would be advantageous. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, has just told your Lordships of the hard case of his farm servants whom he could not take to poll. He can, of course, get over that difficulty quite easily under the wording of the clause. He has only to give them house room the night before the poll or the night after the poll, or for part of the night before the poll, or part of the night after the poll, and they will come within the definition of "visitors."

LORD MOYNE

There are twenty of them.

LORD STRABOLGI

I do not know how large is the noble Lord's house. It is possible to put a lot of people in the ordinary country house, if one is so minded.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Only those owned by the Labour Party or by the Coal Board.

LORD STRABOLGI

I dare say some of the houses owned by the Labour Party could be converted into dormitories. In closely-contested elections it would be well worth doing, and it would be legal under the wording of this clause. That is one example. I would give your Lordships another example. The definition of the words "motor vehicle," at the bottom of page 35, is "any mechanically propelled vehicle." There are still a number of private companies owning charabancs, buses and so on. My reckoning is that in the ordinary borough each candidate should be allowed to have, say, six motor cars lent to him, or approximately that number. What is to prevent him from borrowing from a friendly proprietor of one of these companies, or from one of the directors, sixty charabancs or sixty motor buses?

LORD LLEWELLIN

Has that not always been against the law?

LORD STRABOLGI

NO.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Under the old law one could never use cars that are for hire: only private cars.

LORD STRABOLGI

If they are lent, and there is no money passing, you can use them.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think I am right.

LORD SHEPHERD

Under the law as it now stands, any vehicle that is normally used for hire is an illegal vehicle and cannot be used.

LORD STRABOLGI

The ordinary charabanc is not for hire.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: It is.

LORD STRABOLGI

I must confess that for some of my elections I have had private buses running for me, and my very observant opponents have never objected. Be that as it may, I suggest that the words "motor vehicle"—I hope my noble friend Lord Shepherd agrees with me—require some further definition. Those are two examples, at any rate—one cited by the noble Lord opposite, and the other which I venture to suggest needs further examination.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

May I add a few further words before the Leader of the House replies? I am going to make a perfectly genuine appeal to him on this matter. I think it is a dirty, mean little clause, and it was added as an afterthought. I will not say anything more against it. I take the view that when we are making great electoral reforms we ought to try to make them on the basis of the Speaker's Conference, and keep our bargain. But I will not return to that. Here is this Bill, and this clause has been introduced. A great many people with great experience, Party managers and those who have conducted —as many of us in this House have conducted—a whole series of contested elections, had not the least idea where they stood over this matter. Let us accept the principle of the clause. I agree that, broad and large, the general principles of legislation on this subject are matters for another place, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said when that House have laid down what they are pleased to call the general principles, we have to see that the Bill is made a decent, workmanlike job. In view of all that has been said, I do not think that anybody can pretend that this clause is a workmanlike job at the present time. You do not want to go to the subterfuge of having to put up farm workers in your stables, or in the billiard room of your house—if you still have a billiard room—on the day of the poll or the aftermath of the polls. That is not sense. And, least of all, do you want to provoke what, in the novel Catriona or Kidnapped, the hero called "a dreepin' roast" where every lawyer can "cut and come again." The allusion is grasped by the more erudite members of the House! Surely we do not want to create, in a piece of simple piece of legislation, that kind of "dreepin' roast" for the lawyers all over the country.

People ought to know where they stand. We ought to make will perfectly plain that the ordinary friendly giving of a lift is not going to land the wretched chap in trouble. I suppose we have all given people lifts, not by reason of any particular political persuasion, without in the least knowing that we were doing wrong. The other day I happened to find myself on a foreign airport with a motor car, and some of my fellow travellers had not a motor car. Among my fellow travellers were Mr. Will Lawther, the President of the Miners' Federation, Mr. Horner—I am not sure that he agrees with him all the time—the Secretary of the Miners' Federation, and young Mr. Ebby Edwards, the secretary of their party. As I happened to have a motor car I gave them a lift. I hope it did not embarrass Mr. Horner. I am sure it did not embarrass Mr. Will Lawther. Was I really guilty of an indiscretion, or of an illegal act, because I gave people, some of whom were certainly my political opponents, a lift to wherever they were going in Brussels? Anyway, I do not suppose they were out for any good there! But I did it, and they were grateful. One should be able to do that sort of thing, in the ordinary friendly way that the Leader of the House sometimes gives me a lift and, in the days when I had a car—I have not one now—I used to give him a lift. Surely, we can carry this ordinary general good neighbourliness into the rough and tumble of Election life.

