I beg to move, in page 38, line 34, after "candidate," to insert "or."

Perhaps we might also discuss the following Amendment—in line 34, leave out "and persons" and insert "unless the said expenses are."

As the Clause stands it appears that the election agent can authorise a sub-agent to incur expenses, apparently with no limit. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the candidate or his agent shall authorise the expenses which can be incurred by a sub-agent. At present the Clause would give the sub-agent virtually a blank cheque as to the amount of expenses that he can incur, provided he has authorisation from the agent or the candidate. We think that this should be restricted, that he should only be authorised to incur certain expenses and not have this blank cheque. I hope that I have put the point clearly and briefly. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could let us have his views upon it.

Section 34 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, which is now the law of the land, provides: A person other than the election agent of a candidate shall not incur any expenses on account of holding public meetings or issuing advertisements, circulars or publications for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a Parliamentary election unless he is authorised in writing to do so by the election agent. The words to which I draw attention are those imposing the limitation to holding public meetings or issuing advertisements, circulars or publications. … The Speaker's Conference, in Item 3 of the final Report, recommended that this Section should be amended so as to cover any expenses incurred by a political or other organisation or by an individual, for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or candidates. The Can Committee considered this recommendation and suggested, in Paragraph 21 of their Interim Report, that effect could be given to this simply by deleting the words to which I drew special attention. However, when it came to drafting Clause 40 it at once became apparent that merely to delete those words would make the prohibition altogether too wide, and would have the result which the Speaker's Conference and the Carr Committee can hardly have contemplated.

The effect, for example, would apparently be that an elector would be required to obtain the authority of an election agent before spending 2d. on his bus fares to go to the polling station to vote for a candidate. It would certainly require anyone who wished to do some canvassing, or otherwise help the promotion of his candidate, to obtain the agent's authority before incurring the most trivial personal expenses on bus fares and so on. Accordingly, it appears to us that the best way to give effect to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference is to extend Section 34 to cover expenses for other purposes in addition to those specified in the Section and therefore Clause 40 repeats the wording of Section 34 of the 1918 Act, but has reference to other matters. In this way, it virtually covers any form of election propaganda, and it appears to give full effect to the Speaker's Conference recommendation. We feel it is desirable that we should carry out in spirit the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and the Carr Committee, but that we should not impose some of the absurd limitations which a rigid application of the recommendations would entail.

Mr. Grimson:

I am obliged to the Home Secretary for his explanation, which seems to us to be reasonable; we did not grasp all the implications he has mentioned. In view of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 38, line 35, to leave out from "agent," to the end of line 42.

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the Amendment in line 43, to leave out "paragraph (c) of."

These Amendments cover practically the same point. I rise in order to get a little further clarification. I am not yet quite clear why these words should not be left out. It seems that these words are simply a challenge to the ingenuity of election agents to find some way of getting on with what they think is their job without infringing these words. What would obviously be the cleanest way of doing it would be to say that no expenses shall be incurred without the authorisation of the candidate, his election agent, or persons authorised provided that personal expenses up to £1 are exempt. In other words, we should be defining the exemption and not the kind of things that are counted as election expenses. It may be that Subsection (1, c)— otherwise presenting to the electors the candidate or his views or the extent or nature of his backing or disparaging another candidate"— covers all the normal activities of candidates and their election agents. That may be the right hon. Gentleman's experience, but I am not sure that this is the right way to do it. I should like to know why it is thought necessary to put in these three headings, and not to leave it general, with the exemption the right hon. Gentleman has clearly demonstrated is necessary, which might have to be slightly wider. I suggest that this method of approach might lead to greater clarity.

The Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman certainly has attractions. It is simple, and anything which tends to simplify legislation is an attraction. We came to the conclusion that it was too simple. Sometimes undue simplicity in legislation leads to complications in administration. We gave very careful consideration to the proposal made by the Carr Committee for implementing the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. The deletion of the prohibited categories, as it appears to us, would have left the prohibition much too wide, and it might have prohibited all kinds of expenditure—some of it of not entirely small amounts—which were certainly not contemplated by the Speaker's Conference or the Carr Committee as coming within the evil that had to be guarded against.

All sorts of examples could be given—a voter who spends 2d. on a bus fare in order to go to the polling station; a man who sends a telegram to his wife urging her to vote or not to vote for a particular candidate; enthusiasts who want to help in voluntary canvassing, incurring expenses in connection with meals or travelling expenses; the man who wants to take legal advice whether the local candidate was eligible to stand or not and who may have to spend a lot of money in order to discover whether he is subject to one or other of these disqualifications. We thought that the best way to implement the recommendations was to add these further categories to those already enumerated under Section 34 of the original Act, as my right hon. Friend indicated. What we are really doing is to retain all the existing prohibitions, and to add a form of words which broadly covers anything which one normally understands to be election propaganda. We thought that that was the best course to take, although the Amendment is not without its attractions.

I cannot say that I am wholly satisfied, but, on the other hand, this is a matter of form rather than substance, and, therefore, I do not think it is necessary to pursue the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 38, line 44, to leave out sub-paragraph (i).

