HC Deb 13 November 1946 vol 430 cc77-86
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

Consideration of the provisional recommendations of the Boundary Commission for the redistribution of seats has shown that the rules contained in the Third Schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1945, have, in many areas, had the unforeseen result of dismembering for Parliamentary purposes communities which are unified by historic ties and for purposes of local government. This result follows not from any failure on the part of members of the Boundary Commission to recognise the objections to breaking up the unity of such communities, but from the stringency of the provisions in the Act prescribing the limits of variation from the numerical quota. Rule 5, which contains provisions for preserving the unity of local government areas so far as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules is subordinate to Rule 4, which prescribes the limits of variation from the quota. If, therefore, the electorate of a borough is too small to justify the election of one member under Rule 4, it is necessary to combine the borough with some adjoining district: while if the electorate of a borough is too large for a single member but too small for two members, part of the borough has to be detached and added to an adjoining area.

After reviewing the situation and after consultation with you, Sir, the Government have come to the conclusion that some amendment of the rules is required to enable the Boundary Commissions, while aiming at approximate numerical equality, to preserve the integrity of local government areas, unless the resulting disparity between an electorate and the electoral quota is so excessive as to make departure from the principle of local government unity unavoidable A Bill will be introduced to amend the rules so as to provide greater elasticity in this respect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am glad to have that early assurance of support. As a result, it will be necessary for each of the Boundary Commissions to review again that part of the United Kingdom with which it is concerned, and to prepare recommendations in accordance with the new rules; and it is proposed to provide in the new rules that this fresh review shall be based on the distribution of the electorate shown in the register published on 15th October, 1946.

Mr. Churchill

When was the decision taken that the Boundary Commission should proceed upon this basis? Was it not taken by His Majesty's present advisers?

Mr. Ede

No, Sir. It was taken as a result of an Act which was passed while the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister.

Mr. Churchill

Did not the Government, by Order in Council, bring this procedure into operation, on a certain basis?

Mr. Ede

No, Sir. What we did was, by a Resolution of the House confirming an Order, make the 1945 register the basis. The disparities arise not from that, but from the rules which were included in the Schedule to the Act.

Mr. Churchill

Did not His Majesty's Government, when bringing before the House that Resolution to enforce the Order in Council, have in mind all the circumstances relating to the state of the register; and were they not responsible for considering the effect of the so-called rigidity, or lack of elasticity, in the Act of Parliament?

Mr. Ede

This difficulty has been revealed by the decisions that have been taken by the Commissioners in the recommendations that they have made. They are bound by the rules that were placed in the Act, which was passed under the Prime Ministership of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It is those rules which we propose to ask the House to amend, so that ancient communities shall not be dismembered and representation placed on a purely numerical basis, instead of being the representation of a community.

Mr. Churchill

Is it not a fact that this Bill which was passed at the time of the National Coalition was framed, devised, introduced and carried by the present Lord President of the Council, who is a master of all electioneering tactics, and who has already been described by his colleague the Minister of Health as a "second rate Tammany boss"?

Mr. Ede

The right hon. Gentleman and myself were at that time in very bad company, which warped our decisions on occasions.

Mr. Churchill

May I be permitted to dissociate myself from that slur on the Lord President of the Council? May I ask the Home Secretary whether this is not a case of an Act of Parliament having been maturely considered by a subsequent Government and then put into operation by a deliberate and measured Parliamentary procedure; and, because the results are unfavourable to the interests of the Socialist Party, the whole process has to be begun over again? Is this not a case of flagrant and shameful gerrymandering?

Mr. Ede

I have received more representations from Members on the other side of the House as to the unsatisfactory nature of these reports than I have from Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker

In the statement which the Home Secretary read there is no question of gerrymandering. I do not say I advised, but, having been consulted, I approved, the steps which had been taken.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Churchill

I need scarcely say that it is no' part of my desire or intention to argue such a matter with the Chair, but I reserve my full right to argue it with Ministers of the Crown. May I not submit that it is quite true that in this, as in every other redistribution scheme, Members of all parties are adversely affected, and that they cry out when they are adversely affected? If there are these cries from both sides, would it not be better to allow the decision of the Commission, arrived at on grounds and by procedure approved by the Government, to come into effect; and is it not vitiating the whole principle of a redistribution system if, because a number of Socialist pocket boroughs in London, including the Prime Minister's, happen to be disfranchised, the whole business of going through this procedure should be begun again? It is merely a plan of "heads I win, tails you lose."

Mr. Ede

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should use language like that, for I can assure him that the first persons to complain were hon. Members on his side of the House. It would have been quite futile for the Government to have brought before this House proposals which could not be justified. For instance, I can give an example which was mentioned to me by keen supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, in which the urban district of Malvern was placed in the county of Hereford for Parliamentary purposes. Other parts of the country have been dismembered in a similar way, and this has offended local sentiment very greatly. It would have been very wrong for us, if we felt that such proposals could not be justified, to have brought them before the House and wasted the time of the House on a Measure which, I am quite sure, would have been opposed from every quarter of the House.