I am going to make a very sincere appeal to the Leader of the House. Take the principle of this clause, if you want it, but do take the words away and get your lawyers to work on them, to make sure that, when honest people do something without the least criminal intent, they are not to go through two years of legal proceedings to find out whether they are at fault or not. Frankly, I do not like the clause, but, if we are to have it, make it as decent and workmanlike a job as you can.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am very glad to respond to the appeal of the noble Viscount, but, in doing so, I must not be held to agree with his interpretation of the clause. I thought, as an average man, that it was a clear and well-drawn clause, in so far as people are able to hire a certain number of cars and put their labels on them in a frank, open and sufficiently comprehensive way. There will be far more cars used under this provision than there were in any election I have fought, and I can say that quite truthfully. Nobody wants to do the kind of thing to which the noble Viscount has just referred. I confess that I have not had much time to look into this matter—the noble Viscount brought it before me only last night—but I will have inquiries made in the appropriate quarter. I must say that I am favourably impressed with Lord Moyne's idea of putting in the word "particular," which would avoid the kind of difficulties he contemplated, but I must have the opportunity of consulting the lawyers. I have a preliminary note to say that difficulties would arise from the introduction of the word "particular" before the word "candidate," because "particular" does not appear in a number of other places; therefore, a Judge on the Bench might want to know why the word "particular" is put in here and not in other places. I will make continued and friendly inquiries into the suggestion of the noble Lord between now and the Report stage, and I will consult him on the result.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I say one word on this point? It is a very small Amendment which I suggest the noble Viscount the Leader of the House should consider. It is in connection with the words "to or from." I can conceive an objection from the point of view of noble Lords on the other side to a car being used for carrying voters to the poll. What I cannot, for the life of me, understand is why, if the candidate or one of his assistants, see an old gentleman of the incredible age of eighty, suffering from lumbago—a very painful complaint—staggering home a couple of miles along the road after he has voted (presumably he has a right to vote) that candidate or his assistant should not obey the ordinary dictates of humanity and give the old gentleman a lift back in his car.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 [Appointment of election agent]:

3.38 p.m.

LORD MORRISON moved to add to subsection (3): (d) the said section five shall not apply to sums paid or expenses incurred otherwise than by the candidate or his election agent. The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands, the permitted amount of a local government candidate's expenses would have to cover the small sums which may be paid by the persons incurring them, although the candidate would know nothing about them and would be prohibited from repaying them. To avoid this result, it is desirable to take the small expenses in question out of the scope of Section 5 of the Act of 1884, and the Amendment will do this by providing that Section 5 is not to apply to expenses incurred otherwise than by the candidate or his election agent. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 40, line 41, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 [Avoidance of election for general corruption, etc.]:

LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause: (5) An election to which the corrupt practices Act applies shall not be liable to be avoided otherwise than under this section by reason of general corruption, bribery, treating or intimidation. The noble Lord said: This is another very small point. As the clause stands, it would be possible to question a municipal election on the ground of general bribery otherwise than by election petition. This was not, of course, intended and the Amendment will put the matter right. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 48, line 44, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 [Prosecutions for corrupt and illegal practices]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 52, line 28, leave out from ("the") to ("a") in line 29 and insert ("appropriate authority").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 [Computation of time for purposes of election petitions]:

On Question, Whether Clause 54 stand part of the Bill?