The effect of this proviso is not quite clear to us. I think that the best way I can illustrate it is by giving an example. Is it intended that, say, a letter appearing in the Press, signed by a number of people in support of a candidature, should be reckoned as within the candidate's expenses or not? We may have a tied Press for either political party, and a great deal of electioneering can be done through that means, without any expenses having to appear in the candidate's election return. The reason we have moved the Amendment is to get some explanation from the Home Secretary of what is intended by the proviso for it is quite clear that abuse can occur in this connection.

10.0 p.m.

The prohibition in paragraph (c) is, of course, very wide. Strictly interpreted, it would cover expenses incurred by a newspaper proprietor in sending reporters to attend a political meeting and, later on, in reporting that meeting; or the expenses which he might incur in writing an editorial about the election and recommending voters to vote one way or another. Strictly speaking, I think it might possibly cover expenses incurred in printing a letter sent to a newspaper in support of a particular candidature. We have taken the view that it is not desirable to prohibit expenditure of that kind. Indeed, we think it would be quite impracticable to do so, and that is the purpose of sub-paragraph (1) of the proviso.

We do, however, hit at advertisements. Expenditure incurred in putting advertisements in the Press will be covered; that would be right as an expenditure which must be authorised by the election agent. That fairly comes within the Clause. What we seek to avoid hitting at is something which is published in the ordinary course of journalism—of reporting public events, of writing leading articles, or a letter to the Press. I agree it may be very difficult to draw the line between a letter to a newspaper and an advertisement, but these matters must be left to the conscience of the tribunals which have to deal with this problem. We think it would be quite wrong to impose any prohibition on the ordinary writing of letters by individuals to the Press. If what is written, however, is not a letter, but is an advertisement and is paid for, then, of course, it comes under the other part of the Subsection. In those circumstances we do not think it would be right to accept the deletion of the proviso and we think that it would be very rash to interfere in that way with the freedom of the Press.

I would like to know whether a case such as the example which I will now give would be covered. It sometimes happens that special newspapers come into being for the purpose of an election; they are run by a group or party in support of a particular candidate. Is it quite clear that they would be covered by paragraph (b) in Subsection (1)?

I think that that example would fairly come under paragraph (b). A special election newspaper, such as one sometimes has, or an advertisement in an ordinary newspaper, would clearly come under this paragraph.

Can the Attorney-General explain what he means by the obscure sentence that there may be some difficulty—I think this is what he said—in distinguishing between a letter to a newspaper and an advertisement? Surely, there could not be two more different methods of approach though, admittedly, the effect of the two printings may be the same? The one is current practice and is not paid for, and the other is paid for.

That is, of course, an explanation—that the advertisement is paid for and the letter is not. It may be that the matter contained in the letter is exactly the same as that contained in the advertisement. What I meant, when I said there was difficulty in distinguishing between the two, was that the effect and the object of the two publications may be absolutely identical. One is sent to a favourable newspaper in the form of a letter, which that newspaper publishes without cost to the writer; the other is sent to an unfavourable newspaper in the form of an advertisement which has to be paid for. The substance of the publications is exactly the same. The only distinction is that one is paid for and one is not.

There is undoubtedly this difficulty about advertisements because, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, a favourable newspaper may publish precisely the same announcement without charging for it and, indeed, in the form of an advertisement. Are we to take it that this means that if a newspaper chooses to publish anything emanating from a candidate it can incur as much expense as it likes if it does not charge the candidate. If it charges the candidate the expenditure becomes election expenses? That seems a little odd.

My real purpose is to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain a little further about the other periodicals. He indicated that a newspaper of which there was only one issue was not really a newspaper at all, and I agree with that. On the other hand, there have been from time to time, and still are, newsletters and publications of that kind which may not be very permanent but do go on from number to number. If ever the day comes when the supply of paper is restricted, it will be easy to expand one of these papers out of all knowledge, and then, apparently it will come under the proviso. It may be that although the auomalises which arise out of the exemptions for newspapers are inescapable, I do not profess to see an easy or a good way to deal with them. I doubt very much whether the same can be said about the other periodicals which are not newspapers.

It might be well to look again at the matter and to see whether some distinction can be drawn between the ephemeral publications, very often typewritten or at any rate not written but reproduced in some way, and established periodicals which may be in the same position as newspapers. I do not know whether there is any technical method of distinguishing between an established, printed periodical and an ephemeral one like a reproduced newsheet or newsletter. If there is, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the matter again in order to exclude the mushroom kind of publication.

I certainly follow the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We will look at the Clause again. It may be difficult to find a more precise form of words than the one which we have adopted. We are seeking to protect, and we think we are successful, the periodical which is a regular publication, and not the one which comes out ad hoc for the purposes of an election. We are doing that by using the word "periodical" to indicate something which appears at periodic intervals, regularly, and not something which appears just before the election and will not go on. What I say cannot bind the tribunal, but if the paper comes into being at the time of an election it would probably be looked upon as not being a periodical within the meaning of the Clause. I will look at the matter again.