Mr. Osbert Peake

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the recommendations of this Commission are subject to objection, and to reconsideration by the Commission; and is he not further aware that as recently as 25th July last, he himself said: The whole consideration of this matter makes me think that the sooner we have the Bill the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1946; Vol. 426, c. 197]

Mr. Ede

After all, that was three months ago, when the objections on the right hon. Gentlemen's own side of the House had not matured to the extent that they have done since we resumed after the Recess.

Mr. Peake

Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it decent to have allowed this Commission to proceed for months and months upon a basis which the Government, having seen their recommendations, now repudiate?

Mr. Ede

I hope I shall not be committing you unduly, Mr. Speaker. The conference we had with Mr. Speaker was before the date on which we had received the whole of the recommendations, but— and after all, this must be a progressive statement as we receive one report after another—it had already become clear that these recommendations did offend against the principle that Members of this House should be the representatives of communities, rather than of mere numbers.

Major Cecil Poole

May I depart from the line which has been taken by the Opposition, and ask the Home Secretary if this new review and the new Bill will be introduced into this House at the earliest possible moment for the benefit of those of us who, like myself, find ourselves in an intolerable position in trying to represent constituencies of well over 100,000 electors? My own constituency now consists of about 113,000 electors, which means that most of my time in this House is spent in answering letters. Could we have this review at the earliest possible moment, and certainly make it operative before the next General Election?

Mr. Ede

I can give an affirmative answer to both those questions.

Mr. Churchill

On the matter of redistribution, there has always been certain contact between both sides of the House —it certainly was so in 1885, which is an example I can quote—and the Measure to which this proposal relates was the product of Coalition Government consultation. May I ask why, at a time when the Government, unknown to us, have consulted Mr. Speaker upon these matters, no communication was made to this side of the House about a matter, on which, hitherto, we had all been united? Why was not that done?

Mr. Ede

Mr. Speaker is Chairman of the four Boundary Commissions which are concerned. To give effect to the Government decision in this matter a Bill will have to be introduced, to which I made reference in the statement. At that stage we shall be quite willing to listen to observations and to consider any Amendment which the Opposition may desire to put down. However, we have to shoulder the responsibility for this decision, which was taken only after we had fully considered all the matters involved.

Major Guy Lloyd

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider leaving Scotland out of these proposals, in view of the fact that we have a separate Boundary Commission, and that the recommendations made so far have had overwhelming support? Scotland is not in the least dissatisfied. Why not leave well alone, and not waste the time of that Commission?

Mr. Ede

I am bound to point out that the first Question to be put in this House indicating dissatisfaction with the finding of the Commission was put by a Conservative Scottish Member.

Mr. Stokes

On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is no Motion before the House? We have now been arguing about this matter for over 20 minutes. Is it not about time that there was a Motion, or that we passed to the next Business?

Mr. Speaker

It is customary to have supplementary questions after a statement has been made. However, we have been on this subject for 25 minutes, and I hope we shall not go on much longer.

Mr. Bowles

Having regard to the rules in the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which provide that the Commissioners are to have regard, as far as practicable, to local government boundaries in making their recommendations, and having regard, also, to the fact that there is a Local Government Boundary Commission now sitting, is not the answer to this problem—which concerns probably every hon. and right hon. Gentleman in this House—to wait until the Local Government Boundary Commission have made their recommendations, and then ask the Parliamentary Boundary Commission to make their recommendations?

Mr. Ede

No, Sir. That matter was gone into when the original Act was passed. I do not think the country would be content that the existing disparities in the sizes of constituencies should not be remedied until the Local Government Boundary Commissioners have reported.

Mr. Stanley Prescott

It is apparent that the present recommendations of the Boundary Commission are quashed. Therefore, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can be more specific as to when a Bill will be introduced to set up the new Boundary Commission, and to enable further recommendations to be made with regard to the redistribution of constituencies? May I further put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? From the point of view of hon. Members of this House and of candidates, it is most unsatisfactory for them not to know whether their constituencies are to continue or not? May I also ask him if he will ensure that a Bill will be introduced forthwith to set up a new Boundary Commission, and recommendations considered for redistribution to be effective before the next General Election?

Mr. Ede

The disposal of the time of the House is not left to me, but there is every desire that this matter should be proceeded with as soon as possible, so that as soon as the figures for the 1946 register are available the Commissioners may be able to proceed with this review.

Mr. Churchill

Am I right in assuming that the Government openly admit they were in error in introducing the Measure on the lines they did, and in persuading the House to pass the Resolution? Do they admit it is the case, that they were in error?