LORD SHEPHERD

I should like to raise a point on Clause 54. During the Second Reading debate I appealed to the Government to indicate to us, if they could, whether they were proposing to carry out the recommendations of the Carr Committee in relation to election petitions. Before the Carr Committee reached their recommendations the officers of all the political Parties were in consultation about it and they are in agreement on the policy to be followed. I am sure it would be very satisfactory to them to know that, following this Bill, the Government propose to carry forward the recommendations of that Committee and bring in legislation to reform the law as to petitions. If my noble friend cannot tell me now, will he take note of the point I have raised and give us some information on the Report stage?

LORD MORRISON

I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said, and see whether any definite answer can be given on the next stage of the Bill.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 [Ordinary day of election]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 59, line 37, after ("effect") insert ("as from the passing of this Act").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 59, line 40, leave out ("to the local elections Act").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 58 agreed to.

Clause 59 [Electoral divisions and number of councillors of L.C.C.]:

LORD BROADBRIDGE moved, in subsection (1), after "and" to insert "except as provided in subsection (2) of this section." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, and the next, is to give the proposed new Parliamentary constituency of the cities of London and Westminster greater representation on the London County Council than is proposed by Clause 59 of the Bill. At present, as separate constituencies, the City of London has four London County Council members, while the City of Westminster, which has two Parliamentary divisions—Abbey and St. George's, each with two members—has four, making a grand total of eight for the two cities. When, however, this Bill becomes operative, and, under Clause 59, the two cities become one, they will have a total of only three members on the London County Council. The two cities consider this number inadequate and feel that six would be a reasonable number. The Amendment relates only to this aspect of the matter. This point was referred to on the Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who replied for the Government, intimated that he was authorised to say that the Home Secretary would consider on its merits a request for greater representation on the London County Council. This matter could not, in the nature of things, receive consideration in another place, owing to the fact that the main effort was directed to maintaining the City of London as a separate Parliamentary constituency.

I feel that I need mention only a few facts to satisfy your Lordships that this is a matter which calls for review. The local Government electorate for the two constituencies will be 89,951, or 1/27th of the total electorate of the whole of the administrative county. It will have an electorate of 12,000 more than any other electoral division, but as a matter of fact the representation proposed in the Bill is only 1/43rd of the Council. The rateable value of the two cities combined, on April 6, 1947, was 2/7ths of the total rateable value of the whole of the administrative county. I am aware, of course, that the representation on the London County Council is not determined by rateable value, but I suggest that it is a factor to be considered in determining whether a particular electoral division is receiving adequate representation. While the electorate for local government purposes will be 89,951 voters, that for Parliamentary purposes will be 78,516—the difference, of course, being due to the abolition of the business premises vote. It would be impossible for three representatives only to cope with such a large electorate, especially having regard to the numerous committees of the London County Council. When great changes are made, as in this case, it is almost inevitable that certain matters will require adjustment to meet the altered circumstances. I suggest that it would be wrong to deprive the new constituency of proper representation on the London County Council. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 60, line 31, after ("and") insert ("except as provided in subsection (2) of this section").—(Lord Broadbridge.)

LORD JESSEL

Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to supplement in a few words the able speech made on behalf of this Amendment by my noble friend Lord Broadbridge. I have been looking into the matter since I made my speech on the Second Reading, and I find that the case as regards the representation is worse than it appeared then. I was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, on the figures that I gave. The noble Lord said there were very few electors in the City of London. We have looked into the figures, and we find that, compared with the time when the register was drawn up by the registration officer and the time when it lapsed during the war, the figures for 1946 showed a vast increase. For instance, the number in Westminster was 3,000, but I find by later figures that we are now nearly up to 11,000—owing to the fact that more business premises are coming into action since the cessation of the bombing. No doubt, the same facts apply to the City of London. So, instead of there being 90,000 local government electors, it is contemplated that there will be at least 100,000. The average number of local government electors having a representative on the London County Council is about 55,000. After this registration, we shall have double that number. Everybody knows that in both these figures there are a great many questions that affect the business voters.

