HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL (Hansard, 6 May 1958)

§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, this Bill makes certain amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949. That Act is a consolidating measure which incorporates the provisions of the original Redistribution Act, 1944, as amended by a later Act of 1947, and takes account of the changes made by 6 the Redistribution Act, 1948, in the number of constituencies. There is, I think, general agreement on the basic principles of the Act, and the Bill does not affect them. It merely proposes certain changes which experience of the working of the present law has shown to be needed. The Government naturally thought it right in a matter of this constitutional importance to discuss the proposals they had in mind with the Leaders of the other Parties before the Bill was introduced; and following these discussions and a full debate in another place the Bill now before your Lordships may, I think, be regarded as an agreed measure.
Clause 1 makes two changes in the constitution of the Boundary Commissions. First, the Deputy Chairman of each Commission will in future be a Judge. This follows the present practice in Scotland. Secondly, the Registrars-General, the Director of Ordnance Survey and the Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland who are at present members ex officio of the respective Commissions will become assessors, and will cease to be members. The result of these amendments is that each Commission will consist of the Speaker of the House of Commons as Chairman, a High Court Judge as Deputy Chairman and two members appointed by the appropriate Ministers. In the case of the Commissions for England and Wales these will be one member appointed by the Home Secretary and one member appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government; in the case of Scotland two members appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland; and in the case of Northern Ireland, two members appointed by the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated in another place that it was the Government's intention that these Ministerial appointments should in each case be made in agreement with the other political Parties, subject only to the proviso that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would continue to appoint persons with a knowledge of local government.
Clause 2 (1) extends the intervals between general reviews of constituencies. The present intervals are of three years minimum and seven maximum, but experience has shown that these intervals are too short, when one has regard to the upsets which redistribution is bound 7 to cause in many cases; and the Boundary Commission for England themselves suggested in their report on their last general review that the intervals should be lengthened. It is proposed that the intervals should be of ten years minimum and fifteen years maximum. They will begin from the date of the last reports of the Commissions, which were presented in 1954, so the Commissions' next reports cannot be presented before November, 1964, and need not be presented before November, 1969.
The Commissions need at least a year, more probably eighteen months, for the general review leading up to a report, so that the next general review would probably not start earlier than some time in 1963, or later than some time in 1968. At the same time, it must be remembered that the Commissions have power under Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act to make recommendations affecting individual constituencies between general reviews, and it would therefore be open to them, if they thought fit, to recommend an interim alteration of a constituency whose electorate had become wholly disproportionate during the interval between general reviews. It was, however, recognised in the debates in another place that a difficulty can arise, because a major alteration can hardly be made to one constituency in isolation. It is almost bound to affect adjoining constituencies, with the risk of setting up a sort of chain reaction.
Clause 2 (2) introduces more flexibility into the redistribution rules. Section 2 (1) of the 1949 Act has the effect of requiring the Commission to aim at giving full effect to the redistribution rules in the Second Schedule to the Act on the occasion of each general review. This means, among other things, that they are obliged in many cases to recommend changes which would produce greater mathematical equality between constituencies, even though the electorates of the constituencies concerned are not abnormal. This gave rise on the last occasion to a good deal of upset and resentment in a number of constituencies, and the Boundary Commission for England suggested in their report that some relaxation of the rules might well be considered. The Bill accordingly relieves the Commission of the obligation to give full effect in all circumstances 8 to the redistribution rules, and requires them to take account of the inconvenience and breaking of local ties which may occur when constituencies are changed. The general effect is to bring in a presumption against making changes unless there is a good case for doing so.
Clause 3 provides for a separate electoral quota for each part of Great Britain, there being one already for Northern Ireland. The electoral quota means at present the average electorate of all constituencies in Great Britain, but the Great Britain average is not appropriate to the differing circumstances of England, Scotland and Wales. Nor is it consistent with the fixed allocation of seats to Scotland and Wales, and consequently of that to England, contained in Rule 1 of the redistribution rules. I can, however, assure your Lordships that the alteration in the definition of electoral quota will not entitle Scotland or Wales to any more seats, or England to any fewer seats than these countries are entitled to at present under Rule 1.
Clause 4 refers to the publication of notices and the holding of local inquiries. Subsection (1) provides that where a Commission revises a proposed recommendation after publishing local notice of it, it must publish a notice of the revised recommendation. The clause also obliges the Commission to hold a local inquiry if, on notice of a recommendation being published, any objection to that recommendation is made by a local authority or at least 100 objectors in the constituency affected. This applies both to an original recommendation and, in general, to a revised recommendation; but where a Commission has already held an inquiry into its original recommendation, it need not hold a further inquiry into a revised recommendation if, after considering all the circumstances, it is of the opinion that a further local inquiry would not be justified.
Clause 5 merely removes an ambiguity in the present Act by making it clear that the County Borough of Newport is to be treated, as it has been in practice, as part of Wales for the purposes of that Act. As I indicated in opening, this Bill represents a very carefully considered endeavour to improve the present law about the redistribution of Parliamentary seats in the light of experience of its working, and its contents were agreed in another 9 place. I am therefore glad to commend the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading, and I beg to move.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the clear and concise way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He is right in saying that it is in principle, and I think to a large extent in detail, an agreed measure. But we shall exercise our duties as another Chamber and go through the Bill at the appropriate time, and if we have any comments to make we will, of course, make them.
There is one point I should like to make at this stage, and it rather concerns the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. In Clause 1 it is proposed that, in the case of the Commission for England and of the Commission for Wales, there should be appointed a Judge of the High Court to act as Deputy Chairman. I imagine that the functions of these Commissions will be fairly continuous. They have to give, I believe, something like three or four years' notice, and therefore they will require a great deal of time. I wonder whether it is wise to use High Court Judges for this purpose. There seems to be a growing practice of using High Court Judges for all sorts of purposes other than the real purpose for which they were appointed. I am not being critical, but I mention it in the hope that it might be useful if one came back to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I think the noble and learned Viscount might have notice that I propose to ask him whether it really is a wise purpose and the best use we can make of our Judiciary. They are now highly paid, and they have important functions in their own jobs. This is really outside their job, and I wondered whether there were not other persons, equally eminent and equally suitable, who could be appointed as Deputy Chairmen of these Commissions. Subject to that, and subject to a further examination at a later stage, we have no comments to make on this Bill.

§ LORD CLITHEROE
My Lords, as I was twice deprived of my seat in the House of Commons by redistribution, I 10 have taken more interest in this subject perhaps than most. I welcome this Bill very much indeed. I think it will improve things in the future, and it will take care of such cases as, for example, occurred in the Borough of Blackburn, where a third of that borough was chopped off by redistribution and put into a county district, thus causing great distress and inconvenience. I think the added flexibility given by this measure is very welcome, and also the increase in the period of time before which changes can be made. I therefore commend this Bill very much to the House.

§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and to the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe for what they have said. I am sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will pay due regard to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made.