I am associated with a monthly periodical appropriately called "Commonsense." It comes out every month and has in it an article by a Member of Parliament. It is not an ephemeral publication for the purposes of an election but it might go on being published during an election. Would it be covered by the Clause?

The hon. Gentleman's question shows the desirability of looking at the Clause with a little more care.

Suppose that during an election a particular periodical were suddenly increased in size. Would the expense involved rank as an election expense or would it be an expense in the ordinary way?

I hope my hon. Friend will not submit me to a long cross-examination upon these matters. I should say that if it was a regular periodical, the fact that it was increased in size at the time of an election would not make any difference. It does happens that newspapers and periodicals sometimes increase in size at election times. These things balance themselves out, and it would be very difficult to provide that some part of the extra cost of the increase in size should be acknowledged as an election expense. I do not think it would be practicable or even desirable.

We have had a useful discussion on this proviso, and several points have been brought out. In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has promised to look at the wording to see if it can be amended and improved, and we have achieved our object, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 38, line 44, after "matter," to insert: by way of fair comment or report. There are two points relating to this Amendment, the effect of which would make the proviso read as follows: Provided that paragraph (c) of this subsection shall not(i) restrict the publication of any matter by way of fair comment or report relating to the election in a newspaper or other periodical. The first point has, already been covered. I was surprised to hear from the learned Attorney-General that, in his view, under the Clause as it now stands it would not be possible to publish an advertisement free, gratis and for nothing. The first object of this Amendment is to prevent that state of affairs, so that the matter could only then be published by way of fair comment or report.

As to the second object, it is thought that as the proviso stands it might be held to exempt the Press from the usual common law rules as to libel, and, therefore, it is felt that it would be better to make that quite clear and explicit by adding the words "by way of fair comment or report."

That is a very interesting suggestion, if I may say so, but I do not think it is one which it would be practicable to embody by means of the proposed Amendment in this Bill. The clear intention, and as I believe the clear effect, of this Clause as drafted is to prohibit expenditure on what one might broadly call political advertising without the authority of the election agent. All that it is intended to exempt by means of paragraph (i) of the proviso is what is published in the ordinary course of journalism by way of reporting, by way of announcing coming events and by way of comment in editorial columns. It is certainly not intended—and I do not think that the Clause could possibly be interpreted in the sense contemplated by the hon. Gentleman—that the Clause would legalise the publication of any matter which under the existing law would be defamatory or actionable.

On the other hand, the introduction of the words proposed in the Amendment, "by way of fair comment and report," would give rise to very great difficulties in the interpretation, operation and administration of this Statute. It may, of course, be said—and, indeed, it has been said by hon. Members opposite—that some newspapers at election times, and perhaps not only at election times, do conduct their news reporting and their editorial service in such a way as to make them virtually a disguised advertisement for particular political parties.

10.15 p.m.

It may be said that newspapers often go far beyond what ought properly to be regarded as fair comment, but while one must detest any attempt at tendentious reporting and deplore any comments which would be unfair, it would be quite wrong in a statute such as this, dealing with matters of this kind, to prohibit them or to alter the existing legal consequences which may result. If matters are reported in a newspaper which are defamatory, not fair comment, which are actionable, it will still be possible for an action to be brought in regard to them. If matter is published which is tendentious but not actionable we must rely on other methods of publicity to combat it. It would be impossible to impose upon editors the obligation of deciding whether their comment was fair, and when it was unfair, of going to an election agent before they published it. That would be the effect of the Amendment. While making it clear that the Clause as drafted will not in any way affect the rights of action for libel, we think that the form of words which we have chosen is the appropriate one in the circumstances.

In view of the clear indication given by the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 39, line r, to leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

We should like to have explained to us the second part of the proviso. The broad rule is that all expenses, by whomsover incurred, have to be authorised by the candidate, the election agent or someone authorised by the election agent. That applies to all expenses incurred in presenting to the electors the candidate or his views or "disparaging another candidate" but there is an exception to that which is contained in sub-paragraph (ii) which says that this shall not apply to any expenses not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of ten shillings which may be incurred by an individual and are not incurred in pursuance of a plan suggested by or concerted with others. It is not clear to us whether this sum of 10s. which applies to any individual covers the period of a single election. I take it that any individual can only spend his 10s. once during a particular election.

In the second place it is not clear to us why the sum of 10s. is selected. In regard to that, I observe that the Home Secretary has an Amendment on the Order Paper which is the next to be called, which will exclude from the 10s. limit expenses incurred in travelling or in living away from home or similar personal expenses. That is to say there is an addition proposed to this proviso in regard to travelling expenses and in regard to a person living away from home. That, I take it, is to cover the case of the visiting Speaker who stays in a hotel and perhaps has to hire a motor car in order to attend the meetings.

I should like to know what class of expenditure is envisaged in this curious provision that any number of electors can spend up to 10s. each on putting forward the case of one candidate or disparaging the case of another, provided always that they do not act in pursuance of a plan suggested by or concerted with others. That seems to me to open the door to a good deal of rather loose petty expenditure in promoting the case of particular candidates. I should have thought that it would have been sufficient to adopt the suggestion contained in the following Amendment by the Home Secretary, to allow expenses to be incurred in the case of persons who have to travel or stay away from home in connection with an election. I do not see what is the purpose of allowing Tom, Dick and Harry to spend 10s. in propagating the case of a particular candidate.

