6 April 1922]

66

finds himself in he looks at List C to find if he has been knocked out. If he does not find himself in List A, he looks at List B to see if he is put in. That is, of course, tiresome. But the view is that if Lists B and C were to contain the whole of the ons and "offs" for a year it would become so voluminous that it would not be practicable to work it in that way. In that event we should have to revert to the old system of printing the complete Electors' Lists, with a very great reduction of saving, of course.

361. There are one or two points I would like to ask you about. We would like to know the saving as regards national and local expenditure between one Register and two Registers as compared with the present arrangement ?The present cost of registration, I think, may roughly be taken as under a million pounds for the two Registers in the year. The nearest figure that we can get for 1921 is £995,000.

Mr. Sturrock.

362. Is that for England alone, or England, Scotland and Wales?-For Great Britain.

Chairman.

363. The local authority pays part of that?-Half of it. The figures I give are all totals. The nearest I can estimate to the saving to be effected by an Annual Register is, on the assumption that the present system of Electors' Lists can be retained, approximately £300,000. If, however, our fears are realised and we have to revert to the old system of Electors' Lists, we understand that the saving would not exceed £250,000.

364. With regard to that figure that you mentioned of approximately a million pounds, is there any likelihood of reduction on that owing to revised rates of pay and cost of paper, and so on?-It has been steadily coming down, enormously, in fact.

365. I take it you do not mind Mr. Codling co-operating with you on any of these questions on which he might have ready knowledge, because he has gone into the actual figures on the printing side of it?-Certainly. The electorate is increasing, which is a set-off. I cannot say how far printing charges are going to be reduced any further, but there has been a steady reduction so far.

[Continued

366. What do you say, Mr. Codling: will printing charges come down further? --(Mr. Codling.) It depends on the question of the reduction of wages.

Mr. Bowerman.

367. Which is now under consideration by the employers and the workmen ?-It is now under consideration by the Unions and the Federation.

Chairman.

368. It was only once a year before, was it not? (Mr. Vivian.) Yes, before the 1918 Act.

369. How does the present cost compare with the pre-war cost?--The electorate is so very different.

370. So many more?-There is a vast increase.

371. On account of the women having votes? Yes, and the male franchise. You have practically got adult male suffrage.

372. What do you suggest, from your investigation of this, as to the most practical way of doing this to get the greatest amount of saving? Can you make any suggestion to the Committee on that?May I advert to the other proposals?

373. Yes, please do so?-The second one is the Annual Register plus a half-yearly supplementary list of claims. On the merits I can express no view, but I want you to have the facts before you. We understand (my friend will correct me if he differs) that in respect of printing the half-yearly supplementary list will reduce the saving by £40,000 or £50,000.

374. You said more than that last week, did you not, Mr. Codling?-(Mr. Codling.) I am afraid I did not catch that.(Mr. Vivian.). May I put it in this way: of the saving on the Annual Register by itself, I understand that about £99,000 is saving expected to from printing? (Mr. Codling.) is by adopting one Register instead of two.-(Mr. Vivian.) Yes, that is the figure that Mr. Codling has given, I think-£99,000. The residue of that figure of £300,000 is compilation.

Viscount Ednam.

accrue

That

375. And canvassing?—Yes, and work in the office. But I think I am right in saying that the figure for printing does

6 April 1922]

not take into consideration the reversion to the old Electors' Lists, in which case, I understand, the printing saving will be reduced to about £40,000 or £50,000.

Chairman.

376. You will not overlook the point that we want the pre-war cost, if you can tell us it, irrespective of what the conditions were at that time?-I shall have to get you that; I have not got that here.

377. Have you got that, Mr. Codling? -(Mr. Codling.) No, I have not got that.

Mr. Bowerman.

378. Is it not a fact that the Electoral List has practically doubled since then?-(Mr. Vivian.) I should think so; the increase is enormous.

Chairman.

379. More than that, I think? Yes. If the supplementary list is added, I am informed that the saving of £50,000 on the printing in respect of the Annual Register will be extinguished. As regards saving in cost of compilation, about £200,000 for the single Annual Register, there is a curious consequence which will result from the institution of the halfyearly claims. We are advised that it will light up the activity of the political parties; that every political party will feel it to be its duty, through its party organisation, to ensure that claims are made by all their supporters in the districts. I give this for what it is worth. That will mean that the full number of people to be added will have to be added by means of the difficult procedure of adjudication of claims and objections. That is bound to be relatively much more expensive to the Registration Officer than the executive work of canvass. Upon that ground, we estimate that the reduction in respect of compilation expenses will not afford saving of more than about £125,000; if you put it at £150,000, I think that will be the maximum saving, all told, which will accrue if this Annual Register plus the half-yearly supplement is adopted.

a

380. I take it that you disagree with the idea of having an Annual Register, from your departmental standpoint?—It is difficult for me to express an opinion on that. All I can say is that the saving

