LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 15 April 1969)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 18 to which the Commons have disagreed. This is the other of the two Amendments—there were only two out of the 36 Amendments which your Lordships made to the Bill—to which the Commons have disagreed, and I ask your Lordships to acquiesce in that disagreement. Like Amendment No. 11, this Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, at the Committee stage in this House and was carried on a Division. But the Division was very small: the Contents numbered 72 and the Not-Contents 69. There was a very narrow margin of three votes.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in introducing the Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, quite clearly indicated that: this is clearly a matter on which those in another place should have the final word. The noble Lord went on to say that this seemed to him: an outstandingly clear case for the Second Chamber to act in such a way as to afford time and opportunity for further consideration of the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11/2/69, col. 343.] Further time has been afforded and further consideration has been given to the matter in another place, with the result that on a Division the Amendment, which had already been rejected on a Division in Committee in another place by 170 votes to 110, was again taken to a Division and was again rejected, the voting being 235 to 202.
I am not going to say anything further either for or against the Amendment, except this. There is a case against 31 longer hours on the grounds of administrative difficulty—that was fully made out and I fully acknowledged it on behalf of the Government. There is also the fact that when considering polling hours at Parliamentary elections the Speaker's Conference recommended no change in the law. Throughout, however, the view of the Government, as was made clear in their White Paper, Conclusions on the Review of the Law Relating to Parliamentary Elections, has been that it is in the interests of electors that at Parliamentary elections the poll should continue until 10 p.m. instead of closing, as at present, at 9 p.m. One result of the change may well be that in many areas where the count now takes place on the evening of the day of the poll it will have to be postponed until the following day. This, too, I acknowledged in Committee. The Government are prepared to accept this as part of the price—although I doubt indeed that it is a "price"—for ensuring that the interests of the electors themselves prevail, and that at Parliamentary elections polling stations shall remain open for the longest possible reasonable hours. By their votes those in another place have expressed approval of the Government's view in this matter and have reiterated that approval after a further opportunity afforded to them of considering the Amendment made by this House. I trust that in this instance your Lordships will agree that the views of those in another place, like the interests of the electors, should prevail. I beg to move.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I have no intention of going back on what I said in Committee, namely, that this is a matter on which another place should have the final word. It is for them, I am sure, to determine finally the procedures under which they and future Parliaments should be elected. I would, however, be grateful if before this short debate ends the noble Lord could indicate at what date the Government propose to bring into force this change in the law. That is a matter of importance; it is of considerable interest to millions of people, as the Government could discover by inquiring of the B.B.C. and In 32 dependent Television, because huge numbers of people now stay up to hear the election results, not only at General Elections but at by-elections. All that will be put back for a further hour, to the great annoyance of millions, and I think it is desirable to know when this change is going to take place.
Clearly, on the Government's argument it should take place as quickly as possible; otherwise they must share the responsibility of keeping some people from recording their vote. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that the total additional number of votes cast will be infinitesimal. Although some will vote between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., the vast majority of those who do would have been able to vote before 9 p.m. had they wished to do so. A case could always be made out for putting the hour as late as one likes, by saying that some people would come along wishing to vote after that hour. But, of course, the critical question is whether, had they wished, they could have voted before that time.
The Commons Reason for disagreement is as follows: Because it is desirable that at Parliamentary elections polling stations should remain open for as long as reasonably possible to enable electors to vote. My Lords, everything depends on the interpretation of the word "reasonably". The great majority of people who were consulted on this proposed change in the law believed that the existing hours were reasonable. But if one is going to press the argument, as the Government do, that the maximum opportunity should be given to everybody to vote, why is it reasonable to say that a person can vote at one minute to ten but not at one minute past ten? The word "reasonably" could be interpreted as supporting termination at eleven o'clock or midnight just as well. Hitherto it has been universally accepted that the reasonable closing hour is nine o'clock.
In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, seeking to justify disagreement with the Lords Amendment, said: There can be no argument against the idea of allowing an extra hour in which people may go to the poll. "There can be no argument against the idea…!" That shows the arrogance 33 of this Government, because it had already been declared in a White Paper presented to Parliament that the all-Party Speaker's Conference, a very authoritative body, had considered the matter and had unanimously reported that there should be no change. They found that the balance of argument was in favour of the closing hour remaining at nine o'clock. Now this imperious Government, setting aside the Speaker's Conference, slapping it down, just as they slapped down the Maud Committee in relation to the previous Amendment, dismiss all the consideration given by the Speaker's Conference and say that "there can be no argument against" this proposal. I do not seek to establish your Lordships' House in conflict with another place on this matter, which is so closely concerned with the arrangements for elections to another place, but the action of the Government being, as I am quite convinced, in conflict with general public opinion as well as with the unanimous conclusion of the all-Party Speaker's Conference on this matter, shows that the sooner we have another Government the better.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a question, but first I should like to deal with his point about what is reasonable. He spoke of a minute after ten but, of course, a time has to be fixed. The words in the Commons' Reason for disagreement are …remain open for as long as reasonably possible to enable electors to vote". All sorts of considerations come into that. There is the question of staff, which is one of the most important and which we deployed considerably. As for the date of the coming into operation of the extended polling hours, the noble Lord will appreciate that a lot has to be done and new polling cards have to be printed, but it is expected that it will probably be possible to bring the extended polling hours into operation for any election after February 16, 1970.