We wish to catch all forms of expenses which can be regarded as election expenses, but we do not want to be too rigid about it. Subparagraph (c), without this proviso, would catch expenses of the most trivial and personal kind such as, for instance, buying a party favour, or sending a telegram to one's aunt in Southwark advising her to vote for a particular candidate. That kind of trivial, personal expenditure, it seems to us, if it is personal expenditure and not organised expenditure, ought to be exempted.

On the other hand, if some ingenious election agent organises a scheme whereby everybody living outside Southwark and having an aunt in Southwark sent such a telegram before the date of the election that would be a different matter. That would be: incurred in pursuance of a plan suggested by or concerted with others. which are the words used. We do not think it right to impose a prohibition on a man who wishes to send an innocent message to his aunt, or goes to the expense of buying a meal, because he is in the Constituency on the day of the election and has to get a meal there, instead of having it at home. That kind of expenditure is what we should like to exempt, and the object of these two paragraphs in the proviso is to prevent the Clause applying to matters to which, I think hon. Members opposite will agree, it would be manifestly unreasonable to apply a prohibition of this kind.

The mention of favours leads me to ask a question. I confess to not being certain of the practice, but my recollection is that in the six or seven elections which I have fought both on our side, and on the other side, it was the practice to have favours in the committee room which helpers came in and bought. Great care was always taken by the candidates not to give them away. I think that was the practice, and that it is fairly universal. That is, of course, organised by the election agent or by some partisan or helper. I wonder whether the Attorney-General intends such activities shall be a charge on the election account?

Yes, that would be organised expenditure and would come within the words which we have expressly used: incurred in pursuance of a plan suggested by or concerted with others. That kind of provision of favours on an organised scale would be covered, and would be a perfectly proper election expense. It may be a useful thing to do, all parties appear to do it. They choose some colours and have favours made up, and sell them at a profit. It is a perfectly proper form of election expenditure.

I do not see the argument of the Attorney-General. He says, quite rightly, that he wishes to excuse trivial personal expenditure, such as sending a telegram to one's aunt in Southwark. I suppose that would include hiring a motor car to go and vote or to canvass somebody. Why does he then say that if it exceeds 10s. it becomes unreasonable? I may have 15 aunts living in Southwark who might each merit a telegram. I may have to motor 5o miles to vote. The drafting gives me the impression that the draftsmen were not quite sure about the case, so they thought they would make it safe by limiting it to 10s. The amount of 10s. renders the whole thing rather ridiculous.

As in a previous matter which we discussed, the Attorney-General has made clear the intentions of the Government, but again it is open to criticism whether the words as drafted will achieve the object. It has become fashionable of late for certain foolish youths to disport themselves on Sunday evenings in the vicinity of Dalston. Those are the sort of people who turn up at election meetings. It is surprising how effectively ten determined men can break up a meeting if they really set to work. I submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be possible with this wording for any candidate or his agent to get hold of ten youths and to pay them a shilling each to go and make a noise at an Opposition meeting. Ten people can have a most deleterious effect on a political meeting. I wonder whether the intention would not be more clear if we inserted the word "personal" so that the line would read: … apply to any personal expenses not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of ten shillings. … That might get round the difficulty. The Attorney-General must have heard of the actions of these gangs. It would be difficult to establish the fact that they were acting in pursuance of a plan. When ten people are scattered over a public meeting it is difficult to prove that they are acting in pursuance of any sort of plan even though they may be doing so. This would be in the worst interests of those who wish to see elections properly conducted. If this was made to apply to personal expenses rather than to expenses in general, it might cover the point.

I will give consideration to that suggestion. We on this side of the Committee are not so familiar as the hon. and gallant Member with that kind of election method. I would point out that if it was impossible to establish that the 10 or 12 members of the political party to which the hon. and gallant Member referred were acting in concert, equally it would be impossible to prove that expenditure had been incurred. These questions of proof will arise and cause diffi- culty however we deal with the situation. If it can be proved that expenditure has been incurred then, also, it will be capable of proof that what had been done had been done in concert and was, therefore, covered by the words that we have used. However, I will look at the possibility of using the word "personal." It is true that the limit of 10s. mentioned by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) is an arbitrary figure. We thought it right, in order to avoid the very kind of evil mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), only to exempt fairly trivial expenditure. Once one gets to larger sums, one may be producing some kind of influence on the election. We thought that the admittedly arbitrary figure of 10s. was about the right mark.

If, for instance, someone comes from Scotland and travels a long distance to canvass at an election, is there any idea that the personal expenditure in travelling from Scotland would be ranked as an election expense?

That point is covered by the next Amendment on the Order Paper.