May I also remind your Lordships that since the hospitals have been taken over by the Government there is a tremendous amount of work to be done by the London County Council in connection with some of the ancillary health services. The maternity services and services of that kind have been taken from the boroughs, and have been assumed by the London County Council. The consequence is that there is a tremendous amount of detailed work to be done. I do not think it is unfair to ask the Government to consider this matter in no Party spirit, but simply from the point of view of administration. The amount of work that will be thrown upon the representatives of the London County Council will be enormous. I do not see how they can cope with it, because the area is very big. After the representations made to the Home Secretary, and the plea of the powerful deputation from the Court of Common Council and the Westminster City Council, I hope the Government will be inclined to accept the modest Amendment moved by my noble friend behind me.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

The noble Lord was good enough to come to me last night, to give me notice of this matter and explain some of the facts to me, since when, so far as I have been able, I have consulted the Home Secretary and others upon the point. It appears that what the noble Lord says with regard to the number of electors being large owing to the business vote in these two Cities is true. However, I find that it applies also to a certain number of other boroughs, though to a rather less extent. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, the noble Lord may look forward to the time when the population of these two Cities, either under the existing law or as it will be when it is amended, will be entitled to two Members of Parliament and therefore to six County Councillors—because the Bill provides that there shall be three County Councillors for each Parliamentary division in London. My noble friends say that, this being a decision of another place—that there should be three County Councillors for each Parliamentary division in London—they must, at all events for the present, adhere to it. The noble Lord has given me very little time in which to look into the details. At the moment, I am bound to tell him that my colleagues take the view that the Bill has come from another place providing deliberately that there should be three County Councillors for each Parliamentary division. To start altering the Bill according to the considerations that the noble Lord has advanced in the case of these two Cities will mean that we shall be confronted with a great number of claims—or claims in at least three other places. Therefore, I cannot to-day give the noble Lord a full answer.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I appreciate what the noble Viscount says, that he has had only recent notice of this matter. Obviously, he has to take some further counsel. As I have said, we have always taken the view here that, broad and large, this is essentially a House of Commons measure. On the other hand, when we come into the sphere of municipal electorates and their size I feel that that is not a case of electing members of one House or the other. The view taken here is that we ought not to tinker too much with this Bill, since after all we have no votes. We sit here, and we should resent any undue incursions into our affairs from another place, just as we ought not to intrude too much into their affairs. It is said that an essentially electoral Bill is a House of Commons Bill. But this is a rather different point because it does not deal with the franchise of the House of Commons or the seats of the House of Commons. This is indirectly consequential upon it—a question of the municipal franchise and the municipal areas. Upon that, I do not think there can be any Party question, or indeed any Party advantage, either one way or the other. I imagine that what we want to do is to secure the most efficient unit and system of local government that we can, and particularly in the case of all the areas of local government under the London County Council.

The noble Viscount said, in effect: "I do not think we ought to vary this now because, if we once begin varying the number of members for a constituency, where shall we end?" I do not feel that that is a very good argument to put forward on this Bill. If the Bill had stood as it had at the end of the Speaker's Conference, then I think that that would be a conclusive argument, but after all what has happened? This Bill has been reopened in another place. I am not going to discuss its merits now, but it has been reopened on the ground that, although certain points were agreed upon at the Speaker's Conference, and although the Commissioners have recommended certain areas of Parliamentary constituencies, yet on closer consideration it appeared to the House that there would be too many electors in one place and too few in another. Exercising what was undoubtedly their Parliamentary right, they reviewed the findings of the Commissioners in order to see whether there were not certain constituencies which ought to be adjusted—two seats given in one place, and only one seat in another. That was done; and that is the form of the Bill which is now before your Lordships.

The noble Lords, Lord Broadbridge and Lord Jessel, have been associated with the London County Council and the City of London for almost as many years as I have been alive. Nobody knows better than they what the conditions are there. They say that whereas all over the rest of the London County Council area there will be (let us say, for the sake of argument) 30,000 voters to one County Council representative, yet in the City of Westminster and in the City of London the number will be 50,000 voters. That is the very argument which has led the Government to approve, and the House of Commons to adopt, in the case of the Parliamentary franchise, the principle laid down in the Bill, by which the size of constituencies is evened up. If it is right to do that in regard to the Parliamentary boundaries and the number of electors, I should have thought it right to do it in the case of the County Council electorate. It is no answer to say that in the fullness of time we shall breed a lot more voters, and that there will be another Redistribution Bill, and then we shall have some more members.