[Continued

a

is so much, and I do not think it is for me to express an opinion as to whether that saving justifies the consequences. It seems to me that is purely a matter of policy, and even, perhaps, of politics. The third proposition is the Geddes proposal, and, as I have endeavoured to point out, that contemplates the whole four stages carried on twice a year, and only means the that on arriving at Electors' List in the case of one of the two half-yearly Registers you should, instead into of combining them single Register, produce a composite Register. I understand that the economy in that respect has been put at £76,000. There is a difficulty in the first instance that from the point of view of the presiding officer at the poll, perhaps towards the end of the poll, when people are flooding in, it will be extraordinarily difficult to refer to two documents in order to find out whether a man is qualified and to mark him off in one of two documents. I do not say that is prohibitive. My own view would be that if there were a substantial figure of £85,000, or even £76,000, to be saved, that difficulty might be faced by the people who are mainly concerned. But there is this, further, and I think this consideration has been overlooked. In the ordinary course, the Register at one half-yearly occasion becomes List A. in the Electors' Lists for the next half-yearly occasion. Under this proposal, at the Spring Register, we will say, we are left with a Register which consists of three documents. That has to become List A. of the next Electors' List, and to that List, which is already a composite document of three, has to be added the new List B. and the new List C. Then you get a list of five documents, which is perfectly impossible.

331. Therefore you do not think that is practicable? If it is to be adopted, it could only be adopted by incorporating the old Lists B. and C. in the new Lists B. and C. on the second occasion, and I am informed by Mr. Codling's department that that would involve extra expense, which would reduce the net saving to something like £40,000 to £45,000. Whether the difficulty at the polling stations is such as to out-balance the value of that reduced saving I cannot at present say, and I am not in a position to express an opinion.

Mr. Sturrock.] Would it conceivably necessitate the employment of more labour at the polling station?

6 April 1922]

Chairman.

382. It would towards the end of the poll, when, as you say, people are rushing in ?-One man must be running each block of Register in its double form.

Sir Rowland Blades.

383. The expense really falls on the candidate in the long run?—I was going to add that, in the case of the Annual Register plus the supplementary list proposal, any saving in the canvass of the Registration Officer, we are informed, would be more than compensated for by the expense to the party organizations in whipping up people to make claims.

Viscount Ednam.

384. In a well organised constituency, where the party agents concerned have got a well organised canvass, do you find that there is a saving in your Department through that, or is the whole thing canvassed again?-We are informed (I do not know how true it is) that, as the result of the duty being thrown under the 1918 Act on the registration officer, there is an almost complete cessation of party canvass, that they leave it to the local man, who has got no logs to roll, and who does the work very thoroughly; and that is certainly borne out by the fact that the number of claims and objections is, roughly speaking, round about one half per cent.; so that must imply, I think, that the registration officer does his work thoroughly in the first instance.

Mr. Sturrock.

385. A great deal of the old work that was done by the party agent seems to have disappeared?-That is so.

Sir Rowland Blades.

386. Because there is so much accord

ing to qualification. In the old days they had the lodger qualification to consider, but now they trust the official man to put the names on?-That is so.

Chairman.] Mr. Assheton Pownall, who is present, draws attention to the fact that his agent put on over 1,000 voters, so badly was it done.

Viscount Ednam.

387. It seems to me that the party agent might effect a saving in the official

[Continued

canvassing by notifying removals, and so on.-I do not quite follow how that could be done. The extent of the official canvass varies according to the neighbourhood. In a residential neighbourhood it is not always a house-to-house canvass done as thoroughly as it would be in a working-class district, where people move more.

388. But it seems to me, if your canvassers went to the party agents first before they started their official canvass, and got their list of removals and additions, it would be bound to save them a certain amount of work?-I think they work very closely together. I suspect that they get all they can out of each other.

390. Dealing with the register merely as a printed document, is it not the case that contractors work under a penalty so far as the time of production is concerned?--I am not familiar with that; I am not in a position to reply to that.

391. Then it is no use my putting the question that I was going to ask you. The question that I wanted to put was: If that be so (and it is so, and I think Members of the Committee will confirm this), is it not an easier matter to produce a register twice a year than it is to produce it once a year, with the result of a rush of corrections, and so on, at the end of the period?-I think the seasonal character of the work has been taken into account in the estimates which my friend has given as the amount of saving on the printing side. Certainly it has to be taken into account in the consideration of economy on the compilation side. In many cases now the registration officer has a more or less permanent staff. The work coming twice a year can be more or less organised; but if it comes only once a year he would not be able to organise so well, he would not be able to have permanent staff, and probably he would have to pay more for his canvass staff.

6 April 1922)

392. Can you express an opinion on the point whether the work is simplified by having two canvasses during the year instead of one ?-A single annual canvass would be a much heavier one and the clerical work at headquarters in compiling the result of the canvass would be doubled.