In view of the assurance given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.30 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 39, line 4, at the end, to insert: or to expenses incurred by any person in travelling or in living away from home or similar personal expenses. This. Amendment intends to provide expressly for travelling expenses in exactly the kind of case just put to me by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and put a little earlier by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). Personal expenses of that kind—the travelling expenses of a Cabinet Minister travelling down to some distant Constituency to address a meeting, an elector's own travelling expenses in order to record his vote, if not paid by the election agent—ought not to be prohibited, we think, under the provisions of the Clause. If paid by the election agent, of course, it would be different.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 39, line 4, at the end, to insert: Provided that nothing in this section shall render it unlawful for a political party to incur expense in the presentation to the electorate of the views of that political party in the election, where no member of that political party has been nominated as candidate in the election concerned. I want to make clear the position of political parties that exist in a Constituency who are not running their own candidate, apart altogether from participating in support of one or other of the candidates who may be standing. In the case of my own Party, it is not a very pressing matter from one point of view. For instance, I spoke at a public meeting in North Croydon during a recent By-election and we made something like £30. It could easily have been spent in posters and we would have come out without having incurred any expenses at all. But there are always political groupings or parties that may not be in a position to put up candidates of their own but still have a policy they want to place before the electorate. I would like to know if an Amendment of this kind can be accepted. I leave it at that, because I do not like this Clause and want to say two or three hard things about it on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

I am afraid we must resist this Amendment. It would open the door wide to evasions of the whole principle of this Bill, and evasions, I venture to think, of the most grievous kind. Suppose—if one might suppose such a case—a person is standing who describes himself as an Independent Socialist but whom the party represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) regard as being a fellow-traveller of the Communist Party. The Communist Party, if this Amendment were accepted, could go into that Constituency and spend unlimited amounts in support—

It is not a question of the Communist Party going into a Constituency, but of the electors of that constituency who belong to a particular party who have not a candidate. Have they no right to put their point of view during the election campaign in any way they like?

Certainly, they may put their point of view, but they must not incur expenditure in regard to the matter. If they are allowed to incur expenditure which would not rank as election expenditure, clearly they could spend a large amount in influencing the course of that election and far exceeding the amounts permitted by law. Take another case. I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. Member. Suppose a National Liberal candidate were standing. In such a case, the Tories might come along and with their vast resources of money they might multiply many times the permitted election expenditure. If political parties, whatever their political complexion, want to take part in a campaign, although they put no candidate into the field, they must be intending to influence the result of that campaign in favour of one candidate and against another candidate. And if, as my hon. Friend very well put the case, the election agents of the candidates concerned are not prepared to invite, or to accept, their assistance in this way, then they must not be allowed to spend money uninvited in an endeavour to influence the course of an election. The proper course for a political party in that position, unable to put their own candidate into the field, or to get an election agent for any other candidate to authorise expenditure or to adopt their propaganda, is to keep out of the field, out of the ring; to express their views, if they wish to do so, without incurring expenditure, but otherwise to leave the election to be fought by those parties which have the courage to put forward candidates to fight it. The whole object of this Clause is to require the authority of an election agent for any expenditure intended to influence the result of an election, and to accept this Amendment would be to drive a horse and cart through that intention.

This Clause makes it clear that money cannot be spent in support, or disparagement, of a candidate; but the Amendment wants to make it clear that a political party can engage, as the Labour Party has done in years gone by, in elections, because when feeling is aroused, as it is during an election, it is an opportunity for a party or group, whatever that party or group may be, to put forward its point of view. Surely it is permissible for a party in a Constituency to expend money in putting its point of view without in any way interfering with other candidates—either for or against. That is the important fact. Under this Clause, it would be prohibited from putting its point of view to the constituents.

I am glad the learned Attorney-General has taken the point of view he has just stated. It is acceptable to democratic ideas that he should have done so. Any policy which might be argued by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would be in favour of the Socialist Party—would be in favour of the learned Attorney-General's own party. It is, therefore, the more commendable that the learned Attorney-General now refutes that assistance. Whatever Communists may argue, during an election their bias is towards Socialism. Socialism and Communism travel a long way together. They are fellow travellers for a long distance.

I think I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that he also is travelling a long way from the Amendment.

I thought my compass was in the right direction, though I may be losing my grip of the wheel. As I have said, I think it is the more commendable of the learned Attorney-General to take the view he has expressed, because, if he had not done so, the natural purpose of any Intervention such as that which the hon. Member for West Fife would provide during an election—By-election or General Election—would have been in favour of the learned Attorney-General's party. It is ridiculous to suggest that they can take part in an election without talking against someone; or to suggest that they can talk about their own policy and purposes when their own candidates are not in the field. Whatever the hon. Member for West Fife may argue now, it is hopeless to suggest that he could get on to a platform during a general election and go on talking without being against someone. So I do thank the learned Attorney-General for taking the attitude he has taken.

I should like to put this position to the Attorney-General, as a possibility which might arise in my own Constituency. The Liberal Party might run a series of meetings prior to an election incurring certain expenses. What happens in regard to those expenses? What is the position if a little group of a party incurs expenses in an election without the express approval of the party? Suppose, for instance, the Liberal Party incurs expenses either in support of a Labour Party candidate, whom they like, or in support of a Tory Party candidate, which is a very hypothetical case, without the knowledge or consent of the agent of the candidates concerned, what would be the position under that situation?