The reply of the noble Lords, Lord Broadbridge and Lord Jessel, to that is: "We are getting on. These are important places, and we do not need to breed. We have to-day the number of electors in the City and in Westminster which entitles us to an extra member or two upon the County Council." I hope I have put it fairly but, as I understand it, that is exactly the position in which we are. I do not think there is any Party question in this. I appreciate that the Leader of the House has had to consider this point at rather short notice, but I hope he will take it back and see whether there is not force in what these two City Fathers have said. After all, they have been much more associated with the great life of the City than with Party politics, and in that regard they are just as likely to be right as either the Leader of the House or myself.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I would like to join with the noble Viscount in his tribute to the municipal service of the two noble Lords. I can only say that I cannot add anything to what I have already said with regard to any promise, but I will discuss this matter with my right honourable friends and will report to the noble Lords the result of our proceedings before we get to the next stage. I hope the House will leave it at that. It must not be taken that I am making any promises.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

No.

LORD JESSEL

I very much appreciate the further inquiry into this subect. We were very disappointed about this matter. I do not think it is possible to deal with these matters on an administrative basis. Now the registration officer is doing the work of canvassing, and the business voters were left out during the war on account of expense. I am sure the number will be much greater than I said originally, when I spoke about 90,000. It must be over 100,000, and if this new legislation comes into effect, I am sure it will be more. It is very hard on the voters themselves to be so unrepresented, and it is also hard upon the elected members who will be sent to the Council by the voters. I thank the noble Viscount for his promise to look at this matter again, and I hope it will result in some substantial consideration, otherwise I fear there will be some bad feeling about this matter. As I said before, Parliamentary representation is rather better managed by the Government than we originally expected it would be. In conclusion, I should like to say that there is nothing like the number of business voters, nor is there likely to be, outside the City of Westminster or the City of London. I will conclude by thanking the Leader of the House for his promise to look into the matter again.

LORD BROADBRIDGE

I desire only to thank the noble Viscount for his promise to look further into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59 agreed to.

Clauses 60 to 65 agreed to.

Clause 66 [Discharge of registration duties]:

LORD MORRISON

Now we come to a number of small points, all of which, unfortunately, have to be dealt with separately. This Amendment to Clause 66, subsection (4), enables any acts required to be done by the registration officer to be done, in the event of his incapacity to act or of a vacancy, by a person temporarily appointed in that behalf by the mayor or chairman of the local authority. It seems clear that the standing or temporary deputy so appointed is the proper person to act as substitute for the registration officer, and that it is no longer necessary or appropriate to provide specially for the appointment of some other person by the mayor or chairman. This Amendment makes the necessary change. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 65, line 31, leave out from ("to") to ("and") in line 33 and insert ("the standing or temporary deputy acting as clerk of the authority under section one hundred and fifteen or one hundred and sixteen of the local elections Act or, in the case of the secondary of the City of London, by or with respect to any person temporarily appointed in that behalf by the Lord Mayor ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 [Power to make regulations as to registration, etc.]:

LORD MORRISON

This is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 66, line 26, leave out from ("the") to ("except") in line 29, and insert ("corrupt practices Act and that section").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.

Clause 70 [Registration appeals]:

LORD MORRISON

This is another small point. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that if there is a dispute between an elector and the registration officer as to whether the elector should be registered for a Service or a civilian qualification, or for a residential or non-residential qualification, an appeal will lie to the county court, in the same way as when there is a dispute as to whether an elector should be registered at all. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 69, line 30, after ("is") insert ("or is not registered as a service voter or as a nonresident or is or is").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON moved, after subsection (6), to insert: (7) This section shall apply in relation to decisions on claims and objections with respect to any corrupt and illegal practices list as it applies in relation to the decisions mentioned in subsection (1) but as if a reference to that list were included in the reference to the electors lists and with any other prescribed modifications. The noble Lord said: The Act of 1883 applies in relation to claims and objections to the corrupt practices list the provisions as to appeals which are applicable to claims and objections to the electors list. The effect of this Amendment will be to continue this arrangement, which seems proper. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 70, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The court of three Judges appointed under Section 23 of the 1868 Act is a court for hearing appeals under Section 22. That section was repealed by the 1918 Act, which substituted in Section 23 appeals for those under Section 22. A similar substitution is required now, for the only function of the court is to hear appeals, under the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 70, line 31, after ("1868") insert ("and that section shall have effect as if for references to the appeals therein mentioned and to that Act there were respectively substituted references to appeals under this paragraph, and to this Act.").—(Lord Morrison)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This and the next two Amendments correct a mistake in the application to Northern Ireland of Clause 70, which gives a right of appeal to the county court against the decisions of the registration officer. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 70, line 35, leave out the first ("10") and insert ("(4)" and ") Page 70, line 43, at end insert ("the reference in subsection (3) of this section to the Court of Appeal shall be construed accordingly; and"). Page 70, line 47, after ("thereunder") insert ("and any power to make rules of court with respect to those appeals").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 71 to 76 agreed to.

4.10 p.m.

Clause 77 [Interpretation and application of local government provisions in England and Wales]:

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment provides that for the purposes of certain provisions in the Bill, the Scilly Isles are to be treated as a county district. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 76, line 44, after ("that") insert ("—

  1. (a) paragraph 1 of the Eighth Schedule and any reference to a person acting in pursuance of the requisition of a registration 791 officer shall apply as if the isles were a county district and the council were a district council; and
  2. (b)").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 78 and 79 agreed to.

Clause 80 [Commencement, repeals, etc.]:

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 79, line 13, at beginning insert ("Except where otherwise expressly provided").—Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 81 agreed to.

First Schedule [Parliamentary constituencies]:

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment will alter the name of the Bury constituency to "Bury and Radcliffe." I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 99, line 29, column 1, after ("Bury") insert ("and Radcliffe").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

Constituencies are described by reference to the circumstances existing on December 31, 1947. But since that date burghs and counties mentioned have extended their boundaries and taken in some of the surrounding country. It is desirable that burgh and county boundaries should be the same for the purposes of Parliamentary representation as for other purposes. The proposed Amendment secures this. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 129, line 20, at end insert— ("[Note.—The references to the following areas, namely the burghs of Coatbridge and Lochgelly, the counties of Dumfries and Kirkcudbright, the ninth district of Lanarkshire and the Lochgelly district of Fife, are references to those areas as constituted on the sixteenth day of May, 1948.]")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment corrects a clerical error. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 133, line 34, leave out ("east") and insert ("west ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Third Schedule [Proceedings at parliamentary elections]:

LORD MORRISON

The courts in Scotland have held that a ballot paper which is marked otherwise than with a cross must be rejected, but the English courts have treated such ballot papers as valid. These Amendments provide that the ballot papers in question are not to be rejected if the way they are marked does not, of itself, identify the voter and it is not shown that he can be identified thereby. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 155, line 39, leave out from ("rejected") to ("if") in line 40.—(Lord Morrison.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

So the Scottish illiterates will now be on a footing of equality with the English illiterates.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 155, line 41, at end, insert ("and the way the paper is marked does not of itself identify the voter and it is not shown that he can be identified thereby").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON moved to add to paragraph 3: Provided that where proceedings are abandoned by virtue of this paragraph—

  1. (a) nothing may be done after they are continued, if the time for doing it had passed at the time of the abandonment nor shall anything done before the abandonment be invalidated by reason thereof;
  2. (b) subject to the foregoing sub-paragraph, if the day on which the proceedings are continued is a Saturday and is (or is to be treated as) the said last day, the proviso to the entry in Part I of this Schedule relating to the making of objections shall not apply."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the nomination of candidates being interrupted by rioting. If the rioting took place on a Friday and the proceedings were interrupted and adjourned until Saturday, there would be no prescribed time for objections to the nominations. The Amendment will cure this defect and will have the effect that, in such a case, objections can be made on a Saturday instead of on the previous day when the proceedings were abandoned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 156, line 28, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Morrison.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I take it that this applies only in Scotland.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It applies wherever there is trouble.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule [Amendments of local elections rules]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 158, line 19, after ("require") insert ("or authorise").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This and the following Amendments are similar to the Amendments in the Third Schedule at page 155, but relate to local government elections. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 164, line 6, leave out from ("rejected") to ("either") in line 7.—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD MORRISON