393. My point being that as the printer is under contract to bring the publication out in a stipulated time it renders his task all the more difficult to have one instead of two productions?—That is possible, and it leads me to a point which I ought to have made that we very much doubt whether the present four months would be sufficient for an annual register. At present, as you know, four months is necessary for compilation; it does not appear till four months after the end of the qualifying period. Our belief is that that would not be sufficient.

Mr. Sturrock.

394. Do you think it would be six months, possibly ?-No; possibly another fortnight to a month.

Chairman.

395. Have you anything to say on this, Mr. Codling?-(Mr. Codling.) No, sir, unless you have any questions to ask me. Chairman.] In my mind it is a difficult thing, without having had an opportunity of reading all this and thinking it over, to arrive at any decision about it, but in view of the fact that the Home Office are dealing with this, the question that I would like to put to the Committee is: Can we serve any useful purpose to the Home Office or to the Government or to the Speaker in going further into this matter? We were not aware, when we took this up, that the Home Office was dealing with it.

Witness.] (Mr. Vivian.) May I just make this observation? I do not know how far you go in your purview, but the printing side is very difficult to disentangle from the administrative side. I pointed out how the Geddes proposal had administrative reactions of a very important sort, and I think it is very difficult to separate the two.

Chairman.] The real point I feel in regard to this investigation by this Committee is: Are not all these facts already known to the Home Office, and if they are going into it, is there any advantage in us proceeding further with the matter?

[Continued

Mr. Bowerman.] I take it that the Home Office, in common with other Government Departments, must take the responsibility of dealing with the recommendations of the Geddes Report. That being so, I, as a Member of this Committee, do not feel quite disposed to relieve the Home Office of that responsibility.

Mr. Sturrock.

396. The Geddes Committee put this point in reference to the preparation of one or two registers a year; they, so to speak, debit that to the Home Office?Their specific proposal appeared solely in their comments on the Stationery Office. It is a little unfortunate that no one at the Home Office,

I think, was consulted or had an opportunity of expressing a view as to the administrative consequences. The Home Office, and I personally, saw this for the first time in the Geddes Report. I took it up at once with the Home Secretary.

Mr. Bowerman.] I suggest that, as the matter is being thoroughly considered by the Home Office, this Committee takes no further action at present.

Chairman.] But writes to the Home Office and asks them what recommendations they are going to make with regard to registers in the future, with the idea that this Committee can get as great a reduction in the printing of the Stationery Office as possible.

(The Members of the Committee conferred.)

1

Witness.] (Mr. Vivian.) May add one point, of which I have been reminded, which I have not mentioned ? That was with regard to the absence of deletions in connection with a supplement of claims. A man who moved and by means of a claim got on to the supplementary list would be on two registers. He would be doubly registered. It is true there is a prohibition against double voting, and a penalty, but there is effective machinery to enforce it. I do not make too much of that.

no

Chairman.] I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Committee, to thank Mr. Vivian for attending this afternoon, and for the very lucid way in which he has laid his side of the case before us.

Chairman.

397. To-day we are taking the Telephone Directory. What I would like to ask you is whether private contractors printed the Telephone Directory for a considerable length of time, and whether at some time, not very long ago, you took the Telephone Directory away from private contract and printed it at the Government Printing Works and, if so, why? In connection with that, I would like to ask who the contractors were previously, what you paid for the Telephone Directory to be printed by them, what saving you are making by printing it yourself, whether advertising revenue from the Telephone Directory goes to the Stationery Office or the Post Office, and what are your actual savings to date in the cost of printing it by the Stationery Office?-I will do my best to answer those questions; I do not know whether I can remember them all.

398. We will take them one by one. The first is, who printed the Telephone Directory in the past?-The Telephone Directory was printed by Messrs. McCorquodale, I believe under an old contract, dating back from the days of the National Telephone Company. When the Post Office acquired the business of the National Telephone Company they took over all contracts that the National Telephone Company had, and one of those was the Telephone Directory, which was printed by McCorquodale.

36453

Stationery Office); Called

The contract then was between the Post Office and Messrs. McCorquodale, and that contract terminated with the issue of April, 1920. It was, of course, then necessary to make arrangements for a new contract.

399. Did you put it up for tender?Following the natural order of things, the old contract transferred from the National Telephone Company to the Post Office having expired, it became the duty of the Stationery Office to make provision for the printing of the Telephone Directories. The Post Office, prior to the termination of that old contract, had decided that a change in form and size of page would be necessary for the Telephone Directory.

400. Larger or smaller?-Larger. It was therefore necessary, under any new contract, for the type to be re-set. I have here two specimens, one of the old size and one of the new.

401. What ground did they give for making it larger and going to that extra expense? The Telephone Directory, I believe, in the old size, was becoming unmanageable in regard to thickness, and it was decided to enlarge the area of the page, and at the same time carry out certain improvements in printing.

Mr. Howard Gritten.

402. Did they make the paper thinner at the same time?-I think the paper was pretty well as thin as it could be.

Б