I agree that it is proper to resist this Amendment, but if such a group holds political meetings, which unfortunate candidate will be liable for the expenses?

It does not follow that either candidate will be charged with the expenses. The persons who incur the expenses in a situation of that kind will commit an offence. That is the effect of the provision as it stands.

Suppose there is a vegetarian political party, and they take advantage of the large crowds attending the market in a town, and set up a platform to run some sort of a pretence candidate, who says, "I am the vegetarian candidate," what then? Is not the position becoming ridiculous?

If he is merely propagating the general principles and doctrines of vegetarianism without reference to any particular candidate—

He might be supporting the Chancellor of the exchequer.

—he is doing something which is perfectly legal under the existing law, as is the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany). If the political party are merely giving expression to the political principles to which they adhere without supporting one candidate or the other, the expense of that is perfectly legal. If, however, in the course of propagating the principles of vegetarianism a man in a meeting says, "The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) is a vegetarian and you ought to vote for him at the election," that would be an offence under this Bill. What is not illegal is any kind of political or ethical propaganda which is not intended to support one candidate or disparage another. That is illegal unless authorised by the agent of the candidate whom it is intended to support.

If this vegetarian political party recommends its followers to vote for me am I to be charged with the expenses of that under this Subsection, or are they to be proceeded against and, if so, under what Section?

Under Subsection (9) of the succeeding Section.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether I would be acting in a legal manner if I recommended the people at an election meeting to support the very clear and acceptable policy of the Communist Party, and then I went on to say, "You will understand that it would be illegal if I advised you to vote for such and such a candidate, and it would be also illegal if I told you that the Tory candidate was a damned liar and should not be supported"?

That is not a purely hypothetical case coming from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), for recently he did intervene in a By-election and succeeded both in supporting and disparaging the Socialist candidate in one speech when he said of Harold Nicolson, "He is a bit of a sop, but you had better vote for him."

10.45 p.m.

This point which we are now discussing is one which has been part of the election law since 1918, and it arises from the activities of parties, such as the Tariff Reform League, and other organisations, in the early years of this century, which used to go to by-elections and general elections to support Liberal or Conservative candidates, as the case might be, carrying on an intensive campaign for those candidates. But, they said they were not members of either the Liberal or the Conservative Party and, therefore, their expenses could not be charged against the candidate. That is the mischief aimed at by the Clause we have now under discussion and if, in fact, a person goes down to advocate the views of some other political party, he does not incur liability unless he recommends his hearers to vote for or against one of the candidates at an election.

Hon. Members will agree that it is very necessary that the Intervention of outside bodies which purport not to be supporters of candidates but which are, in fact, supporting candidates, should be prohibited from carrying on propaganda during an election. That is the commonsense kind of thing which happens and if a candidate is found out as having some apparently independent organisation in the Constituency carrying on a campaign intended to give him votes, he will have, rightly, to include the expenses of these people in his election returns or he will be guilty of an offence. This is a practical proposition which has worked well during the last 30 years, and I hope that the Committee will continue it. All of us, and anyone who has had experience of fighting an election, knows well what is aimed at, and I think this Amendment is something to be excluded from electoral activities.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 39, line 19, to leave out from "agent," to the end of line 21.

This is consequential. It is an Amendment which follows that in line 4, with regard to travelling expenses.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 39, line 22, after "under," to insert "the foregoing provisions of."

This is a simple Amendment, but one which improves the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 39, line 23, after "and," to insert: the authority received from the election agent shall be annexed to and deemed to form part of the return, and. This adopts the principle of an earlier Amendment put down on the Order Paper, but which was not moved because, no doubt, it was seen that the Government Amendment was on the Paper. It provides that in the case of a return of expenses by the person authorised to incur expenses by the agent, that return should be accompanied by written evidence of the authorisation.

This meets the point of the previous Amendment we had on the Paper and I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 27, after "under," insert "the foregoing provisions of."—[Mr. Grimston.]

In line 33, after "expenses," insert "included therein."—[The Attorney-General.]

I beg to move, in page 39, line 34, to leave out from first "section," to the end of line 41.

The words proposed to be left out by this Amendment relate to the supplying of particulars of expenses to the election agent. On consideration it does not seem that this is necessary because the election expenses with which we are concerned are in fact going to be paid by the election agent and must be so paid by virtue of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act. If he must pay them he must have particulars and there is no need for further provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 40, line 42, at end, add: (11) Section forty of the corrupt practices Act (which provides a longer time for presenting an election petition, where an illegal practice is alleged) shall apply to any corrupt practice under this section as if it were an illegal practice."—[Mr. Younger.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I apologise to the Committee but I want to ask the Home Secretary a question about the matter of the Intervention of outside parties in an election. If, for example, an outside party intervenes in a By-election and there is suspicion that they have, either intentionally or unintentionally, influenced their members to vote for a particular candidate, am I right in understanding that their election expenses will be charged to the candidate they have recommended, or will they be proceeded against under Subsection (9) which does prevent outside parties from taking part in a by-election?

