Conservative Reply by Norman Tarry : Published in The Review, Thursday, 29 April 1976

East Ward - 'Accusations are not true'

Harold Beck spelled out last week the rift between him and local Tories over new ward boundaries. NORMAN TARRY, chairman of St Albans Conservative Association, answers Mr Beck's attack.

MR BECK concludes his article in last week's Review with the words "the manipulation of the good-hearted many by the clever few."

His whole article - and all the previous press publicity that he has obtained concerning the decision of the Harpenden Conservative branch not to select him as a district council candidate on this occasion - is rife with innuendo and manipulation of the facts to suit his own argument.

I hope that the following will help to clarify the situation and will allow newspapers and readers alike to concentrate on the more worthwhile issues at stake at this election.  There are, after all, 119 other candidates seeking election to the district council whose aims and intentions at least warrant equal interest to those of Mr Beck.

We are not dealing with "a fight for democracy in the Harpenden East Ward," nor with the "manipulation of the good hearted many" or the alleged biased briefing of selection committees, we are regrettably concerned with the bitter reaction of one who cannot accept that others were chosen in preference to him, for had he been selected none of the above unjustified charges would have been made.

The selection committee had the responsibility of choosing the most effective team available to provide the Conservative view in Harpenden East.  Other good candidates were interviewed on that occasion, but all could not be selected.  They have not however seen fit to make wild accusations about the Conservative Association.

In Michael Harrison, a very active and experienced councillor, Freda Wyborn, a councillor of wide experience over many years, and Sydney Vass, an active Conservative in East Ward over a long period (and chairman of Batford Estate Association), they believe that they are offering the best and the only Conservative candidates.

For all those who support Conservative candidates and in particular for the electors of Harpenden East Ward I would first state a basic truth.  The Conservative Party nationally and locally in St Albans and Harpenden do not dictate policy to their councillors who are completely free to follow the dictates of their own conscience and views.  A number of Conservative councillors who have been selected again as candidates in this election have taken an independent line on various council issues, but they have not been cast out as Harold Beck suggests is our policy.

I do not propose to descend to the level of discussing personalities in detail, but the article is littered with inaccuracies, fabrications and innuendo, of which the following are typical. I quote: "The branch committee at its next meeting packed by a posse from the St Albans Conservative Association."  This is not true.  The Harpenden committee meeting was attended by the constituency agent and by myself as the association chairman.  We both frequently attend branch and other constituency meetings, and in fact in this case the agent took no part in the discussion at all.

I quote: "Highly misleading information was supplied to the Selection Committee about the group rules."  This is not true.  The same information on group rules was available from our Local Government Committee to all selection committees in the constituency and the same questions asked of all prospective candidates.

I personally take great exception to the unfair criticisms of the selection procedure.  I was the impartial and non-voting chairman of the selection committee and went to great lengths to ensure that the procedures were scrupulously fair to all candidates.  There were no councillors on the committee, and the representative of East Ward (who had ample opportunities) at no time made any complaint or adverse comment on the procedures adopted. prior to the selection being made.

Events leading to the Boundary Commission decision concerning the district ward boundaries commenced locally some two years ago.  The St Albans District Council were ordered in 1974 to prepare a draft scheme for re-warding the district.  The scheme had to embrace the following: equal representation, with almost exactly the same number of electors for each councillor; three councillors for each ward where possible; distinctive boundaries - main roads, rivers, etc; and local ties had to be considered.

Political parties were also advised to consider the boundaries at this time.  Branches within the St Albans Conservative Association were invited to submit their observations to the association's Local Government Committee and did so during the summer of 1974.  In Harpenden, the Conservative branch appointed a sub-committee consisting of representatives from each of the Harpenden wards to prepare a scheme for Harpenden.  Much has been said about the East Ward Conservatives' views being ignored, but the East Ward sub-branch was represented on this committee and no disagreement was expressed with the proposal at that stage.

The association's Local Government Committee considered the various proposals and observations made by its branches on September 3, 1974 and accepted the proposal which, by then, had been approved by the Harpenden Conservative branch, again with no objections from any East Ward representative.

The Conservative Association plan for the entire district was then submitted to the Conservative group of district councillors for its approval and subsequent consideration by the council.  Mr Beck raised no objection at this stage.  From this point in time the Conservative Party's plan was out of its hands and would stand or fall on its merits as it went through the various stages of being considered by the local council, the Boundary Commission, and finally the Home Secretary.

The council's preparation of its draft scheme began in the autumn of 1974 when the matter was referred to its General Purposes Committee who in turn appointed a working party to prepare a detailed scheme.

When the Harpenden Parish Council considered the boundaries, it was actually two Conservative parish councillors (who were also district councillors on the boundaries working party) who proposed that both the Conservative and the Labour Party proposals be submitted to the district council - to ensure that all points of view could be fully considered on their merits.

The working party presented its final report to the full Council on January 14, 1975.  Mr Beck raised no objection at this stage - hardly surprising as he had decided to absent himself from the meeting.  The council duly approved the scheme, which was then submitted as the draft scheme to the Boundary Commission.

Shortly after this the Harpenden Labour Party commenced its campaign against the scheme as it affected the Harpenden East Ward by distributing leaflets in the area and attracting much press publicity during the ensuing weeks.  Still no comment from Mr Beck. The Boundary Commission published its draft proposals on May 16, 1975, and invited objections or comments from any interested parties to be received by July M.  Still no objection from Mr Beck.

Much comment has been made about the East Ward Conservative view being ignored but it must be said that they were fully represented at all stages and only raised objections to the scheme at the eleventh hour - some 8 months after the council had approved its draft scheme and some 15 months after Harpenden Conservatives had approved their original proposals.

Shortly before the inquiry it was rumoured that Mr Beck would object to the East Ward proposals at the council's General Purposes Committee, hence the. reason why the Conservative group leader, Councillor John Dymoke contacted Mr Beck to establish the facts.  It is worth noting here that other councillors who did not support particular aspects of the scheme had already notified the group leader many months before and in no way incurred any reaction from the Conservative Association.  Not so Mr Beck.  In the event. he raised no objection at the General Purposes Committee.

Mr Beck presented objections to the scheme at the Boundary Commission inquiry on October 31, 1975, and then promptly left the Inquiry.  Had he stayed for the afternoon session, which was devoted almost entirely to the Harpenden situation, he would have seen the extent to which his words gave succour to the Labour Party's representatives, a point which he could hardly expect to endear him to his Conservative colleagues.  It is worth noting that the substance of Mr Beck's objection was that the council was wrong to attach so much importance to numerical equality when devising their scheme, and he put forward no alternative proposals.  Had he taken the trouble to prepare an alternative plan he would have realised just how difficult it was to produce a scheme which conformed with the criteria.

It must be realised that the final recommendation is entirely in the hands of the Boundary Commission who have all relevant papers and objections.  It does not rest with the district council or the Conservative Association.  Despite a detailed public inquiry, the Boundary Commission - a completely impartial and non-political body - is still recommending the original scheme to the Home Secretary, who will make the final decision.

There must have been many different reasons in the minds of the Harpenden selection committee members when deciding which candidates to choose. It would be wrong for me to anticipate why they each made their own decision, but my personal opinion is that Mr Beck was too often seen to be lukewarm in representing the Conservative point of view and a firm belief in Conservative principles is, after all, the basis on which our supporters expect us to choose our candidates.