Mr. Ede

No, Sir. We did not introduce the Measure. The Measure was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council under the Prime Ministership of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would be the last person to attempt to escape Cabinet responsibility for the decisions of people who were then has colleagues, no matter what their subsequent action may have been. Therefore, I cannot accept any responsibility for that. With regard to the Resolution, that merely concerns the register which was to be chosen. That is not the serious difficulty, because although some constituencies have increased in numbers—I believe it will be found in the end that practically every constituency in the country shows some increase in numbers—the proportionate difference between the 1945 and 1946 registers is not likely to differ very much as between one part of the country and another.

Sir Ian Fraser

Will the new instructions which it is proposed to give to the Commission in the forthcoming Bill, to have a keener regard for borough boundaries—the right hon. Gentleman particularly mentioned borough boundaries—also extend to rural district councils?

Mr. Ede

It will extend to local government boundaries generally.

Mr. Gallacher

Is it not the case that the trouble which has come upon the Government, arises from the fact that they failed to cut themselves completely clear of the shoddy work, domestic and foreign, of the Tory administration of past years? We want a clean break.

Captain John Crowder

Have the Commissioners who sat on the last Boundary Commission agreed to sit again, and to do all their work over again with new terms of reference?

Mr. Ede

The interview which I had with the deputy chairman of the English Commission, in the presence of the chairman, indicated that they had felt, throughout their proceedings, that these difficulties were bound to vitiate their recommendations. I gathered from what he then said, and from letters from him which I have since seen, that he was both relieved and gratified to find that we were likely to move on these lines. He has given no indication that he is at all hurt, or will not wish to serve again.

Mr. Churchill

Will His Majesty's Government bear in mind the very great importance, in matters of electoral distribution and electoral reform, of the principles which have so often guided us, of good faith and fair play between all parties in the State, who are affected? Does not the course they have now adopted, wittingly or unwittingly, intentionally or' unintentionally, expose them to the charge of upsetting a verdict which they think detrimental to their party interests?

Mr. Ede

With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, that is precisely what has been animating us. I have already answered, two or three times, the insinuation that he makes in the last part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Churchill

Charge, not insinuation.

Mr. Ede

I know that there must be differences between the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Members, as disclosed by the mutterings of the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip—

Mr. James Stuart

I said, "no consultations."

Mr. Ede

But that was not the gravamen of the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. His charge was that we did this for our party advantage. May I say that I entirely repudiate that; and I repeat that I have had more representations from the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House than from this side suggesting that this review should take place.

Mr. Churchill

Is it not a fact that consultations were avoided because the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing, or the Government were pursuing, a course which could only be justified on purely party grounds?

Mr. Ede

No consultations were avoided.

Mr. Stuart

They did not take place.

Mr. Speaker

I am somewhat involved, and I want to make this perfectly plain. I had a letter from the deputy-chairman of the English Commission yesterday, saying definitely that there was no political pressure put upon him whatsoever at any time during the deliberations of the Commission, and that they were very grateful that an Amendment should be moved. I think that I ought to say that in fairness to the deputy-chairman of the Commission. I have been watching the work done, although I do not take an active part. But I feel bound to stand up for him in that way.

Mr. Churchill

rose—

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

On a point of Order—

Mr. Churchill

I also rise to a point of Order for the purpose of addressing, with all proper respect, the Chair, after what you, Sir, have said. I need not say that nothing that has come from me, or from any of my Friends on this side of the House, reflects in the slightest degree on your impartiality, or on the impartiality of the Commission. I must submit to you as a matter of Order, that the point we were pressing was not that the Commission had not proceeded impartially and properly and without political interference upon the lines and the basis assigned to them, but that, because the results were unsatisfactory to the majority in this House and to the Government, therefore the work had to be begun over again.

Mr. Speaker

I think we had better proceed to the next Business.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of Order. In view of the statement which you have just made, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the statement you made a short while ago, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the charge?

Mr. Speaker

If I had wanted the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, I should have asked him to withdraw it.

Mr. Keeling

On a point of Order. As you did call me, Mr. Speaker, may I put a different point?

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

I think the hon. Gentleman has taken some part in this.

Mr. Keeling

May I ask the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact, which was pointed out by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), that it has been a long established and convenient custom to make Parliamentary boundaries agree with local government boundaries, and not vice versa,he would, at least, arrange that the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions shall consult the Local Government Boundary Commission as to their intentions?

Mr. Ede

If I were to arrange anything in this matter, I should lay myself open to the charges of which I have been falsely accused just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I have no doubt that it would be advisable —and everybody would recognise it to be advisable—that such consultation should take place, but it is not my place either to give directions or make suggestions to the Boundary Commissioners in that or any other matter.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I think we had better proceed. We have already spent 30 minutes upon this subject.

Back to