I hope so. I hope I have made it clear that under Subsection (9) if any outside party comes in and incurs expense in that way designed to support one candidate or disparage another, that party will commit an offence under the Subsection.

Who will be proceeded against?

The person who incurs the expense.

Who would proceed against him?

That would be the duty of the police or the prosecuting authority. No doubt it would be possible for the party which considered itself aggrieved to initiate proceedings but it is clear there will be no question of expenses being charged against any particular party unless there is collusion, aiding, or abetting within the words of Subsection (9).

There is one question I want to ask arising out of proviso (ii) to Subsection (1). I want to know whether that in any way affects the conveyance of persons to the poll by transport? I take it that with a view to saving petrol, apart from anything else, it might be desirable to preserve that process. For example, people may assist friends or relatives to go to the polling station. I wonder if that is in any way affected by this proviso.

I hope very much that the Home Secretary and others responsible will reconsider this Clause. Before dealing with the point I have particularly in mind I should like to make reference to a suggestion which is often made, that somehow or another organised disturbances are made at election meetings nowadays; and the impression given is that that is something new in the experience of this country. It is further suggested that some parties pay hecklers to go to meetings for the purpose of creating disturbances. From my long experience I am absolutely positive that the Communist Party, any more than the Labour Party, has never, under any circumstances, expended money for the purpose of creating disturbances at election meetings. But nobody could say that about the Tory Party. Before there ever was a Labour Party or Communist Party the Tories were tearing Liberal Party meetings to pieces in this country. One of the worst demonstrations that ever happened—as I have pointed out before—was against the late Lloyd George, when he had to be slipped out of the back door of the Birmingham Town Hall—otherwise a Tory mob would have torn him to pieces; they would have killed him. That was a Tory mob.

I have the feeling that this Clause is an extreme and a somewhat disgusting example of kicking away the ladder on which the Government climbed to fame. There would never have been a Labour Party or a Labour Government had it not been for the auxiliary forces which assisted at elections. Before ever the Labour Party had substantial affiliations—even from the trades union movement, which they have now—not one Labour candidate stood at an election but he was supported by money from housing committees. Many hon. Members will remember that in the old days housing committees expended large sums of money on assisting Labour candidates. They were not Labour Party committees but housing committees—in the early days of the movement. And not only was there support from housing committees; but how many Labour candidates in the early days received support from, and got into Parliament here through money spent by, the Co-operative movement, independently of the election expenses of the candidate and money spent by the trades union movement and trades union branch and district committees? That was money spent quite independently of the candidate's expenses; money given to build up Labour Party support and to assist Labour candidates. Is that not true? Will anyone on the Labour Party front bench deny it?

In the early days of the movement the Labour Party was built up with the powerful support of the auxiliaries. In this country a feature of Parliamentary activity has been the work within constituencies of all kinds of groups, who verbally express their support and spend money. In my early, youthful days, before I got led into the Socialist movement and set out on a political path, I was in a temperance movement. In election campaigns that temperance movement spent a lot of money, supporting candidates who would give pledges to further the movement's aims. That was a common practice. All kinds of groups and organisations acted within constituencies. Now all that is to be stopped. Why? The Government have got into a position of power, and maybe they are afraid that if these auxiliary movements are encouraged, other parties may make progress and develop. Is that the idea? I cannot understand why, from the Labour point of view, such legislation should be necessary regarding meetings. In a Constituency where there is an election it is easy enough to run public meetings without incurring expenses by a party like ours. We are not affected by that. We can run a public meeting in any constituency where there is a By-election and there will not be a penny of expenditure incurred in practice, but there are others who want to spend money.

11.0 p.m.

The hon. Member is repeating the arguments which he addressed to the Committee on an Amendment which has been rejected and he is not entitled to take up the time of the Committee by repeating the same arguments again.

I will leave that and go on to a further argument. There is the question of the 10s. expenditure. We are told that if some one sends a telegram for ten shillings, that is all right, but if whole groups send telegrams for 10s. each, that is all wrong because it is obviously concerted. Who can prove that someone has concerted it? Suppose a daily newspaper—I will not mention any daily newspaper—on the day before the election, says the candidate is expecting a shoal of telegrams? Is there anything wrong if the daily paper says that the candidate is expecting a shoal of telegrams? What is wrong with that? How is it possible to accuse anybody of corrupt practices because of something of that kind? Let me take another example, on which I would like some information in view of the fact that there is so much stringency needed to keep auxiliary bodies in a particular Constituency from expressing their views.

How is it going to apply to the case of Scotland? I do not know if the Secretary of State for Scotland can deal with this, or whether the Attorney-General can do so. At the last Election, as in previous elections, the Catholic Bishops in Scotland sent out a letter—I do not know how much it cost to send out the letter; it would cost so much for paper, and so much for stamps—which was read from every pulpit in my constituency, as in some others. The letter said that Catholics could vote for the Tory or vote for the Labour candidate but they would go plump down to Hell if they voted for the Communists. I would like to be told if that is going to be included in the expenses of the Tory and Labour candidates or if it is going to be treated as a corrupt practice. I am not against it. I consider that they or any other organisation have the right to express their views at an election however unpalatable they may be to me or anybody else. Electors in this country have always had that right. If there are auxiliary bodies or groups of any kind within a constituency they should be allowed as groups to express their views. What is the situation that could arise from this? There is a group—

I have already informed the hon. Member that he is not entitled to reiterate arguments already addressed to the Committee of which this is part. I must ask him either to address fresh arguments to the Committee on some other matter or to resume his seat.