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 164, line 9, at end insert ("and the way the paper is marked does not of itself identify the voter and it is not shown that he can be identified thereby").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fifth to Seventh Schedules agreed to.

Eighth Schedule [Provisions which may be contained in regulations as to registration, etc.]:

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 172, line 9, leave out from ("is") to end of line.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Ninth Schedule agreed to.

Tenth Schedule [Adaptation and interpretation of enactments, etc.]:

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment in Clause 66 at page 65. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 176, line 6, at and insert— ("(2) Any reference in any Act passed before this Act to a person temporarily appointed under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, to act in place of a registration officer in case of incapacity or a vacancy shall be taken as a reference to the person authorised under this Act so to act.")—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 176, line 41, after ("reference") insert ("and to a reference to any other matter which was to be construed as a reference to any of the said matters by virtue of an enactment repealed by this Act.").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

Section 23 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883, provides that where on an application to the High Court it is shown that an act or omission which constituted an illegal practice arose from inadvertence or accidental miscalculation or some other reasonable cause of a like nature and not from any want of good faith, the court may make an order relieving the person concerned from any of the consequences of the act or omission It seems desirable that this provision should be applied in relation to the new illegal practices created by Part III of the Bill, and particularly Clause 33 as to the use of motor cars for conveying electors to the poll. An innocent miscalculation of the permitted number of motor cars might, for example, quite easily occur. The Amendment will apply Section 23 of the 1883 Act accordingly. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page .177, line 16, after ("in") insert ("section twenty-three and").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Eleventh Schedule agreed to.

Twelfth Schedule [References in corrupt practices Act and local elections Act]:

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is drafting, I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 181, line 47, at end insert—

("Section thirty-nine and sub-section (1). Section twenty-four and sub-Section (1). Section twenty-nine and sub-section (1).")
—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 31. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 182, line 13, at end insert—

("Section 79 Section 53 Section 67(1).")
—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment to Clause 66. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 182, line 15, at end insert—

("Section 115 Section 82 —
Section 116 Section 83 —."
—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Twelfth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Thirteenth Schedule [Repeals]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 184, column 3, leave out line 45.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment proposes to add to the repealed enactments Section 38 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1832, which so far is not superseded but may be regarded as obsolete. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 184, line 23, column 3, at end insert ("and section thirty-eight").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

I am advised that the term "revising barrister" is now obsolete. The proposed Amendment, therefore, repeals the definition of "revising barrister." I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 188, line 27, column 3, at end insert ("in section sixty-eight the definition of 'revising barrister' and paragraph (16) ").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 189, line 51, column 3, leave out ("subsection (7)") and insert ("subsection (2) to (6)").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The provisions to which this Amendment refers are still necessary, and accordingly it is proposed by this Amendment to save them from repeal. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 190, line 26, column 3, after ("twenty-one") insert ("and section forty-two and the Sixth Schedule so far as they relate to the Registration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885, or to subsection (1) of section twenty-nine of the Elections (Scotland) Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1890").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment corrects a drafting mistake. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 190, columns 2 and 3, leave out lines 56 to 58 and insert—

"The Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926. Part III and the Third Schedule.")
—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This and the next Amendment are consequential to the Amendment of Clause 31. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 191, line 31, leave out from ("seventy") to end of line 33 and insert ("section seventy-nine").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 191, line 50, after ("fifty") insert ("section fifty-three").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

Subsection (1) of Section 67 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, is superseded by Clause 31 of this Bill and this, therefore, should be included in the repeal Schedule. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 195, line 8, column 3, at end insert ("subsection (1) of section sixty-seven").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.