The argument I am going to use now is not connected with any Amendment to which my name was put—nor was it used before. In a Constituency an individual has the right to express an opinion that a particular candidate should be supported. Six individuals, a dozen individuals, have the right to express a view that a particular candidate should be supported, but if those individuals as a group express their opinion through a leaflet or any medium which costs a few shillings—

The hon. Gentleman is again raising the argument which he addressed to the Committee previously. I cannot allow him to do that. He must address himself to other matters or resume his seat.

On a point of Order. Does not the Amendment deal with political parties?

As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) he is using precisely the arguments he addressed to the Committee previously. We cannot have a matter re-hashed time and time again.

All right. I do not agree with the Ruling, but will accept it, and will leave that point and take another. I want to ask the Attorney-General whether I can go into a Constituency in which there is a By-election and with a piece of chalk—which I can borrow from any school teacher—start chalking the streets on behalf of a particular candidate? I want to know where we stand because chalking is important in the activities of various organisations in this country. There are few places in which there are by-Laws against chalking.

We have it in Birmingham, anyway.

That may be so. There is another thing. We have had presented here on one occasion a Bill, in which the Secretary of State for Scotland had certain responsibility, which brought up the matter of fly-posting, and we were informed that nothing would be done to interfere with the right of fly-posting. I want to know how fly-posting is affected by this. If fly-posting takes place during an election, will the police be allowed to interfere with those who carry it on?

There are many other matters which arise in connection with this, of course, but again I say that I feel it very badly that such a Clause should be introduced, and reiterate once again that it very strongly gives the impression that it is cutting away the ladder on which the Government rose to power.

I would like to put one question to the Attorney-General. It is concerning the matter of election questionnaires. One of the phenomena of modern elections is the circularisation of candidates with election questionnaires. Afterwards the replies to these questionnaires are often published in the Press, and sometimes advice is given publicly to the members of the organisation submitting the questionnaire that votes should be given to certain candidates. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether that comes within the ruling of this Clause?

If, as a result of answers to a questionnaire, expenses are incurred in circularising the result of the questionnaire with a recommendation that certain candidates shall be voted for, or that steps shall be taken to prevent the election of one of the candidates whose answers might be deemed to be unsatisfactory, that is an expense which clearly comes within the statute. May I say with regard to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)—

Before the Home Secretary leaves that point might I say that he mentioned 10s. Surely if it costs only one shilling it could be regarded as concerted action.

I thank my hon. Friend for confirming what I have already said. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife, I would say that what we are doing here is to re-enact the law as it has existed since 1918, and which was aimed at preventing what had occurred during the first 18 years of this century. Then there were bodies attached to the great political parties who went down to constituencies and spent considerable sums of money on the grounds that they were not supporting the candidates as they were not party organisations. It was, therefore, felt necessary to take steps to prevent this, and the experience we have had since 1918 has amply vindicated the alterations made in the law. I do not think any of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for West Fife are valid, or ought to persuade the Committee not to add the Clause to the Bill.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to my question about motor cars?

It is illegal to hire a vehicle—a private car—to take voters to the poll. It is illegal to hire a taxi systematically to take voters to the poll, but a person is entitled to take a taxi and go himself. He is also entitled to take his wife, and it has long been a matter of argument among agents and those learned in the law, how far he may proceed to take other ladies with him or any other persons not his close relatives.

Would the Home Secretary enlarge on the reply he has just given to the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) about the questionnaire? Some of these societies are in the habit of circularising every candidate throughout the country on such matters as vivisection, temperance, Sunday closing and, if I may mention it, Friendly Societies. They then publish a list of names and say, "Here are 272 candidates who take our view and their candidature is recommended." What is the situation where the headquarters in London have collected the replies to the questionnaires, have sifted and sorted through them and have sent out a list of candidates to be supported?

I have had that experience in the course of my electioneering when I answered a questionnaire, and to my surprise, I was selected as a suitable person. My election agent took the view, and so informed the society which wished to circularise its members in the Constituency that before they did so they must obtain his consent, which he would be ready to give them.

11.15 p.m.

Subsection (9) would apply?

If they did not, Subsection (9) would apply.

On the subject of motor cars, it is not a question of hired cars, but of private cars. Suppose an election agent of any party persuades 50 of his candidate's supporters to use their own cars at their own expense—and in a country Constituency that expense might come to more than 10s. a supporter—to convey supporters to the polls on election day, would that not be an illegal transaction within the meaning of the Clause?

Quite frankly, I should not have thought so. However, there is a new Clause on the Order Paper—(Transport facilities at elections)—in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy), dealing with the question of the use of motor cars at election times, and it may be that certain action taken on that new Clause may remove this from the field of speculation altogether.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.